Talk:Dnieper Hydroelectric Station

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 [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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 [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 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)

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)

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)

The last paragraph states "Today the dam has been privatized and continues to fuel the adjacent industrial complexes with an output of 3,64 billion kW hours." These are units of Energy, not units of Power. There is not sufficient information to determine the time period over which this energy is produced and therefore calculate the power. It is also customary to use MW and GW for large amounts of power. If the power output is not known, this information should be omitted. 3.64 billion kWh is meaningless in this context. Also, hydroelectric dams do not produce fuel, they produce power. I will go ahead and make these changes. SFKatUMO (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DneproGES vs DniproHES
Few notes on the name of the Dam:

1. The DneproGES has birth certificate named in it as "Днепровская Гидро-Электрическая Станция "(ДнепроГЭС)- DneproGES, see  and

2. In old times (before 1991) in English literature was used Dam name as "Dneprostroi Dam, see this (and many others) ".

3. In the USSR (250 million people), the country of the DneproGES birth,  most of the people call it as DneproGES. In a city of the DneproGES birth, people even now call it as DneproGES, because people prefer to speak in Russian.

--zas2000 (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is Mohylko?
Who is Mohylko? Very famous Ukrainian Thomas Edison, whose first name  has been lost? What kind of source refers to him  without the first name? Google can not find him. No doubts among the designers of the Dam might be  Malorussians (present Ukrainians). All of them were citizens of the Russian Empire. The statement in the article is kind of starnge, similar to: "Irishman John Kennedy was the President of the USA". Nobody would mention Kennedy's ethnic belonging. He is American. I suggest not refer to  Mohylko. --zas2000 (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have objections with some other sources except "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" about Mohylko, please provide it. While information about Mohylko used in source "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" I can't understand why this information can not be used in wikipedia (Verifiability). "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" is encyclopedia, so this information encyclopedic. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, isn't it ? --Movses (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Zas2000 - since all US presidents before 1960 were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Kennedy's being an Irish Catholic was mentioned. I am sure that many people thought that being the son of an Irish Catholic Nazi-sympathising former-gangster was a big obstacle to being president. Perhaps you did not notice, but B Omama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being the first black person to be elected president of the USA (he certainly did not get it for any other reason).--Toddy1 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The venerable source should supply the first name of Mohylko, otherwise no respect to this source. Could you give me the first name of Mohylko?
 * To Movses: I 'd like to mention that "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" is not reliable reference.


 * To Toddy1: I knew your infor about US presidents. I just would like to mention that Encyclopedia of Ukraine is not the respectful source. For them more important to give nationality of the person than his name. Is not  it strange?

Why we should duplicate them? I am ready to tell people about Mohylko in WIKI, if I would find information about him. Could we find this information at "Encyclopedia of Ukraine"? (this is rhetoric question, of coarse)

--zas2000 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rummuseum.ru/lib_g/kanal20.php http://www.kdmog.narod.ru/Persons/MogilkoNV/index.htm "Николай Васильевич Могилко с самого начала СТРОЙКИ (White Sea – Baltic Canal) работал ГЛАВНЫМ инженером до того времени как он был приглашен главным инженером на проект Большого Днепра. Так как Беломор канал не был закончен он прешел на должность помошника главного инженераю 1 месяц он работал  на (White Sea – Baltic Canal)  и 1 месяц в Харькове по проекту Большой Днепр МОГИЛКО Николай Васильевич 13 марта 1889 г., Брест-Литовск - 24 июня 1973 г., Москва
 * I found: Nikolai Vasilievich Mohylko was the Chief Engineer of Dneprostroi and Assistant of the Chief Engineer of the White Sea – Baltic Canal

Graduated from St. Petersburg Emperor Alexander I Institute of Railway Engineering, The relative of Petra Mohyly, Kiev metropolitan in 1630 th, сына молдавского господаря Awarded the order of the Red Star, for achievement in the construction of the White Sea – Baltic Canal one of the co-authors of the project.

--zas2000 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dnieper Hydroelectric Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.85goelro.rao-ees.ru/main.html?secid=134&docid=329
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312194207/http://www.uge.gov.ua:80/clients/ukrge/siteen.nsf/ to http://www.uge.gov.ua/clients/ukrge/siteen.nsf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dnieper Hydroelectric Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028221209/http://www.history.org.ua/Zbirnyk/11/1.pdf to http://www.history.org.ua/Zbirnyk/11/1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008160037/http://2000.net.ua/is/393/141-a7.pdf to http://2000.net.ua/is/393/141-a7.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.85goelro.rao-ees.ru/main.html?secid=134&docid=329
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uge.gov.ua/clients/ukrge/siteen.nsf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dnieper Hydroelectric Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218222146/http://www.industcards.com/hydro-ukraine.htm to http://www.industcards.com/hydro-ukraine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)