Talk:Dnieper River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Rivers
 This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Name

Naming here is tough. Experimenting with Google I see about a 3-to-2 preference for "Dnieper" over "Dnepr" on English pages, including the most authoritative sources, such as Columbia and Britannica encyclopedias, English-speaking governments, etc. On the other hand, one could argue that "Dnieper" is the old fashioned transliteration, no longer appropriate. What authority should we use for transliteration? Stan 17:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We should use a "most commonly used" English name of the river no matter what any government (English or non-English speaking) calls it in its sources. See a detailed discussion on Kiev-Kyiv-Kyyiv controversy, where the issue is finally settled. Therefore, I am changing the article name to Dnieper and Kyiv to Kiev in the text. Before reverting this change, please read the discussion of Kiev page. Hopefully, if you read it, you will leave the names alone.--Irpen 21:18, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're assuming too much about what exactly was settled. The discussion at talk:Kyiv was very specific. The issue of what to use for the page heading for the article about Kyiv and a couple of other cities was settled. The poll on the subject did not say anything about what name should be used in any other context.
And different names certainly can be appropriate in different contexts. Some cities were important in the histories of more than one country or culture. Place names changed. Russian names are often used exclusively in Soviet-period history, but aren't necessarily relevant when writing about modern geography.
Don't just do a simple Google search and assume the number of results is meaningful. Search for "Kanev", and the first page has 5 people in various countries named Kanev, two references to a WWII battle in the Soviet Union, and two references to Bulgarian music. Search for "Kaniv", and you get ten references to Kaniv, Ukraine. Search for "Kanev Ukraine", and "Kaniv Ukraine", and you get about 5000 and 3000 pages, respectively. Not an overwhelming preference, and the small number of results indicates that very few English speakers would recognize the name in any form.
"...priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..."
"If there is no commonly-used English name..."
It seems to me that the naming policy only intends to apply to foreign names that have a commonly-used English name. After Ukraine, Kiev, Kharkiv, Crimea, Sevastopol, the Dnieper, which Ukrainian place names are well-known in the English-speaking world? Kanev/Kaniv (to stick with my very narrow example) is a house-hold name to what fraction of English-speakers? I don't see any justification for using the transliterated Russian name for this Ukrainian town.
—Michael Z. 08:20, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

[edit] Names of cities along Dnepr

Greetings, Irpen.

Regarding your changes to the names of cities along Dnepr, I would first like to notice that this article is not a proper place to introduce them. Some of these cities (like Mahilyow or Kaniv) have their own articles, others are subject of interest to various Wikipedia projects (like List of cities in Ukraine), which you are welcome to join and discuss these matters, if you are interested in toponymy.

Second, I would encourage you to consult the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions before engaging in name changes. In this case, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is appropriate, which says:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias).

and

If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.

As you can see, Wikipedia policy clearly gives preference to the local names in cases where there is no traditional or commonly accepted English variant. -- Naive cynic 14:18, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

To Cynic: However, often THERE IS a traditional and commonly used English variant that DIFFERS from local names, and in this situation Wikipedia has to reflect the English usage name rather than a local name. "UN name", whatever it means, is also a no substitute. The most clear example is the name of the capital of Ukraine. To your "as you would find it in other encyclopedias" quote, Britannica calls it Kiev because it reflects the more common English usage of today. Google search for Kyiv returns about 1 million hits while Kiev returns about 8 million. That's also a reflection of what a "most commonly used English version" is. It may change in some years. If this happens, encyclopedias should reflect that, but now it simply a wrong usage. Either do your research for common English names for the places or leave them alone. Avoid changing them simply because you like some ways better than the others. Unless, one comes up with some reasonable argument that these "UN names" conform Wikipedia policy, I am going to revert the name changes in a few days.--Irpen

But Britannica seems to prefer "Kaniv", "Cherkasy", and "Kremenchuk", although only the last one has the most results in a straight Google search. I think there's just no simple correct answer in many cases. I'm deciding to relax and not get myself too worked up about it. Going to sleep. Good work, all.
[oddly, Kiev/Kyiv gives me 5:1 not 8:1 millions at the moment]
—Michael Z. 09:02, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Ah, I just realized what your reference to "UN names" was, Irpen. When I wrote "UN spelling" in my edit summary, I simply meant that I consulted a map at un.org for the source of Belarusian cities on the Dnieper, and spelling of their names, since I don't know Belarusian nor how to transliterate it. Since I've never heard of any of these cities before, I thought that the native transliteration would be appropriate for Wikipedia, and I knew that the UN would probably do it correctly. And of course, if someone knew better they would correct what I'd entered.
Anyway, apart from at most a dozen biggest cities, most ex-Soviet cities don't have English names at all; they have simply been transliterated from Russian. It continues to be appropriate to transliterate their native names for Wikipedia and in most other places, but the Russian can no longer be considered the native name for many. It's now Ukrainian, or Belarusian, or Kazakh, etc.
Kiev/Kyiv is hardly a clear example; it's not really a different name at all, just a different spelling, rooted in the same name in a third language. Moscow for Moskva is a clear case of a distinct English name, in the same category as Rome/Roma, Florence/Firenze, etc.
—Michael Z. 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

[edit] Upper case

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming

I couldn't find anything about this at requested moves (what's up?) so I'm just going to vote here:

  • Oppose, tentatively. The Ukrainian name of the river is just Дніпро, with the word "river" added as a qualifier when necessary: ріка Дніпро. In English it is often referred to similarly as "the Dnieper" or used as an adjective, as in "Dnieper cruises". If anything, I would choose to move the article to Dnieper, or Dnipro. —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 17:14 Z
  • I suggest to keep the article as it is. How it is called in Ukrainian is irrelevant. While it is sometimes called simply "the Dnieper" in English, it is most often called the Dnieper river, hence the title of the article.Irpen 07:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    On what do you base that? In Google.ca the exact phrase "The Dnieper" gets 34,000 results, "Dnieper River" gets 26,800. Dnieper appears in 54,400 results without the phrase "Dnieper River" (Dnieper -"Dnieper River"). I'm not saying Google hit counts is an authority, but at first glance they seem to strongly counter-indicate your assertion. —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 15:00 Z
    I think Google hit does count as one of the criteria (not a single most important authority, though) as we discussed in a similar conversation on another topic in Wikipedia. These two Google hit numbers you quoted are close and we have to look for other sources if we want a definitive answer which title is preferable to use. My personal impression was that the "Dnieper river" is most commonly used in English language media but after you posted your question I just went to Lexis-Nexis to check whether my impression is true. L-N seems to confirm that. I entered a search for the term "Dnieper" in major news sources. Out of the first 10 hits, in 9 of them "the Dnieper river" was used rather than "the Dnieper". I hope this settles this dispute.Irpen 17:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    But 54,400 of the results didn't see the need to qualify "Dnieper River" at all, only 26,800 did, a 2:1 ratio. Of the ones that did, some proportion certainly use the phrase "Dnieper river" once, to orient an audience not familiar with the subject, then simply use the name "Dnieper" or "the Dnieper" in the rest of the page.
    Similarly, current Google news results have 26 occurrences of Dnieper, only 9 of them containing the phrase "Dnieper River" at all—but this sample is insignificantly small.
    To find a better example, I searched for "Dnieper" in Wikipedia. Of the first 20 articles (skipping lists and years):
    • 6 name the river just "Dnieper".
    • 4 mention "Dnieper River" or "Dnieper river", but then find it sufficient to call it "Dnieper" alone.
    • 7 mention it a single time as "Dnieper River".
    • 1 uses "Dnieper River" in all three occurrences.
    • in 2 it's only used as an adjective: "Dnieper Ukraine" or "Dnieper rapids".
    • in several of the above, the name is additionally used in an adjectival phrase: Dnieper campaign, Dnieper basin, Dnieper valley, Dnieper rapids.
    So in terms of writing style, in some cases authors and editors have deemed that "Dnieper" is sufficient to identify this river, in others they describe it as a river, then revert to using just the name. In only one case has it been phrased "Dnieper River" in every occurrence. "River" (often un-capitalized) is a descriptive used to explain what the Dnieper is. Its name is simply "Dnieper", just like the Nile or Danube. I suspect Amazon and Mississippi would also be named thus, if not for the extensive disambiguation they require. —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 23:04 Z
    I think that when Google count is as close as it is here, it should be considered close enough to say, that Google check is not conclusive enough and we should look for other sources to determine what usage is the most common in English. For one, I respect the authority of Britannica. The respective article [1] there is called "Dnieper River". A good guidance can be obtained also by current media usage. The Google news is indeed too a small sample. Besides, Google News includes in its search some unimportant news sources which simply cannot be called an authority in English usage. The results to which I referred to (from Lexis-Nexis) cover the period of last 24 months and only in major media. I think we should use them, rather than Google news. Finally, the usage in Wikipedia, is not a strong evidence, I think. Many users' ideological preferences affect the term they prefer as prominently exposed by heated debates over Kiev and Gdansk article names. Due to the reasons above, I think that the best title of the article is "Dnieper river" as now or "Dnieper River". Which of the two is rather a question of style where I am not an expert, so I called it Dnieper river months ago when moving an article Dnepr into the current name. Irpen 00:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    But in the second paragraph, Britannica calls it "The Dnieper", demonstrating that they consider that to be its simple name. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:53 Z
    Had a look around, it appears that Britannica adds "River" to everything, including Nile, Danube, Rhine, Thames, where Wikipedia has chosen different conventions. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 22:12 Z
    Well, the article itself is still called the "Dnieper River" in EB. So, it's probably a good idea to keep river in the name of WP article. Whether to use "River" or "river" in the article name I would leave up to experts in writing style which I am not. That EB uses simply the Dnieper in the text, shows that there is nothing wrong to do that in WP article. My feeling still is that the Dnieper river is more common in English than the Dnieper but I will not have a problem with the word river omitted inside the article. Irpen 17:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    But simple names are preferred (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Use simple titles). Anyway, I think we've both said more than was necessary here. Cheers, Michael Z. 2005-03-17 20:18 Z
  • Move. Capitalize proper nouns. That's the rule in English. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. - double redirects fixed too. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Can we have a pronunciation guide for Dnieper please?

[edit] The article needs attention

I urge Ukrainian editors to improve the article about their national river. Why not mention the Greek colony on Berezan Island, Herodotus's fables about its course, the Gothic capital?.. A picture of DneproGES is mandatory. I'm surprized that Khortitsa and the cataracts are not mentioned at all. It would be nice to have a sample translated from Gogol's famous description. The etymology needs double checking: why Sarmatian, not Scythian or any other poorly attested Iranian dialect spoken in the area? A parellel with the names of Dniester and Don would be instructive. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)