Talk:Dnieper

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

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

You're assuming too much about what exactly was settled. The discussion at talk:Kyiv was very specific. The issue of what to use for the page heading for the article about Kyiv and a couple of other cities was settled. The poll on the subject did not say anything about what name should be used in any other context.

And different names certainly can be appropriate in different contexts. Some cities were important in the histories of more than one country or culture. Place names changed. Russian names are often used exclusively in Soviet-period history, but aren't necessarily relevant when writing about modern geography.

Don't just do a simple Google search and assume the number of results is meaningful. Search for "Kanev", and the first page has 5 people in various countries named Kanev, two references to a WWII battle in the Soviet Union, and two references to Bulgarian music. Search for "Kaniv", and you get ten references to Kaniv, Ukraine. Search for "Kanev Ukraine", and "Kaniv Ukraine", and you get about 5000 and 3000 pages, respectively. Not an overwhelming preference, and the small number of results indicates that very few English speakers would recognize the name in any form.

"...priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..."

"If there is no commonly-used English name..."

It seems to me that the naming policy only intends to apply to foreign names that have a commonly-used English name. After Ukraine, Kiev, Kharkiv, Crimea, Sevastopol, the Dnieper, which Ukrainian place names are well-known in the English-speaking world? Kanev/Kaniv (to stick with my very narrow example) is a house-hold name to what fraction of English-speakers? I don't see any justification for using the transliterated Russian name for this Ukrainian town. —Michael Z. 08:20, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

That is because everything was done in Soviet Union in Russian. It is difficult to find on the internet the Ukrainian names as all scientific and/or official documents were prohibited to be written in the native languages. I do not understand why can't the name of Kyiv be Kyiv and not Kiev. The case was officially recognized and the change has took place. Why can't a Ukrainian town be transliterated in English in Ukrainian way rather than Russian? Because it's established? Hindu cities also were called in English manner once, yet that was changed to proper English.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

In recent research of Google Trends (http://www.google.com.ua/trends?q=Dnipro%2C+Dnieper&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0) (for last 1.5 years difference is more than 10 times) and Google search (Dnipro (7 450 000)/Dnieper(966 000) about 8 times) and (Dnipro river(1 230 000)/Dnieper river(330 000)) I see that river is more commonly in English called Dnipro, the same as official name.

I suggest renaming of English page to Dnipro, but not current, not very common English one, as we should care only about common English usage. (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can bias the search to get the results you desperately want for your nationalist agenda.

• Google books search Dnieper = 274 results [1]\
• Google books search Dnipro = 178 results (many of which are not in English or are about Dnipro Football Club) [2]

--Toddy1 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, I followed your link to a Google Trends report - the top six stories were about football clubs with Dnipro in the name. Should we rename the article on the Dnieper River the Dnipro Football Club River.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh , I see, you are right, I've misunderstood that Dnipro is official name of the FC as well. In God we trust, the rest we Test! (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

All candidate English names for the river are spelt with an initial D. What is the justification for not pronouncing it, whichever name is chosen? The Macquarie Dictionary gives Dnieper as the spelling and /'dnipə/ as the pronunciation. (Australian English has a non-rhotic accent, so the final /r/ is not sounded.) The Collins English and the Oxford Dictionaries also give this spelling and pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.142.168 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

All candidate English names for the river are spelt with an initial D. What is the justification for not pronouncing it, whichever name is chosen? The Macquarie Dictionary gives Dnieper as the spelling and /'dnipə/ as the pronunciation. (Australian English has a non-rhotic accent, so the final /r/ is not sounded.) The Collins English and the Oxford Dictionaries also give this spelling and pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.142.168 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is the justification for not pronouncing it [...]? Easy: English words cannot begin in /dn/ – it is foreign to English phonology, just like various other word-initial consonant clusters like /pn/, which are therefore simplified –, and crucially, Dnieper is not a transliteration or transcription of anything, but an English word, just like Moscow or Warsaw. It is literally a translation! See exonym and endonym. Almost nobody on Wikipedia seems to get that simple concept anymore.--Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nah. It's absolutely a (bad) transcription of the Russian name (via French) and the sources provided list the attempted pronunciation of the /dn/ cluster as the correct one.

I'm with you that in practice people are just pretending the D is silent but we need some actual sources to justify that it's never used or requires a schwa, Oxford & Collins be damned. — LlywelynII 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please, when discussing the normal use or google results, always keep in mind that we come from 70 years of Russian neo-colonialism during the USSR and centuries of Russian plain imperialism across the region where the river flows. In the same way that we will favor local use for naming rivers in India, Africa or South America, we should favor local (over colonial) names when it comes to the former Russian empire. Rivers in Poland are not named after Russian spelling, and neither should Ukrainian rivers. The Dnipro has by far most of it's area and volume of water inside Ukraine, and that should outweight any argument based on imposed "traditional" spellings. 2800:A4:1238:7A00:DEED:A212:95A:850E (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Throughout the time, while translating Ukrainian geographical names to English and other foreign languages, transliteration was used from Russian. As for instance instead of “Kyiv”, “Kiev” was used, or instead of “Kharkiv” - “Kharkov”, there’re still many examples of this…

Regarding the Dnipro river, it’s important to bear in mind that the river crosses through russia, although the stream is fairly shallow there, it also doesn’t play any historical significance in the country. But during translation, transliteration that is used is specifically from Russian. From the logical point of view, it would be more logically to use Ukrainian transliteration, because historically it played a key role in Ukrainian culture and every day life. The largest part of the river crosses through Ukraine, where it has its deepest and widest waters. From the times of Kyievan Rus Dnipro river was the most important inner vessel of the country, as well as during the times of Ukrainian Cossacks and the Cossacks Hetmanate. As an alternative translation, transliteration from Belarusian should be used, due to the fact that Dnipro is also the largest river in Belarus and plays a key role in the country. Usage of transliteration from Russian, may be tertiary, but definitely not the primary one.--Danylo 16:20, 31 Dec 2022 (UTC)

"Dnieper" is not Russian, it is English. It is neither spelled nor pronounced like Russian Днепр. We use WP:COMMONNAME here, not how culturally significant something is to somewhere or where it is located. Thus Cologne in Germany rather than Köln, etc. Dnipro, while used in English, is still the less common version of the name.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for enlightening me, but as a person who knows both English, Russian, and Ukrainian, I can tell you with accuracy that "Днепр" in Russian and "Dnieper" are read identically, because it is a transliteration from the Russian language. It sounds as identical as possible, if you ignore the fact that the English language cannot convey all sounds identically.... Данило12323 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Днепр" is transliterated "Dnepr" into English. Can't see how "Dnieper" is a "transliteration from Russian". Summer ^talk 04:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

More precisely, it appears to be a natural English transcription from Russian.  —Michael Z. 14:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Much of the world knows the Dnipro only as the Dnieper, a name based on the Russian-language Dnepr and widely used before Ukraine achieved its independence in 1991, in concert with the fall of the Soviet Union. “Dnipro” is the Ukrainian-language word for the river, and is now its official name for international usage. ––Cybriwsky (2018), Along Ukraine’s River: A Social and Environmental History of the Dnipro:7:  —Michael Z. 14:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

"«Dnipro» is ... the official name for international usage"? Please excuse me from that politically motivated nonsense. Summer ^talk 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I’m glad we’ve settled “how "Dnieper" is a "transliteration from Russian"”. You’re welcome.  —Michael Z. 03:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid we'll have to go to ANI if you continue your trolling. I didn't say that "Dnieper is a transliteration from Russian". In fact, the word is borrowed from French. Summer ^talk 09:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not a huge francophone population on the banks of the Dnipro. I didn’t say you said that. I said the answer to it is settled. The Wiktionary entry you linked to clearly supports the etymology of Dnieper from Russian (through French): “From French Dnieper, from Russian Днепр (Dnepr).”  —Michael Z. 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the French don't live on the banks of Dnieper doesn't mean that «Dnipro» is a "more English" word than «Dnieper». Summer ^talk 16:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t say that either.  —Michael Z. 17:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

We're still a few months away from having what is possibly a Wikipedia record - a 20-year-long single unarchived title debate. Two elements (not really arguments) that might be worth considering include (1) the most recent Kiev/Kyiv debate in which the decision was to shift to Kyiv (after the Russian invasion, but before the Feb 2022 full-scale Russian invasion); and (2) changing the river to Dnipro would require disambiguation with the town Dnipro. More significantly (presumably based on a wider consensus) is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). Boud (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Irpen.

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

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

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

and

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

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

To Cynic: However, often THERE IS a traditional and commonly used English variant that DIFFERS from local names, and in this situation Wikipedia has to reflect the English usage name rather than a local name. "UN name", whatever it means, is also a no substitute. The most clear example is the name of the capital of Ukraine. To your "as you would find it in other encyclopedias" quote, Britannica calls it Kiev because it reflects the more common English usage of today. Google search for Kyiv returns about 1 million hits while Kiev returns about 8 million. That's also a reflection of what a "most commonly used English version" is. It may change in some years. If this happens, encyclopedias should reflect that, but now it simply a wrong usage. Either do your research for common English names for the places or leave them alone. Avoid changing them simply because you like some ways better than the others. Unless, one comes up with some reasonable argument that these "UN names" conform Wikipedia policy, I am going to revert the name changes in a few days.--Irpen—Preceding undated comment added at 07:08, 14 November 2004 (UTC)Reply

But Britannica seems to prefer "Kaniv", "Cherkasy", and "Kremenchuk", although only the last one has the most results in a straight Google search. I think there's just no simple correct answer in many cases. I'm deciding to relax and not get myself too worked up about it. Going to sleep. Good work, all.

[oddly, Kiev/Kyiv gives me 5:1 not 8:1 millions at the moment]

—Michael Z. 09:02, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized what your reference to "UN names" was, Irpen. When I wrote "UN spelling" in my edit summary, I simply meant that I consulted a map at un.org for the source of Belarusian cities on the Dnieper, and spelling of their names, since I don't know Belarusian nor how to transliterate it. Since I've never heard of any of these cities before, I thought that the native transliteration would be appropriate for Wikipedia, and I knew that the UN would probably do it correctly. And of course, if someone knew better they would correct what I'd entered.

Anyway, apart from at most a dozen biggest cities, most ex-Soviet cities don't have English names at all; they have simply been transliterated from Russian. It continues to be appropriate to transliterate their native names for Wikipedia and in most other places, but the Russian can no longer be considered the native name for many. It's now Ukrainian, or Belarusian, or Kazakh, etc.

Kiev/Kyiv is hardly a clear example; it's not really a different name at all, just a different spelling, rooted in the same name in a third language. Moscow for Moskva is a clear case of a distinct English name, in the same category as Rome/Roma, Florence/Firenze, etc.

—Michael Z. 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 March 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

• Oppose, tentatively. The Ukrainian name of the river is just Дніпро, with the word "river" added as a qualifier when necessary: ріка Дніпро. In English it is often referred to similarly as "the Dnieper" or used as an adjective, as in "Dnieper cruises". If anything, I would choose to move the article to Dnieper, or Dnipro. —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 17:14 Z
• I suggest to keep the article as it is. How it is called in Ukrainian is irrelevant. While it is sometimes called simply "the Dnieper" in English, it is most often called the Dnieper river, hence the title of the article.Irpen 07:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  On what do you base that? In Google.ca the exact phrase "The Dnieper" gets 34,000 results, "Dnieper River" gets 26,800. Dnieper appears in 54,400 results without the phrase "Dnieper River" (Dnieper -"Dnieper River"). I'm not saying Google hit counts is an authority, but at first glance they seem to strongly counter-indicate your assertion. —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 15:00 Z

  I think Google hit does count as one of the criteria (not a single most important authority, though) as we discussed in a similar conversation on another topic in Wikipedia. These two Google hit numbers you quoted are close and we have to look for other sources if we want a definitive answer which title is preferable to use. My personal impression was that the "Dnieper river" is most commonly used in English language media but after you posted your question I just went to Lexis-Nexis to check whether my impression is true. L-N seems to confirm that. I entered a search for the term "Dnieper" in major news sources. Out of the first 10 hits, in 9 of them "the Dnieper river" was used rather than "the Dnieper". I hope this settles this dispute.Irpen 17:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  But 54,400 of the results didn't see the need to qualify "Dnieper River" at all, only 26,800 did, a 2:1 ratio. Of the ones that did, some proportion certainly use the phrase "Dnieper river" once, to orient an audience not familiar with the subject, then simply use the name "Dnieper" or "the Dnieper" in the rest of the page.

  Similarly, current Google news results have 26 occurrences of Dnieper, only 9 of them containing the phrase "Dnieper River" at all—but this sample is insignificantly small.

  To find a better example, I searched for "Dnieper" in Wikipedia. Of the first 20 articles (skipping lists and years):

  • 6 name the river just "Dnieper".
  • 4 mention "Dnieper River" or "Dnieper river", but then find it sufficient to call it "Dnieper" alone.
  • 7 mention it a single time as "Dnieper River".
  • 1 uses "Dnieper River" in all three occurrences.
  • in 2 it's only used as an adjective: "Dnieper Ukraine" or "Dnieper rapids".
  • in several of the above, the name is additionally used in an adjectival phrase: Dnieper campaign, Dnieper basin, Dnieper valley, Dnieper rapids.

  So in terms of writing style, in some cases authors and editors have deemed that "Dnieper" is sufficient to identify this river, in others they describe it as a river, then revert to using just the name. In only one case has it been phrased "Dnieper River" in every occurrence. "River" (often un-capitalized) is a descriptive used to explain what the Dnieper is. Its name is simply "Dnieper", just like the Nile or Danube. I suspect Amazon and Mississippi would also be named thus, if not for the extensive disambiguation they require. —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 23:04 Z

  I think that when Google count is as close as it is here, it should be considered close enough to say, that Google check is not conclusive enough and we should look for other sources to determine what usage is the most common in English. For one, I respect the authority of Britannica. The respective article [3] there is called "Dnieper River". A good guidance can be obtained also by current media usage. The Google news is indeed too a small sample. Besides, Google News includes in its search some unimportant news sources which simply cannot be called an authority in English usage. The results to which I referred to (from Lexis-Nexis) cover the period of last 24 months and only in major media. I think we should use them, rather than Google news. Finally, the usage in Wikipedia, is not a strong evidence, I think. Many users' ideological preferences affect the term they prefer as prominently exposed by heated debates over Kiev and Gdansk article names. Due to the reasons above, I think that the best title of the article is "Dnieper river" as now or "Dnieper River". Which of the two is rather a question of style where I am not an expert, so I called it Dnieper river months ago when moving an article Dnepr into the current name. Irpen 00:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

  But in the second paragraph, Britannica calls it "The Dnieper", demonstrating that they consider that to be its simple name. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:53 Z

  Had a look around, it appears that Britannica adds "River" to everything, including Nile, Danube, Rhine, Thames, where Wikipedia has chosen different conventions. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 22:12 Z

  Well, the article itself is still called the "Dnieper River" in EB. So, it's probably a good idea to keep river in the name of WP article. Whether to use "River" or "river" in the article name I would leave up to experts in writing style which I am not. That EB uses simply the Dnieper in the text, shows that there is nothing wrong to do that in WP article. My feeling still is that the Dnieper river is more common in English than the Dnieper but I will not have a problem with the word river omitted inside the article. Irpen 17:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  But simple names are preferred (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Use simple titles). Anyway, I think we've both said more than was necessary here. Cheers, Michael Z. 2005-03-17 20:18 Z

• Move. Capitalize proper nouns. That's the rule in English. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• support capitalize as for all other rivers that use the word river in page title. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Support move. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming Rmhermen 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

Can we have a pronunciation guide for Dnieper please?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.134.103 (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

Note. It's not DneproGES, but rather DniproHES (Dnipro Hydro-Electric Station).Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

People, you need to stop use google as the justification for anything. You're "googling" proves absolutely nothing. I hate to sound abvious, but as the old saying states that it's the quality of a material that counts, not the quantaty....Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

and this article says: "the Huns called it Var". Oaros and Var, the same name! Oar = Var ("-os" was just a Greek suffix.) Böri (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

From the article:

The first constructed was the [[Dnieper Hydroelectric Station]] (or DniproHES) near [[Zaporizhia]], built in 1927–1932 with an output of 558 MW.{{Citation needed|date=April 2011}} It was destroyed during [[World War II]], but was rebuilt in 1948 with an output of 750 MW.{{Citation needed|date=April 2011}}

Proof it was destroyed in WWII: Paying for Hitler's War: The Consequences of Nazi Hegemony for Europe; Jonas Scherner, Eugene N. White; Cambridge University Press; March 21, 2016; page 403; https://books.google.com/books?id=A9BCDwAAQBAJ&q=Dnieper+Hydroelectric+Station+destroyed&f=false#v=onepage;

Regarding the 750 number, quoted from The Electrical Journal; Volume 162; David B. Adams; 1959; page 627; https://books.google.com/books?id=eJUTAQAAMAAJ: "Doubling the Dnieper Hydro Output [indented newline] Prof Andrei Voznesensky, director of the U.S.S.R. Institute of Hydro- Electric projects, said that it is possible to double the capacity of the Dnieper hydro-electric station by the creation of a huge reservoir for the Kremen- chug hydro-electric station further up the Dnieper. By regulating the flow of the river, the reservoir will enable the reduction of the spillway section of the Dnieper dam by one-third, and a power station with six turbo-alternator sets can be constructed on the site made available in this manner, raising the station's capacity by 750 MW to 1 350 MW. The cost of this project will only be one-third of the outlay needed for erecting a new 750 MW station."

So it could produce more power. And "raising the station's capacity by 750 MW to 1 350 MW" means that the original capacity was 600. However, I cannot tell which year it had that capacity. It might say in the rest of the article, but Google Books makes it difficult to view it. --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the name Dnieper (ancient Danapris) is derived from Turkic Dynporis (from Turkic tyn "quiet" and boris "winding").^[1] Why was this information removed from the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.42.175 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because it sounds WP:FRINGE and also suffers from unverifiability (see WP:VERIFY) and I doubt if it passes as WP:RS. Do you have English sources that support it? Can you provide some English sources? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This source is the article published in scientific journal "Известия Академии наук Азербайджанской ССР" (The news of Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan SSR). The article's authors are scientists known in USSR and Azerbaijan (Будагов, Будаг Абдулали оглы [ru] and Qiyasəddin Qeybullayev [az]).

A 1988 article by some Soviet authors without any support in academic world does not sound reliable. As I said, find some English sources. If you can't find English sources, then don't add it to article unless you confirm its verifiability and reliability via WP:RSN. Submit a request there. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why are English sources necessary? The Dnieper flows through Russia, Ukraine and Belarus therefore the majority of sources about the river is written in their languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.42.175 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:FRINGE bogus, like many of these WP:OR theories proclaimed by Soviet/Azerbaijani sources. Sources published in nations that have no freedom of press, i.e. nations renowned for producing unreliable content in relation to key topics such as history/politics, should not be used on Wikipedia. You are free however, to take it to WP:RSN. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

1) Because this is English WP and both our readers and editors read/review cited sources. 2) The main problem of your source is: It sounds fringe. So the content, authors, cited journal and publication require to be verified via WP:RSN. If they're reliable, then feel free to add your source again. 3) Your source can be non-English but we can't add random claims when other academic sources do not support or cite it. As I said, could you show me a book/source written in English that mentions such etymology? 4) Another point is that we don't want to add pseudo-scholarship to WP articles. Only reliable works written by experts, e.g. for this etymology you need a Turkologist, or a historian who's expert in this field, or a linguistic source. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The title of the reference sounds like a bogus ass-kissing research paper used to buy PhD degrees in non-scientific sciences in all these semi-feudal republics of the Soviet Union: (not in this case, though) "Questions of Turkic ethnonymics in works of M.Z.Zakiev" . I did some google search and found that Professor Zakiev produced a LOT of ridiculosity, most hilarious being the derivation of "Iceland" ('Islandia' in Russian) as "Land of Is People", with Is/As/Az being some old tribe whose name is found also eg in "Azerbaijan". Conclusion: Thoroughly unreliable source. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, some people used some of Zakiev's pseudo-history works on some articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

While "Islandia" thingy taken isolated does sound as if from standup comedy, the reality turns out sad: there is a whole neo-pseudo-Turkologist school (as in "school of fish") which seriously promulgate the very smooth theory of penetration of protoTurks all the way everyway, from South (Sumerians and Etruscans are prototurks) to North (Including Norway and yes Iceland) . And don't ask for English references: they surely will be coming from conservative retrogrades who stifle and choke the young research mightily. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

used some of Zakiev's pseudo-history works on some articles If you know where, this must be cleaned up. If met with resistance, we may raise an issue @ WP:RSN. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Basmyl, Old Turkic alphabet, Turki, Volga Tatars, and Yabaku. In my opinion, the problem should be solved via his own WP article. e.g. If other Russian scholars have criticized his works and views, then they could be added to that article. We already have Anatole Klyosov but nobody cites his works because he's known for pseudo-scientific claims in his works. But WP:RSN is also good for the future edits because we can refer to it. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Many his works do contain facts, but these facts are used for wild speculations. Yabaku looks OK, but tr:Yabaku has a more reliable ref. I will review more. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at his book "Origin of Türks and Tatars" (the online version is available if you google it). According to Zakiev, almost all Eurasian civilizations and cultures were/are Turkic. That book sounds like a fantasy work with a lot of made-up and baseless claims. So while some of his works may be OK, that book and other similar stuff should be considered non-RS. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I’m adding Dnipro in bold, because it now sees some mainstream usage. Just posting here because this Google Books Ngram link is too long for an edit summary: Dnipro river,river Dnipro,the Dnipro,Dnieper river,river Dnieper,the Dnieper. —Michael Z. 18:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How much of that usage is by English native speakers? The ngram shows Dnipro with less than 0.0000020% of all usage - does that count as a name we have to include in the lead? Obviously some people in Ukraine think Dnieper is "Russian" but Dnieper (pronounced Neeper) is different enough from "Dnyepr" that it obviously hasn't caught on the same way as Kyiv vs. Kiev.

I'm in favor of removing "Dnipro" again.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don’t recall anything about “native speakers” in the naming or style guidelines. Do you normally research the personal history of the authors of your references? Sounds like a way to denigrate usage that you perceive as foreign, without any relationship to relevant facts or Wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:BIAS. And I don’t understand your argument about some people in Ukraine at all. Please try to cite guidelines with your rationale.

I added this because I noticed a usage in recent news, and a search showed that it is not uncommon. Here’s a quick list of examples (not a formal survey): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and (map). Google Scholar shows “about 2,960 results” for "Dnipro river" OR "Dnipro basin" OR "river Dnipro". Google Books “about 5,400”.[9] And it appears in an English dictionary, as cited in the article. —Michael Z. 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The biggest secondary source on Ukraine, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (1984–93) has the headword and main spelling Dnipro. NGIS GeoNames Search[10] gives both Dnieper (conventional name) and Dnipro (approved name). —Michael Z. 21:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I ran another ngram adding the Russian name "Dnepr". Guess what? It has more usage "in English" than the Ukrainian name [11], just over 0.0000040% of results. I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of English usage.

We follow wp:COMMONNAME here, and that specifically concerns what we call things in English, which relies on English-speaking media and countries. Your results for "Dnipro River" on Google Scholar are by authors with clearly Ukrainian names. The dictionary you cited says that Dnipro is "Ukrainian name for Dnieper" [12] - that is not a dictionary entry stating that it's an English word. I bet I could find "Roma" "Venezia" and any number of other non-English city names and add them in that way. That you've found a few news cites and one encyclopedia (that last with a very clear Ukrainian bias) does not show that this is a name that needs to be added as an English name to the lead - I'm sure I can find articles in English similrly using "Roma", "Köln", "Wisła" or any number of non-English names for things. In fact, the dictionary you cite includes entries on "Roma", "Köln" and "Wisła", each time saying "lang-x name for y". We already list Dnipro as the Ukrainian name in the names in other languages section (remember, MOS:LEADLANG), that should be enough.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• “adding the Russian name "Dnepr"”: please compare apples to apples. You’ll notice I added words that would find the river and not things like “Volga-Dnepr airlines.” If you really believe that Dnepr and Dnyapr are similarly used in English, you can add those too (but I think real evidence is needed).
• “authors with clearly Ukrainian names”: that sounds a bit racist to me. Can you tell Ukrainian names from Russian? Did you review all three thousand? Which guideline requires us to filter search results on the basis of presumed ancestry?
• “that is not a dictionary entry stating that it's an English word”: yes it is. It’s an Oxford dictionary of English. It literally says “Meaning of Dnipro in English.” “Ukrainian name for Dnieper” is the definition of Dnipro in English. In Ukrainian it is Дніпро, not Dnipro. By the way, it lacks Dnepr[13] and Dnyapr,[14] that you seem to think are equivalent.
• “with a very clear Ukrainian bias”: please cite a secondary source that says so. You seem to insist anything published by experts on Ukraine is unreliable because it is by experts on Ukraine. Is this an anti-Ukrainian prejudice on your part?
• “articles in English similrly using "Roma"”: Rome currently has Roma in boldface. See similar examples of multiple English spellings Luhansk, also known as Lugansk, Kharkiv, also known as Kharkov, and Odessa or Odesa. For precedents in rivers see, for example, the Southern Bug, also called Southern Buh . . . and sometimes Boh River, the Seversky Donets, Siverskyi Donets, usually simply called the Donets, the Horyn or Haryn, the Inhulets or Ingulets, the Pripyat (river) or Prypiat (and city of Pripyat, also known as Pryp'yat' or Prypyat), and the Tisza, Tysa, or Tisa.
• “We already list Dnipro”: no we don’t. We list a romanization of Дніпро.

Your argument is unconvincing. Let’s get some more opinions from WikiProjects listed above, or call an RFC. —Michael Z. 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just dropping my take here, since I work in a lot of Africa topics where alternate names are common (generally in French or Swahili, it varies). When it comes to geographic terms, it seems we sometimes prefer bolding the English preferred term only, such as at Munich (I took German in school and in every German context I've seen the city called München). There might be some MOS rules out there, but I personally am totally fine with adding the local-preferred use second in the lede in bold, such as at Rome, if it has genuine local traction. I haven't personally reviewed the literature, but by my reasoning articulated above it would seem fine to have Dnieper followed by Dnipro. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Ermenrich, I’m going to restore the alternate bold name. If you still object, go ahead and revert, but then please post an RFC or otherwise get evidence for a consensus. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's sweet that people were trying to preserve the WP:USEENGLISH names of this and the Dniester, but this is an example of a huge swing in usage now. Every Western media outlet is using Kyiv and Dnipro in place of the Russian forms of the names and if the war gets that far they'll surely be using Dnister. Britannica and the dictionaries aren't going to be able to keep pace with this usage shift (let alone Google Ngrams, Books, &c.) but it will show up in Google Trends and traffic results to the different pages.

100% Dnipro stays in the lead and very soon it will be time to move the entire article to Dnipro (river) or Dnipro River. — LlywelynII 21:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

We should use English, not Ukrainian or Russian. I removed it from the start of the article. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did anyone actually bother to look at the sources being cited? None of them support the pronunciations being used. Someone cute added a <! comment !> that tried to clarify how Oxford's dictionary was clearly wrong in their personal opinion, but that's not how Wikipedia references work. Cf. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Find a reliable source that supports your idea that there's clearly a schwa being added.

It's worth mentioning the variant etymologies immediately, especially given the political nature of the names at the moment, but there's no reason to include the Russian and Ukrainian pronunciations in the lead since they're already thoroughly covered further down in the names section.

The respell pronunciation is only optional in addition to the IPA and here there's too much clutter in the lead sentence to leave it. It's better to move it to the name section if it's really thought necessary. — LlywelynII 21:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lexico doesn't distinguish English from Russian/Ukrainian pronunciations, while we specify that these are the English pronunciations. Also, the Lexico transcriptions do not match their English sound files: those are d@-NEE-p@ and d@-NEE-pro. Not unsurprisingly, since #dn is not a possible sound combination in English. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lexico/Oxford/Dictionary"com are English dictionaries that only give English pronunciations. The assertion about “possible sound combination in English” is unfounded, and using it as the basis for conclusions about those dictionaries is original research.  —Michael Z. 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's simply not true. The print OED uses symbols to distinguish foreign pronunciations transcribed in an approximation of English phonetics from actual English pronunciations, but these online dictionaries do not. When there is no established English pronunciation, an approximation of the foreign pronunciation will be used. This is clear in some cases, e.g. when the pronunciation isn't possible in English, or conversely when it is not close to the original. But often foreign names are ambiguous as to whether the pronunciation is English or not. The same is true for MW, which has non-English symbols in its key specifically for foreign sounds (like un bon vin blanc), but of course not all unassimilated names have such sounds. When there is no established English pronunciation, then we should transcribe the original language without spuriously claiming that it's English. E.g. feu should be transcribed using the French IPA template, not the English, despite the fact that MW uses it as an example of the sound \œ\ in their key. — kwami (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

(I don’t know why you refer to Lexico, since it’s now gone and redirects to dictionary.com, and I don’t know what is the source of your transcriptions above, with I presume @ signs representing shwas.)

But yeah, it’s true.

Dictionary.com says:[15]

Dnipro [ dnee-proh; Ukrainian dnee-proh ]

Dnipro / ˈdni proʊ; Ukrainian dniˈproʊ /

It does explicitly distinguish. And the second transcription is clearly not native Ukrainian pronunciation, which doesn’t have the diphthong /oʊ/ in this name. It means “in a Ukrainian context.” Sure, it might represent the pronunciation in English of someone who is more familiar with Ukrainian, or whatever. But it is still an English dictionary, without injected bits of a Ukrainian dictionary.

For example, my Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004) says in the “Guide to the Use of This Dictionary” (p xv):

Foreign pronunciations  All pronunciations of foreign place names and people’s names are transcribed as they are most commonly spoken by English speakers, as are the pronunciations of words recently borrowed from other languages. Whether the pronunciation given is in the ‘foreign’ or Anglicized form reflects the degree to which the word has been naturalized by English-speaking Canadians.

This dictionary is the Canadian equivalent to the ODE, which the defunct Lexico was based on, and I recall finding many of its entries identical to those in Lexico.  —Michael Z. 06:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, some dictionaries do distinguish. But no, that doesn't mean "in a Ukrainian context", it means "in Ukrainian." And just as /oʊ/ is not Ukrainian, so /#dn/ is not English. Dict.com simply isn't a reliable source here: The only thing those transcriptions show is that the stress is different in the two languages. I imagine you would object to me changing the Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations to [dniˈproʊ] and [dnyɛpr], with a link to Dict.com as justification. In the same vein, I challenge you to find any native speaker of English, not fluent in a Slavic language, who can pronounce /ˈdni:pər/ or /ˈdni:proʊ/ without inserting a schwa between the /d/ and the /n/. English-speakers can't even detect the /d/ when they hear it, which is presumably why we have the /#n/ variants. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Original research. Also wrong. We’ve had this discussion before, I think.  —Michael Z. 01:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since this is an English Wikipedia, the only pronunciation in the lead that we should possibly have is how to pronounce the name in English. That's pretty much nē-pər per Collins and Websters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Collins 2012 says /ˈdniːpə/[16]. Random House Unabridged 2022 says /ˈni pər/[17] and /ˈdni proʊ/.[18] ODE 2021 says /ˈdniːpə/, /dniːˈprəʊ/. NOAD 2021 says /ˈnipər/, /dəˈnjɛpər/, /ˈ(d)niproʊ/. Canadian Oxford Dictionary 2004 says /ˈdniːpɜr/. —Michael Z. 01:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Which “Websters” is that?  —Michael Z. 01:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have Collins with nipər, and we have Websters with nē-pər. They are pronounced the same per my ears whether you use the ni or nē. And the exact same pronunciation from Britannica. There appears to be one main way to pronounce it in English no matter the nomenclature. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Collins Dictionary site actually gives several pronunciations.

Dnieper:[19]

• American /ˈnipər/ (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2010)
• British /ˈdniːpə/, /ˈdnjɛpə/, /ˈdnɪprə/ (Collins English Dictionary, 2022)

Dnipro:[20]

• British /ˈdnɪprə/ (Collins English Dictionary, 2022)

The Britannica Dictionary gives /ˈniːpɚ/,[21] but the encyclopedia gives four alternate titles for Dnieper River: Borysthenes River, Dnepr River, Dnipro River, and Dnyapro River (updated 2014).[22] Its Ukraine article glosses “Dnieper (Dnipro).”[23]  —Michael Z. 04:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, we wouldn't want more than one pronunciation in the lead. The American and British varieties vary with the "per" or "pah" ending. Fine for the name section but not so much the lead. I'd leave them both out of the lead since we don't really want messy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's not actually any good reason to separately list the Romanian name on this page, is there? There aren't any major communities of Romanians along this river or a period I'm forgetting when Romania secretly controlled central Ukraine, right? It's still available on the left links, at Wikidata, and at Wiktionary for the curious. — LlywelynII 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dnipro river as the article literally states goes through three countries. Those being Ukraine, belarus and russia. But the biggest part of the river goes through Ukraine. And in Ukrainian it is called Dnipro. So why it says dnieper? I understand it’s a russian spelling of it, but russia has the smallest part of it. Either name it only Dnipro (as the biggest part of it is in Ukraine, so it has to be Ukrainian spelling), or give it all three names including belarusian spelling. Obviously, in logical order so that Dnipro still stand first due to obvious reasons 185.177.190.203 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done It's the English spelling, it's not based on where it's located. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

We use WP:COMMONNAME, and the common name is Dnieper in English. The Russian name is Днепр (Dnjepr), which is neither spelled nor pronounced like Dnieper (Neeper, D'neeper).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the "main" name of this river to the Ukrainian "Dnipro" from Russian "Dniepr" this river does not flow through Russia at all and is mainly in Ukraine. Gab3196 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: see above request Cannolis (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami reverted my tagging two pronunciations as failed verification with “check before tagging.”[24]

I had checked.

The article says: /dəˈniːpər/ də-NEE-pər but the cited source says /ˈdniːpə/[25]

The article says: /dəˈniːproʊ/ də-NEE-pro but the cited sources says [ dnee-proh; Ukrainian dnee-proh ], or click “show IPA” and it says / ˈdni proʊ; Ukrainian dniˈproʊ /

Now I don’t mind if we interpret IPA or other transcription and ensure it is transcribed into our system, if the source says it uses different assumptions or transcription. I do have reservations about “converting” an American English transcription into a British English equivalent or vice versa.

But this is just not what the source says at all. I suspect it is based on someone’s opinion that “/dn/ is impossible in English” or something of the sort I recall in discussions. In my opinion that is not true. Please support that with a source that is more reliable than these English dictionaries if that’s the argument.

I am restoring the tags for now.  —Michael Z. 00:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Check the Dnieper sound file at Lexico. It's /dəˈniːpə/. The only accommodation was adding the final -r. There's a note to the same effect for Dnipro, though I can no longer access it, but obviously the dn- in 'Dnieper' is not going to be phonemically distinct from the dn- in 'Dnipro'. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's hardly an opinion, but a well-known phonotactic constraint in English. Don't have a book/journal source at the moment (because this is so standard that I'd have to look through elementary linguistic texts), but OK, here are some web notes from Eötvös Loránd University: Native speakers of English know not only that there does not happen to be a word tne, but also that there could not be such a word in English, since plosive+nasal clusters do not occur at the beginning of any word in this language. This would violate the phonotactic constraints of English. That covers /dn/. Yes, English speakers who also speak a Slavic language would be able to handle that cluster, but that's certainly not most English speakers. Double sharp (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If they did, others wouldn't hear the /d/, which is why we get the silent-d pronunciation. I just saw a program where someone used an alveolar click in onomatopoeia for a gunshot (which much more effective than bang! bang!), but he was a native Xhosa-speaker. When phonologists make statements about phonotactics, there's usually an understanding that they're speaking of monolinguals. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Otherwise we'd have to posit that English has tones because I (and no doubt many other bilinguals) pronounce the names of Chinese cities, dynasties, people, etc. as in Mandarin (with the tones). Clearly, considering bilinguals quickly leads to absurdity. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The sources gives transcriptions. You changed them and provided here a litany of original-research rationales. Please either edit the text to reflect the cited source, remove the citation, or restore the tags.  —Michael Z. 16:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's perfectly normal on WP to (1) transcribe from sound files or (2) edit transcriptions from other sources to conform with how we decided to use the IPA (because different sources use it differently). Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Muromian-map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In [50], @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith states How is the Belarusian name more related to "Dnipro" than "Dnieper"? Makes no sense to separate the foreign names like this as reason for moving the Russian foreign language note from behind Dnieper to behind both names where now all 3 languages are stated. I think it's debatable whether the Russian note should be behind Dnieper or behind both. It is definitely not true that it "makes no sense to separate the foreign names like this". Linguistically origins of names can be traced. But such a discussion is best left for a 'name' section and kept out of the note in the first sentence, so I agree with lumping all 3 together after the two common names. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The foreign names already appear in the “Names” section immediately below the lead. There’s no need for cluttering footnote references that link all the way to the bottom of the article.  —Michael Z. 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

They show on click right there at least in my Wikipedia clients. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, if you click an endnote the test content should appear right where you’re reading.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know what it does in visual browsers. But it’s still unnecessary clutter when the same content is inconsistently repeated in the very first body section (DRY).

And it would be one less thing for y’all to argue about the format of.  —Michael Z. 00:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Boud wrote in edit summary: "quite likely control of other islands in the delta has changed hands several times, but those events would need sources" -= that's quite right. With the additional clarification: we need reliable sources. Mil bloggers and event trackers are not reliable sources for wikipedia. Besides, this is encyclopedia, not newspaper. We are not supposed to write about each daily military move in the war. Wait until the "fog of war" goes away. - Altenmann >talk 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

P.S. More detail: in fact the cited Russian blogger wrote that someone reported that Ukrainian forces were shelling Nestryha and he concluded that Russian forces are there, i.e., no direct knowledge. Maybe Russian just tried to get a foot there. Another Ukrainian source cited wrote that Nestryha is in the "gray zone". So this reaffirms my opinion: too early to write anything about this in Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk

Is there a reason why "Dnipro" and "Dniapro" are chosen as alt names when "Dnepr" generally has higher usage than both of them?[51] They are all mentioned in the footnote but I am not sure why those two specifically are highlighted in bold. Mellk (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose because of the conceit that “Dnieper” is the same as “Dnepr”. As to why the others are bolded, they are alternative names in Ukrainian and Belarusian respectively. I’m not sure about Dniapro, but Dnipro is in major western journalistic publications now, like the New York Times.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Dnipro" can probably be considered as an alt name, but I see very little usage of "Dniapro" or "Dnyapro" so I do not think it makes sense to include this in bold. There are also plenty of English-language sources that use "Dnepr" rather than the English name "Dnieper" (after all, the river flows through Russia too). If we include all local names, then there will be too many alt names (see WP:ALTNAMES), but then it does not make to omit "Dnepr" but include "Dniapro". Mellk (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would generally agree with removing Dniapro. I suspect adding "Dnepr" may result in some edit warring, but it seems reasonable to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply