Talk:Irpin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article name

Any objections to moving this to Irpin' (city)? Olessi 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections. --Irpin' river 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection is the following: All cities (as well as towns and villages) in Ukraine are named either as <cityname>, or <cityname, Ukraine> (with the only exception: Mykolaiv, Lviv Oblast as to distinguish it from Mykolaiv). The form <cityname (city)> has been used previously, but was abandoned in the favor of <cityname, countryname>.

What I propose is the following:
(1) rename "Irpin' city" to "Irpin"
(2) rename "Irpin'" to "Irpin River"
The city has to take the priority over the river, as it reflects the fact of cities being more valued for human society, and as it's done for all known to me cases. 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points, although I moved the article after reading Irpen's acknowledgment and before you posted your response. Any thoughts, Irpen? Olessi 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any onjections worthy of being considered by others. That I like the river and have no relation to the city is not relevant for the world audience reading Wikipedia. I wish I was important enough to have the power to rename the official city name to Irpin'-on-Irpin', but I am just a Wikipedian. If no one can come up with a good reason to keep the river under Irpin (I can't), go ahead and move.

Ok. Olessi, please note that per (ref) we are now dropping apostrophes, i.e Irpin, not Irpin'.

I wish never see one person having a power to play with city names. Whatever city name Irpin residents want, I'm fine with that. If they want Irpin'-on-Irpin', which does not seem to me as a good idea, I'll be fine as long as they chose it.

134, in case you didn't get it, I was joking. Do whatever you want with those articles. I didn't have any old objections and don't have any new ones. --Irpen

A separate, but a related question. Can we have an Irpen redirect pointing towards the Irpin River, rather than the city? Not only that would please me (which is unimportant) but the river is often mentioned in the old chronicles as Irpen and should be called such in the relevant historical context (see for instance the Battle on the Irpen' River article). The city however, was found only in 1899 and it is unlikely it needs to be quoted under the Russian name Irpen, unlike the river. Would that be a good idea? --Irpen 22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tough call. According to Google, Irpen in most cases refers to the city. People write that they are from Irpen; some events are mentioned to be taken place in Irpen; some companies mention Irpen as a part of their address. It's just that the river cannot speak for itself that much. Also, other than the city and the river, some references to Irpen point to a wikipedia user :), or to something like Instituto do Registro Civil das Pessoas Naturais do Parana (IRPEN). In the end... I only wanted to standardize city names, as "Irpin' city", or "Irpin' (city)" seems like an unnecessary exception from the standartization... Given that you have arguments in support for the redirect to the river... and you care... 00:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Move it as you like. --Irpen 19:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)