Talk:Dnipropetrovsk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, High-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

What is needed for the move to happen?[edit]

I hope everyone realizes that in the end the article will be moved (unless the city is renamed back but that is not the thing I am about to talk).
Could anyone please tell the conditions? How many citations of reliable sources will be enough? So that one day I could come back to this talk page, put a list of references and request the move that will be proceeded smoothly. Please take me seriously. --Ата (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Smiley.svg Read Talk:Dnipropetrovsk#Requested move 17 July 2016. It says "let usage evolve and revisit the issue after a year". So why not propose the move for the third time on 3rd August 2017. And yes, I firmly expect that one day the article will be moved... to Dnepropetrovsk Smiley.svg -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
And it also has a question mark after this sentence. Year is a very long period of time. --Ата (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I think third request for move can be opened without waiting for a year. As for now, there are a lot of evidence for a new name usage. Everything, related to Eurovision uses it - [1], [2]. Also, the following references show widespread usage of a new name in English: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Actually, my personal opinion that the Rada's decision is quite enough to change the name of an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The Rada's decision is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the English language Wikipedia. You clearly have no understanding of WP:COMMONNAME. This isn't the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Three requests in three months is a waste of Wikipedia time. Why don't you actually do something productive? Waiting a year is nothing in Wikipedia. Instead of predicting that a change may happen, just act like an adult and wait for it to happen. --Taivo (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Let say that you should learn a rules of polite discussion. This essay may help you with this. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there are examples of name changes that were made quite quickly. For exaxmple Bakhmut, Kamianske, Chornomorsk changed the names in 2016 and almost immediately articles were renamed. An older change - Staines-upon-Thames was renamed from Staines and renamed here almost instantly. I assume it's quite a logical approach, when a sovereign changes the name of something on it's territory and the news sources start using that name, gradually increasing the amount of reliable sources we can use here. No one can say that Eurovision related sources are not reliable. And I don't see any WP:CRYSTALBALL here. And one more fact - the article is renamed not only in Ukrainian wikipedia. The new name is in German, Russian ( !!! ), Hebrew, French and many others. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
And perhaps rather than wasting Wikipedia time once a month with another move request, you find more constructive things to do that actually improve the encyclopedia rather than pushing the Rada's bidding. And it doesn't matter one whit what the other Wikipedias do. All that matters is English common name. Period. No one said that Eurovision reporting wasn't reliable. But that is not the sum of English common usage. And none of the other examples you cited were major cities. Kiev and Odessa are still not at Ukrainian language locations because of English common usage. Dnipro is not a hole-in-the-wall. It is a major city and its name occurs in English language sources. Are you so impatient that you have to move as fast as possible after the Rada dictates? Waiting for a time is appropriate to see where English common usage moves with respect to the name of this city. Two months is not an eternity. One year is not an eternity. After a year, English common usage will be crystal clear. You don't win points for moving this article as fast as possible. --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the change is not using Ukrainian name vs. not Ukrainian, but a complete change of the name. In case of change from Dnipropetrovsk to something like Dnypropetrovsk, I would agree with you. Kiev and Odessa are the way city names pronounced in English. But, anyway, at this point I can do only one productive thing here, which is excuse myself from discussing things with you, since you clearly don't understand a polite way of having a discussion. Wasting time is the continuation of talking to you. I will allow to myself to disagree with your point of view and end my interaction at this point. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like that despite consensus to move, it'll keep being held up in wiki-bureaucracy because it's not unanimous, held up by the old timers fighting the reality of the name change and it's clear use in English media since. Also I think Taivo is being a little disingenuous here, I looked at his "list" of Dnipropetrovsk used in current sources and they were all travel sites that just hadn't been updated yet - one page was from 2011. This is just shady sourcing to pad numbers. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to study WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a majority vote. It is agreement and there is no agreement here. It doesn't matter whether the "old timers" disagree or not. There is no consensus that English common usage has changed. Surely there is some evidence that it is beginning to change, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the change is not particularly widespread at this time. Eliminate the publicity about Eurovision and there is very, very little evidence of the change yet. So just learn the meaning of the word "patience". We will revisit the issue in the near future (not next month, but several months from now). By then the situation in English usage may be clearer, but for now there is enough doubt to not bow to the will of the Rada just because they say so. --Taivo (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Double standards Mr Toivo (DnipropetrovskKamianske). --ValeriySh (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Spelling lessons, Mr. ValeriySh. And it's not a "double standard". It's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kamianske is a location that doesn't have a common English name because it is never mentioned in English outside Wikipedia. Dnipro is not in that category. It is a major city and occurs in English media outside Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That is not strictly true, Dneprodzerzhinsk is mentioned in biographies of (1) Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and (2) Vera Brezhneva because they were born there. However, Kamianske is the historic name - when Brezhnev was born, the city was not Dneprodzerzhinsk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile nothing to do then to wait

I'm actually hoping that the city will host the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 and then in English media will massively be referred to as "Dnipro". Lol1.png If such a thing would happen then waiting another year to rename this article will be rather silly.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment. This whole discussion is, pardon me for such word, stupid and as ValeriySh said has double standards all over it. The article was not moved due to the fact that some members of Wikipedia do not want to face the reality. They live in their own "Wikipedia World" coming up with weird rules about what is mentioned and not as well as counting Google hits instead of expressing the truth. Same type of editors came out back in 2014 editing bunch of self-invented articles about various separatist states and political parties. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
CCB sad emoticon.jpg Wikipedia is a terrible place to be a truther. I am sorry that you do not like the "weird rules", that require a neutral point of view, verifiability and no cherry-picking of sources. It is imperfect and frustrating.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Toddy1, you need to keep your unnecessary empathy to yourself. What you just called weird rules, I have no problem and the cherry-picking is what you do. Let's be truthful to each other. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Did the majority of votes on the issue called for move or not? So, what are we still discussing here? It only will cause more conflicts on Wikipedia. Is that your goal? Is that the Wikipedia's goal? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Was the issue connected to a systematic changes that were taking place in Ukraine as part of decommunization? Yes, it was. The statement that the name change took place only in Ukrainian language is wrong. The name was changed regardless of language. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
For the changes to the city's name voted the Dnipro city's council, majority of which is composed of Russophone and pro-Russian citizens of Dnipro city. Even the city's portal says Welcome to Dnipro City! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Dnipro is the city's name on Google Maps. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Will you be proposing that the article on Kamianske be renamed Dniprodzerzhyns'k on the basis that that is the name used by Google Maps?-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


@Aim4accuracy: What is needed? I will repeat what I wrote in different section which is now closed: Look how city itself presents in English language - official city pages, airport, football club, brochures... oblast name... Why is name of football club still with "old" name which carries most of city references!!! It would help a LOT if city itself presented consistently, now it is a mess (something renamed, most same as before). Ask them, not Wikipedia, to change first. Write e-mail and persuade airport, metro, landmarks, etc... to loudly promote Dnipro, Dnieper or whatever they want to be called in English. So let them show us that it is meant seriously and new name is visible where it should be visible IN THE CITY ITSELF. Now it is not. They renamed it on paper (in law) but "city sign" on the road remained the same (well maybe not city sign, but we found lots of examples). No propaganda reasons involved, only sloppiness of execution in the city itself. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This POV push on this talk page is too obvious. First, airport name is Dnepropetrovsk airport. The airport doesnt automatically follow the name of the city it is based in, it has its own name that hasnt been changed. Vienna International Airport is based in town of Schwechat, not Vienna but we are not renaming Schwechat into Vienna because of that. Second, we are not discussing airport here, we are discussing city here. Fourth, you cannot throw around all the time arguments that what matters is common name and then argue with official names that you dismissed in the same post. Its hypocritical.
Football club name is FC Dnipro, name of metro is Dnipro metro as it falls under Ministry of Transportation, not City Hall, landmarks names are landmark names.
Morever, we have to follow WP:NAMECHANGES, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, the COMMONNAME section of this page still applies, but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME.
So, lets have a quick look at Google News that generally includes WP:RS. "Dnipro" searches in all articles since 19/05/2016 gives us 37,400 results. "Dnipropetrovsk" 4770 results. Meaning that nearly 90 percent of articles about the city in post-renaming period, as per Wiki rules, use name Dnipro as opposed to Dnipropetrovsk. The latter actually in vast majority reffers to region, and not city, which has its own wiki page.
As a result, your argument is invalid, strongly on side of POV, and current situation is nonsensical and it is difficult to not feel politics behind the furious defense of the keepign the current name. While discussion last year rationale was to wait and see if WP:RS will pick up, now a year after renaming we can see crystal clear trend of reliable sources to name the city as "Dnipro". EllsworthSK (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep your POV rant to yourself and assume good faith on the part of all editors involved here. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I want to oppose you just because of your arrogance and rudeness accusing me of POV. But the evidence does seem to indicate that English-language sources have switched the name of the city to Dnipro (although not the region) over the last year. --Taivo (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I havent been even reacting on you, but if you cannot even remain civil, which is basic requirement for any wiki editor, you should seriously think about WP:WIKIBREAK. Though its good to see that despite that you can acknowledge the shift in RS reports regarding the city based on evidence. I recommend opening another move proposal while notifying all those who participated in previous two discussions. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Before you get defensive, User:EllsworthSK, remember that it was you who started the personal attacks with, "As a result, your argument is invalid, strongly on side of POV, and current situation is nonsensical and it is difficult to not feel politics behind the furious defense of the keepign the current name." Remove the personal attack at the front end and the last half of your comment is perfectly appropriate. You have to be careful on this page. There is not a single, solitary editor here who is pro-Russian (which is what you are implying) or that supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those of us who have a personal POV are all on the same side--pro-Ukraine--so accusations of political bias are not only unwarranted, but offensive. But we don't edit Wikipedia through our personal bias. We follow the procedures and standards of Wikipedia. I suggest you do the same and assume that the rest of us do as well. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are showing exactly what you are accusing me of and I will not play this game. You didnt once discuss the article, nor its proposed changes, only me. Think about WP:WIKIBREAK. And to add something actually contributing, I will tomorrow open discussion for move. If you have any other suggestions, please write it here. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You have clearly not read anything here from the past to accuse me of not discussing the article. And your continued self-righteous false indignation is inappropriate. It is not I who needs a WP:WIKIBREAK, but you. You seem to be of the opinion that if anyone disagrees with you, then they are motivated by a negative POV. If you are incapable of WP:AGF, then you need to do something else with your life besides editing Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, Im not interested in your attacks. If you are unable toto act civil, do a favor to others and at least bring it to my talkpage and don't pollute this discussion with this ramble. If you are interested in actual discussion regarding the article, I am willing to listen. But not to your attacks that above all tarnish your own reputation,such as it is. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You are the one who started the attacks, so perhaps you need to take a dose of your own medicine. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
We're done here. Hope you will be able to stay on topic in reopened discussion. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
And I hope that you will be able to get on topic without trying to impute political agendas to those with opposing points of view based on Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Your accusations are nonsense. No politics, I just say it is hard to change Wikipedia IF city itself DOES NOT use the name (or does not use it consistently). So airport will still be Dnipropetrovsk and it does not bother you? And Oblast will be Dnipropetrovsk? Is THAT a politics issue then too?!? If Dnipropetrovsk is so eww name for you, why only as a name of city but another uses are OK? THAT is hypocritical. BUT if it is true that English sources now use Dnipro, prove it and move can be done. But it should be common articles and sources, not news about renaming itself. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It does not bother me. And as for proofs, Google News clicks I added are a proof. I will wirte more in reopened discussion later today and you are welcome to counter-argument with your sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It does not bother you? So your only purpose is to change it on Wikipedia, and it does not matter if it is used in real life or not. Nice. Or you hope that once it is changed on Wikipedia, everybody will follow :) I can find 100 sources supporting change to, but I may find 1000 opposite sources. You may save us some work, be honest and present real usage in percents ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2016[edit]

Two socks indeffed, nothing more is expected to come out of this thread--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I open this discussion, becous in the name 'Dnipro (Town)' is better then 'Dnipropetrovsk', i think... 0x0F (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times this year and the consensus is to wait a few months to see if the new name catches on in English. --Taivo (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
French, German, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and Turkish versions of Wikipedia have already changed it. The reason why this version hasn't changed yet is artificial and politically motivated kafkaesque obstruction from the pro-Russian lobby. Aim4accuracy (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It does not matter what Dnepropetrovsk is called in foreign languages, it only matters what it is called in the English language. As for the notion of a pro-Russian lobby influencing decisions, well if they did then English-language Wikipedia would have followed the lead of Russian-language Wikipedia; it has done the opposite and stuck with the most commonly used word for the city's name in the English language (albeit with the "i" spelling, instead of the "e" spelling).-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And in English language the city of Dnipro is called Dnipro. Like Zaporizhia or Kharkiv. Also, I like how you said "they", speaking about the pro-Russian lobby =) Very subtle. "English-language Wikipedia would have followed the lead of Russian-language Wikipedia". -> Not necessarily. Difference between internal and external propaganda in Russia can be striking. Aim4accuracy (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about. In English transliteration, the new name of the city is "Dnipro" of course. But that's immaterial. What is important is the name that English language sources and media use. The most commonly used name is still "Dnipropetrovsk" from the sources that we have. One or two sources changing usage is not a valid argument for changing Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME. There are still many English language sources that use "Dnipropetrovsk" and "Dnepropetrovsk". The situation may change. It may change soon. It may change in the distant future. ("Kiev" has never changed. Indeed, many sources that started using "Kyiv" for a time have actually switched back to common English "Kiev".) But until it changes, we follow Wikipedia policies and procedures and retain "Dnipropetrovsk" as the name of the article. The decision of the Rada makes no difference. The decision of the Dnipro city council makes no difference. The decision of the US and UK governments make no difference. The only thing that matters is common English usage. For example, here is a new web site that uses "Dnepropetrovsk". --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"Indeed, many sources that started using "Kyiv" for a time have actually switched back to common English "Kiev"." - Any proofs? Dotoner (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is an example of the New York Times using "Kyiv" in 2013. But in 2016, they are using "Kiev" (except in proper names like "Kyiv Post" and "Dynamo Kyiv") as here. --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there was a shift to "Kyiv" in 2013 at the NYT as there are articles with "Kyiv" dated even 2004. Rather, the journalists were free to use the variant they want, but from 2014 editors started controlling this issue. But ok, let's count it as 0.5. What are the rest of those "many sources"? Dotoner (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. This isn't the Kiev renaming page in any case. My point is the same. The English name of Kiev is "Kiev" and "Kyiv" is just a Ukrainian transliteration. A large number of style guides and geographic references recognize this. But this is the page for Dnipro(petrovsk). --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
1. Then why Zaporizhia and Kharkiv? Old, russified names - Zaporozhye and Kharkov - are more common in Google news, for example. Yet, English Wikipedia uses correct names instead. 2. English language sources like encyclopedias, official sites, geo servers and other official and serious sources, they use correct names. The only inert thing here is media that uses outdated names(probably because of Wikipedia itself in part), and not even always. Nowhere in the rules it is said that media must be more important than all other sources combined. Nowhere. It is just one of them. Also Dnipro is an important industrial city, so people would mostly read about it through serious sources for serious business. Your "new site" "evidence" is not evidence, and not even illustration. Aim4accuracy (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
How about you read it yourself? WP:OTHERSTUFF states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Aim4accuracy (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
New name is already accepted in Google Earth and Google map. Must be changed here. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
In addition, the name is already changed in almost all other Wikis, including German, French, Russian and Italian. There is no indication it's going to be changed back, so I think we need to change it here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Google Earth and Google Maps are not common English usage. Again, we've already discussed this within the last couple of months and the consensus was to wait a few months to see if English usage actually changes. --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Political position about official city name?
Just funny (or pity) to watch as the refusal to recognize the official renaming of the city does not allow to part with the old name and rename a significant article about the fourth most populous city in Ukraine.
Renaming officially passed a long time ago, it used all the international sites like Google's services and other language editions of Wikipedia, but why don't here? Awaiting for 40 years?
It is a pity, because even find a city in Wikipedia under the new name through the search is hard. Many people who are not versed in the subject, will not understand how the city is called in reality. And many people use the Wikipedia for fast check spelling or their knowledge.
This page is misleading and does not reflect reality - the official renaming by national Parliament. Right now nothing does not change, and if will do - Wikipedia should follow for changes reality, and do not freeze their vision. Wikipedia is undermining its authority by the fact that make political position in this case.
-- Victor Babenko (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That the commonly used name for a place in one language is different from the name in another language is not particularly unusual - try visiting Belgium or Italy. This is English-language Wikipedia, so we use the generally accepted English-language name Dnepropetrovsk or Dnipropetrovsk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
But Dnepropetrovsk or Dnipropetrovsk? Why two, not one? If there are two names, may there be also three?.. I understand, the one was earlier, the other occurred later (since Ukraine's independence). So, is there a precedent of the city name evolving!? Is it not time for evolving into Dnipro, now?--Slovolyub (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That is not generally accepted English-language name. Unfortunately, it is your personal subjective vision.
Compare with Zaporizhia vs Zaporozye (even without renaming), Bakhmut vs Artemovsk, Horishni Plavni vs Komsomolsk, Kharkiv vs Kharkov (same as Zaporizhia), Nikolske vs Volodarske, Kamianske vs Dniprodzerzhynsk, Pokrov, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast vs Ordzhonikidze, Toretsk vs Dzerzhynsk, Oleshky vs Tsuryupynsk, Chornomorsk vs Illichivsk and even Kropyvnytskyi vs Kirovohrad! And many other, a lot of examples!
Dnipro is an exception throughout all renamed list of names. Why so? This city is not the touristic or international commerce center as Kyiv (Kiev) or Odesa (Odessa). Even Kharkiv was renamed to ukrainian transliteration by Wikipedia community.
The explanation for this is only one - political position. There is no reason for this city to be special in the renamed list.
The English-language Wikipedia should give full information to readers. There is not "generally accepted English-language name" for this city in the English-speaking world because it is not very popular in the world. "Generally accepted English-language name" is that people will see on the map, in official press-announces (example of Eurovision) and here - in Wikipedia! And you know this ;) That's why sabotaging renaming.
So now the article is misleading. I think, calling article Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) might be a compromise if you think that the former name is so firmly entrenched in world culture and inextricably linked with it.
But my examples with renamed list of names is clearly shows that "Dnipro En-Wikipedia question" with a high probability is only a political position of individual editors.
---Victor Babenko (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Victor, all you reveal is that you are unfamiliar with Dnepropetrovsk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Show to English Wikipedia what is this town called in English sources. How can we know that it is called Dnipro? Dnipro is simple transliteration, it means practically nothing (it means something for places not present in English sources at all). Google maps uses Dnipropetrovsk see. No politics at all, new name must be promoted elsewhere first. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually Google map uses Dnipro. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Which one? Ukrainian? Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The one you referenced to.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, it may be browser or language settings thing. And what do you get if you click to "Dnipro" or write "Dnipro" into "search google maps"? For me it is changes to "Dnipropetrovsk". Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I get "Dnipro, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Ukraine". I am based in the Netherlands.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
For me "Dnjepropetrovsk" if I use NL Google in NL language. I specifically used google.co.uk, search language English and it showed me Dnipropetrovsk. Google maps won't be decisive either way.... Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's see: www.google.co.uk - search request "dnepropetrovsk city": About 2,910,000 results, search request "dnipropetrovsk city": About 5,300,000 results, search request "dnipro city": About 6,400,000 results. Search request "dnepr city" or "dniepr city" refers to the river and to all cities on the river, so doesn't mean something.
But it's true, even after request "dnipro city" Google will show map with "Dnipro" label on it and big title under it: "Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine".
If expand it by clicking, you'll see: Dnipropetrovsk or Dnepropetrovsk, is Ukraine's fourth largest city, with about one million inhabitants. It is 391 kilometres southeast of the capital Kiev on the Dnieper River, in the south-central part of Ukraine. Wikipedia
Google take this label from English Wikipedia! So, Wikipedia cannot be an information source for itself.
In the results (https://www.google.co.uk/#q=dnipro+city) there are tourist sites, weather sites, and news about the renaming and about the Eurovision Song Contest. Most of them came from Ukrainian sources, yes. But exactly the same we'll see with the "Dnipropetrovsk city" request.
In fact, this city is not on the agenda of the English-speaking media, as well as any city from the list I brought in the example above.
Will the community of Wikipedia to wait until there will be something resonant for English-language media so they will come into it and write materials? Or apply to this city the same approach, as well as to all other cities from the list above?
Moreover, the search results show its new name "Dinpro" (not counting results from Wikipedia) even for "Dnepropetrovsk city" request: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Dnipropetrovsk+city
——Victor Babenko (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the rationale behind not to change the name about half a year ago was was to see if the new name is being used widely. Now, we do need to take into account that it's not one of the most mentioned Ukrainian cities in the English language press. The main support for a change was using the name "Dnipro" at all Eurovision related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It's probably the only event we are going to relate to the city in years to come and all related articles mentions Dnipro, not Dnipropetrovsk. In addition, the are newer articles in news outlets, referring to the city as Dnipro: 1, 2, 3, [10]. Also, as we saw Google maps use Dnipro and well as following cites: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. In addition, the only mentioning of Dnipropetrovsk lately is related to football club FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, in which Dnipropetrovsk a part of the name. In football to change the name of a team is quite a different story. Also, the second rate after Ukrainian, the city is mentioned in Russian language news and cites. What do we see there. The article is renamed in Russian wikipedia as well as news search in Russian: [16]. So, I am still positive it's time to rename article here and I do agree Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) may be quite a consensus for a while with redirection from Dnipro, Dnipropetrovsk to it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Eurovision as main reason? Funny. Show as how city itself presents in English language - official city pages, airport, football club, brochures... Why is Oblast still with "old" name?! Why is name of football club still with "old" name which carries most of city references! It would help a LOT if city itself presented consistently, now it is a mess. Ask them, not Wikipedia, to change first. What did other wikipedias in their language is not relevant, each is considering sources in its language. Also google results are irrelevant, google results in English are important. Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) - it would be against naming conventions. What about similar pages - Dnipropetrovsk Metro would be Dnipro Metro (former Dnipropetrovsk Metro)? Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, lets look what do we have:
Official city webpage: [17]. Called welcome to Dnipro city.
Official airport cite: [18]. Dnepropetrovsk. But, interesting that Skyscanner and Orbitz refers to it as Dnipro airport and the airport cite does not look updated for a long time.
Official city news portal: [19]. Dnepr.
I am not sure the city is that popular tourist destination to have brochures, at least I didn't find anything on any cites, but lets look at popular travel cites:
Lonely Planet: [20]. Dnipro.
Expedia: [21]. Dnipro
Travelocity: [22]. Dnipro
Orbitz: [23]. Dnipro
Football club is called Dnipro and the main arena is called Dnipro Arena. [24]
As for oblast name, this is usual in post Soviet countries. Take into example Saint Petersburg in Leningrad Oblast, Yekaterinburg in Sverdlovsk Oblast.
And the last one, don't diminish Eurovision. It's a major European event and the biggest, that was associated with the city in years to come probably. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The city is called the same as the river in Ukrainian, should not the same logic be applied to English as well - Dnieper?
Probably yes, but not "Dnepropetrovsk". Article in Russian uses the same name as a river. I do agree with you here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
So - Travel sites - are these the most popular, or you chose the ones which supports you cause?
Please, do not be mistaken, I don't have cause here. I am merely an encyclopedist, discussing a matter with a fellow colleagues. And yes, travel site I choose as an example are most popular. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What about main tourist attractions in the city and their sites in English?
There is no many tourist attraction on the city, having an English website. What I could find is Menorah Center - It's written there that it's in the City of Dnepr, which is another transcription of Dniepr; Planetarium - the site is on Ukrainian, but calls city Dnipro. Again, it's not a world Mecca of tourism, so it quite hard to find english language pages for small amount of attractions there.
Airport - too bad, airport is surely more important than that eurovision. Write them not here.
I don't think you're getting a point. We're not arguing, we're discussing, so I don't need to write anyone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What about city public transport? Is it Dnipro Metro? It is not. Write them not here.
Urban Rail calls it Dnipro Metro. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Football club - site logo says "Dnepropetrovsk". Write them not here.
Oblast - if the renaming was meant seriously, then this must be changed too. (constitution issue, as written below)
As I said and showed examples above - oblast and city are different things. Surely you're not going to propose reverting Saint Petersburg to Leningrad, because Leningrad Oblast wasn't renamed as Saint Petersburg oblast.
In conclusion - if the city wants to be called Dnipro on Wiki, it should present as "Dnipro" outside Wikipedia as well and do something about it. Don't tell us that Dnipro is now official and that it is confusing that Wiki does not say it. What IS confusing - You travel to Dnipro, you end up on airport Dnipropetrovsk, then take Dnipropetrovsk Metro, visit Dnepropetrovsk FC Dnipro, see river Dnieper and read newspaper Dnepr. Wiki won't solve this and is not the first to be done. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
In my conclusion, city does not want anything from Wiki. We are discussing what we, Wikipedians want to see here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Leningrad - Petersburg: No, the other way around. If UA passed "decommunisation" law to get rid of unfitting names, they should do it with Oblast too, otherwise it is breaking its own law in the first place. As you can see you found multiple transcriptions of the name used, it is a mess. Yes we are discussing and I don't say you specifically force something - but if someone else wants to force wikipedia to rename, they should do it in the city first and properly, write e-mail and persuade airport, metro, landmarks, etc... to loudly promote Dnipro, Dnieper or whatever they want to be called in English. Metro - the logo in Ukrainian says [Dnipropetrovskyi] so I doubt English name would be the new one. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
but the Leningrad oblast wasn't renamed and stayed as is and no one forced anyone to do it. And again, I don't want anything but to establish what we do here and either we leave it as is or change. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are we talking about Leningrad as example of illogical Oblast names, that's Russia. Ukraine went its own way - to loudly get rid of old name. So let them show us that it is meant seriously and new name is visible where it should be visible. Now it is not, as we established. They renamed it on paper but "city sign" on the road remained the same (well maybe not city sign, but we found lots of examples). Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The name has not really changed for normal people. They carry on calling the city Dnepropetrovsk and Dnipropetrovsk. Today there was the announcement of the winner of a competition - the winner was identified as being from Dnipropetrovsk [sic]. For political people in Ukraine, the name has perhaps changed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we're in position to talk about "normal" and "political" people. As encyclopedists, we operate facts, and facts only. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The oblast wasn't renamed because it's mentioned in the Constitution. The preparations for change are being made, but it seems the parliament wants to vote for a single package of amendments, which will also include changes concerning judicial reform and decentralization. Dotoner (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Arthistorian1977 claimed that "the airport cite does not look updated for a long time." But http://dnk.aero/en/ had the news last updated on 28 December 2016:
Dear guests, partners and colleagues!
Congratulations to you and your family Happy New Year and Merry Christmas!
In this, the most magical holiday of the year, we wish first of all wish-fulfillment!
Let this New Year become the special for you! Let the most desirable dreams will come true, unexpected and glad events will happen, and life will be filled with love, kindness and light!
Successes to you, happiness and prosperity!
With best regards
International airport “Dnepropetrovsk”
The part of the airport website for flights is updated all through the day. That is part of its purpose to tell customers about arrival and departure flights, whether they are late, etc. The name is not an accident, it is the real name in the English language.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This thread should be closed. The two single-purpose accounts have not convinced established editors that the English name for Dnipro has changed. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Climate[edit]

@Carnby: Thanks for correcting the climate data in the article.[25][26] If you look at the archives of the talk page as recommended by Paulandys, you will see that Ssbbplayer and I both calculated the Köppen-Geiger climate classifications from climate data and the Köppen-Geiger climate classification formulae. Depending on which data set we used, we got Dfa (1981–2010 data) or Dfb (1951–2000 data).-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

We may add this information. In fact, Dnipropetrovsk is borderline Dfa/Dfb using 1981-2010 dataset, due to July temperature slightly above the 22°C limit by Köppen. But yes, taking a different 30-year period it might fall under Dfb.--Carnby (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Weather box based on measurements[edit]

Climate data for Dnipropetrovsk
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C (°F) 12.3
(54.1)
17.5
(63.5)
24.1
(75.4)
31.8
(89.2)
36.1
(97)
37.8
(100)
39.8
(103.6)
40.9
(105.6)
36.5
(97.7)
32.6
(90.7)
20.6
(69.1)
16.3
(61.3)
40.9
(105.6)
Average high °C (°F) −1.0
(30.2)
0.0
(32)
6.0
(42.8)
15.2
(59.4)
22.1
(71.8)
25.6
(78.1)
28.0
(82.4)
27.5
(81.5)
21.5
(70.7)
13.8
(56.8)
5.1
(41.2)
0.2
(32.4)
13.7
(56.7)
Daily mean °C (°F) −3.6
(25.5)
−3.4
(25.9)
1.8
(35.2)
9.7
(49.5)
16.2
(61.2)
19.9
(67.8)
22.1
(71.8)
21.4
(70.5)
15.6
(60.1)
8.9
(48)
2.0
(35.6)
−2.4
(27.7)
9.0
(48.2)
Average low °C (°F) −6.1
(21)
−6.3
(20.7)
−1.6
(29.1)
4.9
(40.8)
10.6
(51.1)
14.6
(58.3)
16.7
(62.1)
15.8
(60.4)
10.7
(51.3)
5.0
(41)
−0.6
(30.9)
−4.7
(23.5)
4.9
(40.8)
Record low °C (°F) −30.0
(−22)
−27.8
(−18)
−19.2
(−2.6)
−8.2
(17.2)
−2.4
(27.7)
3.9
(39)
5.9
(42.6)
3.9
(39)
−3.0
(26.6)
−8.0
(17.6)
−17.9
(−0.2)
−27.8
(−18)
−30.0
(−22)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 45
(1.77)
43
(1.69)
43
(1.69)
38
(1.5)
42
(1.65)
60
(2.36)
54
(2.13)
43
(1.69)
41
(1.61)
37
(1.46)
46
(1.81)
47
(1.85)
539
(21.22)
Average rainy days 9 8 11 13 13 13 12 9 10 11 12 11 132
Average snowy days 16 15 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 15 64
Average relative humidity (%) 88 85 79 67 62 66 65 62 70 77 87 88 75
Source: Pogoda.ru.net[1]

Weather box based on model-generated data[edit]

Climate data for Dnipropetrovsk, (1996–2015 normals,[a] extremes 1879–present)[b]
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C (°F) 12.3
(54.1)
17.5
(63.5)
24.1
(75.4)
31.8
(89.2)
36.1
(97)
37.8
(100)
39.8
(103.6)
40.9
(105.6)
36.5
(97.7)
32.6
(90.7)
20.6
(69.1)
16.3
(61.3)
40.9
(105.6)
Mean maximum °C (°F) 10.6
(51.0)
14.5
(58.1)
21.2
(70.2)
26.7
(80.1)
31.6
(88.8)
36.5
(97.7)
38.6
(101.5)
37.4
(99.4)
34.3
(93.7)
27.8
(82.0)
19.4
(67.0)
12.2
(54.0)
39
(102.2)
Average high °C (°F) 2.2
(36)
4.2
(39.6)
12.1
(53.8)
16.4
(61.5)
22.2
(72)
28.3
(82.9)
32.5
(90.5)
30.8
(87.4)
26.2
(79.2)
18.2
(64.8)
9.7
(49.5)
3.2
(37.8)
17.2
(63)
Daily mean °C (°F) −1.8
(28.8)
−0.6
(30.9)
5.6
(42.1)
10.7
(51.3)
15.5
(59.9)
21.0
(69.8)
25.1
(77.2)
24.1
(75.4)
19.0
(66.2)
11.7
(53.1)
5.2
(41.4)
−0.5
(31.1)
11.4
(52.5)
Average low °C (°F) −5.8
(21.6)
−5.3
(22.5)
0.7
(33.3)
5.0
(41)
8.8
(47.8)
13.6
(56.5)
17.6
(63.7)
17.4
(63.3)
11.7
(53.1)
5.2
(41.4)
0.8
(33.4)
−3.8
(25.2)
5.5
(41.9)
Mean minimum °C (°F) −14.1
(6.6)
−12.6
(9.4)
−6.1
(21.0)
−1.8
(28.8)
1.4
(34.5)
6.3
(43.3)
12.8
(55.1)
11.2
(52.2)
4.4
(39.9)
−1.2
(29.9)
−8.6
(16.6)
−13.5
(7.7)
−17.2
(1.0)
Record low °C (°F) −30.0
(−22)
−27.8
(−18)
−19.2
(−2.6)
−8.2
(17.2)
−2.4
(27.7)
3.9
(39)
5.9
(42.6)
3.9
(39)
−3.0
(26.6)
−8.0
(17.6)
−17.9
(−0.2)
−27.8
(−18)
−30.0
(−22)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 45
(1.77)
43
(1.69)
43
(1.69)
38
(1.5)
42
(1.65)
60
(2.36)
54
(2.13)
43
(1.69)
41
(1.61)
37
(1.46)
46
(1.81)
47
(1.85)
539
(21.22)
Average snowfall cm (inches) 9.4
(3.7)
6.6
(2.6)
2.3
(0.91)
0.5
(0.2)
0.0
(0)
0.0
(0)
0.0
(0)
0.0
(0)
0.0
(0)
0.3
(0.12)
3.3
(1.3)
9.4
(3.7)
31.5
(12.4)
Average precipitation days 10.2 9.5 9.9 9.5 9.0 5.6 4.5 5.6 5.8 7.1 9.1 10.1 95.9
Average snowy days 6.2 4.8 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 4.5 21.3
Average relative humidity (%) 83.3 76.8 71.6 64.5 58.9 55.0 53.2 55.7 57.0 63.1 75.6 82.9 66.5
Mean monthly sunshine hours 127.1 162.4 241.8 270.0 322.4 360.0 381.3 353.4 300.0 248.0 150.0 111.6 3,028
Percent possible sunshine 42 55 67 67 72 81 83 82 81 72 50 38 68
Source #1: Meteoblue Weather[2]
Source #2: weather2travel.com (sun only)[3]
  1. ^ "Климат Днепропетровска (Climate of Dnipropetrovsk)" (in Russian). Pogoda.ru.net. 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016. 
  2. ^ "Climate Dnipro - MOWD". Meteoblue Weather. Retrieved May 11, 2017. 
  3. ^ "DnepropetrovskClimate Guide". weather2travel.com. Retrieved May 11, 2017. 

Discussion[edit]

In stating that he/she preferred the model-generated data from www.meteoblue.com, Paulandys stated that:

  • [27] Your inf. is too old.
  • [28] Modeling or not, this is not so important as that in the summer of the last 20 years 30+ temperatures and the fact that it is better to have at least some data on solar indicators than not to have at all, and count more data for a period o...
  • [29] Your data is a description of the last century, it's not true, my data is closer to reality. Calculate the time periods of temperature for a period of 20 or 30 years, I did it, so do you, and if you do not want, then treat at least with resp

The www.meteoblue.com states that its data "are based on 30 years of hourly weather model simulations" and that the "data is derived from our global NEMS weather model at approximately 30km resolution and cannot reproduce detail local weather effects, such as heat islands, cold air flows, thunderstorms or tornadoes." The data are a "simulated climate data-set".

The other source Paulandys favours is http://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/ukraine/dnepropetrovsk.php#other weather2travel.com], though only for sun data.

It seems much better to use real data from a reliable source that uses measurements of the weather, such as Pogoda.ru.net. Paulandys says that the data in that source are too old - yet the page for Dnepropetrovsk contains data on extremes that gives the year, and many of these years are in the past 15 years. The data from pogodaiklimat.ru in the above weather box was last updated in August 2016; if you compare this with the source, you can see that the weather box needs updating again, because measurements over the past 9 months have resulted in changes to averages on the pogodaiklimat.ru page. Clearly the allegation that pogodaiklimat.ru is too old is not true.

The number of "average snowy days" is very different between the real data from pogodaiklimat.ru and the simulated data from www.meteoblue.com. Though it depends on what you mean by a snowy day:

  • meteoblue.com 23 days per year. This uses the meaning: days on which there was precipitation in the form of snow.
  • pogodaiklimat.ru 64 days per year. Same definition.
  • pogodaiklimat.ru 72 days with snow cover per year. Days on which there was snow on the ground.

Another interesting comparison is to look at temperature for particular month - I chose January. This is something that all three websites provide data for. To my surprise, the weather box supposedly based on meteoblue.com has different values than that shown on the meteoblue.com website.

  • Average daily maximum temperature (January)
    • Weather box based on meteoblue.com +2.2°C
    • meteoblue.com 0°C
    • weather2travel.com -2°C
    • pogodaiklimat.ru -1.0°C
  • Average daily minimum temperature (January)
    • Weather box based on meteoblue.com -5.8°C
    • meteoblue.com -5°C
    • weather2travel.com -8°C
    • pogodaiklimat.ru -6.1°C

I believe that we should use the pogodaiklimat.ru data.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is another website weatheronline.co.uk. It allows us to see which data we want to use. I have therefore looked at three time periods: 1982-now. Jan 2000 to Dec 2016, and Jan 2016 to Dec 2016:

  • Days with snow:
    • 90.0 days (1982-2017)
    • 99.2 days (2000-2016)
    • 96 days (2016 only)
  • Average daily maximum temperature (January):
    • -1.5°C (1982-2017)
    • -1.4°C (2000-2016)
    • -2.9°C (2016 only)
  • Average daily minimum temperature (January):
    • -5.8°C (1982-2017)
    • -5.8°C (2000-2016)
    • -8.8°C (2016 only)

I assume that this is real data, and not synthetic data like meteoblue.com.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that mean maximums and mean minimums are not shown in the meteoblue website. The sunshine data entered in the weatherbox does not match from the weather2travel.com source (both monthly and daily values are shown).
  • Mean sunshine hour (January)
    • Weather box based on weather2travel.com 127.1 (4.1 hr/day)
    • weather2travel.com 61 (2 hr/day)
  • Mean sunshine hour (July)
    • Weather box based on weather2travel.com 381.3 (12.3 hr/day)
    • weather2travel.com 310 (10 hr/day)

It would mean the entire data is unsourced and this is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:Verifiability. I will still stick with the pogodaiklimat.ru data. There is no point in inserting made up data not backed up by any of the sources used. As for the claim that the data is closer to reality, that is based on one's opinion. Anyone can claim that the city has temperatures close to x degrees in the last x years. To verify that requires observed data since it is neutral and more accurate. Lastly, the claim that it is better to have at least some data on solar indicators than not to have at all is not the best. Unreliable sources such as weather2travel.com have no fact checking to indicate if the data is reliable or not. They are only using it for marketing purposes. It is bad to insert unreliable weather data and misinforming readers about the climate of the city. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Imagery[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Paulandys may be of interest.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

High time to rename the article[edit]

It is high time to rename the article. Finding news in English from the last month in Google does not indicate that the name of Dnipropetrovsk prevailed: https://www.google.pl/search?q=dnipro&oq=dnipro&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2j69i61j0l2.1914j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=dnipro&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m https://www.google.pl/search?q=dnipropetrovsk&oq=dnipropetrovsk&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2j69i61j0l2.1914j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#tbs=qdr:m&tbm=nws&q=dnipropetrovsk The old name in the search results mainly refers to the name of the Dnipropetrovsk region (unchanged) and the proper name: "FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk". The new city name is used in most city articles (f.e. Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/auchan-ukraine-acquisition-idUSL8N1JH4QV). The new name is also used in Encyclopedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/place/Dnipropetrovsk-Ukraine (check the article, not only address) Ales sandro (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your google links are from Polish, not English. So they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The Reuters article, however, is a high-quality source and is actually what we have been asking for proponents of the article name change to provide for months--evidence in contemporary English language sources that the usage of Dnipro has caught on. Do not mistake our desire for evidence that English language sources have made the change for any political agenda or desire. That is a personal attack and is unacceptable behavior here. Are there more articles like the Reuters article out there? I look every couple of weeks and they are still hard to find (given the fact that Dnipro is rarely mentioned in the English language media). If there are other sources like the Reuters source, then I can be convinced that the time has come for the article name change. But if you post uncritical Google searches, especially ones from Poland or other non-English countries, I will ignore them. Give me solid sources from non-governmental English language venues like the Reuters source above. --Taivo (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
No, Google links are from English, not Polish. Do not suggest the domain. Search options related to English (check it Yourself). Despite limiting the search to English, google also displays results in other languages.
Examples of sources from last 30 days:
Older source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/an-on-the-ground-look-at-the-deadly-surge-of-violence-in-eastern-ukraine/2017/02/03/29d1c37c-ea1a-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.a82b31b2b481

And check the newest sources with the "Dnipropetrovsk" name. Most of them (all?) refer to the football club name or region (oblast) name. Newest city-related articles mostly contain a current, officiall name. Ales sandro (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that sources like Kyiv Post won't be accepted here. It is English language newspaper, but Ukraine based. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You obviously didn't actually look at your Google links. The first page of them from the first link you provided were all in other European languages, not English. You need to pay closer attention. And Chrzwzcz is right, the sources must be from England or the United States, not just translations or from non-English country sources. Reuters is good, OSCE is not (government). I'll examine the links you've given. As I said, I'm about ready to switch, but will need a sufficient number of appropriate sources like your original Reuters item. --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
There were only six acceptable links in the above list. Chinese and Ukrainian news agencies are not acceptable since they don't reflect usage in the US and UK. Government sources are not acceptable because they don't reflect common usage, but official government standards. Two of your links (the Privat Bank issue) are the same story printed in two different sources, so they only count as one. Overall I think that the actual six links (plus the Reuters link previously supplied) are sufficient to convince me that it's time to change this article to Dnipro. (But be aware that I am not the only editor to have objected to the change.) --Taivo (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it enough, just 6 sources from last year to convince that new common name in English is Dnipro? It may be, just asking. If not, maybe some tweaking to first sentence can be done. Now it looks like "common name" in Ukrainian and Russian is also Dni/epropetrovsk, which is not true. And note about gaining English usage of Dnipro may be added too. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
These sources aren't from last year. Of the six, almost all are from June and July of this year. It shows that current English is fairly firmly becoming "Dnipro". And look at the variety of sources and topics: Mythbusters, Popular Mechanics, Business Insider, banking, sports, aerospace. --Taivo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
And remember what I and the other skeptics have been saying all along: show us evidence that common English usage has changed. Google searches don't cut it. Government documents don't cut it. Pronouncements in Kyiv don't cut it. Carefully selected data from English-speaking countries do. While most of the data provided above is unacceptable to demonstrate common English usage, there is enough there of good quality and wide variety to demonstrate that the change has come. --Taivo (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Few sources? With all due respect, it's not Paris or Berlin. The city is not much interested in English-speaking media. Could the opponents of the change be able to provide evidence that currently in use in English dominates the name Dnipropetrovsk? (please provide sources that do not refer to the airport, region/Oblast and football club names)? Could you prove that the current city name in English is different from the official one? Why is the burden of proof being passed on to change advocates? Is there a presumption that the name Dnipropetrovsk is an English name of the city? In my opinion, the starting point is the official name, and if there is any exon in any language, this should be proven. For the moment we have Dnipro in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Reuters, Washington Post, The Herald, New Zealand Herald, The Australian, Newsweek, Fox News, US News, The Independent, CNBC and many others.
Next several sources:
Ales sandro (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not about number of sources, but also about percentage, right? You provided 15 sources that do use the new name, but there can easily be 85 prominent sources which still use the old name in current articles and you are not telling us about (?). Is is correct to do the move then? "Airport, region/Oblast and football club names" - you can see where Ukraine made mistake. If they renamed it properly and everywhere, old name would vanish sooner. Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you provide these 85 sources, please? (again, provide sources that do not refer to the airport, region/Oblast and football club names) Airport, region and football club have proper names. These names may theoretically remain unchanged over the years and it does not have any bearing on the name of the city. Ales sandro (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You want the change so you provided only the sources which support the move. Is it fair? Hardly. Tell us honestly if the old name is still used and how much (yeah you can exclude football and airport and oblast...). Is it 15:85 or 15:5?
Someone accused us here that keeping Dnipropetrovsk here on wikipedia are political games or what and Dnipropetrovsk is old awful communist name. Sorry but I make connection - if so, why does it matter when talking about the city, but not about airport and oblast etc.? Is it OK to have football club with 'awful communist name' and act like it is not related? Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The only name derived from the law is Dnipro. You say that English exonym is different so you should prove it. If I say that the English exonym of the official name of Barcelona is Chukupuku, I should prove it. Such should be the burden of proof. I provided the sources which support the move and ask you for sources against the move. You say the ratio is 85:15, please show these sources. I have provided arguments for excluding links referring to names of specific places / entities. The name FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk is listed on the club's website, although the name of the city was changed a year ago. The club must make changes to the relevant registry. Omission of the club authorities should not affect the name of the article. By analogy with the name of the airport. The article on the airport should have the current name until the relevant legal changes - so in most other language versions we have articles about the city of Dnipro and Dnipropetrovsk airport. The name of the region is enshrined in the constitution and it is not certain that it will be changed in the near future. What does not matter for the name of the article about the city (or maybe I'm wrong and the article about St. Petersburg should be changed due to the name of the Leningrad Oblast?). Soon English wikipedia will be the only source using the name Dnipropetrovsk in relation to the city. Ales sandro (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
"English wikipedia will be the only source using the name Dnipropetrovsk in relation to the city" - it may be, because English sources may be the most conservative (or slow or ignorant, you decide :)) Bottom line - Would you be interested in this?: The first sentence of the article will change to emphasize increasing usage of Dnipro in English sources, but acrticle name stays and first word of the article will be still "Dnipropetrovsk". Let's say for another trial period of 3 months? I think it is a good compromise. Chrzwzcz (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The most conservative does not mean not reflecting reality. There are no compelling arguments in favor of the fact that the English name differs from the current official one (it is subjective opinion of several users not backed up by sources). Why wait another trial period od 3 months? If the name of the football club, the airport and the region does not change, after 3 months there will be new articles referring to these 3 things with the Dnipropetrovsk name. I ask you for sources that confirm your position, it would facilitate the discussion. Here next part of "pro-change" sources (I tried to choose sources only from English-speaking countries, If there are other sources, I apologize in advance):
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/ukraine/dnipropetrovsk
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-spurs-keeper-out-to-thwart-kane-and-silence-his-former-club-pffw6pq03
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daily-pnut/why-we-are-undervaluing-u_b_11200282.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-06/ukraine-is-fighting-its-own-cold-war
http://www.aol.co.uk/entertainment/2016/09/09/book-your-flights-now-the-eurovision-song-contest-2017-will-be-held-in-kiev-ukraine/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4176994/Model-Ukrainian-wheelchair-star-runway-show.html
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/once-shunned-this-wheelchair-bound-woman-is-now-a-rising-model-1664352
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2016-11-24/cleaning-ukraine
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2016/0909/815425-good-evening-kiev-c/
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2016/11/21/foreign-exchange-students-grateful-shreveport-bossier-holidays/93962356/
http://if.com.au/2016/12/20/article/Stefan-Bugryn-on-travelling-to-Ukraine-to-shoot-doco-War-Mothers/VPCNEQZLEO.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/british-photographer-injured-on-frontline-in-ukraine-backs-fundraising-appeal-for-family-of-woman-killed-helping-him/
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/manitoba-donates-five-ambulances-to-violence-wracked-ukraine-412436183.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fast-cars-space-tickets-luxury-mansions-not-so-secret-lives-ukraines-political-elite-1589162
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/dnipro-metro-extension-contract-signed.html
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/17/why-russian-military-aggression-has-backfired-on-moscow/
https://eurovision.tv/story/host-city-announcement-for-eurovision-2017-postponed
http://www.escdaily.com/eurovision-2017-kiev-dnipro-odessa-still-race-host/
https://www.thequint.com/news-videos/2017/02/16/alexandra-kutas-from-ukraine-world-first-professional-model-in-a-wheelchair-fashion-week-mercedes-benz-fashion-days
http://www.businessbecause.com/news/emba/4395/this-ie-emba-is-tackling-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-eastern-ukraine
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/232922/in-post-soviet-ukraine-victory-day-is-a-matter-of-interpretation
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=49376
https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/05/distillery-fined-over-johnnie-walker-whiskye-rip-off/
http://www.fai.org/news/42837-fai-names-noosphere-ventures-as-its-new-global-technical-partner
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/once-shunned-this-wheelchair-bound-woman-is-now-a-rising-model-1664352
http://www.calvertjournal.com/news/show/7651/british-photographer-wounded-in-ukraine-conflict
https://www.skymetweather.com/content/global-news/romania-and-ukraine-witness-eight-inches-of-snow/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/canso-nove-scotia-chosen-for-canada-s-first-rocket-launch-site/article/487902
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/illegal-amber-mining-ukraine/
http://www.kzoo.edu/news/rocketry/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/17/ukraine-dangers-unnecessary-delays-crossing-points
Ales sandro (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Best sources would be articles describing the city, not random article about something else which mentions Dnipro somewhere in the middle just "by the way". Prepare the case on a silver platter and it may be ready for vote. You don't expect that it will be agreed here between just 3 people, it requires more people to assemble, it is a pretty huge change (it has to be changes in all different places and articles). I expect it will take some time so in the meantime I offered that compromise in the leading sentence. I will distance myself from the vote - I support it if evidence is clear - but I am not a native speaker (which shows :)) BTW I suspect "Kyiv" won't happen. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Chrzwzcz, we have already waited about 6 months to change this article. As you know, I was opposed to changing immediately in order to wait and see what would happen in common English usage and suggested we wait several months. The "compromise" that you offer is what we were already working under--waiting until English media were switching to "Dnipro". Your demand for articles about the city is rather unreasonable since common English usage is not based only on articles about the city, but about usage. That means usage in all contexts, not just articles specifically about the city. We haven't changed "Kiev" to "Kyiv" because we find comments such as, "he spent his youth in Kiev" or "she thought Kiev might be a nice place to live" in articles across a wide range of topics, not just articles about the city itself. On the other hand, User:Ales sandro has provided a broad range of articles on a broad range of topics from a broad range of sources showing that "Dnipropetrovsk/Dnepropetrovsk" is consistently changing to "Dnipro". Your other statement, that "it is a pretty huge change" ignores the fact that the majority of municipalities in Ukraine that had their names changed were moved in Wikipedia almost overnight without serious disruption. That argument is a red herring. I opposed the move in the beginning since Dnipro is one of the larger cities in Ukraine and more likely to be mentioned in English media (unlike Mikolayev, for example). But there is sufficient evidence that English usage is changing. Indeed, "Dnipro" is so much easier to say and write in English than "Dnipropetrovsk" that the change is probably happening faster than it normally would ("Kyiv" is no easier to say and write in English than "Kiev", for example). There is no need for further delay, IMHO. We have waited as I requested and the evidence has appeared--"Dnipropetrovsk" is rapidly changing to "Dnipro" in English usage. --Taivo (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Unreasonable? I said "it would be best", not "other usage is unacceptable"! I also said I support the move if watertight nevertheless I don't expect that 2 or 3 people are enough to approve the move. I am not convinced that now Dnipro is used more than Dnipropetrovsk, we were given only supporting evidence. I may do my own research or someone could present fair analysis. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I made quick Google test in English myself - last month sources, it is not easy (you have to read it to know - are referring to football, airport, region or not), of course not all sources switched (weather, tripadvisor...) but newspaper seem to use Dnipro all right. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of neutral on the proposed move, but I'm fine if it happens. I'd rather have the issue resolved than it come up on the talk page every few months for years to come. Ethanbas (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2017[edit]

DnipropetrovskDnipro – We originally decided to wait several months before moving this article to see whether English usage would change. The evidence in the section above clearly demonstrates that English-language media are switching to "Dnipro". The media links from the preceding section on this Talk Page are from a number of English-speaking countries, on a wide variety of topics, in a wide range of contexts. In addition, reference works published since the official name change, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, are also switching. I opposed this move when the Rada first changed the name of the city, but I now support it because the trajectory of English usage is clear. Taivo (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If the change is accepted, there is a format issue. I suggest for the city article the name Dnipro (instead of the original Dnipro (city)) and for the rest of Dnipro (disambiguation). I think the city rank is much higher than other entities / places named Dnipro. Ales sandro (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot that there is a disambiguation page at Dnipro. I don't care one way or the other whether the city page is at Dnipro or Dnipro (city). --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: er, you cannot decide when the name of a place changes. Leave it as is until there is universal change towards your version.Sb2001 talk page 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "universal" change. That's simply an unreasonable demand. The Wikipedia policy is not for "universal change", but for "common English usage". It's clear that common English usage has changed over the last few months as has been demonstrated above. In this case, as we see that English usage is changing and has been demonstrated above, WP:NAMECHANGES applies. Common English usage does not, and never has, meant "universal". Demanding universal change would require "Saigon" and "Stalingrad" instead of "Ho Chi Minh City" and "Volgograd". --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be evidenced over a period greater than a 'few months'. This is not enough evidence to suggest a change like this is permanent. Common English usage – if you prefer – needs reflecting. In my opinion, this change would reflect selected change, ie in a small field, where the examples provided are ones which suit your cause. Please – if you desire support on a matter such as this – provide a stronger argument than 'It's clear that common English usage has changed over the last few months'. We need something a lot more definite than this. –Sb2001 talk page 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
From your contributions list, it seems clear that you are not familiar with Ukrainian naming issues and decommunization. This might be the very first time you've ventured onto this page. The majority of the articles on cities that had their names changed in the spring of 2016 were changed automatically since they are rarely mentioned in English-language materials. Dnipro is occasionally mentioned so the informal agreement from last year was to wait several months to see if the new name began to appear in English-language materials. That's what we did. It's obvious that the new name is being used in a wide variety of sources, so the agreement has been fulfilled. I've been here on this issue from the beginning and was one of the most vocal of the "wait and see" editors. We've waited, the name is changing. It's time to move the article. --Taivo (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
'Is changing'. Exactly. Not 'has changed'. Bring me a better argument, then let us see. And do not remove the [citation needed] template. –Sb2001 talk page 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Although, I do get your point. Let me think about it, then you may have my support. I will get back to you. –Sb2001 talk page 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: as per the arguments provided. It does seem an official thing. –Sb2001 talk page 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sb2001, since you changed to support, can you strike your oppose? Thank you. Dr. K. 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - my argumentation above. Ales sandro (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - support renaming to Dnipro. This should've been done a year ago.--Piznajko (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Long overdue. Kges1901 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Taivo and all the other supports. Dr. K. 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dnipropetrovsk
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-30
206158
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7VWXFHYXEDMAECMUQBJNKPEG5SS25KWC
<urn:uuid:a9acea8b-5a9e-412e-9272-cc2e3e80b9d6>
2017-07-21T20:59:28Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:GNY3EPGNQLTYXC3R6OCMFPQCRLBIDPLU
<urn:uuid:9d525b46-64ac-4d11-8407-07d7d6416eb3>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dnipropetrovsk
response
<urn:uuid:e21f7b83-97fd-496d-8e70-e6c4ad677a14>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-178-21-170.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-30
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf