Talk:Dnieper Hydroelectric Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Dnieper Hydroelectric Station is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Navigability

If, as the article says, the entire Dnieper is navigable, then there must be a ship canal and lock system to allow vessels to pass around the dam. Assuming that's the case (it's not apparent from the article or the photos) then a description of that would make a welcome addition to the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the googlemaps link.--Kuban Cossack 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only second?

Is it the only way to cross the Dnieper river or the second way? -Iopq 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is another bridge nearby if you look at the sat image provided. The correct word is alternative IMO --Kuban Cossack 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I was in Zaporizhzhia like 3-4 years ago. That bridge was non-functional - construction of new one planned to finish in 2010. --TAG 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The move from Dnipro Hydroelectric Station

I don't think the move was justified under WP:NC(use English). For one, there was no discussion on it, and while Dnieper is a commonly accepted English version of the Ukrainian river Dnipro, Dnipro Hydroelectric Station is just as widely used if not more by English sources such as BBC, see here. I propose that the page should be moved back to Dnipro Hydroelectric Station with a an explicit reference in the lead to its alternative English variant - Dnieper DHS.--Riurik(discuss) 06:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you check the article's history, you would see that the Kazak's move was already a "move back" to the article's original name from which it was moved by Maks without discussion. --Irpen 09:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that the article's title should be Dnipro Hydroelectric Station or just DniproHES and should be moved back. The move was illogical and without discussion. Bandurist (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check the article's history for the move "without discussion". -Irpen 13:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the previous move.--Riurik(discuss) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DniproHES

Numerous sites such as the Columbia encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and cointemporary websites from Ukraine refer to the Station as DNIPROHES.

i.e. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Dniprohe.html http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0815717.html http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/D/N/Dniprohes.htm http://www.highbeam.com/search.aspx?q=Dniprohes&ref_id=ency_MALT http://www.drugasmuga.com/content/view/4359/51/lang,en/


The is no need to use the Russian, especially with the silly transliteration of Gidro Electric Station. Bandurist (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to do? Move the article? Under what name? --Irpen 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest putting the article under the title DNIPROHES. Other names redirecting to it. Bandurist (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why use an acronym meaningless to most readers for the title? Full name is more useful. --Irpen 14:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


If you look at the Columbia Encyclopedia and the Ukrainian Encyclopedia both use the acronym. WHy expand something that is already set. The word laser and many other words are written as acronyms. Bandurist (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hydroelectric stations are not written as acronyms. I mean we do write Federal Bureau of Investigation not FBI. Also Bandurist can please stop messing up the article and the images as well as the British spelling that was always consistent here. --Kuban Cossack 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


It is silly to use the Russian spelling in this particular case. Currently everyone i suing DniproHES. Ukrhydroprojekt in Ukraine uses DniproHES see

here as does NY Times see here Bandurist (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bandurist, by saying that the Russian tranliteration is "silly", how convincing do you think that sounds? Not very. I think there is a much stronger case for having a DniproHES or Dnipro Hydroelectric Station based on non-wikipedia encyclopedic usage, as you point out above by encyclopedia.com and MSN Encarta encyclopedia, which uses Dnieper for the river itself, but calls the power station Dniprohes. I support moving the current entry to either one of the formats as used in the encyclopedias cited above, and keeping the Dnieper HES in the format of "also called ..."--Riurik(discuss) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, that the use of the word "silly" in this context is not scholarly. Its use in this case is quite benign. However, the numerous reverts of Hydro Electric Station (HES) for the Russian transliteration GES without a discussion (because it is written in Russian like that) is in my opinion quite silly, almost comical and tragic at the same time. I will refrain from such comments in the future. Bandurist (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Before discussing which acronym is better (both can be used in the article's text) we should first agree on the need to use the acronym for the title thus rendering it meaningless to the reader until one starts reading the article. I don't like this idea. The full name carries much more clarity and provides more info to the reader. We do not use a very common acronym ChAES to name the article about Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. --Irpen 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DNIPROHES is well known as an acronym. The Columbia and Ukrainian Encylopedias boh have articles under the acronym DNIPROHES. The commemorative medallions struck have DNIPROHES written on them. There are more sites on Google for DNIPROHES than for any other version of the sites name. Few people know what ChAES is or was. (I have one of those little Soviet tourist badges which I got after performing there in 1980. I got it at the hotel "Atomnyj") byut DNIPROHES was an important milestone and well recorded. Bandurist (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt many people know this acronym. For the causal reader such acronym-based name sounds like gibberish and would not be helpful. There is no reason to use it for the title, giving it in the text would be enough. --Irpen 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. This particular acronym is used in other encyclopedias and in my opinion is well established. Bandurist (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is established enough to be used in the text but this by itself does not force us to use it as a title. Title choice is governed by the naming conventions. Let me quote from there:

"The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."

What "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" is the title that specifies the subject clearly rather than the acronym virtually unknown to the non-specialists. --Irpen 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, thanks for providing the NC rule above, but you have not shown that the DNIPROHES is an obscure acronym known only to experts. BBC News has used it on a number of occasions, and this indicates that not only encyclopedias use the title Dniprohes, but also major news sources. The acronym is not as unknown as may at first appear, and once a reader gets to the article, it will all be explained in the lead.--Riurik(discuss) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I checked the links given by the results of your search given above. All of them de-cypher the acronym rather than just use it assuming the readers knows. --Irpen 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that is true on second thought. Then I support moving the entry to Dniprohes Hydroelectric Power Station or not to be repetitive Dnipro Hydroelectric Power Station.--Riurik(discuss) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That won't work. Our title can be either the translation of the original name or a transliteration of it but not a weird mixture of the two. "Дніпровська гідроелектростанція" transliterates as Dniprovska hidroelectrostantsiya or translates into the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station. Mixing the two is just weird.

Also note that Dnieper is not a rusism. That would be Dnepr. Just noting that for those whose only interest in this article is "derussification". --Irpen 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the title should stay as is, because that is what the Encyclopedia of Ukraine uses. But putting DnieproGES in the lead (which is what the article used to have) is nonesense. Ostap 05:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, both DneproGES and DniproHES should be in the lead. But Dn'iepro-anything just makes no sense. Same problem of mixing the tranlation with the transliteration. -_Irpen 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
From the history, it used to say DneproGES, then it went to DnieproGES (all the while no DniproHES). I think neither one of these is needed. Ostap 05:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)