Talk:Dnipro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The city has been renamed to Dnipro

The city has been officially renamed to "Дніпро" (in Ukrainian) by the Ukrainian parliament. In English, the city now should read "Dnipro" (in Russian - "Днипро"). The renaming has already come into effect, and the Ukrainian wikipedia has already been updated. Please update the article name and the name of the city throughout the article. --Maximaximum (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See above. Qed237 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The renaming of this article needn't be a matter of discussion. The petty efforts to block it are pathetic.

Cl (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

May be if you had more that 61 edits on this project you would know that we have policies, and not everything you do not like is nonsense.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You're so full of shit. It isn't about my likes or dislikes, but about your and your clique's ridiculous petty efforts to abuse formal procedures to postpone the inevitable. You know just well as I do English language sources will cease to call the city both Dnipro- and Dnepropetrovsk and the only obvious and logical substitute for the old name is Dnipro. Cl (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The city was officially renamed on the 16-th of May 2016 (Рада перейменувала Дніпропетровськ на Дніпро, (in Ukrainian)). — Oranserb 1 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Wikimedia Foundation was not subordinate to the Rada.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of Jews left in Dnepropetrovsk

During the German occupation ... but soon after the Nazis conquered the city on October 12, 1941, 11,000 were shot; in the end only 15 Jews of Dnipropetrovsk survived at the end of the war.

What is the source for "15 Jews"? 13:54, 12 March 2006 212.199.52.46

The figure of 15 seems most unlikely. Synagogues are a lot more prominent in Dnepropetrovsk today than in London.--Toddy1 12:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, approx percentage of jews in the population is about 20. Another 20 percent are mixed blood ones (half-breed) jews. The most powerful persons and citizens are jews. (Kolomoyski, for instance). It is a jewish city, allright. I am a citizen of Dnipropetrovs'k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.155.185 (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a website for the Dnepropetrovsk Jewish community.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of the City in English: Dnepropetrovsk or Dnipropetrovsk?

Should its name be Dniepropetrovsk?

Redirect from Dnepropetrovsk is buggy. Also, what is the relation between Dnepropetrovsk and Kudak (mentioned in article about Stanislaw Koniecpolski? Is this an older name, or was Kudak just nearby? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say just nearby. I guess Kodak (as far as I'm accustomed to name) was destroyed before the foundation of existing city.AlexPU

Presently it is Dnipropetrovsk, according to the Ukrainian spelling norm. As for Kodak, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Fortress--Shanghainese.ua (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of naming, Shouldn't the different names go into a seperate section rather than in the introductory sentence? As a casual reader, I find the opening sentence of this article a bit of a struggle to read. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbod (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How the city name is spelled in English

I checked LexusNexus database on how the city name is spelled in major English media. The search for the last two years usage in major papers gives the following results:

• Dnepropetrovsk - used 66 times.
• Dnipropetrovs'k - used only once.
• Dnipropetrovsk - used 243 times. Also used by Britannica.

Therefore, I moving the article from Dnipropetrovs'k to Dnipropetrovsk. Irpen 00:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that none of the spellings you mention are English names; they are different transliterations of the Russian and Ukrainian names of the city. Dnipropetrovs'k satisfies the suggested convention in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which says If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.

We've been using the full formal National transliteration for geographic names in Ukraine, in article titles, and often in the text of articles (many articles on Russian Empire and Soviet-era topics use Russian names, and a notable exception is Kiev/Kyiv). It makes good sense to use a consistent transliteration scheme, and not the most popular transliteration scheme for each individual name. I think this is also consistent with most current atlases, Mapquest, MSN Maps, and Terraserver, and also with the observation at Wikipedia:Naming#Ukrainian_names.

Lately I've been considering suggesting changing this to use the official simplified National form (see footnotes of the Romanization table), and retaining the formal transliteration next to an article's Cyrillic (Just the way this article looks, at the moment). But this should probably find consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Subdivisions of Ukraine, before starting to move individual articles. —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 01:00 Z

Sorry, I did not know about the Subdivision of Ukraine Project. I will post proposed changed there for discussion in the future. As for this article, I appreciate if you don't move it back for now. Lets discuss this of course, but it seems that 246 mentions in major papers shows that there is a "commonly used English name". I specifically checked "major papers only" in my LexusNexus search because, unlike multitude of internet news sites, major papers do have the style policy and are staffed with editors who check for style consistency. Of course, this is a matter of debate whether accepted English usage is the same thing as "English name" and whether 246 mentions in two years in about 50 major papers establishes the English usage.

BTW, if we use similar criteria, the second largest city in UA should be called "Kharkiv" in WP, rather than Khar'kov, Kharkov, Harkov, etc. I just noticed that you did this change and I agree with it. Perhaps, when referred to in connection with many historical events, the WP usage should be "[[Kharkiv|Kharkov]] (currently Kharkiv)". However, the current English usage favors Kharkiv over Kharkov with a similar margin as Dnipropetrovsk over Dnepropetrovsk.

Lets wait until other editors voice their opinions and decide on what this title should be. Of course, if someone feels too strong about this and can't wait, s/he can move the article back anytime. I will not do anything further with the title until we conclude this discussion. In the meantime, I will try to fill the section stubs in the city history with useful information and hope other editors will help. Cheers, Irpen 01:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

English language - Dnepropetrovsk, English transcription of Ukrainian word that has nothing to do with English language - Dnipropetrovsk

On WP naming conventions

After reading more carefully Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and it's talk page, I would like to elaborate a little on how I would interpret it as applicable to this discussion. Here is what the policy says (italicization is mine):

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice.

If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages like Spanish or French should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example."

The question we have is what is meant by "most commonly used English version of the name". Several interpretations are possible and we should simply choose how to interpret these words. Some names entered English through other means than transliteration of what's their today's name. Examples are Moscow, Warsaw, Germany, Finland, etc. Everyone agrees that there is no question what name to use for these places in English WP. Should we interpret the policy as applying only to those names and everything else should be transliterated from native language?

I interpret the words of the policy differently. The words "most commonly used" either apply only to the word "English" in the sentence or to the combination "English version of the name". Now, are Dnipropetrovsk and Dnipropetrovs'k two different English versions of the same name or they should be treated just as two different transliterations of one name? I think that while they certainly are two different transliteration of the same name, they are also two different versions of the name in English. The question is whether we accept that the way the place is most commonly called by the English media and among English speakers is the "most commonly used English version of the name". Or should we call all these versions "not English" because they originate from another language. Basically it comes down to this: "Does Днiпропетровськ, the town in Ukraine, have its own English name (or several English names for that matter)?". Or perhaps it has only a Ukrainian name and, when the journalist writes about it in English, he transliterates Днiпропетровськ each time on the fly. I think the answer is that he uses an accepted English version, which for this city is a transliteration of its Ukrainian name.

Now, what about the "If there is no commonly-used English name..." clause in the policy? I think it applies to places that are so infrequently mentioned that the standard way to call them did not crystallize. I do believe that serious media sources do not transliterate each time they mention the name of the foreign place. They have specific names to use. Those may evolve. Like the name Gypsy evolved into Roma. Like Dnepropetrovsk evolved into Dnipropetrovsk. Like Kiev may evolve into Kyiv. I think that for the very similar reasons what Britannica chooses for the article names matches the results of my LexisNexis search. The policy also says "as you would find it in other encyclopedias". I am not saying that LexisNexis and Britannica are bulletproof authorities to answer questions about English usage. But they are strong indicators. A simple Google search is more prone to errors for the reasons well known and, I think, Google results mean anything only when the difference is overwhelming.

So, I think we should transliterate in WP only for relatively obscure places which are not mentioned much in English texts. I hope this is going to crystallize into a less ambiguous text of the policy. And only for the names that are used in English very infrequently the discussion on the best transliteration rule should come into play. Of course this all is just my opinion. I am not a specialist in the field, not a veteran of WP and not a native speaker of English. But this is how I understand what is meant by the Policy. Luckily, the policy is not as rigid as constitutions, which are so hard to change that high courts spend all their time figuring out the "correct" way to interpret the text. I do not have skills to write a new version of the policy to propose to the community but I think this is going to happen sooner or later. Regards, —Irpen 06:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the policy is represented by your first case. Remember that it speaks to all article titles, not just place names. English names are Moscow, hammer, oak, and not Moskva, molot, and Quercus. But Arctotis does not have a common English name, so it is named in Latin. If it hit the news it would still remain a Latin name. And incidentally, the convention only refers specifically to the naming of articles, and not other usage.

The only geographic names in Ukraine which are well-established enough to have their own English names are "Ukraine" (which I'm guessing was once a German transliteration), and "Dnieper" (which looks to me like a less-awkward to pronounce by Anglophones transcription of Russian Dniepr). All others that I can think of are simply transliterations from Ukrainian or Russian. The most well-known one, "Kiev", is hotly defended against "Kyiv" by Wikipedian Anglophones, because they've actually heard of it before, and they're offended by having to change their pronunciation. But even L'viv and Kharkiv seem to be obscure enough to hardly rate comment when used in place of the "traditional English" Lvov and Kharkov (although I wouldn't dare trying to change it to Kharkiv in a WWII history article).

Their obscurity is also the reason that their usage is so elastic in the press. As a national capital, Kiev is in their style manuals. But they just look up other place names in an atlas and drop the apostrophes, and most atlases now use Ukrainian names in place of Russian. I'm curious how highly Dnipropetrovsk/Dnepropetrovsk rated in LexisNexis, if one only consider the period before the Orange Revolution made the news.

Anyways, it's madness to name every place name this way. We have to use consistent standard, or Ukrainian place naming will be a mix of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Yiddish, and possibly Tatar, Rusyn, German, Romanian, and Hungarian. Everything that shows up in a "major news source" will be transliterated without apostrophes, and every other name will either come from a recent English-language atlas or from an official Ukrainian government list, and so will have apostrophes for the soft sign. As Ukrainian towns hit the news, their apostrophes will fall away, and you'll spend all your time counting hits on LexisNexis. No one wants that, and it would definitely go against the word and the spirit of the Wikipedia naming convention.

we have an agreed standard, so let's stick to it. The Wikiproject is very quiet, and it may be no problem to change it if you propose to. In the mean time, I'm not going to bother moving this article, but it properly belongs at Dnipropetrovs'k —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 08:22 Z

Replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions#More_on_Wikipedia_naming_conventions_as_applicable_to_Ukrainian_names. Irpen 20:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Note: after seeing the link above I commented there that this was a good test of the naming conventions, but was referred to the more specific policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (WP:NCGN). You should probably refer to that as the most relevant guideline. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Phonetic spelling

from talk:Irpen

I phonetically spelled out this word [1] because not everyone has a browser that can read the IPA script, not to mention many are not going to learn IPA anyway. The insertion I used was from the New Oxford American Dictionary. --LibraryLion 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped in my summary. I reverted you simply because this contradicts what we are using in other articles, so it breaks consistensy. If you think it is importnat, I, personally, don't have a problem with that if it is fine with others. It just looked strange. Nothing personal against your edit. --Irpen 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Correct Name of DNK in English

The correct name should be the one used by the majority of population of the city. That name is "Dnepropetrovsk" or even simply "Dnepr" because that is what majority of people use in the city. That is what most natives use in English as well. By naming the article "Dnipropetrovsk" you are catering to a very very small minority who want to push down an incorrect name down the throats of the natives.

If you think about it, the city was created by Russian decree and it is approximately inhabited by 90% Russian speaking population. Transliterating the name from Ukrainian doesn't make sense. Just like the Wikipedias section on Donetsk is transliterated from Russian and not from Ukrainian. I am from Dnepropetrovsk and it makes me sad that these so called "Ukrainian patriots" change the name of my lovely city. If anything it should be simply named "Dnepr" since that is what majority call it on the streets now days.

Naming the city with "Dnipro" is a farce.

13:39, 8 March 2007, 131.247.19.186

whichever country patriot you are, it's ukraine now. get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.196.115 (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"The correct name should be the one used by the majority of population of the city" NO. Correct version should be English name of the town since this is English wikipedia. You do realize there is no democracy and choice in grammar. You are either literate or illiterate.--Special:Contributions/46.33.215.122 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Explanation for the Two Names

Ukraine is a country of two languages:

• Ukrainian: Dnipropetrovsk is based on the Ukrainian language.
• Russian: Dnepropetrovsk is based on the Russian language.

Dnepropetrovsk is a Russian speaking city; therefore the usual English spelling is that of the Russian version.

B.T.W. the idea that Dnepropetrovsk has clean air is a joke. But it is a beautiful city, and I love it very much. --Toddy1 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The name used by the majority of the population is not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions as a factor in determining the article's titles. Otherwise, we would have had Moskva, Warszawa and Munchen as Wikipedia entries. What determines the prevailing English name is the modern media usage. --Irpen 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no recognised "modern media usage" for Dnepropetrovsk. You are trying to force people to use your one.--Toddy1 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Media usage can be analyzed by many media search engines. I did that already and showed you the results. --Irpen 20:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Google Search War : "Dnipropetrovsk" versus "Dnepropetrovsk"

Dnipro...: 547,000 Dnepro...: 1,270,000

I think the difference is clearly visible, which one is used more often. If you take a look at newspapers published inside the city like: "Dnepr Vecherniy", etc. You will see that the correct name is Dnepr, no one uses Dnipro. 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) . 131.247.19.186 ---

Usage Data

I am still trying to understand why this man Irpen is so insistent on calling the city Dnipropetrovsk.

It would seem sensible to me to collect usage data. I looked at an English-language dating site [[2]] using by Ukrainian women. The advantage of this is that the forms are actually filled in by people saying where they live:

• Dnepropetrovsk 105
• Dniepropetrovsk 3
• Dnipropetrovsk 2

--Toddy1 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:NC(UE) we should use the most commonly used the name that is most commonly used in English for the article's title. The most objective way to determine the most common modern English usage is to analyze the usage of major players of the anglophone media market which are not the dating sites, but CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC, NYTimes, etc.

The analysis of such usage is precented above at #How the city name is spelled in English. You can also find a detailed discussion here. Dnipropetrovsk should be used in English encyclopedia for the same reason as Kiev (not Dnepropetrovsk of Kyiv). This name is used predominantly my the media and other encyclopedia. Please reread WP:NC(UE).

This does not preclude the usage of other names in the article's text in the proper context. In WW2 articles Dnepropetrovsk would be correct to use as the WW2 literature used it. But modern usage changed and the article's title should be based on the modern usage. More at your talk.

Also, to answer your question, I have no direct relation to this city. --Irpen

Aviation-Safety website for Dnepropetrovsk Airport uses the English language "Dnepropetrovsk Airport"--Toddy1 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That may very well be so. But we have to come up with a universal criterion. Are you suggesting it to be dating sites? Or should the Wikipedia usage be determined by "Aviation-Safety website for Dnepropetrovsk Airport"? I don't have any better suggestion than to follow the major media. I analyzed their usage above and they seem to use Dnipropetrovsk. --Irpen 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of naming is deeply political. There are parallels with Yugoslavia.

Where English language media have people based in Kiev, it is inevitable that they will use the Kiev name for places, where they are not aware of an accepted English language name.

Your various references to Wikpedia guidelines would seem to suggest that the guidlines need modification.--Toddy1 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the major media being based in Kiev affects their usage, why is not the usage affected for the Kiev itself? Ukrainian government and most Ukraine-based English-language media uses Kyiv but the western media uses Kiev. So, they do not use the "Kiev-name" for Kiev, but do for Dnipropetrovsk. This is a very strange logic. I have a more plausible idea. Ukraine is rather an obscure place for the world media and most of its placenames do not have the widely established names in English. That most media simply transliterate the national name is the best proof of that. Kiev, however, is well-known enough so that it does have a well-established name. Thus, media uses this name. Anyway, the media is the only objective way to determine the current prevailing usage and the name of the articles in Wikipedia is based the current prevailing usage. If you think that the guideline that require the prevailing usage to be the basis for WP naming is faulty I really don't know what else would you suggest as an alternative. --Irpen 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a search on Google.co.uk on the name, restricting it to UK sites in English, to determine the popularity in the English media on 19 March 2007. I got:

• Dnepropetrovsk 96,100
• Dniepropetrovsk 2,030
• Dnipropetrovsk 21,300

So it looks like the media uses the "e" (Russian) spelling. Mike Young 11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, plain google search does not allow to evaluate the media usage since it cannot distinguish the usage in historic context from the modern context usage. Current media do just that. Google News would give you a better shot but still not the best one as Google News gives equal weight to the major players in the media market, like NYTimes and some local newspaper which is very little read and may not even have a written down manual of style and editorial staff to enforce it. The best way is to do major media search for, say, last 2-5 years. To do that you need special search engines and I do not know of any that is free. LexisNexis subscription service I used suggests Dnipropetrovsk is more common in major media. --Irpen 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether it is current or historical is an easily met objection. You just search for the name and the year. I have done this both for 2000-2007 and also the years of the GPW and at ten year intervals between 1950 and 1990, to see how they compare. For pages from the UK the results are as follows:

Name	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945		1950	1960	1970	1980	1990		2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Dnepropetrovsk	590	329	619	370	898		897	3,430	8,160	12,900	1,200		705	647	781	990	10,300	66,600	13,000	75,500
Dniepropetrovsk	30	26	111	22	31		56	24	76	94	115		173	188	151	198	167	248	270	131
Dnipropetrovsk	288	192	164	242	245		738	567	284	7,650	488		624	678	2,700	1,590	546	505	707	749

This is really interesting, because it seems that in the years covered by Irpen's research, that the Ukrainian-language spelling may have been more common in English pages, however for some reason the spelling used by people who actually live there and do business there is now accepted current usage.--Toddy1 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I also took Irpen's suggestion of Google news for five years. However, he is completely correct to be suspicious of it. Not only are there very few hits, but many of the hits are from the Kyiv Post, which is not exactly a good guide as to how to spell English-language spelling of the name of a city in the blue (Russian-speaking) zone of Ukraina. The various business web sites, etc in a normal Google search of UK sites are a much more reliable source of what is generally accepted English usage.

Name	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Dnepropetrovsk	1	1	2	6	5
Dniepropetrovsk	0	0	1	0	0
Dnipropetrovsk	0	5	8	13	10

--Toddy1 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Google hits if even sorted by year are not as reliable as media search. However, the opinion of the residents of the non-anglophone city is even less relevant to determine the English usage as most residents actually do not speak English. Modern English usage is set by major media and, yes, Kyiv Post is not one of them. I included on major papers from US, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. in my analysis and they still lean towards Dnipropetrovsk. Here is the list of the papers, LexisNexis consider "major". I know of no other tool that allows to restrict the media search only to really important media.

However, I am tired of this. If you are so interested in the city, please spend some time expanding the content of the article rather than on this endless arguing. If, however, you are so committed to push for the name change, and my arguments did not convince you, I suggest you reread Wikipedia naming conventions, do the usage analysis, make the best argument you can and submit it for WP:RM.

I made my points very crearly and the main one is that Dnipropetrovsk is the prevailing usage of modern major media and is also used by the Britannica. Oxford dictionary, etc. If you want to continue still, take it to WP:RM. --Irpen 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that renaming pages is the best way to go. People - please simply add information about different names in article and stop debating on page name. Our president was recently visiting Dnipropetrovsk, so it's clear how to name it. If somebody need Dnepropetrovsk city in Ukraine - you are welcome to buy land somewhere nearby and establish own city with own name ;-)

Summary: If you live in Ukraine - then respect Ukrainian law, if you live outside Ukraine please respect Ukrainians who has to respect Ukrainian law. If somebody here is willing to rename Ukrainian cities - start collecting votes for referendums, otherwise you are violating law and will be prosecuted. --TAG 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a little over the top. Ukrainian law does not regulate the English language in general except for the documents issued by the Ukrainian government authorities which have to comply to the instructions established by the government. If you look up what the law actually says, it address a narrow issue what spelling the Ukrainian government bodies are required to use, no more, no less. Some Ukraine-based English language media use the spelling the gov uses in its own documents, some don't and they are free to do so as Ukraine is the country where press enjoys a reasonable freedom to do as they please. Non-Ukraine-based English language media are even more free to use what they please and they do use Dnipropetrovsk overall.

What establishes the English prevailing usage is the usage itself (sorry, I understand that this is a tautology but I know of no better way to say it). So, as long as the modern usage can be established we have to stick with it in accordance with WP:NC(UE). Modern usage is Dnipropetrovsk. UA gov may have affected that the usage changed, but we use Dnipropetrovsk here only because the usage did change whatever have caused it. --Irpen 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've assumed that missed something and has checked law again:

"В офіційних документах, друкованих засобах масової інформації, картографічних, довідкових, енциклопедичних, навчальних та інших виданнях назви географічних об'єктів України передаються літерами латинського чи іншого алфавіту з унормованою державною мовою назв географічного об'єкта за правилами, встановленими спеціально уповноваженим органом виконавчої влади з питань географічних назв."

... Географічні назви, встановлені згідно з цим Законом, є обов'язковими для застосування органами державної влади, органами місцевого самоврядування, підприємствами, установами та організаціями, засобами масової інформації, а також у навчальних, картографічних, довідкових, енциклопедичних виданнях, оголошеннях, рекламах, вивісках, дорожніх покажчиках, поштових відправленнях та інших сферах їхнього офіційного застосування. ... Назви географічних об'єктів України як складова частина історичної і культурної спадщини Українського народу - громадян України всіх національностей охороняються державою..

Wikipedia is encyclopedia - and it's clearly listed in law.

If this law is not enough for you - read Constitution

Стаття 66. Кожен зобов'язаний не заподіювати шкоду природі, культурній спадщині, відшкодовувати завдані ним збитки.

... Стаття 68. Кожен зобов'язаний неухильно додержуватися Конституції України та законів України, не посягати на права і свободи, честь і гідність інших людей. Незнання законів не звільняє від юридичної відповідальності.. In my opinion trying to name cities based on their common usage is something as trying to rename New York City to Big Apple (because it's commonly used) or New Amsterdam (because it was name like this in the past). --TAG 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

If you think anyone inside the city cares about what this lame duck president says or thinks you are sadly mistaken. Using his words as an argument is clueless. He is not our president he is president of "Our Ukraine"... Prime Minister is the leader of the country at the moment.

		------------------------------------------User:72.91.140.174 11:04, 23 March 2007

Copied from User talk:Narking

If you disagree with the spelling of Dnepropetrovsk, you should take up your complaint with the city website gorod.dp.ua, where the first lines of the site reads:

The city of Dnipropetrovsk (Ukr.) or Dnepropetrovsk (Rus.) is situated on the Dnieper River...

It costs nothing to allow the Dnepropetrovsk spelling to be in bold in the first sentence, though after the Dnipropetrovsk. The rest of the article uses the Dnipropetrovsk. An alternative is that we could have endless edit wars with the people who actually live in the city, the vast majority of whom use the Dnepropetrovsk spelling when writing in Latin script.

Incidentally, the Dnepropetrovsk is assumed by the editors of gorod.dp.ua to be the primary English spelling; they have assumed the Dnepropetrovsk for French and, and Dniepropetrovsk for Spanish.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk - deletion of street map and photos what you call "ugly houses"

Dima - have you ever been to Dnepropetrovsk? Don't you think that there should be pictures of normal apartment buildings? Or should it only show photos of apartment buildings for the very rich?

Maybe we should show only a fantasy version of Dnepropetrovsk - one with clean air, houses for millionaires, with well-repaired streets, and great public transport. In real life it takes someone who lives in Gladkova Street an hour to get by minibus to city centre during peak periods. (The journey is less than 10 minutes by taxi mid-morning.)

Also - don't you think that it is useful to be able to find a street map? Actually street maps are rather more useful that local government websites. When I looked in 2004, it was absolutely impossible to find a street map using Google - I just got adverts from travel companies. Unless Wikipedia helps people to find street map URLs, the easiest way to find them is to buy a paper map at a market stall in Dnepropetrovsk! --Toddy1 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No I have not. I have lived only in Kiev in Ukraine. I dont't believe that we should show these apartment buildings.. Why uglyfy the article with old houses when words can do just about the same? If we decide to write an "architecture" section for the city, then perhaps we can write about what are the housing conditions, including the old and the new. I know that these "ugly houses" are commonly seen throught the city, and probably in most cities in the former Soviet Union..

Yes, the transport does take a lot of time, but look at what we have done at Kiev#Local transportation section... just included some text describing the conditions of transport, no images:

...while the other kinds of public transport are not that well maintained. In particular, the public bus service fails to maintain its schedule. Public electric trolleybus and tram lines are more reliable, but are also technically obsolete and underfunded.

I agree, it is useful to have a streetmap.. I only removed it from the infobox, which should only contain either "official link" or something like Verkhovna Rada link... If one wants to see more links, they can scroll down to the "External links" section instead. BTW, I would suggest that you upload your images to Wikimedia Commons so that other language projects can use your images. —dima/s-ko/ 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dima Thank you for your reply. I have been editting and uploading photos showing the architecture of the city, and when I have a good selection, I will create an architecture section.--Toddy1 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that WP articles are not galleries. Pictureless articles are not nice but articles cluttered with images are even worse. The number of pictures the article can accommodate depends on the amount of text. Nothing can prevent you from uploading as many pictures as you would like, but please include only as many as reasonable into the article. --Irpen 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm shocked with Odessa article content - so many pictures. --TAG 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added images to the article (historial, architectural, ect.) so now it should be pretty balanced. I agree Odessa has way too many pictures.. need of cleanup. —dima/s-ko/ 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it that the article on Odessa has all these pictures - though they are a bit Hello-magazine-like. One puzzle, why are there no pictures showing the houses people live in?--Toddy1 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We have WikiCommons for pictures. There are simply no way to put all "nice" photos in one articles ! --TAG 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of "nice" photos. Can we have some that show what it is really like pls.--20.133.0.14 12:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add any "nice" or not pictures to Category:Dnipropetrovsk at Wikimedia Commons--TAG 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User Comments

There is an allegation in the edit history as follows:

"Added back comments by another user which where deleted by [Toddy1]. Censorship of discussion page should not be tolerated.)" User talk:131.247.19.186

I did not delete comments by another user. I reinstated them after they had been deleted by someone else. This was why when you reverted my edit, the comments I reinstated got deleted.--Toddy1 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Best" time

The article gives a "best" time to visit, which sounds like a POV. For example, if you can say that is the peak of the tourist season that would be more informative. More explanation of why it is best would be good.

I imagine very few Americans have heard the name of this city outside of a Tom Lehrer song about Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky... sad to consider, really. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This 'best time' was cribbed from the city website. Unfortunately much of the article was generated by people who have never been to Dnepropetrovsk, but have very fixed views about what can be allowed in the article. The kind of buildings normal people live in are apparently not wanted.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Historic Manufacturing, Economic and Ethic Data on the City

Dima - I have found more stuff on the development of Dnepropetrovsk. Some of it is manufacturing and economic growth.

I have got two sorts of data. I have only got two data points for each right now, but more will probably come along some time. (I keep bumping into more population data.) What we need is a format for them, and it seemed a good idea to ask you if there is some standard way you want it, rather than me doing a load of stuff and you changing it because you know the right format and I am just groping for it.

Year	Factories & Plants	Employees	Production Volume			Reference
			roubles	2007 £ million	2007 USD million
1880	49	572	1,500,000	£10.5 m	$21 m
1903	194	10,649	21,500,000	£177.5 m	$355 m

Year	Enterprises	Earnings			Reference
		roubles	2007 £ million	2007 USD million
1900	1,800	40,000,000	£328.7 m	$658 m
1940	622	1,096,929,000	£2,120.3 m	$4,242 m

I have also found some stuff on ethnic composition round about 1897 and 1904. Do you know of data for other dates?

Year	Ethnicity of Citizens					Foreign Citizens	Reference
	Russian	Ukrainian	Jew	Polish	German
1897	47,200	17,787	39,979	3,418	1,438	1,075
1897	42.6%	16.0%	36.1%	3.1%	1.3%	1.0%
1904(?)	52%		40%	4.5%	Not Stated	Not Stated

--Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) updated--Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, only we need to expand (and add) the respective sections (Economy and Demographics as well).. I have quite a lot of sources on the topic (history books, etc.) and I'll try to add some information as well.. —dima/talk/ 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yekaterinoslav

Having the former name in the first paragraph is useful because works are still published using that name. When looking for demographic data I found: Surh, Gerald, Ekaterinoslav City in 1905: Workers, Jews, and Violence, published in International Labor and Working-Class History No. 64, Fall 2003.

This does beg the question of how you transliterate the former name, but some problems have no one single answer. I have seen at least 3 versions.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1883 pogrom - mention?

Should there not be a mention of the 1883 pogrom here that saw a number of Jews killed, many more injured and many shops attacked and looted? As the 1881 pogroms were a definitive point of European Gentile-Jewish relations and that the pogrom in the city was an important, albeit late, one, should it not have at lease a mention? Movingpictures100@hotmail.com (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sergei Prokofiev

Is it strictly true to describe Sergei Prokofiev as being from Dnipropetrovsk? He was born in Sontsovska, which is part of the modern day area associated with Dnipropetrovsk.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 Killings?

Should there be a section added on the brutal murders of 21 people by 3 teenagers in the summer of 2007? Apparently this plunged the city into a state of fear, and also led to one the most horrifying videos ever released on to the internet. News report: here Roobens (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) It would be good to have an article on the murders, and a brief summary linking to it in the article about the city.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an additional serial killer who was just tried and sentenced in the town. BBC reports Serhiy Tkach claims he murdered 100 people. An interesting coincidence. 24.251.204.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

This has now been added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the "Dnipropetrovsk maniacs" section into the History section. This shouldn't really merit its own section, but in #History or a future #Crime section it would be well placed. —dima/talk/ 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the source cited for the serial killings (24) is labelled as follows:

"Three 19-year old youths committed 19 murders in Dnipropetrovsk during a month, this however turned out to be a hoax and the video of a murder occuring is also fake."

The source doesn't mention anything about hoaxes or fake videos, nor is there any mention of this on the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs article. Why is this source labelled in this way? PCLM (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The hoax claim was added in this edit. It has been removed, but comments from people knowledgeable about Ukraine are requested.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk oblast

I propose moving the information on the region history to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, as the one that is relevant much more broadly than the article's topic suggest.--Shanghainese.ua (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear which bits you would propose moving?

If you know Dnepropetrovsk you will be familiar with the Kipchak statues in Karla Marksa (or as wikipedia editors call it 'Karl Marks av.'). It would be a bit bizarre to delete the statues and the historical background behind them. These statues are important to local people - they are the oldest things in the city.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to do nothing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Karla Marksa

Whilst Karla Marksa Prospekt is a beautiful street, it is not very clear to me that there needs to be an article on it. I cannot really see much point in a link from the street name to Karl Marx - yes it was named after him, but so what. Unless anyone objects, I propose to removed the wikilink from Karla Marksa Prospect.

However if someone plans to write an article on the street, then I will hold fire.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the article say Yekaterinoslav or should it a different spelling

copied from message from Denat UA

Я считаю, что было бы целесообразно изменить во всей статье Yekaterinoslav на Katerynoslav. То, что во времена Царской России название было русское, а не украинское -- это не оправдание. Сейчас ведь на территории Украины для населённых пунктов действует "Romanization of Ukrainian", а не "Romanization of Russian". Спорных топонима только 2 -- Kiev и Odessa. User talk:Denat UA

Google book search 23 August 2009, English language only:

• Yekaterinoslav 781
• Ekaterinoslav 1289
• Katerinoslav 276

• Yekaterinoslaf 67
• Ekaterinoslaf 624
• Katerinoslaf 18

• Yekaterynoslav 6
• Ekaterynoslav 22
• Katerynoslav 400

• Yekaterynoslaf 0
• Ekaterynoslaf 0
• Katerynoslaf 0

Conclusion: there are many accepted spellings in the English language: Ekaterinoslav, Yekaterinoslav, and Ekaterinoslaf are the most common in books. I prefer the article to say Yekaterinoslav because it is less confusing (it is easier for people to guess that the first Y is optional in English).

This is English language wikipedia, not Romanisation of Ukrainian language wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Поскольку я плохо знаю английский, а электронные переводчики не всегда корректно переводят тексты, буду печатать по-русски и дополнительно переводить текст на английский язык переводчиком. Количество статей, найденных Googl’ом – это хороший наглядный показатель. Но не стоит опираться на эти данные. Если искать Googl’ом Dnipropetrovsk, результат – 664 000; если искать Dnepropetrovsk, результат – 11 800 000. В литературе авторы книги (редактор или корректор книги) могут написать название так, как именно они посчитают нужным. Вы правы, это англоязычная Википедия, а не Википедия латинизации украинского языка. Но ведь названия на английском языке населённых пунктов стран, в которых по-английски не разговаривают, в любом случае являются латинизацией какого-то языка. В большинстве случаев это латинизация официального языка страны, утверждённого в данный момент, в которой населённый пункт находится (даже если название историческое).

As I badly know English, and electronic translators not always correctly translate texts, I will print in Russian and in addition to translate the text into English the translator. The quantity of the articles found Google is a good evident indicator. But it is not necessary to lean against this data. If to search Google Dnipropetrovsk, result – 664 000; if to search Dnepropetrovsk, result – 11 800 000. In the literature authors of the book (the editor or the proof-reader of the book) can write the name how they will consider the necessary. You are right, it is English-speaking Wikipedia, instead of Wikipedia romanization the Ukrainian language. But after all names in English settlements of the countries in which in English do not talk, in any case are romanization any language. In most cases it romanization the official language of the country approved at present in which the settlement is (even if the name historical). — Denat UA (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that the normal English spelling is Dnepropetrovsk. This is of course the spelling in English used by people from Dnepropetrovsk.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

К сожалению, Вы неправильно меня поняли. Я лишь привёл пример количества результатов Днепропетровска, найденных Googl’ом, точно так же, как и Вы приводили мне пример с Екатеринославом. Я хотел показать своим примером то, что количество результатов Googl’а ничего не значит. Ведь я за то, чтобы в статье было написано Katerynoslav, а не Yekaterinoslav.

Unfortunately, you incorrectly have understood me. I have only given an example quantities of results of Dnipropetrovsk found Google, in the same way, as well as you resulted to me an example with Katerynoslav. I wished to show the example that the quantity of results Google means nothing. After all I for that in article it has been written Katerynoslav, instead of Yekaterinoslav. — Denat UA (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Вот жалость.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Population

Historical population Year Pop. ±% 1782 2,194 —     1800 6,389 +191.2% 1811 9,000 +40.9% 1825 8,412 −6.5% 1857 13,217 +57.1% 1862 19,515 +47.7% 1863 20,000 +2.5% 1866 22,846 +14.2% 1885 46,876 +105.2% 1887 48,000 +2.4% 1897 121,216 +152.5% 1904 157,000 +29.5% 1914 211,100 +34.5% 1920 189,000 −10.5% 1932 320,000 +69.3% 1989 1,178,000 +268.1% 1990 1,186,000 +0.7% 1996 1,147,000 −3.3% 1998 1,122,400 −2.1% 2001 1,065,008 −5.1% 2006 1,025,044 −3.8% 2007 1,039,000 +1.4%

Graph to show the population change of Dnepropetrovsk since 1782 - this graph makes huge extrapolations, that are probably incorrect. Graph to show the population change of Dnepropetrovsk since 1782 - this graph makes huge extrapolations, that are probably incorrect.

The population table was deleted from the article and replaced with a graph. The graph would be fine if there were data at say regular intervals, or if there were enough to justify the massive interpolation between 1932 and 1989. This is not the case.

Personally I think it would be better if the table were restored.

It is arguable that the graph is in breach of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS, and I am afraid that the graph will be deleted at some future date, and then the information will be lost. Collecting up this information took effort, including purchasing one of the sources to gain access to the population data in it.

(If anyone thinks it is unreasonable that anyone would delete the graph on grounds of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS, they should remember that Wikipedia is a website where people edit war over whether 'G' should be written as 'H', or 'E' as 'I', and where people state that "'Karla Marksa' is the genitive form of 'Karl Marks' and thus cannot precede the object 'Prospekt'", which is fascinating because all the street nameplates have in big letters Карла Маркса followed in very tiny letters by Пр.)--Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Karla Marksa Prospekt

Street names are always tricky creatures. But we have to do the best we can to 1) transliterate the name, 2) translate the name, or 3) combine the two processes. We have to be guided by what English speakers do with the name, not what native speakers do or what seems "logical". Actual practice should guide. In Rivne, for example, English speakers there say "Soborna Avenue" and "Prospekt Mir" or "Mir Prospekt", not "Cathedral Avenue" or "Peace Street". We would also just say "Kievska" and not "Kiev Avenue" or even "Kievska Prospekt" or "Vulitsa Kievska" (I can't even remember whether it was a "prospekt" or a "vulitsa"). I had many conversations with Americans who resided there and that was always the case with these street names. In Dnipro, Karl Marx Prospekt is always called that by the Americans I've met there and who have visited there. It's never called "Karl Marx Avenue" or "Karla Marksa Prospekt"--it's always "Karl Marx Prospekt"--a combination of translation and transliteration. No English speaker says "Ploshit Lenina", it's always "Lenin Square", but Karl Marx is always "Karl Marx Prospekt". (Taivo (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't think it matters whether we spell "Prospect" or "Prospekt", it's pronounced the same either way. (Taivo (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

On German wikipedia they refer to Wall Street not Mauerstraße or Mauer Street.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no firm and fast rules on what English speakers will call something. Sometimes they use a native name, sometimes they use a translation, sometimes they mix the two. All we can do is follow usage. In this case, usage among native English speakers living and visiting Ukraine is "Karl Marx Prospekt" (or Prospect). My wife, who is a native Russian speaker, always calls it "Karl Marx Prospekt" when she is speaking English. We don't have a problem using "Prospekt" or "Prospect" as a word for "street" or "avenue" in English. (Taivo (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

On internet, there are huge numbers of references to Karla Marksa, Dnepropetrovsk. It is the most common name for it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked out the first page of links on that Google search and they are not text references, but addresses, ways you would address a letter to get it through Ukrposta. That's not what the street is called in text or in English conversation. Google searches are also notoriously unreliable as sources of information on Wikipedia. I just asked my wife what they were taught in the university was the English name of Karl Marx Prospekt and she responded, "Karl Marx Prospekt". (She majored in English at the predecessor to Dnipropetrovsk National University.) (Taivo (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Of course they are addresses. What else would they be.

But I give up. Facts and reason count for nothing. I will delete all this from my watch-list, so I don't get annoyed with this further.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish people on Wikipedia weren't so dogmatic.

I did the following searches on Google for different represenations - all searches with dnepropetrovsk OR dnipropetrovsk OR dniepropetrovsk. The proportions of Karl Marx Street/Str/St/Avenue/Ave/Av/Prospect/Prospekt/Pr versus Karla Marksa are about equal. However, there are also lots of cases where people refer to the street as merely 'Karla Marksa'. I doubt if anyone refers to it as merely 'Karl Marx'.

In the tables, if a cell is marked '(+)', this means that I calculated this cell from other cells.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

794 Karl Marx (excluding "Karl-Marx-Stadt") - this still contains many false positives

527 Karl Marx Street/Str/St/Avenue/Ave/Av/Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)
198 Karl Marx Street/Str/St (+)	97 Karl Marx Street	68 Karl Marx Str	33 Karl Marx St
187 Karl Marx Avenue/Ave/Av (+)	111 Karl Marx Avenue	32 Karl Marx Ave	44 Karl Marx Av
142 Karl Marx Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)	61 Karl Marx Prospect	61 Karl Marx Prospekt	13 Karl Marx Pr	7 Pr Karl Marx (not including "Pr Karl Max Ave")

4 Karl Marxa (at least two of these were unambiguously meant the street)
76 K Marxa
26 Marxa Street/Str/St (+)	2 K Marxa Street	22 K Marxa Str	2 K Marxa St
12 K Marxa Avenue/Ave/Av (+)	1 K Marxa Avenue	4 K Marxa Ave	7 K Marxa Av
39 K Marxa Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)	27 K Marxa Prospect	0 K Marxa Prospekt	0 K Marxa Pr	12 Pr K Marxa

482 Karla Marksa (it is very common to give the address in the format 55 Karla Marksa)

693 Karla Marksa Street/Str/St/Avenue/Ave/Av/Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)
338 Karla Marksa Street/Str/St (+)	139 Karla Marksa Street	127 Karla Marksa Str	72 Karla Marksa St
157 Karla Marksa Avenue/Ave/Av (+)	78 Karla Marksa Avenue	61 Karla Marksa Ave	18 Karla Marksa Av
198 Karla Marksa Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)	64 Karla Marksa Prospect	60 Karla Marksa Prospekt	20 Karla Marksa Pr	54 Pr Karla Marksa

Gallery deletion

Hi all

The gallery of architechture was deleted and I have restored it to move some of the pics out. The editor quotes MOS and states "Galleries are discouraged" that is not true...

MOS states:-

"However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images."

and that if you find a gallery like this

"and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons"

MOS also gives this example [4] to illustrate the point that sometimes galleries are used where text would find it hard to explain an issue.

It was wrong to delete the images outright as some of them are depicting items contained in the text - including one relating to the text you changed in your previous edit

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Are the so-called 'Dnepropetrovsk maniacs' notable people from Dnepropetrovsk?

91.107.133.247 and Taivo are in dispute over whether Виктор Саенко (Victor Sayenko), Игорь Супрунюк (Igor Suprunyuk) and Александр Ганжа (Alexander Ganzha) should be listed as notable people from Dnepropetrovsk. Please express views on the subject below.

• My view is that if they are notable, they would be listed individually by name. Presumably they would have individual articles about them. But no such articles exist. The only article about them is about the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. But this article is not about them as people, it is about a series of crimes that they committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Each of them is not notable. Their crime is notable to an extent, but each of them as an individual is not notable. While others in the list are noted individually for works of art, science, industry, politics, etc., their lives consist of more than one achievement, these three individuals are known collectively only from one act of crime (the "series" is nothing more than a single prolonged act). The killings might be appropriately mentioned in a section on "Law and Order" in the main article, but they are not individually notable. --Taivo (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This case is already mentioned with a paragraph in After 1991: Since Ukrainian independence. There is a degree of repetition in naming them as "notable people". It is the media coverage of the case that is notable rather than the people, so my vote is to exclude them from the "notable people" section as they are already mentioned elsewhere in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say no also, I fully agree with Ianmacm. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• As individuals they are not notable, as criminals they are also not notable. Bandurist (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me that the problem is Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event, Wikipedia:Generally_notable_people and Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)

The two who are being discussed do not deserve a page of their own and so are not notable. The UK portal gives the advice that if they are not notable enough they should not be included on the lists of "Notable people"

I propose we adopt a similar viewpoint. This would mean that their individual names would not appear on the list.

Although criminals are not always viewed as notable especially where people see the title as actually meaning "people from here with distinguished achievements" or "well respected people from" it is true that some towns have killers on their Notable people lists.

John Hinckley, Jr. appears on Ardmore,_Oklahoma#Notable_natives

Myra Hindley appears on Crumpsall#Notable_people

Lee Harvey Oswald - New Orleans: Most of the large cities and towns does not have a "Notable people" section but New Orleans has a seperate page List_of_people_from_New_Orleans,_Louisiana which has its own "Crime" category Chaosdruid (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC) sig missed due to lost session - I hope they fix my internet soon :¬(

Language

Why have people changed all the spellings to American spellings?--Toddy1 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally not everybody knows that "the down-town" means the city centre. Many non-US readers have no idea where it it might be, or ever what a "down-town" might be. Maybe a "down-town" is a slum.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

I have removed.

• (in Russian) lopata.in.ua. Comment: This is claimed to be the "Dnipropetrovsk city portal", but the real Dnipropetrovsk City Portal is gorod.dp.ua.
• (in Russian) citex.info. Comment: This was introduced by IP editor 91.215.55.31 as both the "Dnipropetrovsk city portal" and "map of Dnepropetrovsk"; this site did not load in Google translate when I tried it. It is not obviously useful to an English-speaker. I therefore restored the previous link to a street map, as that really does still work, and is obviously useful to an English-speaker.

--Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian variants do no require citation

Standard Wikipedia practice in eastern Ukrainian, where as many as half of the population speaks Russian natively, is to include the Russian variants on placenames. No citation is necessary any more than a citation is necessary for placing the Ukrainian variant in placenames where the majority of the community speaks Russian as their first language (as in the Crimea). The citation tags were nothing more than WP:POINTy editing by an anonymous editor who is pushing an anti-Russian Ukrainian POV. Citations are not necessary for these things. --Taivo (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

British or US orthography

Currently the article uses a mixture of British and US orthographies. I suggest the article should use standardised English orthography throughout, as it relates to a subject outside of the USA. Bandurist (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Dnipropetrovsk is neither in the British nor in the American dialect sphere, the argument for "standardized" British spelling is irrelevant. The question is how much of the article uses British spelling and how much uses American spelling. Whichever is the current majority, then the rest should be adapted to that form. (Taivo (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

I just read through the article and the entire first two-thirds is in American spelling (except for a single occurrence of "centre"). British spellings do not begin until "Attractions". Overall there are more occurrences of "center" than of "centre". There is one occurrence of "meander", one occurrence of "theatre", and one occurrence of "honour". American spelling predominates, therefore that should be the standard utilized. --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - wikiguides says that european countries should use british spelling.

The first text creating the article used English English [5]

In this case it seems obvious to me that the original takes precedent

Also I think there was perhaps an element of fighteyness between Taivo and Bandusrist on this matter so I do not want either to think I am on one side or the other, simply lets say that I am neutral - I have edited articles of both styles and preserved the original in each.

Would it be right for someone to add lots of phrases that included one version over the other to then later say "now we have 10 ize and 9 ise they should all be ise"?

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that irrespective of whether you agree with British or American orthography (that means spelling, right?), the "Europe Shopping-Centre" is correctly spelled as written. See photos above.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

List of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration

User:LibStar keeps deleting this section of the article. His argument is that "long directories WP:NOTDIR do not appear in city articles. only current and notable mayors should appear".

I believe that a list of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration is part of the history of the city, and is worth including in the article. Some other language versions of Wikipedia have such sections, for example: ru:Днепропетровск.

If you read WP:NOTDIR it says that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed, and that Wikipedia articles are not:

• Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons.
• Genealogical entries.
• The White or Yellow Pages.
• Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.
• Sales catalogs.
• Changelogs or release notes.
• Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
• A complete exposition of all possible details.

None of this applies to a list of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration in an article about the city.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

. It is not normal practice to include long list of non notable officials in city articles, otherwise all cities greater than 100 years old would have excessively long sections. It may be classed as "*A complete exposition of all possible details" by listing every single mayor. Check out feature article Houston, Minneapolis. none of these have lists of mayors. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe you could improve those articles by adding such lists.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

no they are feature articles and considered top standard articles that others should follow. LibStar (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is an article on the American city called Chicago; this does not list the mayors - there is an article on Mayor of Chicago, which does. I notice that all the mayors of Chicago have Wikipedia articles, from William Butler Ogden to Rahm Emanuel. Clearly being mayor of Chicago makes them notable.
• The article on the American city called Houston also does not list the mayors, but there is an article called List of mayors of Houston; not all the mayors have articles on them - some are redlinked, but most do from the first (James Sanders Holman) to the present one (Annise Parker).
• The article on the obscure American city called Minneapolis is accompanies by an article called List of mayors of Minneapolis, and again the mayors either have articles on the like Dorilus Morrison or are red-linked. As with Chicago and Houston, being the mayor of Minneapolis makes a person notable.

On that basis, all the mayors and political chiefs of the city administration of Dnepropetrovsk are notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't totally agree that all mayors are automatically notable, but as a compromise I support a new article of List of Mayors. I do not support a long list of mayors in main city article. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The table is rather long and, lacking information about any of the individual mayors and their achievements, it does seem rather pointless. However, as all information is ultimately enriching I would propose that either a separate article entitled 'List of mayors (or something similar) of Dnipropetrovsk' should be created, or the current table should be retained in the city's article as a collapsable feature within the 'Government' section.

• As I believe a separate article about the mayor would, however, be rather short, I would personally prefer to see the latter option utilised as it could be integrated with further information describing the post of mayor, the city's administration and their respective duties. I hope this proves acceptable to all.

Gnesener1900 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think its redundant to have an entire list of mayors in the main article on Dnipropetrovsk. It should have its own article and be spun off.. However, if there are some important city executives/mayors that had an profound effect upon the future of the city, they should be listed somewhere under #Goverment or a subsection of that like #History of city administration or something.. That list is just too exhaustive to have in a main article. A couple pictures or something to illustrate Goverment/Mayoral history would be a nice addition to such a section too... —ddima (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with ddima. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions

Is it not better to make an article about the Dnipropetrovsk#April_27.2C_2012_bombings. Per wp:notnews and per example 2008 Yevpatoria gas explosion. 2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions seems the most neutral name for that since it is not 100% sure what caused the explosions. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Modern history, anyone?

Why does the history section leave an impression that life has stalled (or turned dark) with the independence of Ukraine? Aren't we able to mention something apart from maniacs and fake terrorists? Maybe international corporations? Skyscrapers? Tymoshenko? The same is true about Kiev history articles. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The colours used on the weather box

You may have noticed that two editors have been changing the colours on the weather boxes for Ukrainian cities for the past two months. There is a discussion of what colours they should be at Talk:Lviv#The colours used on the weather box. Please contribute, even if only to say that you don't care, but you just wish they would stop changing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

I have been asked to give an opinion about the photo in the infobox of this article. Although I am not crazy about both pics... I favor the current one since it captured the essence of the current state of the city better (a lot of new buildings being build there). I could not find a better picture on Wikimedia Commons. Personally I prefer montage pictures in infoboxes of cities (since Manchester, Bristol, Oxford, Birmingham & Liverpool (you could argue that Dnipropetrovsk is Ukraine's Manchester) have a montage picture in the infobox. I have the feeling that the policies of Wikipedia are shifting towards putting montage pictures in infoboxes of large cities). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Current photo: Skyline of Dnipropetrovsk
• Previous photo till December 2012: Victory memorial at the beginning of Karl Marx Avenue overlooking the Dnieper River.
  Previous photo till December 2012: Victory memorial at the beginning of Karl Marx Avenue overlooking the Dnieper River.

Demographics

The following table was added to the article by Ronangrab.[6] The source for 2001 is for Dnepropetrovsk Region (Oblast). Less than half of the population for the region live in the city of Dnepropetrovsk. There are no sources for the 1926 and 1959 figures. The 1897 figures are backed by a citation to http://djc.com.ua. This does not support the figures. It does quote figures for 1887, but they are not the same as in the table. I have restored the previous version, with corrections.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Population makeup by ethnicity 1897-2001
Ethnicity	1897	1926	1959	2001
Ukrainians	15.8%	36.0%	61.5%	72.6%
Russians	41.8%	31.6%	27.9%	23.5%
Jews	35.4%	26.8%	7.6%	1.0%
Poles	3.1%			0.0%
Germans	1.3%			0.1%
Belarusians	1.2%	1.9%	1.7%	1.0%

"Left bank"?

The expression "Left Bank" is used several times in the article without explanation. Perhaps this is a European expression in common use, but there is no ready definition or explanation (either nearby or via Google) of what "Left Bank" means. Any volunteers? Santamoly (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The left bank is on the left hand side of the river (the convention assumes that you are looking in the direction the water flows). The right bank is on the right hand side of the river. So Karla Marksa is on the right bank, and Solnechny is on the left bank.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Current article revamp

@Axxxion: when you have finished your article revamp, please could you post something here. That way one of the rest of us can restore citations you have deleted, decisions made by consensus on the talk page, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• I deleted a para about the population numbers from the lead, as there is plenty of that stuff both in the lead still and in the infobox. The lead was silly, as the most crucial background information about the city was simply missing. I have corrected some obvious inaccuracies such as the english transliteration of Ekaterinoslav ("Yekaterinoslav" is not based on any sources and was never used). Any issue with those?Axxxion (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I also changed to ″Novorossiya Governorate″. It is just overall linguistic logic: using ″Novorossiysk Governorate″ implies reference to the city of Novorossiysk, which is confusing for 2 reasons: first, there is now a big city in Russia of such name, secondly, the name of the Novorossiya Governorate implied reference to Novorossiya as is clear from the fact that the renaming of the province preceded the renaming of city, Ekaterinoslav.Axxxion (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not object to reverts to ″Z. Sich", but I would like to note that we talk of the Russian history here; in Russia until the turn of the 20th century the Ukr language was not in any form of official use, in fact it was not in use for writing at all (with singular exceptions). Moreover, it was widely viewed as a dialect of Russian vernacular in use in rural areas and by illiterate classes as a kind of patois. All the contemporary (18th century) documents pertaining to Sech refer to it as "Zaporozhskaya Sech" (i am using the common transliteration of Russian) for the simple reason of those sources being exclusively in Russian. In fact even modern Ukr sources widely use it when in English: http://www.cossacks.kiev.ua/history.html . Axxxion (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Units of Measurement

One would typically expect an article about Ukraine to follow the style convention specified by WP:MOSNUM that metric units be given first. The only articles that do not typically follow this convention are those relating to the UK and USA. My attempts to edit one measurement (!) in this article to bring it into MOS compliance have twice been reverted by an editor who objects to "French kilometres" (sic). In this context, we might ask whether he objects also to Ukrainian kilometres.

Given all this, I propose that the article be returned to the MOS-compliant style forthwith. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM does not say that metric units must be used first. It does say:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

As far as I can tell the first use of miles/kilometres was this edit, which has miles first.

As this is English-language Wikipedia, one would naturally expect it to have English distance units (miles).-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The style guidelines about units of measurement specifically do not refer to which style was used first; if a previous edit introduced an incorrect style there is nothing wrong with subsequent edits fixing it. The MOS does say:

In most articles ... the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic...

Which in this context, would obviously not imply that the article should use a primary unit which is not used in Ukraine, per the principle of least astonishment. The argument that these styles are fully optional and "can is not must", "most is not all", meaning that editors can simply ignore them at a whim, has been discussed and rejected on WT:MOSNUM more times than I can count.

You are wrong to imply that the entire English-speaking world would measure distances in miles: that practice is largely confined to the USA and UK. All other Anglophone countries would use kilometres, but that is irrelevant in this case anyway since we are not discussing the practices of the Anglophone world. In this case, there is an extremely obvious reason, unrelated to an arbitrary choice of style, why an article about Ukraine should give distances primarily in kilometres. Your reasoning, that you do not like "French kilometres" and you think that all articles on en-wp should use "English miles" is, ironically, just such an arbitrary and unfounded personal preference, which amounts to a desire for one measurement on one article about Ukraine to use a style which is not used in other articles about Ukraine, and per the MOS, should not be used except in articles about the USA and UK. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with you in the least. You seem to be saying that articles about Ukraine should state kilometres first. Is this because the current government uses kilometres? By that logic, articles on Ukraine on English-Wikipedia should be written in Ukrainian instead of English. As with the use of kilometres, that would be most unhelpful.

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and so is not a suitable place for your metrication-crusade.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am saying, lest it be misunderstood, that articles about Ukraine should use kilometres-first because that is the standard practice in Ukraine (not just of the current Ukrainian government, I dare say) – and in nearly every country on earth. Exceptions are made explicitly in the MOS for countries which do not use those units. Giving a distance in Ukraine in US customary (or imperial) measurements clearly violates the criterion of least astonishment, and it is clearly against the advice of the Manual of Style.

I am arguing that this article should follow the MOS. It is hardly a "crusade" to suggest that articles about countries which use the metric system, should use the metric system. It is not a matter of trying to right great wrongs to put articles about a certain country into the metric-first style, if the country in question already uses the metric system. If you know of a good reason why this article should not follow the MOS, please state it. Your personal dislike of "unhelpful French kilometres" is not such a good reason. I do not understand why it would be "unhelpful" to use the unit presentation style that is used already in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles – a style which is helpful in that it serves as a more-or-less accurate reflection of unit usage in the real world. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon is right. MOSNUM makes it clear that most articles should be metric first except for US and many UK articles. The Ukraine is not one of the exceptions. As Imperial/US customary weights and measures are also supplied this does not disadvantage any reader. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and the Irish Republic also use metric measures, so it's not a case of English usage versus the rest of the world. Michael Glass (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1 that unless there is a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, that the style here should not be changed from one guideline-defined style to another. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comment would make sense only in a context where both styles were equally permissible, e.g. whether to use the spelling "kilometre" or "kilometer". This is not such a case, as I have explained above; both styles are not equally legitimate since one is reflective of real-world practice and the other is not. The fact that a previous editor gave a measurement in a style which is disfavoured by the MOS is not a good reason for leaving it that way. The MOS makes it clear that the burden, in this dispute, is on the editors who want to give a distance in Ukraine in miles, which is not standard practice. Would you consider it equally permissible, in terms of the MOS, to use kilometres-first to say how far Houston is from Dallas? Archon 2488 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon 2488, both styles are equally permissible. And what is this "real-world practice" to which you allude? Shouldn't it be, as for other aspects, how the balance of reliable English-language sources would give it? I'm happy with the status quo until, at least, it is shown that the majority of reliable English-language secondary sources give such measurements in other than miles. The burden, as for other aspects, is on the editors who want to change that status quo. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You're simply re-asserting something which is flat-out wrong. The MOS states explicitly that the normal assumption for non-US and non-UK articles is for the primary quantity to be a metric unit, barring strong topic-specific reasons to the contrary. This is the burden you need to meet: you have not shown that there is a strong reason why the distance from Dnipropetrovsk to Kiev – specifically that one distance (!) – should be stated primarily in miles, considering that the status quo is for the overwhelming majority of articles about Ukraine to give distances in kilometres.

The real-world practice is that the normal unit for distance measurement in almost all countries of the world is the kilometre; I am sure you understand this perfectly well. One does not normally encounter statute miles outside of the USA and UK, and most publications not specifically oriented towards those countries do not use that unit. Satisfying an unrealistic and pointless standard, such as arbitrarily requiring editors to provide secondary sources showing metric units, is not required by the MOS, nor should it be (and in any case, it is hardly difficult to find reliable sources about Ukraine which will give distances in kilometres). You are invoking a rule which doesn't even exist. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Miles or Kilometres? Cited or Uncited information?

I believe that there are two questions here.

• The first one is whether miles or kilometres should come first in this article. According to MOSNUM, this article should be metric first.
• The second is whether the distance between Dnipropetrovsk and Kiev should be properly cited from a reliable source. This is a no-brainer. Of course, information should be be properly cited from a reliable source.

Neither of these should even be disputed. Michael Glass (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, there is a third question too:

• The third is what distance (as the crow flies, by car, by foot, by rail, by air, by boat or what?) makes the most sense in the context. The original distance given is as the crow flies.

In answer to your first question I would say wait to see whether there is a consensus to change the status quo from imperial, to metric.

In answer to your second question I would say that as the distance is a matter of physical fact, and so readily and easily verifiable from any number of maps and map-derived services, both online and off, and even by calculation from the differences in latitude and longitude of the places concerned, that the obligation to be verifiable is more than adequately satisfied without a specific reference.

In answer to the (my) third question I would say that as the crow flies, as in the original text, makes most sense for such an overview. A new travel section might run through all the other practical ways of making the journey. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of having a manual of style is that we don't need to develop a separate consensus every time. What we are arguing is: should this article follow the manual of style or not? The burden of proof is strongly on those who are arguing that one single measurement should deviate from the MOS standard, and so far all we have heard is that one editor prefers "English miles" to "French kilometres", which is cute but irrelevant, and that someone else wants us to collect lots of sources that give this one measurement in a certain unit, which we are certainly not obliged to do.

(And parenthetically, I'd add that it's better to provide sources than not – of course readers can verify some things themselves, but that is hardly the point). Archon 2488 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon's view is mistaken; the words "most" and "all" in WP:UNITS do not mean the same thing. Both styles are permitted (with specific exceptions defined in WP:UNITS). WP:MOSNUM states that you cannot change from one permitted style to another without good reason. There are no good reasons for the change to metric first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You're simply repeating the "most is not all" argument. This argument has been refuted so many times on WT:MOSNUM that I've lost count, because it is simply a charter for individual editors to use whichever units style they personally prefer. You have not explained why the imperial/USC-first style is, in your view, permitted for an article about Ukraine (my reading of the MOS is that it is not). Nor have you explained why it is the desirable or natural style for the article (my view, again, is that it is not).

There is an eminently good, and very obvious, reason why US/UK units should not be used for countries which are not the US or the UK. Simply ignoring that and asserting that the reason does not exist, does not make it go away. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also the matter of consistency within the article. In the section headed "Closed City" there is the following sentence: " The range of these first missiles was only 270 kilometres (168 miles)." It is certainly less than ideal to have miles first in one instance and kilometres first in the other.There is also the matter of accuracy of information.

There are now four clear strikes against the most recent edit:

• It rejects cited information about the road distance from Dnipropetrovsk to Kiev in favour of an uncited factoid.
• It made the article inconsistent, with miles first in one instance and kilometres first in the other.
• It made the article inconsistent with MOSNUM, which recommends metric first for non-US or UK general articles.
• The argument that the factoid is the measurement "as the crow flies" is a canard. The factoid does not specify how the distance is calculated and distancefromto.net gives a figure of 394.33 km (or 245.03 miles) and not the 242 miles (390  km) that currently appears in the article. If Speccy had been on the level about preferring the distance as the crow flies, he could have found this information, instead of using the lazyman revert option.

As it is, Speccy4Eyes has made the article worse, not better. Michael Glass (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael, for pointing this out. The absurdity of these reversions by Speccy and Toddy is that 1) they are reverting to a MOSNUM-disfavoured style, which certainly does not improve the article, and 2) they are making the article internally inconsistent (and inconsistent with other articles about Ukraine), for no adequate reason. Hitting the revert button and insisting that the style cannot be changed to metric-first (coming, notably, from an editor who has repeatedly tried to get other articles changed to imperial-first) is not a substitute for an argument. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is the edit I propose:

It is about 394 km (245 mi) southeast of the capital Kiev on the Dnieper River, in the south-central part of Ukraine.

• This gives the direct distance from Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk.
• It is cited.
• It is consistent with the other distance in the article.
• The text is accurate to the nearest kilometre.
• It is consistent with MOSNUM.
• Accuracy to the nearest 10 metres is provided in the note.

I can't see how anyone could reasonably object to this proposal.Michael Glass (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any change for now while this discussion is still open. The precise distance clearly depends on the points chosen to measure between. Different sources will give subtly different values (here are a few others: [7], [8], [9]). That is why we need to survey reliable secondary sources to get a judgement on this. 242 miles (390 km) isn't too far adrift though, and verifiable within reasonable tolerances until we agree how to proceed. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This still does not justify or excuse your high-handed reversion of properly cited material and replacing it with an uncited factoid. That is no way to behave if you are trying to work collaboratively with others. Any one of these sources is better than no source at all.Michael Glass (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that cited text is best. The following compromise will preserve the original style, and is therefore consistent with guidance in MOS:

"It is about 245 miles (394 kilometres) southeast of the capital Kiev on the Dnieper River, in the south-central part of Ukraine."

-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You've still not explained why it is appropriate to give this one measurement in a format which, per the MOS, is not to be used for articles without strong national ties to the USA or UK, absent some extremely strong reason to the contrary. It's not even consistent with the format of the other measurements in this one article! Archon 2488 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. While the proposed edit cites the information, it does not deal with the other inconsistencies that have been noted. Michael Glass (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Glass: You are correct. An earlier significant contribution put km in as a unit of distance. This predated the edit that introduced a measurement in miles. I had not noticed that. The policy is that The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style. Therefore km should be mentioned first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You have come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. The point of MOSNUM's units section is that it specifies the appropriate choice of primary units for different categories of article (US-related, UK-related, and all others). If someone happens to have added a measurement to an article in an inappropriate format (and the fact that the different formats are all legitimate in the broadest sense of the term does not imply that they are all equally legitimate in each and every specific article), that by itself is not a good reason for retaining it.

If an article was written about New Zealand by an American editor who gave distances in miles, that would not be a good reason for retaining that format, for the same reason that if a New Zealand editor wrote an article about a US-related topic in New Zealand English, that would not be a legitimate reason for keeping it (I know you are thinking of WP:RETAIN, but that guideline applies only as a last resort, if there is no other relevant guideline). For the purposes of the MOS, a valid "substantial reason" to change formats is that the article falls into one of those three categories related to units (and there are no other special considerations). Archon 2488 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I welcome Toddy1's latest comment, and the obvious thought and care he exercised in checking the edit history of the article and also Wikipedia policy. I feel confident that we are very close to resolving this question. Michael Glass (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Three out of the four people who have expressed an opinion on the matter have agreed that the distance should be expressed in kilometres first. This is justified by the history of the article, the other measurements used in the article, the fact that Ukraine uses the metric system, and that it is consistent with MOSNUM. The one objector has not responded in a week. Therefore it seems clear to me that unless we hear something to contrary within the next 24 hours, there is no problem in reversing the edit in contention. (The editor in question watches my every move on Wikipedia, so this notice is sure to reach him.) Michael Glass (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, wait to see if a consensus develops. Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Consensus is clear that consensus should be based on the quality of the arguments and it is not the result of a vote. Valid argument for change does not include "because MOSNUM says so", because as we have seen, editing simply to change from one unit to another is not allowed, or as MOSNUM puts it: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." Speccy4Eyes (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you argue that way, then every rule becomes captive to one recalcitrant who opposes change. You have not responded to the following facts:

• Three out of four is a pretty good consensus.
• The article is inconsistent, with kilometres first in one instance and miles first in another.
• "An earlier significant contribution] put km in as a unit of distance. This predated the edit that introduced a measurement in miles."
• Even in its present form, MOSNUM recommends metric units first.
• Your recalcitrance is a prime example why the rules at MOSNUM need to be tightened. Michael Glass (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say pushing your own personal POV ahead of any consensus is the more recalcitrant act. And as for your "facts"(!):

• Consensus is judged on a subjective assessment of the quality of the various arguments, not by counting personal opinions.
• There are at least two ways of addressing the inconsistency you observe - have you considered proposing the other option to see if that achieves a consensus?
• Have you checked further back in the article units history, or did you stop when you found that km edit?
• MOSNUM explicitly disallows such a change.
• You'll need to explain that one for me because as I see it, it is you who is trying to defy the current spirit of MOSNUM.

Hope that helps. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly helps to demonstrate that your interpretation of MOSNUM is to veto edits that you dislike against all support. Michael Glass (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, as I have repeatedly explained to you (and as you have repeatedly ignored) the consensus interpretation of MOSNUM is not that it disallows changing an article from a MOS-disfavoured style to a MOS-favoured style. The fact that you read MOSNUM that way does not mean that others are beholden to follow it. If that were the correct interpretation, I suggest, MOSNUM would be almost pointless since the style of Wikipedia would simply be a mash-up of whatever styles our editors had arbitrarily decided on, and nobody would ever be allowed to change them. The commonsense interpretation of the text that you keep quoting is that it's relevant only in cases where there are two or more equally permissible styles in principle (such as whether an article on cloud types is written in Canadian English or UK English, or whatever). In those cases it's arbitrary so it comes down to the choice of the editor who makes the first meaningful contribution. In a case such as this it is not arbitrary, because the MOS explicitly says what kinds of articles should use what units. There is no legitimate reason for a distance in Ukraine to be measured in miles, to the best of my awareness, and none has been suggested beyond the personal preferences of some editors. That's why nobody has proposed making the article miles-first; it's never going to reach consensus.

(PS – if you look above you'll see it was Toddy1 who found the "earlier significant contribution" which introduced measurements in kilometres, not Michael Glass.) Archon 2488 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon, you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Because (unfortunately) distances in kilometres were mentioned by a significant contribution to the article before miles were, the rule in MOS is that kilometres have precedence. I wish that that were not the case, but it is. We need to abide by the MOS. We cannot change to miles having precedence, unless someone can create a good reason for doing so. I can assure you that the editor who introduced measurements in kilometres without miles would never have done so if he/she had known that he/she was creating a precedence.

The lesson from this mess, is to be very careful when adding text to articles not to use kilometres without putting miles first (unless some idiot like Toddy1 has already put kilometres into the article).-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused now - are we saying that we can change from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style? Or are we saying that the fact that kilometres were added earlier than miles (even if by the same editor) is an acceptable substantial reason? If the latter, then I will accept that. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What we are saying is what the MOS has always been saying. I'll repeat again: MOSNUM spells out, in painful clarity, which units are expected to take precedence in any given article, in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary and in the absence of strong national ties. There is no actual ambiguity about this; anyone can see what it says. There are three categories of article defined there: US-related, UK-related, and other. This article clearly falls into the last of those three categories, and MOSNUM very clearly stipulates what that means in terms of units of measurement. Nowhere does MOSNUM say that the unit presentation style is determined by the first significant contribution. It has never said that. That is a standard you have invented yourself, which does not have community consensus and therefore does not carry any weight.

I recognise the fact that you, Toddy1, do not like this (and indeed you are not required to like it), but it is the consensus and you are expected to abide by it. It's not a problem that you personally believe that miles are a better distance unit, but I would ask you to respect that your own personal preference is not a good reason for a Wikipedia article to follow a certain style. (Why is your preference for one unit more important than another editor's preference for a different unit? This is exactly why we have a Manual of Style). There is no "defeat" or "victory" here, and thinking in such an adversarial way is not helpful. The lesson is not to avoid using kilometres because you don't like them, or to try to force articles to use the miles-first style against MOS advice because it's your personal favourite style; that will only create more pointless disputes such as this one and it is likely to be considered disruptive behaviour. The lesson is to follow the standard Manual of Style prescriptions for unit use unless there is a good reason not to. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Because kilometres were added earlier than miles, they have precedence (unfortunately). Therefore to have miles first would be a change that required a substantial reason. The stuff about km über alles is irrelevant. All that matters is which style was there first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I support the change to km first therefore, and have changed it that way myself now there is no opposition. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus ("It is 391 kilometres (243 mi) southeast of the capital Kiev...") is confirmed. Reason for formal closure: preparing closure of WT:MOSNUM#We should clarify "In most articles..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Word on map

[10] Why does the name on the map have to appear with 4 lines like that? I attempted to fix that, but you reverted it @TaivoLinguist: you don't have an idea, do you, about how the name in the template appears on the map? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The map looks just right on my browser. Do you have a problem with it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: You fixed nothing on the map, you changed the name at the top of the infobox by removing the Russian variant. By long-standing consensus, city names in the eastern part of Ukraine have both the Ukrainian and Russian versions of the name in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

[11] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dnipropetrovsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425125011/http://www.ef2012.com/index.php/ru/rezervnye-goroda/dnepropetrovsk/jd-vokzal-dnepropetrovsk.html to http://www.ef2012.com/index.php/ru/rezervnye-goroda/dnepropetrovsk/jd-vokzal-dnepropetrovsk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Current Mayor Ivan Kulichenko....

was elected in 2010 as an independent candidate; but he officially joined the ranks of the Party of Regions last July.

City renamed to "Dnipro".

On May 19, 2016 the Ukrainian parliament renamed the city to "Dnipro" (http://www.unian.info/politics/1349664-dnipropetrovsk-renamed-dnipro.html), as part of a "decommunization drive". Should the article title reflect this? - Toothswung (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

per WP:MODERNPLACENAME "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one." Dnipropetrovsk would work in the appropriate historical context, but as of May 19 the official name is Dnipro and so far, there is no 2016 scholarship or journalism to fall back on (though it's safe to say journalism will follow suit, and Google Maps and other sources of that nature have a precedent of following the new names quickly). --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• There have been some reverts to keep "Dnipro" entirely out of the lede of the article and this really shouldn't fly. Regardless how we handle the article title, the new name is the official name and needs to be in the introduction. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I've opened a formal discussion below. Brandmeister^talk 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Until page is move, the lead should reflect the article name. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kyiv's article is still Kiev, but it still includes both names in the lede and all pertinent information on the alt names for readers. No reason to remove facts from the intro, even though we're deciding on how to handle the article title separately --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Two completely different situations, that is about spelling, this is about the actual name. Lead should reflect article title until page is moved per wikipedia guidelines. Qed237 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reverts were very uncool. If it was about which name goes first in the lede, change that, or focus on the infobox, but don't just undo everything otherwise it just looks poor form. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just found a little tidbit, but the official new Russian spelling is now also Dnipro (Днипро) [12] so no alt spellings needed--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

why can't you dumbasses understand there's no such city named dnipropetrovsk anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.168.60 (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I live here, and at the moment composing my CV, so I'd like to think, that my possible employer abroad can google the city, and at the moment "Dnipro" refers to a football club, rather than city. Frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.54.8 (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2016

The data of 2001 census is written on the page. There is a newer data of 2014 estimate on the page uk:Міста України (за населенням), so the page Dnipropetrovsk needs to be updated. It is needed to change "Dnipropetrovsk is the third biggest city of Ukraine" to "Dnipropetrovsk is the fourth biggest city of Ukraine". Tohaomg (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done, see the above section.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2016

The same as above, but in Infobox settlement. Tohaomg (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Population rank

There is a mistake in the first paragraph. Dnipro is fourth largest city, not third. --Tohaomg (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

List of cities in Ukraine provides numbers which say this is the third city. If you have different numbers pls provide a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a data of 2001 census in the List of cities in Ukraine, but in the ukrainian page uk:Міста України (за населенням) there is a data of 2014 estimate, so it is more actual. uk:Міста України (за населенням) shows that Dnipro was fourth in 2014 and the third place was owned by Odesa. --Tohaomg (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see indeed that the 2015 estimates also place Odessa above Dnipropetrovsk. Please add a formal protected request template, and then I can correct the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What is "formal protected request template"? --Tohaomg (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

{{Edit fully-protected}}--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

English WP rules prohibit changes unless a formal request is submitted? +to enwp's stupidities. I should start enumerating them somewhere. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 20:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 May 2016

{{edit fully-protected|Dnipro|answered=no}} <!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. --> <!-- Begin request --> <!-- End request -->

ManDrivnyk007 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You filled in the template wrongly. I have made it "no wiki" so you can see this missing bit (the bit between "Begin request" and "End request"-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this was ManDrivnyk007's first edit on English Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus based on arguments in compliance with the WP:AT policy. SSTflyer 05:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Dnipropetrovsk → Dnipro (city) – Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME we shouldn't wait for the official name becoming common in sources. According to the official Ukrainian Rada website, 190 MPs voted "for", 17 against, 20 abstained and 104 were absent. The decree was adopted ("Рішення прийняте") today, on May 19. Brandmeister^talk 14:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a correction, that was the first poll on the consideration for the simplified procedure, the actual vote was 247 for, 16 against, 7 abstained [13] --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Brandmeister^talk 14:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The official place name from today on is Dnipro, not Dnipropetrovsk. The name change was approved today, effective immediately: see http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-renames-dnipropetrovsk-dnipro/27745215.html or http://www.unian.info/politics/1349664-dnipropetrovsk-renamed-dnipro.html for English-language sources. There is no reason to consider that former name will be used instead of current name as English-language sources seem to respect official Ukrainian place name changes: even in case of recent name changes like Bakhmut or Chornomorsk name changes are used in newer sources (like OSCE for Bakhmut or Financial Observer for Chornomorsk), while older name changes are consistently used in sources with hardly any mention of older names (like Sviatohirsk, consistently used in Lonely Planet, Council of Europe or UNICEF) — NickK (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Name officially changed, article should reflect contemporary use. Obviously use Dnipropetrovsk for historical context, but this is about today forward. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Official name: Dnipro.--Cyve (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is too soon to make this change. Changes in the city name should be verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. The outpourings of the Rada are primary sources. In addition, this is English language Wikipedia - what matters is what people call the city in English. This is not within the gift of the Rada. None of us have any idea whether this new name will stick; nor do we have any idea whether it will be used in English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tod, how is widely reported news of a public law a primary source? The article itself cites (or cited prior to the reverts) the UNIAN/Pravda/RFERL articles on it, plus KP covered it here --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are articles simply reporting the Rada action. They are not articles about other topics which use the new name. Reports about the Rada action are not examples of the use of the name in common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Absolutely--Andriy.v (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Dnipro is now the official name. Toddy, there's no reason to believe that the English-language media will reject it. It's not like the city is as famous as Kiev. Hergilei (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Dnipro is now the official name of the city, it isn't a matter of choice and how people prefer to call the city. A.h. king • Talk to me! 20:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Toddy is right that what matters is not the will of the Rada, but English usage because this is the English Wikipedia. We've gone over this monthly for years at Kiev and Odessa. If a city in Ukraine has a common English name, then we use it and don't really care what the Rada or Ukrainian diaspora think. All that matters is what English speakers call it. But that being said, it's also the case that there are hundreds of places in Ukraine that are virtually never mentioned in English media or literature. When they are mentioned, it is usually in connection with WWII and then the Russian form of the name is used (in some cases the Polish form) and not the Ukrainian one. Dnipro(petrovsk) falls into that category. I've only seen one book on the city in English ("Rock and Roll in the Rocket City") and it's about the Soviet era, so the Russian Dniepropetrovsk is consistently used. --Taivo (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Kiev and Odessa is largely a different case because they have not been officially renamed, unlike Dnipropetrovsk. The only issue is whether the Rada has the authority to rename cities, seemingly it does. Brandmeister^talk 07:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No. That's not the issue. The Rada's action makes zero difference to the English Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names, which are the governing rules for Wikipedia. The latter specifically states that official changes are not instantaneous. That's why Kiev and Odessa are not "Kyiv" and "Odesa" (and why it's Chernobyl as well). We consider other factors in Wikipedia to be more important. Rather than just blindly parroting, "But the Rada says so", why aren't we looking at other factors and making an intelligent decision? --Taivo (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what other factors can be and how can we write about it. Of course we can find some ignorant sources that will still use an old name (for example, an Irish travel website still offers travel from Dublin to Voroshilovgrad, even those the city was renamed before this website appeared, but probably no one travelled from Dublin to Voroshilovgrad/Luhansk since 1991), but how can we distinguish an ignorant source and a source that knows about the rename but still ignores it? Also, how shall we write the lede of the article in this case: something like Dnipropetrovsk is the former name of the city nowadays known as Dnipro? In general I would be interested in an example where a name change happened but the article was not renamed. I looked at Denali case, but the article was renamed about an hour after the announcement, even though English usage could not change within an hour. I also looked at Staines-upon-Thames case, but the article was renamed 8 minutes after the official name change. I simply could not find any example outside India and South Africa (where English names were replaced with non-English names) of a name change that would not be shown on Wikipedia immediately — NickK (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the Russian and Ukrainian grammatical case forms of "Dnepro" (city) and "Dnepr" (river) are the same; we will see how long before this confusion in usage causes disambiguatory name change. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  In Ukrainian Dnipro as a city and Dnipro as a river have completely identical grammatical case forms. Saying that it will lead to a name change is very WP:CRYSTAL. There were numerous new names proposed: from renaming Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipropetrovsk to weird proposals like New Kodak. The Dnipro option was chosen, and Wikipedia is not a place to speculate whether any other proposal will succeed later — NickK (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  This is what Kodak is about.--31.16.65.191 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. New official name of the city. Media in English confirm it. --Ivasykus (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Finally someone looking at evidence other than "The Rada says so." This is a start, but the article isn't as strong a piece of evidence since the article itself is about the name change. Has anyone seen an article in English about Dnipro that isn't about the name change, but uses "Dnipro"? That's the kind of evidence that will convince the voices of caution here. --Taivo (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is not a difference in mostly spelling like with Kyiv and Odesa; but a full name change so there is no reason to think it would not be universally adopted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.79.165 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It took time for Burma to become Myanmar in English. An official change of name is not necessarily instantaneous in English usage. --Taivo (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Name of the country or its capital frequently appears on world maps, drop down lists and other places therefore country and capital names can be considered to be part of common knowledge. So it is possible to argue that English speakers keep using old name despite the official change but a city of Dnipro level is unlikely to appear in many places if in any at all so it is possible to argue that there cannot be a commonly used English name for a city like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.79.165 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't they have books in Australia? Of course books spell the city Yekaterinoslaf or Dnepropetrovsk. So maybe that is why you did not recognise it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is a common world map to back my point, out of Ukrainian cities only Kyiv spelled Kiev is on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.79.165 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Also the Russian WP has changed to the new [Russian] name "Днепр". --Bruzaholm (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless English is the language of the Russian WP, then it's irrelevant here. Only English usage matters here per WP:COMMONNAME. --Taivo (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Based on the news sources above. Regarding the name change from Burma to Myanmar, it took a while because the name change occurred under a military junta in which many political and opposition groups object to (they saw the military government lacking legitimacy). Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

But Wikipedia did not change because English usage did not change. That's the point. And the articles so far cited are articles about the name change itself, not articles that demonstrate that the name change has worked its way into English usage. --Taivo (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Strange, that it needs to make such kind of request--Noel baran (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)--Noel baran (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support––Geohem (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support--Trydence (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - with the law or without it, people already use the new name --Tohaomg (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support-- GWA88 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support-- --Lohengrin (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support-- --Bouzinac (talk) Bouzinac (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME policy, under which it is mostly irrelevant what the official name is (Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title). What is relevant is the usage in reliable English language sources, and I still do not see any evidence that "Dnipro" is a common name in English language sources. Those who argue for renaming say that "there is no reason to think it would not be universally adopted". But, Wikipedia should not try to predict the future (see WP:CRYSTAL). We look into already existing reliable sources to identify the commonly used name, we should not try to predict what the commonly used name will be in the future. So, there is not policy-based reason to rename this article (yet). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL works both ways here: keeping Dnipropetrovsk as the name of the article means that we predict that the new name will be never used in English-reason sources. Still, in a similar case (McKinley/Denali) this question did not arise. Why should we speculate that the new name will be basically ignored? — NickK (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. And just to prevent all kinds of speculation in "common" names which I saw in Kyiv article - for all Ukrainians call it by long DniproPETROVSK name is not common for decades already, saying this as person who lives in this city and who knows a lot of people in Ukraine. Sandric (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support-- --Neptune777 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• I support renaming but not now. Decree is not signed yet, and voting results are protested now by some parliamentary members. Decree maybe signed and deposited after the voting for decree project 3864-П. So renaming is not in act now.--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's not official yet but even without that formality, city workers have tore down the sign on the city entrance already. Looking set in stone (literally). [14] --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 17:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the whole population of Dnipro (including my aged in-laws) turns out and spells Dnipro on the banks of the river in blue and yellow shirts, that's not English usage. --Taivo (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support:
  • There is no evidence that this city has a common English name because
    1. Nothing of worldwide importance happens in this city really.
    2. Before 1991 the most common name was Dnepropetrovsk (and it's still in use). While Kiev didn't change to Kyiv, Dnepropetrovsk did change to Dnipropetrovsk.
    3. How often this city is mentioned in the English language sources (except for English versions of sites related to this city)?
  • There is evidence that city renames in Ukraine sanctioned by a legitimate government are adopted in English language: We have Rivne and Luhansk (not Rovno or Voroshilovgrad).
  • So, based on several quoted policies I think that:
    1. WP:MODERNPLACENAME can be used as it was renamed by a legitimate government.
    2. WP:COMMONNAME cannot be used because it's based on assumption that common usage won't change without reasonable backing evidence.
    3. WP:CRYSTAL can be used in support as "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events".
  • —Drundia (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your view that nothing of worldwide importance happens in Dnepropetrovsk is mistaken. Have you heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? The missiles were from Dnepropetrovsk. Dnepropetrovsk designed and manufactured many of the Soviet Union's ICBMs; rockets from Dnepropetrovsk took an important role in the Soviet space programme. The city is also mentioned in accounts of the what Western People call the Eastern Front of World War II.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:TOOSOON for common usage; it took years until Mumbai replaced Bombay in English and other languages. Besides, the article itself says that the name change is controversial for the local population including the city mayor. Who knows if they'll change it back next month? — JFG ^talk 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. When it becomes commonly known as Dnipro then we can change it. Until then it's commonly known by its longer name. It is utterly irrelevant what its official name may be or what Ukrainians call it. All that matters is what it's called in reliable English-language sources (discounting those published in Ukraine itself, of course). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.