Talk:Dnipro/Archive 2

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
 * 2) http://uatoday.tv/society/19-ukrainian-soldiers-injured-at-the-front-transported-to-dnipro-hospitals-671920.html
 * 1) 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
 * Smile-big.svg 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 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)
 * 1) http://www.esctoday.com/136663/eurovision-2017-kyiv-set-host-contest
 * 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:
 * https://oikotimes.com/2016/06/30/eurovision-2017-dnipro-is-the-second-city-submitting-hosting-bid/
 * http://esctoday.com/136676/eurovision-2017-dnipro-officially-applies-host-contest
 * http://info-europa.com/uncategorized/eurovision-2017-dnipro-is-the-second-city-submitting-hosting-bid/3911
 * https://escviews.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/focus-2017-dnipro/
 * http://eurovoix.com/2016/07/12/esc17-ntu-broadcast-2-hour-debate-eurovision-host-city/

Time and date web-sites:
 * http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ukraine/dnipro

Economic news:
 * http://www.businessnewsworld.com/news/dnipro-city-council-places-uah-600-mln-on-deposit-accounts-at-ukrgasbank.html
 * http://www.breakingnewspoint.com/story/3150688/dnipro-city-council-places-uah-600-mln-on-deposit-accounts-at-ukrgasbank.html
 * http://www.financenewscoverage.com/news/dnipro-city-council-places-uah-600-mln-on-deposit-accounts-at-ukrgasbank.html (several others on the topic)

Ordinary usage by people: -- Ата  (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * https://angel.co/main-technologist-bee-farm-manager-grand-impex-company-dnipro-city-ukraine
 * https://lookatthesescenes.com/2013/02/18/uk-raine-ing-flares-in-dnipro/
 * http://www.daxx.com/view/daxx-software-development-teams-dnipropetrovsk


 * 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:
 * http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/ukraine-winning-linguistic-battle-front — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.79.165 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The official Eurovision website uses Dnipro now too, and Interfax uses it as well --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. 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)
 * Dnipropetrovsk → Dnipro
 * Dnipro → Dnipro (disambiguation)
 * 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)


 * Oppose WP:SNOWCLOSE. Nothing has changed since the May 2016 requested move discussion.  There is no substantial new evidence for a change in English usage.  If you want to fly there, you still have to use Dnepropetrovsk Airport.--  Toddy1 (talk) 23:00, 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)


 * Support per nom + respectable English language publications/think tanks started using the new name Dnipro (see recent articles in The World Affairs Journal, Atlantic Council etc.)--Piznajko (talk) 16:54, 20 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)


 * Support. The city was renamed two months ago. There are many sources about it. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONOTLIKEIT.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And what? BTW the outcome of the first discussion in May (22 for renaming, 4 against) is "not moved", it's a shame for all community. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, given that most supports were from driveby voters, who did not care to provide policy-based arguments. Yours is not great either.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Decisions are based on consensus and guidelines not votes. From WP:VOTE: ...Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule... Qed237&#160;(talk)</i> 23:12, 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)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Thomas.W talk 08:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the new name has wholly been absorbed into the vernacular in English and Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.44.233.32 (talk) 00:04, 22 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:
 * Dnipropetrovsk:, , , , , , ,
 * Dnipro: ,
 * 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)


 * Support. Google Maps say Dnipro 95.133.149.157 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Weather "data"
Old version

New version

The old version has a verifiable source. The new version has two alleged sources:
 * «Guide to Climate of the USSR».<ref name="Guide to Climate of the USSR">(
 * «Guide to Climate of the USSR».<ref name="Guide to Climate of the USSR">(

Of the new sources, one only contains information about the weather in Dnepropetrovsk now, and in the next week. It tells us nothing about how the weather varies through the year.

The other dates from 1966. I know Soviet technology was very advanced, but the notion that a source from 1966 tells us about the weather from 1981 to 2010 is hard to believe.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1, I revised my citations, and now I guess, the information of the sources of my cites support the text in my edit.Thank you for your opinion.Paulandys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree too. Using one year of data to explain climatic conditions is inaccurate due to year to year variability. I am also skeptical of the sunshine hours too; I could not find the WMO climatological data on sunshine data for Dnipropetrovsk. Currently, the sunshine data is unsourced (not found in both sources) while the temperatures are not backed up by any of the citations mentioned (weatheronline.co.uk only has data from 1982–present). Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should revert the new paragraphs. They contain statements that are not supported by citations - for example citations that do not mention the things they are being cited for, or do not even city of Dnepropetrovsk.  Let me give some examples:
 * www.weather2travel.com is used as a source for "Dnipropetrovsk is sunnier, with an average of 260 clear days, and only 105 cloudy days per year. Hours of sunshine total more than 3,000 per year." The source does not say that.
 * National Communication of Ukraine on Climate Change contains lots of useful information on Dnepropetrovsk, but does not mention Dnepropetrovsk having a "4 degree average temperature rise from 1881 to 2005", nor does it mention that temperatures in Dnepropetrovsk will rise will rise 4 to 4.5 degrees in temperature.
 * Климат Украины меняется и все больше начинает напоминать… греческий (The climate of Ukraine is changing and more and more begins to resemble Greece...) does not mention Dnepropetrovsk. It is an example of WP:COATRACK.
 * Another thing that disturbs me is that the citations being added are clearly being copied and pasted from other articles. Look at this edit from 16th July. The access date in the template was 21 January 2009.  Maybe the person adding all this stuff is not even reading the stuff that he/she cites.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the person is not reading the stuff he/she cites. I have seen it on other cities in Ukraine. This example from Adding in statements that are not supported by citations is no better than adding in statements that lack citations. From the FAO source, I did not see any parts that mention that most precipitation falls from November to April. All I see is that precipitation has changed in Ukraine with some areas seeing an increase in annual precipitation and others seeing a decrease. It should be reverted to the last good version. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted as discussed. Ssbbplayer agree with reversion proposal.  Paulandys thanked me for the edit proposing reversion and has not posted any objection, so maybe that meant that he/she agreed with it.


 * I considered keeping a sentence about the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system, but I got bored going through citation after citation that did not actually mention Dnepropetrovsk, and so were not relevant.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Toddy1 and Ssbbplayer, I would agree with your comments with regards to not quite correct sources and weather box (perhaps they are not quite correct, I'm sorry that I could be misleading, but out of it, it was not done for the vandalism, it was the best of intentions).

For example, data on the duration of sunshine (yes, they are out of date, but I figured that it was better raspolagatpo least what some information on this issue than none at all). But if you return to the description of the climate, I am convinced that it is true in my version. Here are some facts that should confirm this:

1. First, though for the city the average temperature of the coldest month below -3 ° C (26,6 ° F) (although in fact it is about -3 ° C), then the Köppen climate classification climate must be the climate is moderately cold with uniform moisture (Humid continental climate), but the city to fit entirely in the steppe zone and soil moisture is not highly enough, precipitation as a whole falls less than evaporate (volatility of this region is similar to evaporation, such as areas of Northern California or areas of Central Nevada and is approximately 0,5-0,3) and that meet the criteria for the semi-arid climate, which can not be classified as continental (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#Group_D:_Continental.2Fmicrothermal_climates)

2. It is also in favor of the steppe (semi-arid) climate advocates that "the climate in the broadest sense - the global climate - characterized by a statistical ensemble of states through which the system" atmosphere - hydrosphere - land - cryosphere - biosphere "in decades", the there is a "climate" - is not only the temperature, but still mode precipitation and evaporation (http://shopkins.uga.edu/dir/Geog1112/Lectures1112/LECT28.хтм). Specifically it is about Dnepropetrovsk is not mentioned in the sources, but they said "the steppe region of Ukraine" and Dnepropetrovsk is located directly in the center of this geographic region. (Https://php.radford.edu/~swoodwar/biomes/?page_id=173)

3. Over the last 15 years in Dnepropetrovsk, every third winter is cold, and the other two relatively mild or cool (often a temperature above the freezing point).

4. My remarks about the city of climate change in the direction of the Mediterranean climate consists in the fact that on the basis of precipitation mode, aridity typical for dry years, and for the wet, the only difference is that during the dry years are very rare rainfall during from May to early October, and during the wet years from mid-May to the end of September and drop them within the period of 3 or 4 times in a thunderstorm (year high in June falls in the form of thunderstorms, but other days with precipitation last for a period of 1-2 days for each month), while due to they do not bear the high volatility of the region a moisturizing character. I'm not talking about "the classic Mediterranean climate", I mean a continental Mediterranean climate (northern boundary). The region has very few agricultural crops that can grow without irrigation of artificial. None of the residents not to count on the rain in the summer as a source of irrigation, which directly proves that the climate is dry in the summer (it is a fact, as Dnepropetrovsk my hometown, I have for many years lived in it, and I know what I'm talking ). So put Dnepropetrovsk in a line with the cities of the "classic" humid continental climate such as for example, Moscow, Detroit, Chicago or even Kiev - is absolutely wrong and not true. In fact, the climate of the city rather similar to the climate in these regions, for example as the Reno (NV), Denver (Colorado) or to the inner (continental) regions of Iran (as under the regime of precipitation and the net evaporation, and for similar temperature ranges (average, as well as the maximum and minimum). Of course the winter in the region somewhat cooler, but in general the climate is very similar in nature. It can be easily verified.

5. With regard to the hardiness zone through (USDA-zone) of the city, it is in the zone 7a (a source that I cited was a worker and proven), but in the areas of commercial temperature is higher by about 2 - 3 ° C, and they are not far from the city center, in which there rise on the floor area up zone 7b. There are many heat-loving plants are grown southern subtropical latitudes (quince, cypress, laurel and others).

6. Question by smog in the city, too, is open, due to High luminance level of enterprises and rare rain in the summer in Dnepropetrovsk is able on average from June to the end of September (sometimes with short breaks during rare summer thunderstorms).

Taking into account all of the above me, I propose to add my changes to this section:

Toddy1 and Ssbbplayer, I really look forward to your objectivity on this issue. Thank you. Paulandys (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No original research says "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."


 * Writing down a load of stuff, that you think ought to be true is original research. Giving the stuff citations to "not quite correct sources" that you cribbed from other articles or Google is dishonest.


 * As regards your latest proposal, the very first source I checked was to a text on "Köppen Climate Classification System", which does not mention the city. Citations to this kind of irrelevant source are not helpful.--  Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "As the city exemplifies the urban heat island effect, temperatures in commercial areas and in the industrialized areas along interstates are often higher than in the suburbs, often as much as 2.8 °C (5 °F).The city lies in the USDA plant hardiness zones 7a and 7b (Downtown).[5]" The source does not mention any of the stuff in the first sentence. There is a map in source [5] that justifies the statement about hardiness zones - but this is probably of greater significance to an article about hardiness zones than to an article on the city of Dnepropetrovsk.  The terms "downtown" and "interstate" are American terms, which have no meaning to the rest of us.--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Owing to geography, heavy reliance on automobiles, and the coal-using industries, such as metallurgical coke-chemical plants, Dnipropetrovsk suffers from air pollution in the form of smog.[7]" Where is in the source is any of that?--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, well I knew (or rather I guessed) that you think so, but I'm more than rely on the fact that you understand the concept of "climate zones" and "climatic regions" and what climates they represent. Listen to what you said domestic atlas, is fundamentally different from the situation that actually. Ukrainian climatology very long time moving away from Soviet concepts about climate (whether these are your words). I say to you about the facts, not the quotes in the old dusty books. You see, I was in in the agricultural sector and very strong sign of the climate and its features and I would not write complete nonsense here, if I did not know what I write.
 * Look, I just suggest to make what I write (the description of the climate of the city Dnipropetrovsk region), so maybe it does not describe the city of Dnepropetrovsk, but it describes the region (climate zone) of the city.


 * Just understand description of the city in the form of climate (
 * During the summer, Dnepropetrovsk very warm ...) is not quite correct. You can use this classification to describe the source: < / ref> (there is a map that clearly indicate the type of climate in the region).


 * Can I edit a chapter, if you want. Or you are using this link (it seems to me justified in full, as this scientific work, and in it we are talking about the crops, and it has to do with the climate zone and the climate as a whole) or the other (better).


 * Just understand one simple thing: dry climate of the region is not as it can not be wet continental - it's true and it's a fact.


 * Thank you for your response and your comments.


 * P.S.At the expense of hardiness zones: We, too, need to know which plants can be grown (and here it does not matter the United States or any other country) literate person reading make for themselves the right conclusions.


 * Thank you, waiting for your response on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulandys (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the citations do not support the content. Providing citations to general texts on classification systems is of relevance only to articles on the classification systems.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, what articles you want?
 * To be honest, I have read so many years is: (During the summer, Dnepropetrovsk very warm ...).


 * Why do you push down the obvious, you read my sources? Why in other Wikipedia articles are worse quotes on the subject, but not here? I just do not understand ... The source, which I gave in the last treatment have a map that clearly shows in which climatic region is Dnepropetrovsk.


 * Look for example at these sections is really better described the climate of the city ?:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver#Climate


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque,_New_Mexico#Climate


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City#Climate


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Climate


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid#Climate


 * And that's just cursory examples ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulandys (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you look at the example of Denver, you will see that it cites the same source that you wanted to cite for the climate classification. This source  explicitly states Denver's climate classification under the Köppen system.  It is therefore a relevant source for Denver.  But the source does not mention Dnepropetrovsk.--  Toddy1 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Latest revision as of 10:17, 7 August 2016 by Paulandys:

Citation [1] is. This says the following:
 * "The Climate of the Ukraine can be classified as Dfb Climate; a humid Snow climate with warmest month between 10°C and 22°C over average, the coldest month lower than -3°C over average and four or more months above 10°C over average. The coastal areas of the Black Sea have a Cfa Climate,; a warm temperated humid climate with the warmest month lower than 22°C over average and four or more months above 10°C over average. The Climate of the eastern Inland areas can be classified as Bsk Climate, a cold, dry Climate with a dry summer and annual average Temperatures under 18°C."

Citation [1] was in the previous version of the article.

Citation [2] is World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification This shows a world map in which Ukraine including the coastal areas is shown as Bs climate (steppe). This source contradicts citation [1].

Citation [3] is  This shows a tiny map of the world that shows Ukraine in which Ukraine including the coastal areas is shown as semi-arid. This source also contradicts citation [1].

There is a difference in formatting between citations [2] and [3] that were inserted by Paulandys in his/her edit, which suggests that the citations were copied from other articles.

There is a contradiction between sources that should be discussed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Citations 2 of 3 from the counter to citation  1, here's why: "Climate eastern hinterland can be classified as the Ivory Coast climate, cold, dry climate with dry summers and average temperatures below 18 ° C" (Dnepropetrovsk is located on the South-East (or in the East (according to other sources)) in the steppe zone of Ukraine (Ukraine see the map if you do not know)) where there is a high evaporation, which is contrary to the climate of define as "wet continental climate", please read the literature on bioclimatic zones of the planet, and you will understand everything.


 * Here for example in the steppes - the climate is dry, continental nature, but dry. A forest bioclimatic regions - continental wet evenly moistened. Dnipropetrovsk is located in the plains, not in the forest regions, and that the climate is dry steppe.


 * http://www.wiley.com/college/sc/deblij/1.pdf


 * Read the information and look at the map on the sites, and then I have a feeling that you do not understand what you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulandys (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know which book the pdf is from? It appears to be chapter one of one the following two books:
 * Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts, by H.J. de Blij, Peter Muller and Jan Nijman, pub Wiley, 16th Edition
 * The World Today: Concepts and Regions in Geography, by H.J. de Blij, Peter Muller and Jan Nijman, pub Wiley, 6th Edition
 * Whichever it it, the map on page 45 supports a statement that the climate is BSk for Dnepropetrovsk and also cities on the Black Sea coast of Ukraine.


 * Nevertheless, other sources paint a different view. For example World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification updated, has a link underlying data.  This zip-archive contains one text file (ASCII text with CRLF line terminators) including the climate classification on a regular 0.5 degree lat/lon grid for the period 1951 to 2000. Dnipropetrovsk is 48°27′N 34°59′, and the nearest data point in the table of underlying data is:  48.25  34.75, which is Dfb.--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

When I calculated the Köppen-Geiger climate classifications from climate data and the Köppen-Geiger climate classification formulae I got the following results -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dnepropetrovsk: Dfa
 * Krivoy Rog: Dfa
 * Zaporozhye: Dfa
 * Sevastopol: Cfa


 * With regards to the data that Toddy1 mentioned, it is from 1951–2000 (based on the journal article under the "Data and method" section), which is why it would have a Dfb climate back then (the old 1961–1990 data shows it as Dfb since the July mean temperature is only 21.2). The Dfa is based on the new data from 1981–2010. I also would like to point out that some steppe areas such as most of the prairies in Canada are classified as continental rather than steppe (BSk) so just because it is located in a plains does not necessary mean that it has a BSk climate (this is probably one of the shortcomings of the system but this is just my opinion). Citation 2 and 3 are not reliable as citation 1 since citation 1 mentions the methodology used to derive the map and the data sources while sources 2 and 3 fail to mention on how they come up with the map. I checked the Peel et al source and similar to the citation 1, most of Ukraine falls under the Dfb zone with a small patch of Dfa and Cfa in the south. Again the source has a detailed methodology in generating the map so these 2 sources are reliable compared to citation 2 and 3. Regarding citation 2, the methodology is subjective for rainfall, using terms such as "heavy wet all year" and "minimal rainfall". What constitutes heavy rainfall year round and what is the threshold required for a place to have minimal rainfall? A similar question is also applied to what constitutes a "wet continental climate"? Also, source 2 overgeneralizes too much climates by saying how humid continental climates have evenly distributed rainfall even though places in Asia have a summer maxima in precipitation. Citation 3 is not as reliable as citation 1 and the Peel et al source. For the weatheronline source, they do not define "eastern inland areas" nor provide a map so I cannot be 100% sure if Dnipropetrovsk lies in the BSk zone. They also defined Cfa wrong since the warmest mean temp must be above 22, not below 22 as what the source says. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please could you suggest a wording for the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my suggestion for the first sentence. It should be "Under the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system, Dnipropetrovsk has a humid continental climate (Dfa/Dfb) (citation 1 inserted here)". Citation 1 has good data. Personally, I think this version is the best. Again, being in a plains does not necessary mean that it is semi–arid. It is just on the drier side of the humid continental climate regime. I choose Dfa/Dfb since it is a borderline case as the mean temp in the warmest month in the 1981-2010 period is just above 22 (while older period of references such as the 1961-1990 and 1951-2000 are slightly below 22). Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Footnote about Wikipedia naming guidelines in lead
I tried a few minutes ago to add this footnote  (It was deleted before I got the chance to make it a footnote....) I was trying to add this footnote because for readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines it most be confusing why not the official name of the city is used. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We should not self-refer to Wikipedia in the article itself (see: MOS:SELFREF).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dnipropetrovsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150126192559/http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5it8f_MOzCKu2hxVHUUXwOvzetMIw to https://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5it8f_MOzCKu2hxVHUUXwOvzetMIw

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Failed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't made sense
Hi It doesn't made sense that we write in ukrainian language in an english encyclopedia. We could only write with cyrillic alphabet after a parenthesis. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is written in Ukrainian language?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I talk about that before your edit. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016
Requesting a heading correction and link adjustment

My request is based to material already within the existing document; "In order to comply with the 2015 decommunization law the city was renamed Dnipro in May 2016.[10][14]"

The disambiguation(s) related to this subject matter may also require some tweaking, think... Russian Dnepr to Dnieper to Dnepropetrovsk to Dnipropetrovsk to what should be Dnipro so if any human being associated with Wikipedia is interested in discussing this component of this humble requester's request, my contact information follows!

Sincerely, Ric

PS: Sort of like Kharkiv vs. Kharkov; both the same place; one considered international, the other local... go figure!

Richard W. Stowell Brooklyn, WI

50.105.208.4 (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed and the consensus was to wait for a few months to see if the new name takes hold in English. It's not about the wishes of the Rada, it's only about English common usage per WP:COMMONNAME.  --Taivo (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Dnipropetrovsk. 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/20131020090115/http://www.dneprstat.gov.ua/statinfo/ds/2011/ds1_m07.htm to http://www.dneprstat.gov.ua/statinfo/ds/2011/ds1_m07.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012010700/http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/270.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/270.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bip.um.szczecin.pl/umszczecinbip/chapter_11296.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331054219/http://www.thessalonikicity.gr:80/English/twinning-cities.htm to http://www.thessalonikicity.gr/English/twinning-cities.htm

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) 13:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The city is renamed
Now it's called Dnipro (ukr) or Dnepr (rus). Please rename! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.235.68 (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2016
I open this discussion, becous in the name 'Dnipro (Town)' is better then 'Dnipropetrovsk', i think... 0x0F (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dnipropetrovsk → Dnipro (Town)
 * This has already been discussed several times this year and the consensus is to wait a few months to see if the new name catches on in English. --Taivo (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * French, German, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and Turkish versions of Wikipedia have already changed it. The reason why this version hasn't changed yet is artificial and politically motivated kafkaesque obstruction from the pro-Russian lobby. Aim4accuracy (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what Dnepropetrovsk is called in foreign languages, it only matters what it is called in the English language. As for the notion of a pro-Russian lobby influencing decisions, well if they did then English-language Wikipedia would have followed the lead of Russian-language Wikipedia; it has done the opposite and stuck with the most commonly used word for the city's name in the English language (albeit with the "i" spelling, instead of the "e" spelling).--  Toddy1 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And in English language the city of Dnipro is called Dnipro. Like Zaporizhia or Kharkiv. Also, I like how you said "they", speaking about the pro-Russian lobby =) Very subtle. "English-language Wikipedia would have followed the lead of Russian-language Wikipedia". -> Not necessarily. Difference between internal and external propaganda in Russia can be striking. Aim4accuracy (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't know what you're talking about. In English transliteration, the new name of the city is "Dnipro" of course.  But that's immaterial.  What is important is the name that English language sources and media use.  The most commonly used name is still "Dnipropetrovsk" from the sources that we have.  One or two sources changing usage is not a valid argument for changing Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME.  There are still many English language sources that use "Dnipropetrovsk" and "Dnepropetrovsk".  The situation may change.  It may change soon.  It may change in the distant future.  ("Kiev" has never changed.  Indeed, many sources that started using "Kyiv" for a time have actually switched back to common English "Kiev".)  But until it changes, we follow Wikipedia policies and procedures and retain "Dnipropetrovsk" as the name of the article.  The decision of the Rada makes no difference.  The decision of the Dnipro city council makes no difference.  The decision of the US and UK governments make no difference.  The only thing that matters is common English usage.  For example, here is a new web site that uses "Dnepropetrovsk".  --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, many sources that started using "Kyiv" for a time have actually switched back to common English "Kiev"." - Any proofs? Dotoner (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of the New York Times using "Kyiv" in 2013. But in 2016, they are using "Kiev" (except in proper names like "Kyiv Post" and "Dynamo Kyiv") as here.  --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a shift to "Kyiv" in 2013 at the NYT as there are articles with "Kyiv" dated even 2004. Rather, the journalists were free to use the variant they want, but from 2014 editors started controlling this issue. But ok, let's count it as 0.5. What are the rest of those "many sources"? Dotoner (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. This isn't the Kiev renaming page in any case.  My point is the same.  The English name of Kiev is "Kiev" and "Kyiv" is just a Ukrainian transliteration.  A large number of style guides and geographic references recognize this.  But this is the page for Dnipro(petrovsk).  --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Then why Zaporizhia and Kharkiv? Old, russified names - Zaporozhye and Kharkov - are more common in Google news, for example. Yet, English Wikipedia uses correct names instead. 2. English language sources like encyclopedias, official sites, geo servers and other official and serious sources, they use correct names. The only inert thing here is media that uses outdated names(probably because of Wikipedia itself in part), and not even always. Nowhere in the rules it is said that media must be more important than all other sources combined. Nowhere. It is just one of them. Also Dnipro is an important industrial city, so people would mostly read about it through serious sources for serious business. Your "new site" "evidence" is not evidence, and not even illustration. Aim4accuracy (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you read it yourself? WP:OTHERSTUFF states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Aim4accuracy (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * New name is already accepted in Google Earth and Google map. Must be changed here. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, the name is already changed in almost all other Wikis, including German, French, Russian and Italian. There is no indication it's going to be changed back, so I think we need to change it here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Google Earth and Google Maps are not common English usage. Again, we've already discussed this within the last couple of months and the consensus was to wait a few months to see if English usage actually changes.  --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Political position about official city name?


 * Just funny (or pity) to watch as the refusal to recognize the official renaming of the city does not allow to part with the old name and rename a significant article about the fourth most populous city in Ukraine.


 * Renaming officially passed a long time ago, it used all the international sites like Google's services and other language editions of Wikipedia, but why don't here? Awaiting for 40 years?


 * It is a pity, because even find a city in Wikipedia under the new name through the search is hard. Many people who are not versed in the subject, will not understand how the city is called in reality. And many people use the Wikipedia for fast check spelling or their knowledge.


 * This page is misleading and does not reflect reality - the official renaming by national Parliament. Right now nothing does not change, and if will do - Wikipedia should follow for changes reality, and do not freeze their vision. Wikipedia is undermining its authority by the fact that make political position in this case.


 * -- Victor Babenko (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That the commonly used name for a place in one language is different from the name in another language is not particularly unusual - try visiting Belgium or Italy. This is English-language Wikipedia, so we use the generally accepted English-language name Dnepropetrovsk or Dnipropetrovsk.--  Toddy1 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But Dnepropetrovsk or Dnipropetrovsk? Why two, not one? If there are two names, may there be also three?.. I understand, the one was earlier, the other occurred later (since Ukraine's independence). So, is there a precedent of the city name evolving!? Is it not time for evolving into Dnipro, now?--Slovolyub (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not generally accepted English-language name. Unfortunately, it is your personal subjective vision.
 * Compare with Zaporizhia vs Zaporozye (even without renaming), Bakhmut vs Artemovsk, Horishni Plavni vs Komsomolsk, Kharkiv vs Kharkov (same as Zaporizhia), Nikolske vs Volodarske, Kamianske vs Dniprodzerzhynsk, Pokrov, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast vs Ordzhonikidze, Toretsk vs Dzerzhynsk, Oleshky vs Tsuryupynsk, Chornomorsk vs Illichivsk and even Kropyvnytskyi vs Kirovohrad! And many other, a lot of examples!


 * Dnipro is an exception throughout all renamed list of names. Why so? This city is not the touristic or international commerce center as Kyiv (Kiev) or Odesa (Odessa). Even Kharkiv was renamed to ukrainian transliteration by Wikipedia community.


 * The explanation for this is only one - political position. There is no reason for this city to be special in the renamed list.


 * The English-language Wikipedia should give full information to readers. There is not "generally accepted English-language name" for this city in the English-speaking world because it is not very popular in the world. "Generally accepted English-language name" is that people will see on the map, in official press-announces (example of Eurovision) and here - in Wikipedia! And you know this ;) That's why sabotaging renaming.


 * So now the article is misleading. I think, calling article Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) might be a compromise if you think that the former name is so firmly entrenched in world culture and inextricably linked with it.


 * But my examples with renamed list of names is clearly shows that "Dnipro En-Wikipedia question" with a high probability is only a political position of individual editors.


 * ---Victor Babenko (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Victor, all you reveal is that you are unfamiliar with Dnepropetrovsk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Show to English Wikipedia what is this town called in English sources. How can we know that it is called Dnipro? Dnipro is simple transliteration, it means practically nothing (it means something for places not present in English sources at all). Google maps uses Dnipropetrovsk see. No politics at all, new name must be promoted elsewhere first. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Google map uses Dnipro. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which one? Ukrainian? Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The one you referenced to.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it may be browser or language settings thing. And what do you get if you click to "Dnipro" or write "Dnipro" into "search google maps"? For me it is changes to "Dnipropetrovsk". Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I get "Dnipro, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Ukraine". I am based in the Netherlands.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For me "Dnjepropetrovsk" if I use NL Google in NL language. I specifically used google.co.uk, search language English and it showed me Dnipropetrovsk. Google maps won't be decisive either way.... Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's see: www.google.co.uk - search request "dnepropetrovsk city": About 2,910,000 results, search request "dnipropetrovsk city": About 5,300,000 results, search request "dnipro city": About 6,400,000 results. Search request "dnepr city" or "dniepr city" refers to the river and to all cities on the river, so doesn't mean something.
 * But it's true, even after request "dnipro city" Google will show map with "Dnipro" label on it and big title under it: "Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine".
 * If expand it by clicking, you'll see: Dnipropetrovsk or Dnepropetrovsk, is Ukraine's fourth largest city, with about one million inhabitants. It is 391 kilometres southeast of the capital Kiev on the Dnieper River, in the south-central part of Ukraine. Wikipedia
 * Google take this label from English Wikipedia! So, Wikipedia cannot be an information source for itself.
 * In the results (https://www.google.co.uk/#q=dnipro+city) there are tourist sites, weather sites, and news about the renaming and about the Eurovision Song Contest. Most of them came from Ukrainian sources, yes. But exactly the same we'll see with the "Dnipropetrovsk city" request.
 * In fact, this city is not on the agenda of the English-speaking media, as well as any city from the list I brought in the example above.
 * Will the community of Wikipedia to wait until there will be something resonant for English-language media so they will come into it and write materials? Or apply to this city the same approach, as well as to all other cities from the list above?
 * Moreover, the search results show its new name "Dinpro" (not counting results from Wikipedia) even for "Dnepropetrovsk city" request: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Dnipropetrovsk+city
 * ——Victor Babenko (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the rationale behind not to change the name about half a year ago was was to see if the new name is being used widely. Now, we do need to take into account that it's not one of the most mentioned Ukrainian cities in the English language press. The main support for a change was using the name "Dnipro" at all Eurovision related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It's probably the only event we are going to relate to the city in years to come and all related articles mentions Dnipro, not Dnipropetrovsk. In addition, the are newer articles in news outlets, referring to the city as Dnipro: 1, 2, 3, . Also, as we saw Google maps use Dnipro and well as following cites:, , , , . In addition, the only mentioning of Dnipropetrovsk lately is related to football club FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, in which Dnipropetrovsk a part of the name. In football to change the name of a team is quite a different story. Also, the second rate after Ukrainian, the city is mentioned in Russian language news and cites. What do we see there. The article is renamed in Russian wikipedia as well as news search in Russian: . So, I am still positive it's time to rename article here and I do agree Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) may be quite a consensus for a while with redirection from Dnipro, Dnipropetrovsk to it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eurovision as main reason? Funny. Show as how city itself presents in English language - official city pages, airport, football club, brochures... Why is Oblast still with "old" name?! Why is name of football club still with "old" name which carries most of city references! It would help a LOT if city itself presented consistently, now it is a mess. Ask them, not Wikipedia, to change first. What did other wikipedias in their language is not relevant, each is considering sources in its language. Also google results are irrelevant, google results in English are important. Dnipro (former Dnipropetrovsk) - it would be against naming conventions. What about similar pages - Dnipropetrovsk Metro would be Dnipro Metro (former Dnipropetrovsk Metro)? Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets look what do we have:
 * Official city webpage: . Called welcome to Dnipro city.
 * Official airport cite: . Dnepropetrovsk. But, interesting that Skyscanner and Orbitz refers to it as Dnipro airport and the airport cite does not look updated for a long time.
 * Official city news portal: . Dnepr.
 * I am not sure the city is that popular tourist destination to have brochures, at least I didn't find anything on any cites, but lets look at popular travel cites:
 * Lonely Planet: . Dnipro.
 * Expedia: . Dnipro
 * Travelocity: . Dnipro
 * Orbitz: . Dnipro
 * Football club is called Dnipro and the main arena is called Dnipro Arena.
 * As for oblast name, this is usual in post Soviet countries. Take into example Saint Petersburg in Leningrad Oblast, Yekaterinburg in Sverdlovsk Oblast.
 * And the last one, don't diminish Eurovision. It's a major European event and the biggest, that was associated with the city in years to come probably. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The city is called the same as the river in Ukrainian, should not the same logic be applied to English as well - Dnieper?
 * Probably yes, but not "Dnepropetrovsk". Article in Russian uses the same name as a river. I do agree with you here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So - Travel sites - are these the most popular, or you chose the ones which supports you cause?
 * Please, do not be mistaken, I don't have cause here. I am merely an encyclopedist, discussing a matter with a fellow colleagues. And yes, travel site I choose as an example are most popular. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about main tourist attractions in the city and their sites in English?
 * There is no many tourist attraction on the city, having an English website. What I could find is Menorah Center - It's written there that it's in the City of Dnepr, which is another transcription of Dniepr; Planetarium - the site is on Ukrainian, but calls city Dnipro. Again, it's not a world Mecca of tourism, so it quite hard to find english language pages for small amount of attractions there.
 * Airport - too bad, airport is surely more important than that eurovision. Write them not here.
 * I don't think you're getting a point. We're not arguing, we're discussing, so I don't need to write anyone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about city public transport? Is it Dnipro Metro? It is not. Write them not here.
 * Urban Rail calls it Dnipro Metro. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Football club - site logo says "Dnepropetrovsk". Write them not here.
 * Oblast - if the renaming was meant seriously, then this must be changed too. (constitution issue, as written below)
 * As I said and showed examples above - oblast and city are different things. Surely you're not going to propose reverting Saint Petersburg to Leningrad, because Leningrad Oblast wasn't renamed as Saint Petersburg oblast.
 * In conclusion - if the city wants to be called Dnipro on Wiki, it should present as "Dnipro" outside Wikipedia as well and do something about it. Don't tell us that Dnipro is now official and that it is confusing that Wiki does not say it. What IS confusing - You travel to Dnipro, you end up on airport Dnipropetrovsk, then take Dnipropetrovsk Metro, visit Dnepropetrovsk FC Dnipro, see river Dnieper and read newspaper Dnepr. Wiki won't solve this and is not the first to be done. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In my conclusion, city does not want anything from Wiki. We are discussing what we, Wikipedians want to see here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Leningrad - Petersburg: No, the other way around. If UA passed "decommunisation" law to get rid of unfitting names, they should do it with Oblast too, otherwise it is breaking its own law in the first place. As you can see you found multiple transcriptions of the name used, it is a mess. Yes we are discussing and I don't say you specifically force something - but if someone else wants to force wikipedia to rename, they should do it in the city first and properly, write e-mail and persuade airport, metro, landmarks, etc... to loudly promote Dnipro, Dnieper or whatever they want to be called in English. Metro - the logo in Ukrainian says [Dnipropetrovskyi] so I doubt English name would be the new one. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * but the Leningrad oblast wasn't renamed and stayed as is and no one forced anyone to do it. And again, I don't want anything but to establish what we do here and either we leave it as is or change. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are we talking about Leningrad as example of illogical Oblast names, that's Russia. Ukraine went its own way - to loudly get rid of old name. So let them show us that it is meant seriously and new name is visible where it should be visible. Now it is not, as we established. They renamed it on paper but "city sign" on the road remained the same (well maybe not city sign, but we found lots of examples). Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The name has not really changed for normal people. They carry on calling the city Dnepropetrovsk and Dnipropetrovsk.  Today there was the announcement of the winner of a competition - the winner was identified as being from Dnipropetrovsk [sic]. For political people in Ukraine, the name has perhaps changed.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're in position to talk about "normal" and "political" people. As encyclopedists, we operate facts, and facts only. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The oblast wasn't renamed because it's mentioned in the Constitution. The preparations for change are being made, but it seems the parliament wants to vote for a single package of amendments, which will also include changes concerning judicial reform and decentralization. Dotoner (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Arthistorian1977 claimed that "the airport cite does not look updated for a long time."  But http://dnk.aero/en/ had the news last updated on 28 December 2016:
 * Dear guests, partners and colleagues!
 * Congratulations to you and your family Happy New Year and Merry Christmas!
 * In this, the most magical holiday of the year, we wish first of all wish-fulfillment!
 * Let this New Year become the special for you! Let the most desirable dreams will come true, unexpected and glad events will happen, and life will be filled with love, kindness and light!
 * Successes to you, happiness and prosperity!
 * With best regards
 * International airport “Dnepropetrovsk”
 * The part of the airport website for flights is updated all through the day. That is part of its purpose to tell customers about arrival and departure flights, whether they are late, etc. The name is not an accident, it is the real name in the English language.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This thread should be closed. The two single-purpose accounts have not convinced established editors that the English name for Dnipro has changed. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Climate
Thanks for correcting the climate data in the article. If you look at the archives of the talk page as recommended by Paulandys, you will see that Ssbbplayer and I both calculated the Köppen-Geiger climate classifications from climate data and the Köppen-Geiger climate classification formulae. Depending on which data set we used, we got Dfa (1981–2010 data) or Dfb (1951–2000 data).--  Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We may add this information. In fact, Dnipropetrovsk is borderline Dfa/Dfb using 1981-2010 dataset, due to July temperature slightly above the 22°C limit by Köppen. But yes, taking a different 30-year period it might fall under Dfb.--Carnby (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
In stating that he/she preferred the model-generated data from www.meteoblue.com, Paulandys stated that:
 * Your inf. is too old.
 * Modeling or not, this is not so important as that in the summer of the last 20 years 30+ temperatures and the fact that it is better to have at least some data on solar indicators than not to have at all, and count more data for a period o...
 * Your data is a description of the last century, it's not true, my data is closer to reality. Calculate the time periods of temperature for a period of 20 or 30 years, I did it, so do you, and if you do not want, then treat at least with resp

The www.meteoblue.com states that its data "are based on 30 years of hourly weather model simulations" and that the "data is derived from our global NEMS weather model at approximately 30km resolution and cannot reproduce detail local weather effects, such as heat islands, cold air flows, thunderstorms or tornadoes." The data are a "simulated climate data-set".

The other source Paulandys favours is http://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/ukraine/dnepropetrovsk.php#other weather2travel.com], though only for sun data.

It seems much better to use real data from a reliable source that uses measurements of the weather, such as Pogoda.ru.net. Paulandys says that the data in that source are too old - yet the page for Dnepropetrovsk contains data on extremes that gives the year, and many of these years are in the past 15 years. The data from pogodaiklimat.ru in the above weather box was last updated in August 2016; if you compare this with the source, you can see that the weather box needs updating again, because measurements over the past 9 months have resulted in changes to averages on the pogodaiklimat.ru page. Clearly the allegation that pogodaiklimat.ru is too old is not true.

The number of "average snowy days" is very different between the real data from pogodaiklimat.ru and the simulated data from www.meteoblue.com. Though it depends on what you mean by a snowy day:
 * meteoblue.com 23 days per year. This uses the meaning: days on which there was precipitation in the form of snow.
 * pogodaiklimat.ru 64 days per year. Same definition.
 * pogodaiklimat.ru 72 days with snow cover per year. Days on which there was snow on the ground.

Another interesting comparison is to look at temperature for particular month - I chose January. This is something that all three websites provide data for. To my surprise, the weather box supposedly based on meteoblue.com has different values than that shown on the meteoblue.com website.
 * Average daily maximum temperature (January)
 * Weather box based on meteoblue.com +2.2°C
 * meteoblue.com 0°C
 * weather2travel.com -2°C
 * pogodaiklimat.ru -1.0°C
 * Average daily minimum temperature (January)
 * Weather box based on meteoblue.com -5.8°C
 * meteoblue.com -5°C
 * weather2travel.com -8°C
 * pogodaiklimat.ru -6.1°C

I believe that we should use the pogodaiklimat.ru data.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is another website weatheronline.co.uk. It allows us to see which data we want to use. I have therefore looked at three time periods: 1982-now. Jan 2000 to Dec 2016, and Jan 2016 to Dec 2016: I assume that this is real data, and not synthetic data like meteoblue.com.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Days with snow:
 * 90.0 days (1982-2017)
 * 99.2 days (2000-2016)
 * 96 days (2016 only)
 * Average daily maximum temperature (January):
 * -1.5°C (1982-2017)
 * -1.4°C (2000-2016)
 * -2.9°C (2016 only)
 * Average daily minimum temperature (January):
 * -5.8°C (1982-2017)
 * -5.8°C (2000-2016)
 * -8.8°C (2016 only)


 * I would like to add that mean maximums and mean minimums are not shown in the meteoblue website. The sunshine data entered in the weatherbox does not match from the weather2travel.com source (both monthly and daily values are shown).


 * Mean sunshine hour (January)
 * Weather box based on weather2travel.com 127.1 (4.1 hr/day)
 * weather2travel.com 61 (2 hr/day)
 * Mean sunshine hour (July)
 * Weather box based on weather2travel.com 381.3 (12.3 hr/day)
 * weather2travel.com 310 (10 hr/day)

It would mean the entire data is unsourced and this is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:Verifiability. I will still stick with the pogodaiklimat.ru data. There is no point in inserting made up data not backed up by any of the sources used. As for the claim that the data is closer to reality, that is based on one's opinion. Anyone can claim that the city has temperatures close to x degrees in the last x years. To verify that requires observed data since it is neutral and more accurate. Lastly, the claim that it is better to have at least some data on solar indicators than not to have at all is not the best. Unreliable sources such as weather2travel.com have no fact checking to indicate if the data is reliable or not. They are only using it for marketing purposes. It is bad to insert unreliable weather data and misinforming readers about the climate of the city. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Imagery
Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Paulandys may be of interest.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What is needed for the move to happen?
I hope everyone realizes that in the end the article will be moved (unless the city is renamed back but that is not the thing I am about to talk). Could anyone please tell the conditions? How many citations of reliable sources will be enough? So that one day I could come back to this talk page, put a list of references and request the move that will be proceeded smoothly. Please take me seriously. -- Ата <b style="color:#80A0FF;">(talk)</b> 16:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Smiley.svg Read Talk:Dnipropetrovsk. It says "let usage evolve and revisit the issue after a year".  So why not propose the move for the third time on 3rd August 2017.  And yes, I firmly expect that one day the article will be moved... to Dnepropetrovsk Smiley.svg  --  Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it also has a question mark after this sentence. Year is a very long period of time. -- Ата <b style="color:#80A0FF;">(talk)</b> 20:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think third request for move can be opened without waiting for a year. As for now, there are a lot of evidence for a new name usage. Everything, related to Eurovision uses it -, . Also, the following references show widespread usage of a new name in English: , , , , , , . Actually, my personal opinion that the Rada's decision is quite enough to change the name of an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rada's decision is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the English language Wikipedia. You clearly have no understanding of WP:COMMONNAME.  This isn't the Ukrainian Wikipedia.  Three requests in three months is a waste of Wikipedia time.  Why don't you actually do something productive?  Waiting a year is nothing in Wikipedia.  Instead of predicting that a change may happen, just act like an adult and wait for it to happen.  --Taivo (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let say that you should learn a rules of polite discussion. This essay may help you with this. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are examples of name changes that were made quite quickly. For exaxmple Bakhmut, Kamianske, Chornomorsk changed the names in 2016 and almost immediately articles were renamed. An older change - Staines-upon-Thames was renamed from Staines and renamed here almost instantly. I assume it's quite a logical approach, when a sovereign changes the name of something on it's territory and the news sources start using that name, gradually increasing the amount of reliable sources we can use here. No one can say that Eurovision related sources are not reliable. And I don't see any WP:CRYSTALBALL here. And one more fact - the article is renamed not only in Ukrainian wikipedia. The new name is in German, Russian ( !!! ), Hebrew, French and many others. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And perhaps rather than wasting Wikipedia time once a month with another move request, you find more constructive things to do that actually improve the encyclopedia rather than pushing the Rada's bidding. And it doesn't matter one whit what the other Wikipedias do.  All that matters is English common name.  Period.  No one said that Eurovision reporting wasn't reliable.  But that is not the sum of English common usage.  And none of the other examples you cited were major cities.  Kiev and Odessa are still not at Ukrainian language locations because of English common usage.  Dnipro is not a hole-in-the-wall.  It is a major city and its name occurs in English language sources.  Are you so impatient that you have to move as fast as possible after the Rada dictates?  Waiting for a time is appropriate to see where English common usage moves with respect to the name of this city.  Two months is not an eternity.  One year is not an eternity.  After a year, English common usage will be crystal clear.  You don't win points for moving this article as fast as possible.  --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the change is not using Ukrainian name vs. not Ukrainian, but a complete change of the name. In case of change from Dnipropetrovsk to something like Dnypropetrovsk, I would agree with you. Kiev and Odessa are the way city names pronounced in English. But, anyway, at this point I can do only one productive thing here, which is excuse myself from discussing things with you, since you clearly don't understand a polite way of having a discussion. Wasting time is the continuation of talking to you. I will allow to myself to disagree with your point of view and end my interaction at this point. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like that despite consensus to move, it'll keep being held up in wiki-bureaucracy because it's not unanimous, held up by the old timers fighting the reality of the name change and it's clear use in English media since. Also I think Taivo is being a little disingenuous here, I looked at his "list" of Dnipropetrovsk used in current sources and they were all travel sites that just hadn't been updated yet - one page was from 2011. This is just shady sourcing to pad numbers. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to study WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a majority vote.  It is agreement and there is no agreement here.  It doesn't matter whether the "old timers" disagree or not.  There is no consensus that English common usage has changed.  Surely there is some evidence that it is beginning to change, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the change is not particularly widespread at this time.  Eliminate the publicity about Eurovision and there is very, very little evidence of the change yet.  So just learn the meaning of the word "patience".  We will revisit the issue in the near future (not next month, but several months from now).  By then the situation in English usage may be clearer, but for now there is enough doubt to not bow to the will of the Rada just because they say so.  --Taivo (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Double standards Mr Toivo (Dnipropetrovsk — Kamianske). --ValeriySh (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Spelling lessons, Mr. ValeriySh. And it's not a "double standard".  It's WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Kamianske is a location that doesn't have a common English name because it is never mentioned in English outside Wikipedia.  Dnipro is not in that category.  It is a major city and occurs in English media outside Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not strictly true, Dneprodzerzhinsk is mentioned in biographies of (1) Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and (2) Vera Brezhneva because they were born there. However, Kamianske is the historic name - when Brezhnev was born, the city was not Dneprodzerzhinsk.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually hoping that the city will host the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 and then in English media will massively be referred to as "Dnipro". If such a thing would happen then waiting another year to rename this article will be rather silly.... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a comment. This whole discussion is, pardon me for such word, stupid and as ValeriySh said has double standards all over it. The article was not moved due to the fact that some members of Wikipedia do not want to face the reality. They live in their own "Wikipedia World" coming up with weird rules about what is mentioned and not as well as counting Google hits instead of expressing the truth. Same type of editors came out back in 2014 editing bunch of self-invented articles about various separatist states and political parties. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CCB sad emoticon.jpg Wikipedia is a terrible place to be a truther. I am sorry that you do not like the "weird rules", that require a neutral point of view, verifiability and no cherry-picking of sources.  It is imperfect and frustrating.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, you need to keep your unnecessary empathy to yourself. What you just called weird rules, I have no problem and the cherry-picking is what you do. Let's be truthful to each other. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did the majority of votes on the issue called for move or not? So, what are we still discussing here? It only will cause more conflicts on Wikipedia. Is that your goal? Is that the Wikipedia's goal? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the issue connected to a systematic changes that were taking place in Ukraine as part of decommunization? Yes, it was. The statement that the name change took place only in Ukrainian language is wrong. The name was changed regardless of language. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the changes to the city's name voted the Dnipro city's council, majority of which is composed of Russophone and pro-Russian citizens of Dnipro city. Even the city's portal says Welcome to Dnipro City! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dnipro is the city's name on Google Maps. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Will you be proposing that the article on Kamianske be renamed Dniprodzerzhyns'k on the basis that that is the name used by Google Maps?-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What is needed? I will repeat what I wrote in different section which is now closed: Look how city itself presents in English language - official city pages, airport, football club, brochures... oblast name... Why is name of football club still with "old" name which carries most of city references!!! It would help a LOT if city itself presented consistently, now it is a mess (something renamed, most same as before). Ask them, not Wikipedia, to change first. Write e-mail and persuade airport, metro, landmarks, etc... to loudly promote Dnipro, Dnieper or whatever they want to be called in English. So let them show us that it is meant seriously and new name is visible where it should be visible IN THE CITY ITSELF. Now it is not. They renamed it on paper (in law) but "city sign" on the road remained the same (well maybe not city sign, but we found lots of examples). No propaganda reasons involved, only sloppiness of execution in the city itself. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This POV push on this talk page is too obvious. First, airport name is Dnepropetrovsk airport. The airport doesnt automatically follow the name of the city it is based in, it has its own name that hasnt been changed. Vienna International Airport is based in town of Schwechat, not Vienna but we are not renaming Schwechat into Vienna because of that. Second, we are not discussing airport here, we are discussing city here. Fourth, you cannot throw around all the time arguments that what matters is common name and then argue with official names that you dismissed in the same post. Its hypocritical.
 * Football club name is FC Dnipro, name of metro is Dnipro metro as it falls under Ministry of Transportation, not City Hall, landmarks names are landmark names.
 * Morever, we have to follow WP:NAMECHANGES, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT
 * Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, the COMMONNAME section of this page still applies, but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME.
 * So, lets have a quick look at Google News that generally includes WP:RS. "Dnipro" searches in all articles since 19/05/2016 gives us 37,400 results. "Dnipropetrovsk" 4770 results. Meaning that nearly 90 percent of articles about the city in post-renaming period, as per Wiki rules, use name Dnipro as opposed to Dnipropetrovsk. The latter actually in vast majority reffers to region, and not city, which has its own wiki page.
 * As a result, your argument is invalid, strongly on side of POV, and current situation is nonsensical and it is difficult to not feel politics behind the furious defense of the keepign the current name. While discussion last year rationale was to wait and see if WP:RS will pick up, now a year after renaming we can see crystal clear trend of reliable sources to name the city as "Dnipro". EllsworthSK (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep your POV rant to yourself and assume good faith on the part of all editors involved here. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to oppose you just because of your arrogance and rudeness accusing me of POV. But the evidence does seem to indicate that English-language sources have switched the name of the city to Dnipro (although not the region) over the last year.  --Taivo (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I havent been even reacting on you, but if you cannot even remain civil, which is basic requirement for any wiki editor, you should seriously think about WP:WIKIBREAK. Though its good to see that despite that you can acknowledge the shift in RS reports regarding the city based on evidence. I recommend opening another move proposal while notifying all those who participated in previous two discussions. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Before you get defensive, User:EllsworthSK, remember that it was you who started the personal attacks with, "As a result, your argument is invalid, strongly on side of POV, and current situation is nonsensical and it is difficult to not feel politics behind the furious defense of the keepign the current name." Remove the personal attack at the front end and the last half of your comment is perfectly appropriate.  You have to be careful on this page.  There is not a single, solitary editor here who is pro-Russian (which is what you are implying) or that supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Those of us who have a personal POV are all on the same side--pro-Ukraine--so accusations of political bias are not only unwarranted, but offensive.  But we don't edit Wikipedia through our personal bias.  We follow the procedures and standards of Wikipedia.  I suggest you do the same and assume that the rest of us do as well.  --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you are showing exactly what you are accusing me of and I will not play this game. You didnt once discuss the article, nor its proposed changes, only me. Think about WP:WIKIBREAK. And to add something actually contributing, I will tomorrow open discussion for move. If you have any other suggestions, please write it here. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have clearly not read anything here from the past to accuse me of not discussing the article. And your continued self-righteous false indignation is inappropriate.  It is not I who needs a WP:WIKIBREAK, but you.  You seem to be of the opinion that if anyone disagrees with you, then they are motivated by a negative POV.  If you are incapable of WP:AGF, then you need to do something else with your life besides editing Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, Im not interested in your attacks. If you are unable toto act civil, do a favor to others and at least bring it to my talkpage and don't pollute this discussion with this ramble. If you are interested in actual discussion regarding the article, I am willing to listen. But not to your attacks that above all tarnish your own reputation,such as it is. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one who started the attacks, so perhaps you need to take a dose of your own medicine. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're done here. Hope you will be able to stay on topic in reopened discussion. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I hope that you will be able to get on topic without trying to impute political agendas to those with opposing points of view based on Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are nonsense. No politics, I just say it is hard to change Wikipedia IF city itself DOES NOT use the name (or does not use it consistently). So airport will still be Dnipropetrovsk and it does not bother you? And Oblast will be Dnipropetrovsk? Is THAT a politics issue then too?!? If Dnipropetrovsk is so eww name for you, why only as a name of city but another uses are OK? THAT is hypocritical. BUT if it is true that English sources now use Dnipro, prove it and move can be done. But it should be common articles and sources, not news about renaming itself. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not bother me. And as for proofs, Google News clicks I added are a proof. I will wirte more in reopened discussion later today and you are welcome to counter-argument with your sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not bother you? So your only purpose is to change it on Wikipedia, and it does not matter if it is used in real life or not. Nice. Or you hope that once it is changed on Wikipedia, everybody will follow :) I can find 100 sources supporting change to, but I may find 1000 opposite sources. You may save us some work, be honest and present real usage in percents ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: Moved as proposed. Clear consensus for the name change, and nobody has objected to making it primary topic either. The disambiguation page will be moved to Dnipro (disambiguation). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk → Dnipro – We originally decided to wait several months before moving this article to see whether English usage would change. The evidence in the section above clearly demonstrates that English-language media are switching to "Dnipro". The media links from the preceding section on this Talk Page are from a number of English-speaking countries, on a wide variety of topics, in a wide range of contexts. In addition, reference works published since the official name change, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, are also switching. I opposed this move when the Rada first changed the name of the city, but I now support it because the trajectory of English usage is clear. Taivo (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the change is accepted, there is a format issue. I suggest for the city article the name Dnipro (instead of the original Dnipro (city)) and for the rest of Dnipro (disambiguation). I think the city rank is much higher than other entities / places named Dnipro. Ales sandro (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot that there is a disambiguation page at Dnipro. I don't care one way or the other whether the city page is at Dnipro or Dnipro (city).  --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: er, you cannot decide when the name of a place changes. Leave it as is until there is universal change towards your version. – Sb2001 talk page 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "universal" change. That's simply an unreasonable demand.  The Wikipedia policy is not for "universal change", but for "common English usage".  It's clear that common English usage has changed over the last few months as has been demonstrated above.  In this case, as we see that English usage is changing and has been demonstrated above, WP:NAMECHANGES applies.  Common English usage does not, and never has, meant "universal".  Demanding universal change would require "Saigon" and "Stalingrad" instead of "Ho Chi Minh City" and "Volgograd".  --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs to be evidenced over a period greater than a 'few months'. This is not enough evidence to suggest a change like this is permanent. Common English usage – if you prefer – needs reflecting. In my opinion, this change would reflect selected change, ie in a small field, where the examples provided are ones which suit your cause. Please – if you desire support on a matter such as this – provide a stronger argument than 'It's clear that common English usage has changed over the last few months'. We need something a lot more definite than this. – Sb2001 talk page 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From your contributions list, it seems clear that you are not familiar with Ukrainian naming issues and decommunization. This might be the very first time you've ventured onto this page.  The majority of the articles on cities that had their names changed in the spring of 2016 were changed automatically since they are rarely mentioned in English-language materials.  Dnipro is occasionally mentioned so the informal agreement from last year was to wait several months to see if the new name began to appear in English-language materials.  That's what we did.  It's obvious that the new name is being used in a wide variety of sources, so the agreement has been fulfilled.  I've been here on this issue from the beginning and was one of the most vocal of the "wait and see" editors.  We've waited, the name is changing.  It's time to move the article.  --Taivo (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Is changing'. Exactly. Not 'has changed'. Bring me a better argument, then let us see. And do not remove the template. – Sb2001  talk page 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Although, I do get your point. Let me think about it, then you may have my support. I will get back to you. – Sb2001 talk page 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: as per the arguments provided. It does seem an official thing. – Sb2001 talk page 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , since you changed to support, can you strike your oppose? Thank you. Dr.   K.  03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - my argumentation above. Ales sandro (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - support renaming to Dnipro. This should've been done a year ago.--Piznajko (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Long overdue. Kges1901 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Per Taivo and all the other supports. Dr.   K.  03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Must be ranamed to current name of the city. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.