Jump to content

Talk:Dnipro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Dnipro
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 27 January 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Dnipropetrovsk) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

This page contains links to promote a website https://www.virtualtourist.com/ 201.191.198.186 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No it does not. It contains citations, some of which are to that site.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the article name still Dnipropetrovsk???

The city has been offcically renamed, and the changes have already taken effect: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1375-19 (Ukrainian). I see the discussion on this page below, but I can't find any conclusions on the discussion. --Maximaximum (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion and the conclusions are exactly five sections above this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is an English language article on non Ukrainian website that uses new name Dnipro http://www.esctoday.com/136663/eurovision-2017-kyiv-set-host-contest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.19.78 (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Dnipro

Dear all,

Dnipro has been already mentioned in few news articles:

  1. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/348766.html
  3. http://uatoday.tv/society/19-ukrainian-soldiers-injured-at-the-front-transported-to-dnipro-hospitals-671920.html

One can argue that it's Ukrainian media. However, I don't think that foreign media track changes of Ukrainian cities' names. 170.178.162.125 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)A

Dnepropetrovsk International Airport knows better :)-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And notice that Dnepropetrovsk International Airport has flights to "Kiev". There is no rush to change names. Wikipedia is not a current events blog. It is an encyclopedia that tracks human knowledge and allows users to find information about names and places that they might encounter in other reading. If their other reading is talking about Dnipropetrovsk, or even Dnepropetrovsk, then Wikipedia must make it easy for them to find that information. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That's not the case, as it should be renamed separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tudy sudy (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Also here is an English language article on non Ukrainian website that uses the new name Dnipro

  1. http://www.esctoday.com/136663/eurovision-2017-kyiv-set-host-contest

Usage of new name takes off so it is now appropriate to change the name of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.104.119 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Usage may be "taking off", but it's still not common yet. There is no point to rushing into changing just because you've got ants in your pants. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Old or new name?

Guys here pointed out to the spelling as 'Dnipropetrovsk' rahter than 'Dnipro'. Why then article about renamed AFTER Dnipro, city, Horishny Plavny, are with new name, but Dnipro - with old one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horishni_Plavni I'm not even mentioned error in existing name of article - it always was DnEpropetrivsk, as pointed Toddy1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.127.46.4 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

'Dnipro' usage examples

I'd like to start the list of 'Dnipro' name usage examples and invite other users to add to the list. Tried to gather sources not from Ukraine, as someone wished (though plenty of web-cites in .ua domen [eg. IT companies with international connections] have influence on other www segments). I know, you can add more reliable sources. -- Ата (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Eurovision topic:

Time and date web-sites:

Economic news:

Ordinary usage by people:

-- Ата (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at one of those websites - it got its content by copying from other websites, and then putting the words "read the full article on...".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is by no means a compendium of current English usage. As Toddy points out, in many (most) cases you have listed, this is just cut and paste usage from a single source. You have to do more than just do a Google search and listing links. You have to actually read and evaluate each source. By requiring unique sources, your list of Eurovision articles is reduced to one as well as your list of economic articles. Indeed, in both of these cases even, the underlying source for the usage isn't actually an English source, but a Ukrainian one that the English source simply copies. --Taivo (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest that if people are just copying text without changing the city name then they are ok with it? --Ата (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Some more:


The official Eurovision website uses Dnipro now too [1], and Interfax uses it as well [2] --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2016

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move yet. Perhaps let usage evolve and revisit the issue after a year? — JFG talk 06:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


– The city's name was changed, here's the proof [3]. So what else to discuss here? It's not an opinion war, it's a fact, the city has a new name. Orange-kun (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We had a RM less than two months ago, nothing has changed since end of May, I do not see any point in opening a new one to be honest. Did you care to read it before posting here?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no evidence that "Dnipro" has supplanted "Dnipropetrovsk" (or even "Dnepropetrovsk") as the common name in English for this city. Yes, the Ukrainian name is now Дніпро, but that doesn't matter in the English Wikipedia. Only the most common usage in English counts in the English Wikipedia. We are not bound by acts of the Rada here. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    Could you please tell how many citations of RS (not the ones I listed above) would be enough? --Ата (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • How can you apply the rule of Common name to the recently renamed cities? This is senseless. So renaming is a fact now and I don't see any clear reason why to leave the old name.--Orange-kun (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Because this is not about what the cities are called within Ukraine, in Ukrainian. It's about what is most commonly used in the English language. You have to demonstrate that a majority of the reliable sources in English are now using "Dnipro" instead of "Dnipropetrovsk". A handful of mirrors of a single news report does not demonstrate "common English usage". You are itching to change things immediately. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Read the history of discussion at Kiev and Odessa for an example of how common English usage works. --Taivo (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It's still not about "respectable journals", but about common English usage. The first of your two articles doesn't even count because it is an article about the name change itself. The second one does, indeed, use "Dnipro" in a context outside the name change. But it's just one source. "Common" isn't one source. There is no rush to change this article name. Just look at the discussions at Kiev adn Odessa. Wikipedia is bound by English common usage, not the current political whims of the Rada. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
And not a single one of the "Support" comments actually addresses Wikipedia policy or uses Wikipedia policy to justify a move. The policy is very, very clear at WP:COMMONNAME. And that policy supports a go-slow approach to renaming articles based on the shift in common English usage, not the whims of the Rada. --Taivo (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it has not "been wholly absorbed in English" (Ukrainian usage is utterly irrelevant.) You have no evidence of that. Even NickK's evidence is slim since the majority of his articles are in reference solely to Eurovision or were authored in Ukraine by Ukrainian news sources. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not quite WP:SNOWCLOSE as there is already a significant news coverage, particular related to the city's Eurovision bid: Google News and many other matters not related to the name change, such as economy or politics. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should give additional weight to these sources. Instead, the point of this discussion becomes pretty much WP:CRYSTALBALL: it seems to be clear that Dnipro will end up being used as a name in most English-language sources some time after the rename (this happened in all previous Ukrainian renames, including large cities such as Mariupol/Zhdanov and Luhansk/Voroshylovgrad), but we still do not rename as in theory it might happen that this name will end up not being used. The only question is what extra weight we are adding to these recent sources and how much time we should wait until we get a critical mass of them — NickK (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the meaning of WP:CRYSTALBALL as it relates to this discussion. It is not relevant to those of us saying, "We don't know yet whether Dnipro will become the primary form in English or not" and your attempt to make it relevant is ridiculous. What we are saying is that there is not yet sufficient proof that it has taken root as the most common English form. Crystalball actually applies to the proponents of the move because they are hoping that it becomes the most common term. You cannot twist Crystalball to make it apply to the opponents of this change. --Taivo (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And almost all of your "English" new sources have their origin in Ukraine--the Ukrainian list of Eurovision candidates and Kyiv Post articles. You're going to have to show American and British news stories and other sources that are demonstrating the new usage. There is no rush here. There is no deadline beyond which Dnipro turns into a pumpkin if Wikipedia hasn't acted. Kyiv is still at Kiev and Odesa is still at Odessa. I don't think either city has suffered any adverse effects for it. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that American or British sources do not cover cities like this daily. Moreover, they don't even cover them weekly. Kyiv/Kiev and Odesa/Odessa cases are not relevant here as these cities were not officially renamed, only romanisation changed, thus they are more like a Nanjing/Nanking case. Here we have a name change and three main associated issues:
  • How can we measure common English usage here? The city gets significant and not Ukraine-originated coverage in English-language sources once in a few years when something important happens there. One such event happened last year (local team making it to the UEFA Europa League final), another one is happening now (Eurovision bid). There is little interest to this city beyond that: it gets occasional coverage on travel websites or in random (mostly Ukrainian) news, it often appears in databases but nothing more that would attract British or American attention: the city is not known to a casual British or American reader, like, say Moscow or Rome are.
  • How can we find the moment when this usage changes? In other words, from which date can we consider that English usage became Dnipro and not Dnipropetrovsk? I would be very interested in looking into this on similar examples of other large Ukrainian cities: for instance, when did common English usage switch from Zhdanov to Mariupol?
  • Deadline. People use Wikipedia to get an up-to-date information (which is our advantage over paper encyclopaedias). When Mount McKinley was renamed Denali, it took just an hour to change the name and people started getting up-to-date information immediately. In this case people keep seeing an outdated name because we assume that the new name will not be used that much. We already see that post-rename sources do use Dnipro, but this seems to be not enough. The current state basically puzzles the reader: it is not clear from the article what is the current name, in particular infobox mentions Dnipropetrovsk and Dnepropetrovsk without any mention of Dnipro, so do navboxes below. If we do not follow this rename, at least we should rewrite it similarly to, say, Pondicherry which has double name both in the infobox and in navboxes. Thus there is a deadline, a deadline of keeping Wikipedia as a source of up-to-date information — NickK (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You are rather mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not intended to be "up-to-date" in the sense of "right now". We are not intended to drive usage, but to reflect usage. We are not a style guide, but a reference. We are not prescriptive, but descriptive. There is no "deadline", that is your misperception of our function, otherwise we would be using "Kyiv" and "Odesa" since that's what Ukraine would like everyone to use in English. But English usage changes slowly sometimes, despite the desires of Ukrainian nationalists and people who lack patience. Yes, Wikipedia moves glacially on occasion. There is no fault in that. Perhaps with the end of Eurovision, it will be clear that English usage has unequivocally changed. I do not have a crystal ball in that regard. And I caution you against WP:OTHERSTUFF. We can both find hundreds of examples of other places in Wikipedia to support our argument. Dnipro/Dnipropetrovsk isn't Denali/McKinley. Dnipro isn't Kyiv/Kiev. It has its own history and its own future. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
We can argue about spelling isses like Kiev/Kyiv or Pondicherry/Puducherry, but at least in those cases we have an excellent supply of English-language sources: numerous international delegations from English-speaking countries visit Kiev/Kyiv or meet representatives of Kiev/Kyiv, and there are many English-language media covering events in Pondicherry/Puducherry, thus we can measure almost in real time how they call those cities. What is even more important, we have sources that know about the change but still ignore it. This city has no continuous coverage in English, we are supposed to give extra weight to recent sources, but what is the formula? I think we both agree that we observe a trend of switching from Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipro, but we fail to agree at which point of this trend we should change the name and how to detect this point.
In the meantime, why at least can't we use double names like Dnipropetrovsk (Dnipro) or Dnipro (Dnipropetrovsk) in the infobox and navboxes and clearly state in the article that there was a change but it is not common yet? This would at least clarify the situation to the readers — NickK (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent suggestion and I edited "Dnipro" into the infobox. It's already mentioned in the first sentence. I suspect that the coverage Dnipro gets during Euromaidan will make it quite clear how common English usage falls out--whether Dnipropetrovsk stubbornly hangs on or Dnipro supplants it. And there is no well-defined demarcation as to when we judge common English usage to have shifted. It's based on consensus among the editors. Right now, there is no consensus to change, so the status quo prevails. --Taivo (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - get with the times, it's 2016. (real reasons have already been stated here, it's the name, its used in engish). Also if we're talking about crystal ball predictions, it seems to be one to assume common use of 'Dnipropetrovsk' will continue despite it falling out of style already --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It has not "fallen out of style already". That is simply your wishful thinking. And the date matters not to Wikipedia. Only common English usage, which no one has convincingly demonstrated as of yet. No one is hoping that the city's name doesn't change in English. But the change in English must have already happened before the article should be moved. That's what none of you get and why the only argument the proponents of the move have is WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
So let's look at what American and British sites are actually using right now. I've tried to get websites that are most likely to change quickly--tourist and travel sites with .com extensions:
No one is saying that the change isn't beginning, but it's only in the early stages and the most common usage is still "Dnipropetrovsk". --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2016 (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.

PS Huffington Post has used the new name. So this American news story is demonstrating the new usage. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

So what! And a site linked to by the story is webinerds.com/company/, which spells it "Dnipropetrovsk".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is NOT a personal attack as claimed. It is the URL of a company - I got the link to the company from the article referenced by Yulia Romero above, and wondered how the company spelled the city's name. For some reason, Wikipedia blocks posting the URL with http: in front of it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dnipro/Archive_2&oldid=762160111"