From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Prypiat)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


The Culture section looks as if it was machine translated from another language, and is gibberish in parts. Could someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnopomp (talkcontribs) 13:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Someone familiar with physics, please fix the following phrase (and possibly the fact itself)

The most dangerous radioactive elements are expected to reach the end of its half-life in 900 years while the rest of the radiation will remain for tens of thousands of years.

As is, it is meaningless. It is phrased so that a layman would think that after half-life it will be safe. But in half-life simply means that the level will decrease only two times. Also, all radiation will remain for thou yrs, only its level will change. Mikkalai 02:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. — Trilobite (Talk)


levels of radiation in the area? Compare to world averages?

Different spelling of Pripyat; some places, it's pripyiat. Should be standardized?

how do open doors to all buildings increase visitor safety?

this article says that chernobyl contains lodging, etc; how come the Chernobyl page says it was abandoned in 1986 in the intro? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

"Deafening silence"[edit]

Could someone clarify "deafening silence" as it is used?

"the tourism industry was not successful due to a deafening silence"

Its very unclear what this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Done. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I took it apon my self to remove the following line which was mentioned above.

"the tourism industry was not successful due to a deafening silence".

I have been to Chernobyl and Pripyat and am unaware of any trouble caused by "deafening silence". I believe it was a rumour started by Elena Filatova to heighten interest in her site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minshullj (talkcontribs)

Done. — Minshullj 06:55, 3 July 2005 (EDT)

When it will be safe[edit]

it is usually safe to enter a highly radioactive site somewhere between 30-50 years after the accident Dudtz 7/25/05 6:28 PM EST

What do you mean as safe ? Very few things in life are perfectly safe. I would say that it would depend greatly on the reason why the site was made radioactive in the first place. For instance the dose rate at the trinity test site declined much faster than the dose rate due to the radium contamination of the notebooks from Marie Curie's radium lab.Cadmium 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Jørn Roed it's possible to clean the soil and houses of Pripjat making the city habitable again. Jørn Road is a specialist on radiation effects from Risø National Laboratory and have been a member of several EU, Nordic Council or UN-sponsored projects regarding the Chernobyl plant. The claim was presented in an article in Jyllands Posten dated April 23rd 2006. Teral 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Is it "Prypiat" or "Pripyat"? Even though the title is "Prypiat", several references within this page spell it "Pripyat". This should be made to be consistent at the very least. If one is more correct than the other, do links to this page need to be changed to link to the official page rather than the redirect? Renesis13 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...or even, "Pryp'yat" as I have also seen it spelled. -- Renesis13 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Pryp'yat is the standard Ukrainian-English transliteration. Wikipedia tends not to include soft signs in articles (see Lviv). (I think we should, but that's another matter.) Pripyat is the Russian name. It's in Ukraine, so might as well use the Ukrainian name. The Russian version is included in the first line, but we might consider putting in a second line explicitly stating that the Russian spelling of Pripyat is also common (to aid people in information gathering.) FireWorks 05:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


This is a city-phantom... No peoples... No animals... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

- Actually, there's plenty of animals... (Bobbo9000 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

'Nature reserve'[edit]

If it's safe for wild animals why isn't it safe for humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:22, 4 July 2006

For one thing, the animals in that area are species which don't live nearly so long as humans; they have less time for diseases such as cancer to develop.
If cancer can be developed by mutations during cell growth, species with sufficiently fast cell growth rates can develop cancer even their lifespan is just a fraction of human's. 21:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps more significantly, we don't know that it is safe for them; animals stillborn or born with serious defects will simply not be observed in their true numbers. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Animals can sense a great number of dangers, but radiation isn't one of them. The fact that the city has become overgrown and overrun with nature is simply a bi-product of human evacuation. They may still be suffering greatly from the contamination. D Boland (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


This entire article is poorly written. Can someone who is familiar with the subject rewrite it so it reads better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I support the above unsigned statement and question. Apart from poor style, the article uses unreferenced information and makes highly contentious deductions, which have not been shown by any scientific investigation. As with much pseudoscience, half truths, irrelevant truths and blatant untruths are mixed in an misguided anti-nuclear mish-mash, superficially authoritative. --Seejyb 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2007[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus Duja 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Prypiat, UkrainePripyat, Ukraine – Pripyat appears to be by far the most common spelling. It gets 302,000 Google results vs. 25,600 for Prypiat, and it gets 6 vs. 1 for Google News (the single result is a video game site reporting on a video game and the two other sites reporting on the game use the other spelling). The BBC, Der Spiegel and a Ukraine TV website in the Google News results all use the Pripyat spelling. I did not include links because the urls are so big that they mess up the editing box. The searches can easily be repeated. The BBC usually uses the Pripyat spelling. A search of its site gives 107 vs. 5 unique results. Finally, the website for the town is, although I do not know if it is official. -- Kjkolb 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Survey - Support votes[edit]

  1. Romanization of Cyrillic spelling supports Pripyat. --Redaktor 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    False: there is no "Romanization of Cyrillic". Only Romanization of Russian and Romanization of Ukrainian exist. Švitrigaila 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Our rule is best known in English. Gene Nygaard 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, to reflect common English usage, as illustrated in the "The usual simple tests" sub-section below. - Evv 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes[edit]

  1. Oppose. The spelling with i is the Russian name using Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. The spelling with y is the Ukrainian spelling using Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian. Švitrigaila 23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. It's a Ukrainian town so the romanization should be Ukrainian-based. TheQuandry 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. No vitally urging reason to move after 3 years. There are hosts of other possible transliteration of the name, like Prypyat, Prypat', Pripiat, etc. Unlike Kiev, there is no well-established English name for the town, since before 1985 it was absolutely unknown in the West. `'mikka 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, now that somebody has kindly helped me through my stooopid moment (see discussion, below)! Also, because the evidence in the proposal includes Google hits, which tend to return many self-perpetuating results (i.e. cloned information which don't represent distinct examples), and BBC news articles, many of which would naturally use the Russian spelling because much of their Chornobyl coverage was written back at the time of the disaster. (It would be an interesting aside to see their policy on circumstances under which they'd change the names they use.) – Kieran T (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The vague, semi-accurate Ukrainian transliteration "Prypiat" is more appropriate for a Ukrainian toponym with no English name than the vague, semi-accurate Russian transliteration "Pripyat." —  AjaxSmack  04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per mikka, ajax and others.--Riurik (discuss) 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


The website is written only in Russian, English and German. Not in Ukrainian. It's normal it uses the translitteration from Russian if it was first written in Russian. But that's not a reason to use the Russian name of the town instead of the Ukrainian. Ukraine is an independant state. Švitrigaila 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused. Švitrigaila's oppose vote says "The spelling with i is the Russian name using Romanization of Russian. The spelling with y is the Ukrainian spelling using Romanization of Ukrainian." If that's the case, then surely the rename is the correct course of action, since this is a Ukrainian town, and Russian is no longer the official language there. – Kieran T (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He meant the Pripyat spelling with the i (Russian) instead of y as in Prypiat (Ukrainina) in the beginning of the name. —dima/s-ko/ 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Doh, of course, that makes sense. Thanks! – Kieran T (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

After all, I have a great doubt. The system used in Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian is pretty weird. It could be rewritten entirely, using the BGN/PCGN column of this table. In such case, the town called Прип'ять in Ukrainian should be romanized by Pryp'yat' with two y (apostrophs can be omitted: Prypyat). It's the system used, for example, by the National Geographic Magazine. Švitrigaila 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article "Inside Chernobyl", by Richard Stone, of the April 2006 issue of National Geographic Magazine (p.32-53) uses Pripyat both in the text (from the very first paragraph to the very last one) and in the map of page 39. - Best regards, Evv 13:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The usual simple tests[edit]

Google Print test

  • Searching for Pripyat: 399 books in English.
  • Searching for Prypiat: 27 books in English.

Google Scholar test

  • Searching for Pripyat: 864 results.
  • Searching for Prypiat: 57 results.
  • Searching for Pripyat (since 2000): 286 results.
  • Searching for Prypiat (since 2000): 23 results. test

  • Searching for Pripyat: 317 books in English.
  • Searching for Prypiat: 26 books in English.

Best regards, Evv 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

REM Question[edit]

A few questions, how much REM (Ronten Equivilant Man) is usualy measured within Pryiat, on avarage wherever you go? How long would you be able to stay unprotected in the town with that amount? What do people usualy use to measure REM? If these questions could be awnsered that would be wonderful. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Explosive Devices?[edit]

I removed this, since I've never heard of this theory about explosive devices.

"Pripyat is an abandoned city near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It was a city founded for the people who worked at Chernobyl and their families, just a few miles away from the city of Chernobyl. In 1986, when two explosive devices went off near the fourth reactor in the power plant, both of the cities were evacuated because of the lethal amounts of radiation. However unlike the city of Chernobyl, where around 2,000 people still live today, Pripyat is totally abandoned."

Qcubed 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved Article From Prypiat, Ukraine To Pripyat, Ukraine, The Correct Spelling[edit]

It's correctly spelled "Pripyat", in the English pronunciation, not Prypiat. I corrected this by moving the page to the appropriate designation. G'Day, -- Steven Stone 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a debate, it's simply correct to spell it with 'ipy' not 'ypi'. Done. -- Steven Stone 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the move as there was no consensus to move the page. There was a Requested move just a couple of sections above, with no consensus to move the page to Pripyat, Ukraine. —dima/talk/ 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Christ, man, I hate to get brief with you, but there's something quite different between "no consensus" and reality. Look on National Geographic's 2006 issue of Chernobyl, look on, the official town forum, look on the majority of websites and books on the subject, and you'll see that it is the correct way to spell it. Also, before you reverted my move, wouldn't it have been wierd, seeing that the article starts with the words, "Pripyat (Ukrainian: При́п'ять, Prip’jat’; Russian: При́пять, Pripjat;...", and having the article title as Prypiat, Ukraine? This is ridiculous. I wrote half the article, I know quite a bit of the information about the area, and I believe that you all are making a mistake. Hey, if you all don't want to come down to some kind of an agreement about this, then fuck it. I hopefully thought that somebody would step up and do the right thing, and that was me. But you chose to turn it right around. G'Night, -- Steven Stone 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC) is in no way an official site of the town. They can say whatever they want, but their not an official government funded site. As I stated above, there was a Requested move just a couple of sections above, with no consensus. to move the article to Pripyat, Ukraine. If you want to move the page, then either propose it at the talk page before moving the article or file a RM.
Anyway, Pripyat is the Russian spelling, and Prypiat/Prypyat is the official Ukrainian spelling of the city. These are two different languages. As the Ukrainian language is official, we should use it instead of the Russian one. —dima/talk/ 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out the large landmark entrance of the city, with the large concrete title named "Прирять". You'll see what I'm talking about. Sure, I know that is not OFFICIAL, but it's still a forum directly related to those who wrote it. I don't appreciate your go-by-the-book, bureaucratic standards of researching about this situation. The bottom line is, the city was founded in 1970 and it was called Прирять. Here's a direct link to a picture of the Pripyat Sign: Copy and paste it into your broser address tab. This argument is starting to get stupid. We're not talking about Ukraine or the Ukrainian language here, wer'e talking about an abandoned city which was founded before the separation of the Soviet Union. So we will go by history, not by modern world's languages. G'Night, -- Steven Stone 03:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, If You Read It In Cyrilic, It's Pronounced "Preepyat'", Isn't It?[edit]

I've studied quite a bit of Russian, including the Cyrilic lettering of the alphabet. I don't understand that Pripyat is not appropriate as a correct spelling method because the ending isn't pronounced "iat", it's pronounced correctly as "yat". Remember, this is the correct way to spell it in Russian: Припять. Directly translated, it is pronounced "Preepyat'". Check your sources, opposers in the requested move survey, you are all mistaken. Try checking in again once you've got your Cyrilic alphabet straightened out. G'Day, -- Steven Stone 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In RUSSIAN, yes it's Pripyat (Прирять). In UKRAINIAN, its Prypiat/Prypyat (Прип'ять). These are two different languages, both Slavic however. Ukrainian и is transliterated as y. Russian и is transliterated as i. This is why the naming difference results. —dima/talk/ 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about a city founded before the separation of the Soviet Union. We will go by the way it was originally written. How's that? -- Steven Stone 03:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Apart from some very well-known toponyms which have established names in English (e.g., Kiev, the Dnieper, Crimea, Carpathian Mountains), Ukrainian place names in Wikipedia are transliterated from Ukrainian according to the official method for geographic names. Relevant Wikipedia guidelines are at WP:NAME#Ukrainian names and WP:CYR#Ukrainian, and details of the standards are in Romanization of Ukrainian. Look in a few recent atlases, I believe you will find that they transliterate from Ukrainian, too, although possibly using a different romanization method.
The date of the city's establishment is irrelevant.
PS: in terms of pronunciation, I don't see any difference between "-piat" and "-pyat". However, note that we are talking about transliteration (romanization) here, so the pronunciation doesn't enter into the question at hand. We use Prypiat for the title (and Pryp”iat’, with the apostrophes, for full transliteration) because it conforms to the Ukrainian National standard. Michael Z. 2007-09-15 19:06 Z

OK, I'll make it as simple as it can be. "-piat" and "-pyat" are significantly different in terms of pronunciation. "-piat" sounds like "pee-aht" while the correct way, or "-pyat" is pronounced as "pi-yat". Get to know the Cyrilic alphabet, it can help. Report back to me about your observations. G'Day, -- Steven Stone 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it simpler yet. Pronunciation is irrelevant.
This article's title is transliterated according to Wikipedia's guidelines, with consensus support of most participating editors. Unless you can come up with some unanticipated new evidence supporting a change, this topic is moot. Michael Z. 2007-09-16 15:01 Z

OK, look, I'm out of this discussion. I am a "most supporting editor" of this article. I originally wrote a little more than half of the article myself before many other edits were made to the page. I know exactly what I'm talking about. So if you're going to throw everything that I said back in my face, then that's your problem. I feel really sorry for the Wikipedia Guidelines that we cannot even name an article the way it's meant to be written. Just remember, many other articles linking to "Prypiat, Ukraine" still link to "Pripyat, Ukraine". So if you want to give it the solitary name, I'd suggest you all to change the link names too. So I will give up on my steps to name this article correctly. Just to let you know out there, there's gonna be people coming onto this site to read information, and I mean it to be correct. Ah well, salute to the bureaucratic and go-by-the-book moderators that have prevented me from further changing the name of this article. Good Day, -- Steven Stone 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so hurt. I'm sorry if I come across as curt, or rude.
But I just don't understand where things like "the way it was meant to be written" come from. Припять is pronounced differently in Russian and Ukrainian, but neither pronunciation is at issue here. Wikipedia's official transliteration for Russian would make it Pripyat, and for Ukrainian Prypiat.
It happens to be a Ukrainian city. In Ukraine the official language is now Ukrainian, and there is an official transliteration system used to communicate place names internationally. Place names and their official spellings change over time. We don't have Stalingrad and Voroshilovgrad any more, nor Danzig nor New Amsterdam in the modern world. You haven't provided any solid reasons that I can see why this should not follow the same pattern as other Ukrainian place names. Michael Z. 2007-09-17 00:09 Z

Allright, bud, everything's fine. I don't feel hurt, I'm just aggravated. It's just the fact that it's most commonly known as Pripyat, and most commonly labeled as that name on sources and subjects all across the world. Back in earlier school years, when the Chernobyl Disaster came into the curriculum, my mentor added the word, "Pripyat, Ukraine" on the board, and we all knew it that way. If you look at the "move article survey", and compare how many Google Search results there were between Pripyat and Prypiat, you'll see what I mean. There are 302,000 results for Pripyat, and 25,600 results for Prypiat. It's just far more commonly known in the West as Pripyat, Ukraine. Even news reports use the name correctly. I'm just pointing out the fact that if other people, even in formal situations are using the "-pyat" ending, why shouldn't a popular online encyclopedia also have it that way? That's my question that hasn't been answered so far. G'Night, -- Steven Stone 04:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we now keep this conversation going here? -- Steven Stone 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's base the discussion on a neutral middle ground. When you make statements like "news reports use the name correctly", it quite sounds like you have already made up your mind what is "correct", and anything else is necessarily incorrect. Don't see much point in discussion then.
One might just as easily argue that Prypiat is the only correct name, since this is the romanized spelling according to official Ukrainian government policy, transliterated from the only official language of the country, and that your preferred spelling based on Russian is obsolete.
I think it's a mistake to say that either is strictly incorrect. They have both been perfectly acceptable in different contexts. I'm saying that Prypiat is more consistent with the naming of Ukrainian toponyms in Wikipedia.
In Wikipedia, the consensus has been to use traditional English spelling for very well known names (Kiev, Odessa, Crimea), and the official transliteration for others (Lviv, Kharkiv, Luhansk). One exception is Chernobyl, whose Russian version is strongly ingrained and widely used in western media and literature, but Pripyat is not nearly as well-known. Michael Z. 2007-09-20 00:31 Z

Allright, I guess I'm just going to have to go into more depth, then. I'm sure very much that anybody could argue against anything if they felt like it. All I'm saying is, formal news reports and more famous magazines such as National Geographic, 2006, titled "Chernobyl - 20 Years Later" or near it, use the spelling that I believe is correct in their context. I know that many newcomers to the subject would think, hey, we should go by the Ukrainian way of spelling it and so forth, but if you know well about it, and understand the historical interests about the town, you'd reconsider. It's not a Ukrainian city, it's a Soviet city, lost in time, and that's why people like to preserve the name, Pripyat. They want the area remembered, not by modern reality, but as a memoir of the Soviet Union during a historical tragedy. Take a look at what I've just said. It's not just about the surface of the subject, you've got to dig deep into it to pull out what's really right.

Now I can't keep trying to come to the top with all of this backfiring of ideas from "newbies" on the subject. I know what your saying, Michael, but this point is well arguable. The survey was voted, while I was out of reach of my computer, and those of whom voted were I'm sure complete newbies on the subject. I'm sure they had no thought about detail whatsoever, and just traced the surface. "Hmm, Pripyat, Ukraine, a Ukrainian city, huh? Well, we should keep it in the Ukrainian spelling." The people who wrote and edited the article, myself writing more than half and others adding on, understand what we're talking about. It's not about vague popularity or just because I think it's correct. It's about history, and detail. You've got to know these things before you write or name an article. You see what I'm saying? Please report back to me, and add other opinions into this discussion if anybody interested will. G'Night, -- Steven Stone 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're saying at all. Who are these people you refer to? Who, exactly, wants "the area remembered, not by modern reality, but as a memoir of the Soviet Union during a historical tragedy", apart from journalists who use the same Russian transcription from 1986 and have no interest in adding the issue of language and nationhood to their articles? Saying this is about "history, and detail" is colourful, but rather bereft of the basic elements of an argument.
On a tangent, I think your statements about "newbies" are misplaced. I've been aware of the disaster at Chornobyl since it hit the news in 1986. And I'm having trouble finding the part of the article's history showing that you wrote more than half of it. Michael Z. 2007-09-20 14:59 Z
This makes interesting reading, and the most frustrating thing (apart from the fact that in your own ways you are both right!) is that the Wikipedia guidelines don't help us here. But here's one plea: let's try to come up with a consistent final solution for former Soviet states which is generic enough (in principle) that we can propose adding to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), which currently covers only Russia (amongst the major former Soviet states).
On the specific of this present city, I'd recommend taking a look (if you can bear to) at the archived discussions regarding Kosovo. It's actually called Kosovës (transliterated to Kosova) by a considerable majority of the inhabitants, but because it's still technically in Serbia, and the UN recognises that, Wikipedia uses the transliteration from the (Cyrillic) Serb name, Kosovo. In other words, what the local people want, use, or have historical basis for, is simply not what we use. The official name, in terms of the official state language, is what has been decided on by considerable Wikipedia consensus. So in this present case, to be consistent and respectful of that consensus, we need to use the Ukrainian, not the Soviet, spelling. – Kieran T (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think creating such a guideline requires a survey of how such place names are dealt with throughout Wikipedia, and writing a summary. If any discrepancies are found, then we could resolve them in the appropriate forum. Lots of work. Michael Z. 2007-09-20 14:59 Z

First of all, Michael, don't you ever stand me up as a dirty liar. I wrote a majority of the article, and people added on. That is the truth. That point is irrelevant to this discussion, and if you do not want to be held against for Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks, I'd suggest you to drop that attitude immediately. This is a discussion, and I mean it to be without any backfires from other users, especially towards me. I also do not expect you to start searching for evidence to humiliate me for every single thing I say. So stop. I don't want to hear it.

Maybe a new guideline is necessary to preserve most formal names of articles as well as locations, historical figures, and others, but I'm sure the majority of the people here in the discussion do not have the same idea as I do. So we're going to have to take a different approach here, without any verbal gestures to humiliate others. Keep it calm here.

Also, remember that over 25 articles linking to Prypiat, Ukraine, still have the links spelled Pripyat, Ukraine, so I'd suggest you all to standardize something here, instead of creating a big brawl of an argument. So I suggest someone to do something here. Thanks. G'Day, -- Steven Stone 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the point is irrelevant, then why did you mention it? I just commented, quite calmly, that your statement is not supported by the facts available to me. Hardly a personal attack, but if you can point out your edits in the article history, I will gladly apologize.
I still don't understand what you meant earlier, or by the need for "a new guideline is necessary to preserve most formal names of articles...".
As to the links, Wikipedia is inconsistent. Maybe some of them are appropriate in their context, maybe some others should be corrected. (It looks to me that only about 15 out of 125 links are in question here.) That's how it goes around here, and I don't see any big brawls happening over this. Michael Z. 2007-09-20 21:20 Z

Look, I'm out of this. I don't want any more to have to do with this tangent of a conversation. I thought something could be worked out, I thought that other opinions would be helpful, but I've got nothing. I do think a new guideline for Wikipedia is necessary to preserve names of historical locations, figures, etcetera. It would prevent the use of modernization in names of titles in articles. But ah well, who cares now. I know exactly how things go around here, so I've had enough of this ongoing nonsense. Perhaps the problem is, Michael, that you aren't trying to understand, so you keep coming back to me to clarify my points numerous times. As for my article edits and writing, I think you can figure that out yourself without having to humiliate me with any more of this in-depth investigation. No need to apologize, just mind your profile, and who you are here in this encyclopedia. Will someone please write a final response to this thread, and release me from this ridiculous ongoing discussion that has only wasted my time and humiliated me. Thank you, and Good Day, -- Steven Stone 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian name Pripyat is "preserved" in the first line of the article. You seem to be suggesting that there be guidelines to prevent Wikipedia article titles from changing to keeping pace with prevailing usage in the English language, to serve "as a memoir". I doubt there would be much support for that, and it seems to be diametrically opposed to one of the most basic naming convention on using common names. I could be wrong, and you are certainly welcome to propose it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)Michael Z. 2007-09-21 01:00 Z

I'd like to thank you, Michael, and others, for accompanying me throughout this discussion. I'm beginning to understand the other views here. I'm just going to have to live with what we've got here, and adjust with what's right on the Wikipedia guidelines. I don't really feel like escalating this situation into any more detail, so I will not take this issue to the Wikipedia Talk: Naming Conventions forum. Once Again, Thanks, And Good Night, -- Steven Stone 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help here, the official name under Soviet rule was Pripyat. Like most places in Ukraine, the official name was changed under the Ukrainian government's Ukrainisation programme to Prypiat. In away it's similar to what's happened to Beijing / Peking or Mumbai / Bombay. Wikipedia policy is generally to use the new name in these circumstances, though invariably there are long heated discussions before these are finally accepted. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Re: After Chernobyl, first section, last sentence:

"Residents were only allowed to take away a suitcase full of documents, books and clothes that were not contaminated." Isn't it better to just write "Residents were only allowed to take away a suitcase full of documents, books and clothes."?

Or did they really check for non-contamination here? Greswik (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC) !


Should we change the graphic that is black and white and completely meaningless to the same graphic that is colored on the Chernobyl page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I've commented out all external links per WP:External Links and WP:NOT. This is an article about the town and not a link list for people who've shot photos there. The external links went mostly to private photo collections and/or foreign-language site or even promotional sites for tours (some were also one that belong in other articles). And yes, I checked each of the links before commenting out.

If you have an external link that meets WP:External Links, go ahead and add it. But please don't blanket-reinstate. Averell (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Is the Ukrainian transliteration Prip'yat given in the article correct? Shouldn't it be Pryp'iat according to the transliteration system we use in Wikipedia? (see Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian/National transliteration table. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move, March 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Prypiat (city)Prypiat — We do not need "(city)" as this is by far the most common usage of this word, and it is also only one on wiki, so, this should be routine move. Relisted. Jafeluv (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC) --WhiteWriter speaks 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose Well, apart from the river? and the marshes? This should be the main article, agreed. The article traffic is 4 times as much over a three month random sampled period and almost ten times as high in some peak uses. Perhaps someone can clarify what this god-damn awful statement means? "being the city of oblast-level subordination" If there is no Prypiat oblast/raion/misto the I will reconsider my oppose.

Hmm, so is the proposal really to move this article to Prypiat, or did you mean Pripyat? Jafeluv (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was unilaterally moved by User:Wfgiuliano on March 15, 3 days after WW's proposal [1], wrongly quoting "correct transliteration". Since we sort of established above that the Ukrainian transliteration, which is Prypiat, should be used, the desired target is indeed Prypiat, which is a status quo ante anyway. No such user (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Since that is the case, I've relisted this discussion for another week as the above arguments only refer to the disambiguation issue and not the choice of transliteration. Jafeluv (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Desired form really is Prypiat, as No such user explained. But i see here some kind of edit warring regarding correct form. Hope that this will be enough. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:32, 15 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Status as atomgrad?[edit]

Just cleaned yup a recent edit and noticed this claim. It seems dubious

  • Pripyat is not listed as an "atomgrad" on the page atomgrad
  • Pripyat was built to house the pwoer plant workers, but that's not what the atomgrad page defines atomgrads as (they're defined as closed cities for secret nuclear RD: There is little evidence that anything particularly secret was taking place at the CNPP or in Pripyat
  • Having spoken to a lot of people working in the Zone, some have stated that Pripyat was often "shown off" to visiting dignitaries / scientists from the west. This is hardly in fitting with the 'closed city' of atomgrads. But that falls under original research, so is not a reason to remove this.

Anyone have any more certain sources for what was designated an atomgrad, and whether Pripyat was one, or if it was just one of the many cities built to house workers?-- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 13:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Haven't heard about atomgrad before. Knew that there was closed cities but not that they had a name.
Anyway, i have been to the zone a lot of times, and the Ukranien guy that arranges my trips, used to work at the power plant, and he lived in Pripyat. (He's son is born in Pripyat, and he was working at reactor 3 the night of the accident, and today he lives in Slavutych)
He told me a lot of times that Pripyat was not a closed city. There was no restrictions on entering or leaving the city.
But i only have my word, no documented sources i can refer to. And most of the internet states otherwise.
(Big7000 18:17, 06 January 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Move? 2012[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. The move rationale is not convincing because this appears to be a variant spelling rather than a misspelling. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

– Misspelling, can't move myself because its a new account Sekkuar (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Multimove is preferable. The one depends on the other. Should be discussed jointly. RJFF (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved from speedy[edit]

  • Object this is why we have the RM process, why are you requesting a speedy move instead of a regular move? -- (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, I am not sure what you mean? The page says that if the only problem is spelling on the name, it doesn't have any reason not to be moved, I just didn't moved myself because I don't have enough user rights to do so, as stated above. Could you please explain what you mean about "RM proccess"? thanks. Sekkuar (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I mean this full discussion on the talk page, instead of what you chose to do, which was the speedy technical request. -- (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not just a misspelling. Pripyat is the Russian name, Prypiat the Ukrainian one. So this might be a POV thing that should be discussed thoroughly. Not just a technical request. --RJFF (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is discussed at great length above. The eventual consensus was to use the Ukrainian spelling Prypiat for the article on this very newsworthy ghost town. No new information to reopen this (endless) discussion has been presented. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


  • Comment why isn't this a multimove instead of two separate move discussions? -- (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I have created a multimove request. This has to be discussed jointly as the one move depends on the other. --RJFF (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2012 (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.

RFM to Pripyat (with better justification & references)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Prypiat may follow Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Ukrainian BUT this is is superceded by Pripyat which follows WP:COMMONNAME. See below for details. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 03:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


I realise this is not the first time this request has come up. Though the most recent one was inaccurate in labelling this as a misspelling.

Currently Pripyat takes you to a disamb. page that includes locations that are unlikely to be the desired result of a search or wikilink for Pripyat. (See above RFM where "(city)" was removed from the title of the page.

Move to Pripyat is requested per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Conventional_names and WP:COMMONNAME as well as Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name. The rationale is pretty much the same as the rationale that has the city of Kyiv located at Kiev. (The huge debate about Kiev / Kyiv can be found here: [2])

If anything, the rationale to move Prypiat to Pripyat is even more justified here than Kyiv: The city was no longer a settlement by the time Ukraine declared independence.


Prypiat is much less used in English language material. I base this assertion off of the past 4 years I've spent researching & working in the Zone for my PhD. I never saw any English materials (even official documents translated to English) use Prypiat. It was not uncommon, also, for otherwise Ukrainian texts to use the Russian spelling for the town. However, rather than my assertions, you can find below the usual tests.

Additionally, I think this common-name of Pripyat is reflected in the text of the page. The infobox has been the target for a persistent edit war between the two spellings yet almost all edits to the main body of the text stick with Pripyat.

Interestingly, translations on official government materials online favour Pripyat too:

  • Pripyat @ Google results for "": [3] ~ 1,580 Results
  • Prypiat @ Google results for "": [4] ~ 801 Results

Whatsmore, despite the UN having adopted the Ukrainian National system of 1996, UN documents consistently use the spelling Pripyat in reference to the town. I can provide links to pdfs if needed.

Put simply: Pripyat is much more common in all English-language materials. It is also more commonly used as the English spelling in official documents from the Ukraine government and the UN

The Usual Tests[edit]

  • Pripyat @ Google Scholar: [5] ~ 3,780 Results
  • Prypiat @ Google Scholar: [6] ~ 294 Results
  • Pripyat @ Google Scholar (C21st): [7] ~ 2,200 Results
  • Prypiat @ Google Scholar (C21st): [8] ~ 225 Results
  • Pripyat @ Google Books: [9] ~ 40,100 Results
  • Prypiat @ Google Books: [10] ~ 2,270 Results
  • Pripyat @ Google Books (C21st): [11] ~ 8,240 Results
  • Prypiat @ Google Books (C21st): [12] ~ 1,080 Results
  • Pripyat @ Google News: [13] ~ 669 Results
  • Prypiat @ Google News: [14] ~ 54 Results
  • Pripyat @ books: [15] 53 Results
  • Prypiat @ books: [16] 9 Results

It should also be noted that many results for Pypiat actually include books / article titled using Pripyat. Prime example is Polidori's Zones of Exclusion photo collection, which appears in searches for both spellings. --Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 03:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you able to give a breakdown of the figures for references published over, say, the last 5 years, to ensure that those figures do not include the period when this was in the Soviet Union? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Ib the above figures, (C21st) = 21st Century results. --Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 12:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


  • Weak support - this (in C21st GB and GS) isn't overwhelming as Chernobyl/Chornobyl, however given that it's a ghost town named after the Russian Pripyat River just over the border, and since there will never be an active living Ukranian town "Pripiat", can go with the move. As long as its absolutely clear that this is an exception. The only exonym for Ukraine is Kiev, not even Polish Lviv/Lvov. Chernobyl/Pripyat are just two towns stuck in time in the Soviet Union. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A very well presented case, showing that Pripyat is WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (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.

Swimming pool?[edit]

The caption on the first swimming pool photo reads "The Pripyat swimming pool was still in active use in 1996, a decade after the Chernobyl incident." Is "active use" the result of poor translation? I can't imagine people were coming by to go swimming in 96.

I thought that, but apparently it was in use by the workers clearing up the reactor for some time after the evacuation. Britmax (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant[edit]

Is the now-defunct Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant located within the administrative boundaries of Pripyat? The opening paragraph mentions it's located nearby, but I figure that could just as easily mean the main settlement of the city. It needs to be clarified whether or not the plant lies within the boundaries of the city. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)