Content deleted Content added
Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) |
m Archiving 27 discussion(s) from Talk:Dnipropetrovsk) (bot |
||
Line 367:
: Please add any "nice" or not pictures to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dnipropetrovsk Category:Dnipropetrovsk] at [[Wikimedia Commons]]--[[User:TAG.Odessa|TAG]] 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
==Deletion of User Comments==
There is an allegation in the edit history as follows:
:"Added back comments by another user which where deleted by [Toddy1]. Censorship of discussion page should not be tolerated.)" [[User talk:131.247.19.186]]
I did not delete comments by another user. I reinstated them after they had been deleted by someone else. This was why when you reverted my edit, the comments I reinstated got deleted.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
== "Best" time ==
The article gives a "best" time to visit, which sounds like a POV. For example, if you can say that is the peak of the tourist season that would be more informative. More explanation of why it is best would be good.
I imagine very few Americans have heard the name of this city outside of a [[Tom Lehrer]] song about [[Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky]]... sad to consider, really. [[Special:Contributions/70.15.116.59|70.15.116.59]] ([[User talk:70.15.116.59|talk]]) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This 'best time' was cribbed from the city website. Unfortunately much of the article was generated by people who have never been to Dnepropetrovsk, but have very fixed views about what can be allowed in the article. The kind of buildings normal people live in are apparently not wanted.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
==Historic Manufacturing, Economic and Ethic Data on the City==
Dima - I have found more stuff on the development of Dnepropetrovsk. Some of it is manufacturing and economic growth.
I have got two sorts of data. I have only got two data points for each right now, but more will probably come along some time. (I keep bumping into more population data.) What we need is a format for them, and it seemed a good idea to ask you if there is some standard way you want it, rather than me doing a load of stuff and you changing it because you know the right format and I am just groping for it.
{| class="wikitable"
|-valign="top"
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Year
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Factories<br>& Plants
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Employees
!align = "center" colspan=3| Production Volume<ref name=Convert1900>Conversion from contemporary Imperial Russian roubles to 2007 currency used the following method:<br> (1) Conversion to contemporary Sterling used [http://eh.net/databases/finance/ table 18] which accompanies Marc Flandreau and Frédréric Zumer's book ''The Making of Global Finance, 1880-1913'', OECD 2004. <br>(2)Conversion to 2007 Sterling used RPI data from Table 63 of ''National Income Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdon 1855-1965'', by CH Feinstein, pub Cambirdge Unioversity Press, 1972 and [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=7172&More=N&All=Y Retail Prices Index: annual index numbers of retail prices 1948-2007 (RPI) (RPIX)] <br>(3) Conversion to 2007 US Dollars used the calculated 2007 Sterling value and the average exchange rate for 2007 $1 =£0.49987, taken from [http://www.oanda.com FXHistory®: historical currency exchange rates]. It would have been better to have used contemporary rouble/dollar exchange rates and US RPI data, but the latter were not available to author (March 2008).</ref>
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Reference
|-valign="top"
!align = "center"| roubles
!align = "center"| 2007 £<br>million
!align = "center"| 2007 USD<br>million
|-
|align = "left" | 1880
|align = "right"| 49
|align = "right"| 572
|align = "right"| 1,500,000
|align = "right"| £10.5 m
|align = "right"| $21 m
|| <ref name=DJC/>
|-
|align = "left" | 1903
|align = "right"| 194
|align = "right"| 10,649
|align = "right"| 21,500,000
|align = "right"| £177.5 m
|align = "right"| $355 m
|| <ref name=DJC/>
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-valign="top"
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Year
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Enterprises
!align = "center" colspan=3| Earnings<ref name=Convert1900/><ref name=Convert1940>Conversion from 1940 roubles to 2007 currency used a similar method to that used with Imperial Russian roubles, with the following used to generate rouble to Sterling exchange rate for 1940. [http://www.gutenberg-e.org/kod01/frames/fkod16.html Kawlsky, Daniel, ''Stalin and the Spanish Civil War'' Chapter 11] quotes a rate for the 1930s of 5.3 roubles per US dollar. [http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/exchange/result_exchange.php measuringworth.com] quotes a 1940 excahgne rate of $1000000 = £261096.61.</ref>
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Reference
|-valign="top"
!align = "center"| roubles
!align = "center"| 2007 £<br>million
!align = "center"| 2007 USD<br>million
|-
|align = "left" | 1900
|align = "right"| 1,800
|align = "right"| 40,000,000
|align = "right"|£328.7 m
|align = "right"| $658 m
|| <ref name=Surh/>
|-
|align = "left" | 1940
|align = "right"| 622
|align = "right"| 1,096,929,000
|align = "right"| £2,120.3 m
|align = "right"| $4,242 m
|| <ref name=DJC/>
|}
I have also found some stuff on ethnic composition round about 1897 and 1904. Do you know of data for other dates?
{| class="wikitable"
|-valign="top"
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Year
!align = "center" colspan=5| Ethnicity of Citizens
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Foreign<br>Citizens
!align = "center" rowspan=2| Reference
|-valign="top"
!align = "center"| Russian
!align = "center"| Ukrainian
!align = "center"| Jew
!align = "center"| Polish
!align = "center"| German
|-
|align = "left" | 1897
|align = "right"| 47,200
|align = "right"| 17,787
|align = "right"| 39,979
|align = "right"| 3,418
|align = "right"| 1,438
|align = "right"| 1,075
|| <ref name=DJC/>
|-
|align = "left" | 1897
|align = "right"| 42.6%
|align = "right"| 16.0%
|align = "right"| 36.1%
|align = "right"| 3.1%
|align = "right"| 1.3%
|align = "right"| 1.0%
|| <ref name=DJC/>
|-
|align = "left" | 1904(?)
|align = "center" colspan=2| 52%
|align = "right"| 40%
|align = "right"| 4.5%
|align = "right"| <small>Not Stated</small>
|align = "right"| <small>Not Stated</small>
|| <ref name=Surh/>
|}
--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) updated--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:That looks pretty good, only we need to expand (and add) the respective sections ([[Dnipropetrovsk#Economy and industry|Economy]] and [[Dnipropetrovsk#Demographics|Demographics]] as well).. I have quite a lot of sources on the topic (history books, etc.) and I'll try to add some information as well.. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
===Footnotes on this section===
<references/>
==Yekaterinoslav==
Having the former name in the first paragraph is useful because works are still published using that name. When looking for demographic data I found: ''Surh, Gerald, Ekaterinoslav City in 1905: Workers, Jews, and Violence, published in International Labor and Working-Class History No. 64, Fall 2003.''
This does beg the question of how you transliterate the former name, but some problems have no one single answer. I have seen at least 3 versions.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 06:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
==1883 pogrom - mention? ==
Should there not be a mention of the 1883 pogrom here that saw a number of Jews killed, many more injured and many shops attacked and looted? As the 1881 pogroms were a definitive point of European Gentile-Jewish relations and that the pogrom in the city was an important, albeit late, one, should it not have at lease a mention? [[User:Movingpictures100@hotmail.com|Movingpictures100@hotmail.com]] ([[User talk:Movingpictures100@hotmail.com|talk]]) 17:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
==Sergei Prokofiev==
Is it strictly true to describe [[Sergei Prokofiev]] as being from Dnipropetrovsk? He was born in Sontsovska, which is part of the modern day area associated with Dnipropetrovsk.[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478552/Sergey-Prokofiev]--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 12:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
==2007 Killings?==
Should there be a section added on the brutal murders of 21 people by 3 teenagers in the summer of 2007? Apparently this plunged the city into a state of fear, and also led to one the most horrifying videos ever released on to the internet. News report: [http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/23537/video here] [[User:Roobens|Roobens]] ([[User talk:Roobens|talk]]) 11:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to have an article on the murders, and a brief summary linking to it in the article about the city.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:There is an additional serial killer who was just tried and sentenced in the town. BBC reports Serhiy Tkach claims he murdered 100 people. An interesting coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/24.251.204.185|24.251.204.185]] ([[User talk:24.251.204.185|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 09:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::This has now been added.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I have merged the "Dnipropetrovsk maniacs" section into the History section. This shouldn't really merit its own section, but in #History or a future #Crime section it would be well placed. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I noticed the source cited for the serial killings (24) is labelled as follows:
::::"Three 19-year old youths committed 19 murders in Dnipropetrovsk during a month, this however turned out to be a hoax and the video of a murder occuring is also fake."
::::The source doesn't mention anything about hoaxes or fake videos, nor is there any mention of this on the [[Dnepropetrovsk maniacs]] article. Why is this source labelled in this way? [[User:PCLM|PCLM]] ([[User talk:PCLM|talk]]) 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::The hoax claim was added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipropetrovsk&diff=next&oldid=262023218 this edit]. It has been removed, but comments from people knowledgeable about Ukraine are requested.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 16:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
==Dnipropetrovsk oblast==
I propose moving the information on the region history to [[Dnipropetrovsk Oblast]], as the one that is relevant much more broadly than the article's topic suggest.--[[User:Shanghainese.ua|Shanghainese.ua]] ([[User talk:Shanghainese.ua|talk]]) 11:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am unclear which bits you would propose moving?
If you know Dnepropetrovsk you will be familiar with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polovtsy.jpg Kipchak statues] in ''Karla Marksa'' (or as wikipedia editors call it 'Karl Marks av.'). It would be a bit bizarre to delete the statues and the historical background behind them. These statues are important to local people - they are the oldest things in the city.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to do nothing.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
==Karla Marksa==
Whilst Karla Marksa Prospekt is a beautiful street, it is not very clear to me that there needs to be an article on it. I cannot really see much point in a link from the street name to Karl Marx - yes it was named after him, but so what. Unless anyone objects, I propose to removed the wikilink from Karla Marksa Prospect.
However if someone plans to write an article on the street, then I will hold fire.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
==Should the article say Yekaterinoslav or should it a different spelling==
''copied from message from Denat UA''
:Я считаю, что было бы целесообразно изменить во всей статье Yekaterinoslav на Katerynoslav. То, что во времена Царской России название было русское, а не украинское -- это не оправдание. Сейчас ведь на территории Украины для населённых пунктов действует "Romanization of Ukrainian", а не "Romanization of Russian". Спорных топонима только 2 -- Kiev и Odessa. [[User talk:Denat UA]]
Google book search 23 August 2009, English language only:
*Yekaterinoslav 781
*Ekaterinoslav 1289
*Katerinoslav 276
*Yekaterinoslaf 67
*Ekaterinoslaf 624
*Katerinoslaf 18
*Yekaterynoslav 6
*Ekaterynoslav 22
*Katerynoslav 400
*Yekaterynoslaf 0
*Ekaterynoslaf 0
*Katerynoslaf 0
Conclusion: there are many accepted spellings in the English language: Ekaterinoslav, Yekaterinoslav, and Ekaterinoslaf are the most common in books. I prefer the article to say Yekaterinoslav because it is less confusing (it is easier for people to guess that the first Y is optional in English).
This is ''English'' language wikipedia, not ''Romanisation of Ukrainian'' language wikipedia.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 22:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Поскольку я плохо знаю английский, а электронные переводчики не всегда корректно переводят тексты, буду печатать по-русски и дополнительно переводить текст на английский язык переводчиком.
Количество статей, найденных Googl’ом – это хороший наглядный показатель. Но не стоит опираться на эти данные. Если искать Googl’ом Dn'''i'''propetrovsk, результат – 664 000; если искать Dn'''e'''propetrovsk, результат – 11 800 000. В литературе авторы книги (редактор или корректор книги) могут написать название так, как именно они посчитают нужным.
Вы правы, это англоязычная Википедия, а не Википедия латинизации украинского языка. Но ведь названия на английском языке населённых пунктов стран, в которых по-английски не разговаривают, в любом случае являются латинизацией какого-то языка. В большинстве случаев это латинизация официального языка страны, утверждённого в данный момент, в которой населённый пункт находится (даже если название историческое).
As I badly know English, and electronic translators not always correctly translate texts, I will print in Russian and in addition to translate the text into English the translator.
The quantity of the articles found Google is a good evident indicator. But it is not necessary to lean against this data. If to search Google Dn'''i'''propetrovsk, result – 664 000; if to search Dn'''e'''propetrovsk, result – 11 800 000. In the literature authors of the book (the editor or the proof-reader of the book) can write the name how they will consider the necessary.
You are right, it is English-speaking Wikipedia, instead of Wikipedia romanization the Ukrainian language. But after all names in English settlements of the countries in which in English do not talk, in any case are romanization any language. In most cases it romanization the official language of the country approved at present in which the settlement is (even if the name historical). — [[User:Denat UA|Denat UA]] ([[User talk:Denat UA|talk]]) 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you agree that the normal English spelling is Dnepropetrovsk. This is of course the spelling in English used by people from Dnepropetrovsk.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 05:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
К сожалению, Вы неправильно меня поняли. Я лишь привёл пример количества результатов Днепропетровска, найденных Googl’ом, точно так же, как и Вы приводили мне пример с Екатеринославом. Я хотел показать своим примером то, что количество результатов Googl’а ничего не значит. Ведь я за то, чтобы в статье было написано Katerynoslav, а не Yekaterinoslav.
Unfortunately, you incorrectly have understood me. I have only given an example quantities of results of Dnipropetrovsk found Google, in the same way, as well as you resulted to me an example with Katerynoslav. I wished to show the example that the quantity of results Google means nothing. After all I for that in article it has been written Katerynoslav, instead of Yekaterinoslav. — [[User:Denat UA|Denat UA]] ([[User talk:Denat UA|talk]]) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Вот жалость.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
==Population==
{| class="wikitable"
|-valign="top"
|{{Historical populations
|1782<ref name="eugene"/>
|2194
|1800<ref>Eugene.com states that the population in the early 19th Century was 6,389, whilst Cheba states that this was the population in 1800.</ref>
|6389
|1811<ref name=DiasporaMerchants34>Kardasis, Vassilis, ''Diaspora Merchants in the Black Sea: The Greeks in Southern Russia, 1775–1861'', pub Lexington Books, 2001, ISBN 0-7391-0245-1, page 34.</ref>
|9000
|1825<ref name=Cheba>[http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tt/a4b "History" a Dnipropetrovsk Travel Page by Cheba]</ref>
|8412
|1857<ref name=DJC>[http://djc.com.ua/index.aspx?page=content&mnu=1&type=Dnepropetrovsk&lang=en Dnepropetrovsk Jewish Community (DJC.com) - About Yekaterinoslav Dnepropetrovsk] cached copy accessed 24 March 2008.</ref>
|13217
|1862<ref name=Cheba/>
|19515
|1863<ref name=DiasporaMerchants34/>
|20000
|1866<ref>[http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tt/a4b Cheba] states that in a census for 1 January 1866 the population was 22,846. [http://www.eugene.com.ua/dnepr.html Eugene.com] states 22,816 for 1865, while DJC.com states 22,846 for 1865.</ref>
|22846
|1885<ref name=Cheba/><ref name=DJC/>
|46876
|1887<ref>Eugene.com states that the population in 1887 was 48,000, whilst Gerald Surh states that it was 47,000.<br />[http://www.eugene.com.ua/dnepr.html www.eugene.com.ua Dnepropetrovsk History] <br />Surh, Gerald, ''Ekaterinoslav City in 1905: Workers, Jews, and Violence''</ref>
|48000
|1897<ref>Eugene.com states that the population in 1897 was 121,200, Cheba says 121,216, and Surh says 112,800, whilst Vassilis Kardasis states that it was 113,000.<br />[http://www.eugene.com.ua/dnepr.html www.eugene.com.ua Dnepropetrovsk History] <br />[http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tt/a4b "History" a Dnipropetrovsk Travel Page by Cheba] <br />[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=187691 Surh, Gerald, ''Ekaterinoslav City in 1905: Workers, Jews, and Violence''] <br />Kardasis, Vassilis, ''Diaspora Merchants in the Black Sea: The Greeks in Southern Russia, 1775–1861''</ref>
|121216
|1904<ref name=Surh>[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=187691 Surh, Gerald, ''Ekaterinoslav City in 1905: Workers, Jews, and Violence'', published in ''International Labor and Working-Class History'' No. 64, Fall 2003, pages 139–166.]</ref>
|157000
|1914<ref name=Surh/>
|211100
|1920<ref name=Cheba/>
|189000
|1932<ref name=Cheba/>
|320000
|1989<ref name="chinalist.ru">[http://chinalist.ru/facts/objyears.php?p_param=1077&p_country=223&p_lang=1&p_parent=&p_obj=890 chinalist.ru]</ref>
|1178000
|1990<ref name=Columbia6thed>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Dnipropet.html "Dnipropetrovsk." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com.]</ref>
|1186000
|1996<ref name=UNSD19961998>[http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_years_on_top.asp?srID=14720&Ct1ID=&crID=804&yrID=1996%2C1998 United Nations Statistics Division: cities, population, census years (discontinued), code 14720] give the population for the city proper as 1,147,000 for 1996, and 1,122,400 for 1998.<br />[http://www.eugene.com.ua/dnepr.html Eugene.com] states that the population in 1998 was 1,137,000</ref>
|1147000
|1998<ref name=UNSD19961998/>
|1122400
|[[Ukrainian Census (2001)|2001]]<ref name="chinalist.ru"/>
|1065008
|2006<ref name="chinalist.ru"/>
|1025044
|2007<ref name="chinalist.ru"/>
|1039000
}}
|[[File:Dnepropetrovsk population history.png|500px|center|Graph to show the population change of Dnepropetrovsk since 1782 - this graph makes huge extrapolations, that are probably incorrect.]]
|}
The population table was deleted from the article and replaced with a graph. The graph would be fine if there were data at say regular intervals, or if there were enough to justify the massive interpolation between 1932 and 1989. This is not the case.
Personally I think it would be better if the table were restored.
It is arguable that the graph is in breach of [[Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS]], and I am afraid that the graph will be deleted at some future date, and then the information will be lost. Collecting up this information took effort, including purchasing one of the sources to gain access to the population data in it.
(If anyone thinks it is unreasonable that anyone would delete the graph on grounds of ''Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS'', they should remember that Wikipedia is a website where people edit war over whether 'G' should be written as 'H', or 'E' as 'I', and where people state that "'Karla Marksa' is the genitive form of 'Karl Marks' and thus cannot precede the object 'Prospekt'", which is fascinating because all the street nameplates have in big letters ''Карла Маркса'' followed in very tiny letters by ''Пр''.)--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 09:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
===Footnotes on this section===
<references/>
== Karla Marksa Prospekt ==
Street names are always tricky creatures. But we have to do the best we can to 1) transliterate the name, 2) translate the name, or 3) combine the two processes. We have to be guided by what English speakers do with the name, not what native speakers do or what seems "logical". Actual practice should guide. In [[Rivne]], for example, English speakers there say "Soborna Avenue" and "Prospekt Mir" or "Mir Prospekt", not "Cathedral Avenue" or "Peace Street". We would also just say "Kievska" and not "Kiev Avenue" or even "Kievska Prospekt" or "Vulitsa Kievska" (I can't even remember whether it was a "prospekt" or a "vulitsa"). I had many conversations with Americans who resided there and that was always the case with these street names. In Dnipro, Karl Marx Prospekt is always called that by the Americans I've met there and who have visited there. It's never called "Karl Marx Avenue" or "Karla Marksa Prospekt"--it's always "Karl Marx Prospekt"--a combination of translation and transliteration. No English speaker says "Ploshit Lenina", it's always "Lenin Square", but Karl Marx is always "Karl Marx Prospekt". ([[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
:I don't think it matters whether we spell "Prospect" or "Prospekt", it's pronounced the same either way. ([[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
On German wikipedia they refer to [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street Wall Street] not Mauerstraße or Mauer Street.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:There are no firm and fast rules on what English speakers will call something. Sometimes they use a native name, sometimes they use a translation, sometimes they mix the two. All we can do is follow usage. In this case, usage among native English speakers living and visiting Ukraine is "Karl Marx Prospekt" (or Prospect). My wife, who is a native Russian speaker, always calls it "Karl Marx Prospekt" when she is speaking English. We don't have a problem using "Prospekt" or "Prospect" as a word for "street" or "avenue" in English. ([[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
On internet, there are huge numbers of references to [http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&q=karla+marksa+dnepropetrovsk&start=120&sa=N&fp=dd6458e1d4f196b6 Karla Marksa, Dnepropetrovsk]. It is the most common name for it.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:I just checked out the first page of links on that Google search and they are not ''text references'', but addresses, ways you would address a letter to get it through Ukrposta. That's not what the street is called in text or in English conversation. Google searches are also notoriously unreliable as sources of information on Wikipedia. I just asked my wife what they were taught in the university was the English name of Karl Marx Prospekt and she responded, "Karl Marx Prospekt". (She majored in English at the predecessor to Dnipropetrovsk National University.) ([[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
::Of course they are addresses. What else would they be.
::But I give up. Facts and reason count for nothing. I will delete all this from my watch-list, so I don't get annoyed with this further.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish people on Wikipedia weren't so dogmatic.
I did the following searches on Google for different represenations - all searches with dnepropetrovsk OR dnipropetrovsk OR dniepropetrovsk. The proportions of Karl Marx Street/Str/St/Avenue/Ave/Av/Prospect/Prospekt/Pr versus Karla Marksa are about equal. However, there are also lots of cases where people refer to the street as merely 'Karla Marksa'. I doubt if anyone refers to it as merely 'Karl Marx'.
In the tables, if a cell is marked '(+)', this means that I calculated this cell from other cells.--[[Special:Contributions/20.133.0.13|20.133.0.13]] ([[User talk:20.133.0.13|talk]]) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
'''794 Karl Marx''' (excluding "Karl-Marx-Stadt") - this still contains many false positives
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan=5|'''527 Karl Marx Street/Str/St/Avenue/Ave/Av/Prospect/Prospekt/Pr''' (+)
|-
|| 198 Karl Marx Street/Str/St (+)
|| 97 Karl Marx Street
|| 68 Karl Marx Str
|| 33 Karl Marx St
|-
|| 187 Karl Marx Avenue/Ave/Av (+)
|| 111 Karl Marx Avenue
|| 32 Karl Marx Ave
|| 44 Karl Marx Av
|-
|| 142 Karl Marx Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)
|| 61 Karl Marx Prospect
|| 61 Karl Marx Prospekt
|| 13 Karl Marx Pr
|| 7 Pr Karl Marx (not including "Pr Karl Max Ave")
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan=5| '''4 Karl Marxa''' (at least two of these were unambiguously meant the street)
|-
|colspan=5| '''76 K Marxa'''
|-
|| 26 Marxa Street/Str/St (+)
|| 2 K Marxa Street
|| 22 K Marxa Str
|| 2 K Marxa St
|-
|| 12 K Marxa Avenue/Ave/Av (+)
|| 1 K Marxa Avenue
|| 4 K Marxa Ave
|| 7 K Marxa Av
|-
|| 39 K Marxa Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)
|| 27 K Marxa Prospect
|| 0 K Marxa Prospekt
|| 0 K Marxa Pr
|| 12 Pr K Marxa
|-
|}
'''482 Karla Marksa''' (it is very common to give the address in the format ''55 Karla Marksa'')
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan=5| '''693 Karla Marksa Street/Str/St/Avenue/Ave/Av/Prospect/Prospekt/Pr''' (+)
|-
|| 338 Karla Marksa Street/Str/St (+)
|| 139 Karla Marksa Street
|| 127 Karla Marksa Str
|| 72 Karla Marksa St
|-
|| 157 Karla Marksa Avenue/Ave/Av (+)
|| 78 Karla Marksa Avenue
|| 61 Karla Marksa Ave
|| 18 Karla Marksa Av
|-
|| 198 Karla Marksa Prospect/Prospekt/Pr (+)
|| 64 Karla Marksa Prospect
|| 60 Karla Marksa Prospekt
|| 20 Karla Marksa Pr
|| 54 Pr Karla Marksa
|-
|}
== Gallery deletion ==
Hi all
The gallery of architechture was deleted and I have restored it to move some of the pics out. The editor quotes MOS and states "''Galleries are discouraged''" that is not true...
MOS states:-
"''However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.''"
and that if you find a gallery like this
"''and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons''"
MOS also gives this example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1750-1795_in_fashion&oldid=270956814] to illustrate the point that sometimes galleries are used where text would find it hard to explain an issue.
It was wrong to delete the images outright as some of them are depicting items contained in the text - including one relating to the text you changed in your previous edit
[[User:Chaosdruid|Chaosdruid]] ([[User talk:Chaosdruid|talk]]) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
==Are the so-called 'Dnepropetrovsk maniacs' notable people from Dnepropetrovsk?==
[[User talk:91.107.133.247|91.107.133.247]] and [[User talk:Taivo|Taivo]] are in dispute over whether Виктор Саенко (Victor Sayenko), Игорь Супрунюк (Igor Suprunyuk) and Александр Ганжа (Alexander Ganzha) should be listed as ''notable people from Dnepropetrovsk''. Please express views on the subject below.
* My view is that if they are notable, they would be listed individually by name. Presumably they would have individual articles about them. But no such articles exist. The only article about them is about the [[Dnepropetrovsk maniacs]]. But this article is not about them as people, it is about a series of crimes that they committed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/20.133.0.13|20.133.0.13]] ([[User talk:20.133.0.13|talk]]) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Each of them is not notable. Their crime is notable to an extent, but each of them as an individual is not notable. While others in the list are noted individually for works of art, science, industry, politics, etc., their lives consist of more than one achievement, these three individuals are known collectively only from one act of crime (the "series" is nothing more than a single prolonged act). The killings might be appropriately mentioned in a section on "Law and Order" in the main article, but they are not individually notable. --[[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::This case is already mentioned with a paragraph in '''After 1991: Since Ukrainian independence'''. There is a degree of repetition in naming them as "notable people". It is the media coverage of the case that is notable rather than the people, so my vote is to exclude them from the "notable people" section as they are already mentioned elsewhere in the article.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* I'd say no. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* I'd say no also, I fully agree with [[User:Ianmacm|Ianmacm]]. — '''[[User:Mariah-Yulia|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:orange">Mariah-Yulia</span>]]''' • [[User_talk:Mariah-Yulia|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:blue">Talk to me!</span>]] 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* As individuals they are not notable, as criminals they are also not notable. [[User:Bandurist|Bandurist]] ([[User talk:Bandurist|talk]]) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* Seems to me that the problem is [[Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event]], [[Wikipedia:Generally_notable_people]] and [[Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)]]
:The two who are being discussed do not deserve a page of their own and so are not notable. The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people|UK portal]] gives the advice that if they are not notable enough they should not be included on the lists of "Notable people"
:I propose we adopt a similar viewpoint. This would mean that their individual names would not appear on the list.
:Although criminals are not always viewed as notable especially where people see the title as actually meaning "people from here with distinguished achievements" or "well respected people from" it is true that some towns have killers on their Notable people lists.
:[[John Hinckley, Jr.]] appears on [[Ardmore,_Oklahoma#Notable_natives]]
:[[Moors murders|Myra Hindley]] appears on [[Crumpsall#Notable_people]]
:[[Lee Harvey Oswald]] - New Orleans: Most of the large cities and towns does not have a "Notable people" section but New Orleans has a seperate page [[List_of_people_from_New_Orleans,_Louisiana]] which has its own "[[List_of_people_from_New_Orleans,_Louisiana#Crime|Crime]]" category [[User:Chaosdruid|Chaosdruid]] ([[User talk:Chaosdruid|talk]]) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC) ''sig missed due to lost session - I hope they fix my internet soon'' :¬(
==Language==
Why have people changed all the spellings to American spellings?--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 04:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:Incidentally not everybody knows that "the down-town" means the city centre. Many non-US readers have no idea where it it might be, or ever what a "down-town" might be. Maybe a "down-town" is a slum.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
==External links==
I have removed.
* {{ru icon}} [http://lopata.in.ua/ lopata.in.ua]. ''Comment'': This is claimed to be the "Dnipropetrovsk city portal", but the real Dnipropetrovsk City Portal is [http://gorod.dp.ua gorod.dp.ua].
* {{ru icon}} [http://citex.info/ citex.info]. ''Comment'': This was introduced by IP editor 91.215.55.31 as both the "Dnipropetrovsk city portal" and "map of Dnepropetrovsk"; this site did not load in Google translate when I tried it. It is not obviously useful to an English-speaker. I therefore restored the previous link to a street map, as that really does still work, and is obviously useful to an English-speaker.
--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
== Russian variants do no require citation ==
Standard Wikipedia practice in eastern Ukrainian, where as many as half of the population speaks Russian natively, is to include the Russian variants on placenames. No citation is necessary any more than a citation is necessary for placing the Ukrainian variant in placenames where the majority of the community speaks Russian as their first language (as in the Crimea). The citation tags were nothing more than [[WP:POINT]]y editing by an anonymous editor who is pushing an anti-Russian Ukrainian POV. Citations are not necessary for these things. --[[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
==British or US orthography==
Currently the article uses a mixture of British and US orthographies. I suggest the article should use standardised English orthography throughout, as it relates to a subject outside of the USA. [[User:Bandurist|Bandurist]] ([[User talk:Bandurist|talk]]) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
:Since Dnipropetrovsk is neither in the British nor in the American dialect sphere, the argument for "standardized" British spelling is irrelevant. The question is how much of the article uses British spelling and how much uses American spelling. Whichever is the current majority, then the rest should be adapted to that form. ([[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC))
::I just read through the article and the entire first two-thirds is in American spelling (except for a single occurrence of "centre"). British spellings do not begin until "Attractions". Overall there are more occurrences of "center" than of "centre". There is one occurrence of "meander", one occurrence of "theatre", and one occurrence of "honour". American spelling predominates, therefore that should be the standard utilized. --[[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 02:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Hang on - wikiguides says that european countries should use british spelling.
:::The first text creating the article used English English [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipropetrovsk&oldid=11628680]
:::In this case it seems obvious to me that the original takes precedent
:::Also I think there was perhaps an element of fighteyness between Taivo and Bandusrist on this matter so I do not want either to think I am on one side or the other, simply lets say that I am neutral - I have edited articles of both styles and preserved ''the original'' in each.
:::Would it be right for someone to add lots of phrases that included one version over the other to then later say "now we have 10 ize and 9 ise they should all be ise"?
:::[[User:Chaosdruid|Chaosdruid]] ([[User talk:Chaosdruid|talk]]) 07:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|align=center| [[File:Lobby of Europe Shopping Centre 26dec09 3490.JPG|thumb]]
|align=center| [[File:Europe Shopping center in Dnipropetrovsk.jpg|thumb]]
|-
|}
Please note that irrespective of whether you agree with British or American orthography (that means spelling, right?), the "Europe Shopping-Centre" is correctly spelled as written. See photos above.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 13:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
==List of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration==
[[User:LibStar]] keeps deleting this section of the article. His argument is that "long directories [[WP:NOTDIR]] do not appear in city articles. only current and notable mayors should appear".
I believe that a list of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration is part of the history of the city, and is worth including in the article. Some other language versions of Wikipedia have such sections, for example: [[ru:Днепропетровск]].
If you read [[WP:NOTDIR]] it says that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed, and that Wikipedia articles are not:
*Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons.
*Genealogical entries.
*The White or Yellow Pages.
*Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.
*Sales catalogs.
*Changelogs or release notes.
*Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
*A complete exposition of all possible details.
None of this applies to a list of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration in an article about the city.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
: . It is not normal practice to include long list of non notable officials in city articles, otherwise all cities greater than 100 years old would have excessively long sections. It may be classed as "*A complete exposition of all possible details" by listing every single mayor. Check out [[WP:FA|feature article]] [[Houston]], [[Minneapolis]]. none of these have lists of mayors. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::Well maybe you could improve those articles by adding such lists.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::: no they are feature articles and considered top standard articles that others should follow. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 17:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
*There is an article on the American city called [[Chicago]]; this does not list the mayors - there is an article on [[Mayor of Chicago]], which does. I notice that all the mayors of Chicago have Wikipedia articles, from [[William Butler Ogden]] to [[Rahm Emanuel]]. Clearly being mayor of Chicago makes them notable.
*The article on the American city called [[Houston]] also does not list the mayors, but there is an article called [[List of mayors of Houston]]; not all the mayors have articles on them - some are redlinked, but most do from the first ([[James Sanders Holman]]) to the present one ([[Annise Parker]]).
*The article on the obscure American city called [[Minneapolis]] is accompanies by an article called [[List of mayors of Minneapolis]], and again the mayors either have articles on the like [[Dorilus Morrison]] or are red-linked. As with Chicago and Houston, being the mayor of Minneapolis makes a person notable.
On that basis, ''all'' the mayors and political chiefs of the city administration of Dnepropetrovsk are notable.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
: I don't totally agree that all mayors are automatically notable, but as a compromise I support a new article of List of Mayors. I do not support a long list of mayors in main city article. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The table is rather long and, lacking information about any of the individual mayors and their achievements, it does seem rather pointless. However, as all information is ultimately enriching I would propose that either a separate article entitled 'List of mayors (or something similar) of Dnipropetrovsk' should be created, or the current table should be retained in the city's article as a collapsable feature within the 'Government' section.
*As I believe a separate article about the mayor would, however, be rather short, I would personally prefer to see the latter option utilised as it could be integrated with further information describing the post of mayor, the city's administration and their respective duties. I hope this proves acceptable to all.
[[User:Gnesener1900|Gnesener1900]] ([[User talk:Gnesener1900|talk]]) 10:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
:Honestly, I think its redundant to have an entire list of mayors in the main article on Dnipropetrovsk. It should have its own article and be spun off.. However, if there are some important city executives/mayors that had an profound effect upon the future of the city, they should be listed somewhere under #Goverment or a subsection of that like #History of city administration or something.. That list is just too exhaustive to have in a main article. A couple pictures or something to illustrate Goverment/Mayoral history would be a nice addition to such a section too... —[[User:DDima|ddima]] ([[User talk:DDima|talk]]) 03:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100% with ddima. — '''[[User:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:orange">Yulia Romero</span>]]''' • [[User_talk:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:blue">Talk to me!</span>]] 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
== [[2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions]] ==
Is it not better to make an article about the [[Dnipropetrovsk#April_27.2C_2012_bombings]]. Per [[wp:notnews]] and per example [[2008 Yevpatoria gas explosion]]. [[2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions]] seems the most neutral name for that since it is not 100% sure what caused the explosions. — '''[[User:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:orange">Yulia Romero</span>]]''' • [[User_talk:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:blue">Talk to me!</span>]] 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
== Modern history, anyone? ==
Why does the history section leave an impression that life has stalled (or turned dark) with the independence of Ukraine? Aren't we able to mention something apart from maniacs and fake terrorists? Maybe [[Privat Group|international corporations]]? Skyscrapers? Tymoshenko? The same is true about [[Kiev]] history articles. [[User:Ukrained2012|Ukrained2012]] ([[User talk:Ukrained2012|talk]]) 12:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
==The colours used on the weather box==
You may have noticed that two editors have been changing the colours on the weather boxes for Ukrainian cities for the past two months. There is a discussion of what colours they should be at [[Talk:Lviv#The colours used on the weather box]]. Please contribute, even if only to say that you don't care, but you just wish they would stop changing it.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
== Picture in infobox ==
[[User_talk:Toddy1#Happy_New_Year_to_you_too.21|I have been asked to give an opinion about the photo in the infobox of this article]]. Although I am not crazy about both pics... I favor the current one since it captured the essence of the current state of the city better (a lot of new buildings being build there). I could not find a better picture on [[Wikimedia Commons]]. Personally I prefer montage pictures in infoboxes of cities (since [[Manchester]], [[Bristol]], [[Oxford]], [[Birmingham]] & [[Liverpool]] (you could argue that [[Dnipropetrovsk]] is Ukraine's Manchester) have a montage picture in the infobox. I have the feeling that the policies of Wikipedia are shifting towards putting montage pictures in infoboxes of large cities). — '''[[User:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:orange">Yulia Romero</span>]]''' • [[User_talk:Yulia Romero|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:blue">Talk to me!</span>]] 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
<center><gallery>
File:Dnipropetrowsk.jpg|Current photo: ''Skyline of Dnipropetrovsk''
File:Dnepropetrovsk 9850s.JPG|Previous photo till December 2012: ''Victory memorial at the beginning of Karl Marx Avenue overlooking the [[Dnieper River]].''
</gallery></center>
== Demographics ==
The following table was added to the article by [[User talk:Ronangrab|Ronangrab]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipropetrovsk&diff=593348104&oldid=592551021] The source for 2001 is for Dnepropetrovsk Region (Oblast). Less than half of the population for the region live in the city of Dnepropetrovsk. There are no sources for the 1926 and 1959 figures. The 1897 figures are backed by a citation to [http://djc.com.ua/h_obchiny/?id=2 http://djc.com.ua]. This does not support the figures. It does quote figures for 1887, but they are not the same as in the table. I have restored the previous version, with corrections.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="2" width=300 align="right" rules="all" style="margin: 1em; background: #ffffff; border: 4px solid #aaa; font-size: 100%;"
|- bgcolor=#DDDDDD
| colspan=6 align="center" | '''Population makeup by ethnicity 1897-2001'''
<ref name=DJC/><ref>[http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/nationality/dnipropetrovsk Nationality. Dnipropetrovsk]</ref>
|- bgcolor=#f0f0f0 align="center"
! Ethnicity !! 1897 !! 1926 !! 1959 !! 2001
|- align="right"
| align="left" |[[Ukrainians]] || 15.8% || 36.0% || 61.5% || 72.6%
|- align="right"
| align="left" | [[Russians]] || 41.8% || 31.6% || 27.9% || 23.5%
|- align="right"
| align="left" | [[Jews]]|| 35.4% || 26.8% || 7.6% || 1.0%
|- align="right"
| align="left" | [[Poles]]|| 3.1% || || || 0.0%
|- align="right"
| align="left" | [[Germans]]|| 1.3% || || || 0.1%
|- align="right"
| align="left" | [[Belarusians]] || 1.2% || 1.9% || 1.7% || 1.0%
|- align="right"
|}
<references/>
== "Left bank"? ==
The expression "Left Bank" is used several times in the article without explanation. Perhaps this is a European expression in common use, but there is no ready definition or explanation (either nearby or via Google) of what "Left Bank" means. Any volunteers? [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 06:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:The left bank is on the left hand side of the river (the convention assumes that you are looking in the direction the water flows). The right bank is on the right hand side of the river. So Karla Marksa is on the right bank, and Solnechny is on the left bank.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 06:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
== Current article revamp ==
{{ping|Axxxion}} when you have finished your article revamp, please could you post something here. That way one of the rest of us can restore citations you have deleted, decisions made by consensus on the talk page, etc.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
*I deleted a para about the population numbers from the lead, as there is plenty of that stuff both in the lead still and in the infobox. The lead was silly, as the most crucial background information about the city was simply missing. I have corrected some obvious inaccuracies such as the english transliteration of Ekaterinoslav ("Yekaterinoslav" is not based on any sources and was never used). Any issue with those?[[User:Axxxion|Axxxion]] ([[User talk:Axxxion|talk]]) 09:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:I also changed to ″Novorossiya Governorate″. It is just overall linguistic logic: using ″Novorossiysk Governorate″ implies reference to the city of [[Novorossiysk]], which is confusing for 2 reasons: first, there is now a big city in Russia of such name, secondly, the name of the Novorossiya Governorate implied reference to [[Novorossiya]] as is clear from the fact that the renaming of the province preceded the renaming of city, Ekaterinoslav.[[User:Axxxion|Axxxion]] ([[User talk:Axxxion|talk]]) 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
::I did not object to reverts to ″Z. Sich", but I would like to note that we talk of the Russian history here; in Russia until the turn of the 20th century the Ukr language was not in any form of official use, in fact it was not in use for writing at all (with singular exceptions). Moreover, it was widely viewed as a dialect of Russian vernacular in use in rural areas and by illiterate classes as a kind of [[patois]]. All the contemporary (18th century) documents pertaining to Sech refer to it as "Zaporozhskaya Sech" (i am using the common transliteration of Russian) for the simple reason of those sources being exclusively in Russian. In fact even modern Ukr sources widely use it when in English: http://www.cossacks.kiev.ua/history.html . [[User:Axxxion|Axxxion]] ([[User talk:Axxxion|talk]]) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
== Units of Measurement ==
One would typically expect an article about Ukraine to follow the style convention specified by [[WP:MOSNUM]] that metric units be given first. The only articles that do not typically follow this convention are those relating to the UK and USA. My attempts to edit one measurement (!) in this article to bring it into MOS compliance have twice been reverted by an editor who objects to "French kilometres" (sic). In this context, we might ask whether he objects also to Ukrainian kilometres.
Given all this, I propose that the article be returned to the MOS-compliant style forthwith. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
:[[WP:MOSNUM]] does not say that metric units <u>must</u> be used first. It does say:
::'' The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.''
:As far as I can tell the first use of miles/kilometres was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipropetrovsk&diff=next&oldid=642409447 this edit,] which has miles first.
:As this is English-language Wikipedia, one would naturally expect it to have English distance units (miles).--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 04:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::The style guidelines about ''units of measurement'' specifically do not refer to which style was used first; if a previous edit introduced an incorrect style there is nothing wrong with subsequent edits fixing it. The MOS does say:
:::''In most articles ... the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic...''
::Which in this context, would obviously not imply that the article should use a primary unit which is not used in Ukraine, per the [[Principle_of_least_astonishment|principle of least astonishment]]. The argument that these styles are fully optional and "can is not must", "most is not all", meaning that editors can simply ignore them at a whim, has been discussed and rejected on [[WT:MOSNUM]] more times than I can count.
::You are wrong to imply that the entire English-speaking world would measure distances in miles: that practice is largely confined to the USA and UK. All other Anglophone countries would use kilometres, but that is irrelevant in this case anyway since we are not discussing the practices of the Anglophone world. In this case, there is an extremely obvious reason, unrelated to an arbitrary choice of style, why an article about Ukraine should give distances primarily in kilometres. Your reasoning, that you do not like "French kilometres" and you think that all articles on en-wp should use "English miles" is, ironically, just such an arbitrary and unfounded [[WP:ILIKEIT|personal preference]], which amounts to a desire for ''one'' measurement on ''one'' article about Ukraine to use a style which is not used in other articles about Ukraine, and per the MOS, should not be used except in articles about the USA and UK. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 10:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I do not agree with you in the least. You seem to be saying that articles about Ukraine should state kilometres first. Is this because the current government uses kilometres? By that logic, articles on Ukraine on English-Wikipedia should be written in Ukrainian instead of English. As with the use of kilometres, that would be most unhelpful.
:::Wikipedia is not a place to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]], and so is not a suitable place for your metrication-crusade.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I am saying, lest it be misunderstood, that articles about Ukraine should use kilometres-first because that is the standard practice in Ukraine (not just of the current Ukrainian government, I dare say) – and in nearly every country on earth. Exceptions are made explicitly in the MOS for countries which do not use those units. Giving a distance in Ukraine in US customary (or imperial) measurements clearly violates the criterion of least astonishment, and it is clearly against the advice of the Manual of Style.
::::I am arguing that this article should follow the MOS. It is hardly a "crusade" to suggest that articles about countries which use the metric system, should use the metric system. It is not a matter of trying to right great wrongs to put articles about a certain country into the metric-first style, if the country in question already uses the metric system. If you know of a good reason why this article should not follow the MOS, please state it. Your personal dislike of "unhelpful French kilometres" is not such a good reason. I do not understand why it would be "unhelpful" to use the unit presentation style that is used already in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles – a style which is helpful in that it serves as a more-or-less accurate reflection of unit usage in the real world. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Archon is right. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_choice_and_order| MOSNUM] makes it clear that most articles should be metric first ''except'' for US and many UK articles. The Ukraine is not one of the exceptions. As Imperial/US customary weights and measures are also supplied this does not disadvantage any reader. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and the Irish Republic also use metric measures, so it's not a case of English usage versus the rest of the world. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::I agree with [[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] that unless there is a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, that the style here should not be changed from one guideline-defined style to another. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Your comment would make sense only in a context where both styles were equally permissible, e.g. whether to use the spelling "kilometre" or "kilometer". This is ''not'' such a case, as I have explained above; both styles are not equally legitimate since one is reflective of real-world practice and the other is not. The fact that a previous editor gave a measurement in a style which is disfavoured by the MOS is not a good reason for leaving it that way. The MOS makes it clear that the burden, in this dispute, is on the editors who want to give a distance in Ukraine in miles, which is not standard practice. Would you consider it equally permissible, in terms of the MOS, to use kilometres-first to say how far Houston is from Dallas? [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 13:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::[[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]], both styles ''are'' equally permissible. And what is this "real-world practice" to which you allude? Shouldn't it be, as for other aspects, how the balance of reliable English-language sources would give it? I'm happy with the status quo until, at least, it is shown that the majority of reliable English-language secondary sources give such measurements in other than miles. The burden, as for other aspects, is on the editors who want to change that status quo. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::You're simply re-asserting something which is flat-out wrong. The MOS states explicitly that the normal assumption for non-US and non-UK articles is for the primary quantity to be a metric unit, barring strong topic-specific reasons to the contrary. This is the burden you need to meet: you have not shown that there is a strong reason why the distance from Dnipropetrovsk to Kiev – specifically that one distance (!) – should be stated primarily in miles, considering that the ''status quo'' is for the overwhelming majority of articles about Ukraine to give distances in kilometres.
:::::The real-world practice is that the normal unit for distance measurement in almost all countries of the world is the kilometre; I am sure you understand this perfectly well. One does not normally encounter statute miles outside of the USA and UK, and most publications not specifically oriented towards those countries do not use that unit. Satisfying an unrealistic and pointless standard, such as arbitrarily requiring editors to provide secondary sources showing metric units, is not required by the MOS, nor should it be (and in any case, it is hardly difficult to find reliable sources about Ukraine which will give distances in kilometres). You are invoking a rule which doesn't even exist. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
=== Miles or Kilometres? Cited or Uncited information?===
I believe that there are two questions here.
*The first one is whether miles or kilometres should come first in this article. According to MOSNUM, this article should be metric first.
*The second is whether the distance between Dnipropetrovsk and Kiev should be properly cited from a reliable source. This is a no-brainer. Of course, information should be be properly cited from a reliable source.
Neither of these should even be disputed. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:[[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]], there is a third question too:
:*The third is what distance (as the crow flies, by car, by foot, by rail, by air, by boat or what?) makes the most sense in the context. The original distance given is as the crow flies.
:In answer to your first question I would say wait to see whether there is a consensus to change the status quo from imperial, to metric.
:In answer to your second question I would say that as the distance is a matter of physical fact, and so readily and easily verifiable from any number of maps and map-derived services, both online and off, and even by calculation from the differences in latitude and longitude of the places concerned, that the obligation to be verifiable is more than adequately satisfied without a specific reference.
:In answer to the (my) third question I would say that as the crow flies, as in the original text, makes most sense for such an overview. A new travel section might run through all the other practical ways of making the journey. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 18:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::The whole point of having a manual of style is that we don't need to develop a separate consensus every time. What we are arguing is: should this article follow the manual of style or not? The burden of proof is strongly on those who are arguing that one single measurement should deviate from the MOS standard, and so far all we have heard is that one editor prefers "English miles" to "French kilometres", which is cute but irrelevant, and that someone else wants us to collect lots of sources that give this one measurement in a certain unit, which we are certainly not obliged to do.
::(And parenthetically, I'd add that it's better to provide sources than not – of course readers can verify some things themselves, but that is hardly the point). [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Archon's view is mistaken; the words "most" and "all" in [[WP:UNITS]] do not mean the same thing. Both styles are permitted (with specific exceptions defined in [[WP:UNITS]]). [[WP:MOSNUM]] states that you cannot change from one permitted style to another without good reason. There are no good reasons for the change to metric first.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::You're simply repeating the "most is not all" argument. This argument has been refuted so many times on [[WT:MOSNUM]] that I've lost count, because it is simply a charter for individual editors to use whichever units style they personally prefer. You have not explained why the imperial/USC-first style is, in your view, permitted for an article about Ukraine (my reading of the MOS is that it is not). Nor have you explained why it is the desirable or natural style for the article (my view, again, is that it is not).
::::There is an eminently good, and very obvious, reason why US/UK units should not be used for countries which are not the US or the UK. Simply ignoring that and asserting that the reason does not exist, does not make it go away. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 20:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::There's also the matter of consistency within the article. In the section headed "Closed City" there is the following sentence: " The range of these first missiles was only 270 kilometres (168 miles)." It is certainly less than ideal to have miles first in one instance and kilometres first in the other.There is also the matter of accuracy of information.
::::::There are now four clear strikes against the most recent edit:
::::::*It rejects cited information about the road distance from Dnipropetrovsk to Kiev in favour of an uncited factoid.
::::::*It made the article inconsistent, with miles first in one instance and kilometres first in the other.
::::::*It made the article inconsistent with MOSNUM, which recommends metric first for non-US or UK general articles.
::::::*The argument that the factoid is the measurement "as the crow flies" is a canard. The factoid does not specify how the distance is calculated and [http://www.distancefromto.net/between/Kiev/Dnepropetrovsk| distancefromto.net] gives a figure of 394.33 km (or 245.03 miles) and not the 242 miles (390 km) that currently appears in the article. If Speccy had been on the level about preferring the distance as the crow flies, he could have found this information, instead of using the lazyman revert option.
::::::As it is, [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] has made the article worse, not better. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 00:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you, Michael, for pointing this out. The absurdity of these reversions by Speccy and Toddy is that 1) they are reverting to a MOSNUM-disfavoured style, which certainly does not improve the article, and 2) they are making the article internally inconsistent (and inconsistent with other articles about Ukraine), for no adequate reason. Hitting the revert button and insisting that the style cannot be changed to metric-first (coming, notably, from an editor who has repeatedly tried to get other articles changed to imperial-first) is not a substitute for an argument. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
===Proposal===
Here is the edit I propose:
It is about {{convert|394|km|mi|abbr=on}} southeast of the capital [[Kiev]] on the [[Dnieper River]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.distancefromto.net/between/Kiev/Dnepropetrovsk |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date= |website=DistanceFromTo |publisher=Distancefromto.net |access-date=6 August 2015|quote="394.33km" "245.03 miles"}}</ref>, in the south-central part of Ukraine.
*This gives the direct distance from Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk.
*It is cited.
*It is consistent with the other distance in the article.
*The text is accurate to the nearest kilometre.
*It is consistent with MOSNUM.
*Accuracy to the nearest 10 metres is provided in the note.
I can't see how anyone could reasonably object to this proposal.[[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:I oppose any change for now while this discussion is still open. The precise distance clearly depends on the points chosen to measure between. Different sources will give subtly different values (here are a few others: [http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Kiev_UP_and_Dnepropetrovsk_UP.html], [http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Kiev,+Ukraine/to/Dnipropetrovsk,+Ukraine], [http://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between-kyiv-city_-ukraine-and-dnipropetrovsk.htm]). That is why we need to survey reliable secondary sources to get a judgement on this. 242 miles (390 km) isn't too far adrift though, and verifiable within reasonable tolerances until we agree how to proceed. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::This still does not justify or excuse your high-handed reversion of properly cited material and replacing it with an uncited factoid. That is no way to behave if you are trying to work collaboratively with others. ''Any one'' of these sources is better than no source at all.[[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 02:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree that cited text is best. The following compromise will preserve the original style, and is therefore consistent with guidance in MOS:
::::"It is about {{convert|394|km|mi|abbr=off|order=flip}} southeast of the capital [[Kiev]] on the [[Dnieper River]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.distancefromto.net/between/Kiev/Dnepropetrovsk |title= Distance between Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date= |website=DistanceFromTo |publisher=Distancefromto.net |access-date=6 August 2015|quote="394.33km" "245.03 miles"}}</ref> in the south-central part of Ukraine."
:::--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::You've still not explained why it is appropriate to give ''this one measurement'' in a format which, per the MOS, is ''not to be used'' for articles without [[WP:STRONGNAT|strong national ties]] to the USA or UK, absent some extremely strong reason to the contrary. It's not even consistent with the format of the other measurements in this one article! [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. While the proposed edit cites the information, it does not deal with the other inconsistencies that have been noted. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 11:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Michael Glass}} You are correct. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipropetrovsk&type=revision&diff=198717996&oldid=198573940 An earlier significant contribution] put km in as a unit of distance. This predated the edit that introduced a measurement in miles. I had not noticed that. The policy is that ''The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style''. Therefore km should be mentioned first.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You have come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. The point of MOSNUM's units section is that it specifies the appropriate choice of primary units for different categories of article (US-related, UK-related, and all others). If someone happens to have added a measurement to an article in an inappropriate format (and the fact that the different formats are all legitimate ''in the broadest sense of the term'' does not imply that they are all equally legitimate in ''each and every specific article''), that by itself is not a good reason for retaining it.
:::::::If an article was written about New Zealand by an American editor who gave distances in miles, that would not be a good reason for retaining that format, for the same reason that if a New Zealand editor wrote an article about a US-related topic in New Zealand English, that would not be a legitimate reason for keeping it (I know you are thinking of [[WP:RETAIN]], but that guideline applies only as a last resort, if there is no other relevant guideline). For the purposes of the MOS, a valid "substantial reason" to change formats is that the article falls into one of those three categories related to units (and there are no other special considerations). [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I welcome [[User:Toddy1| Toddy1's]] latest comment, and the obvious thought and care he exercised in checking the edit history of the article and also Wikipedia policy. I feel confident that we are very close to resolving this question. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 01:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Three out of the four people who have expressed an opinion on the matter have agreed that the distance should be expressed in kilometres first. This is justified by the history of the article, the other measurements used in the article, the fact that Ukraine uses the metric system, and that it is consistent with MOSNUM. The one objector has not responded in a week. Therefore it seems clear to me that unless we hear something to contrary within the next 24 hours, there is no problem in reversing the edit in contention. (The editor in question watches my every move on Wikipedia, so this notice is sure to reach him.) [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]], wait to see if a consensus develops. Wikipedia policy [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] is clear that consensus should be based on the quality of the arguments and it is not the result of a vote. Valid argument for change does not include "because MOSNUM says so", because as we have seen, editing simply to change from one unit to another is not allowed, or as MOSNUM puts it: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you argue that way, then every rule becomes captive to one recalcitrant who opposes change. You have not responded to the following facts:
::::::::::::* Three out of four is a pretty good consensus.
::::::::::::* The article is inconsistent, with kilometres first in one instance and miles first in another.
::::::::::::* "An earlier significant contribution] put km in as a unit of distance. This predated the edit that introduced a measurement in miles."
::::::::::::* Even in its present form, MOSNUM recommends metric units first.
::::::::::::* Your recalcitrance is a prime example why the rules at MOSNUM need to be tightened. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 22:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I would say pushing your own personal POV ahead of any consensus is the more recalcitrant act. And as for your "facts"(!):
:::::::::::::*Consensus is judged on a subjective assessment of the quality of the various arguments, not by counting personal opinions.
:::::::::::::*There are at least two ways of addressing the inconsistency you observe - have you considered proposing the other option to see if that achieves a consensus?
:::::::::::::*Have you checked further back in the article units history, or did you stop when you found that km edit?
:::::::::::::*MOSNUM explicitly disallows such a change.
:::::::::::::*You'll need to explain that one for me because as I see it, it is ''you'' who is trying to defy the current spirit of MOSNUM.
:::::::::::::Hope that helps. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 10:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It certainly helps to demonstrate that your interpretation of MOSNUM is to veto edits that you dislike against all support. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] ([[User talk:Michael Glass|talk]]) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Speccy, as I have repeatedly explained to you (and as you have repeatedly ignored) the consensus interpretation of MOSNUM is not that it disallows changing an article from a MOS-disfavoured style to a MOS-favoured style. The fact that you read MOSNUM that way does not mean that others are beholden to follow it. If that were the correct interpretation, I suggest, MOSNUM would be almost pointless since the style of Wikipedia would simply be a mash-up of whatever styles our editors had arbitrarily decided on, and nobody would ever be allowed to change them. The commonsense interpretation of the text that you keep quoting is that it's relevant only in cases where there are two or more equally permissible styles ''in principle'' (such as whether an article on cloud types is written in Canadian English or UK English, or whatever). In those cases it's arbitrary so it comes down to the choice of the editor who makes the first meaningful contribution. In a case such as this it is not arbitrary, because the MOS explicitly says what kinds of articles should use what units. There is no legitimate reason for a distance in Ukraine to be measured in miles, to the best of my awareness, and none has been suggested beyond the personal preferences of some editors. That's why nobody has proposed making the article miles-first; it's never going to reach consensus.
::::::::::::::(PS – if you look above you'll see it was Toddy1 who found the "earlier significant contribution" which introduced measurements in kilometres, not Michael Glass.) [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 15:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Archon, you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
:::::::::::::::Because (unfortunately) distances in kilometres were mentioned by a significant contribution to the article before miles were, the rule in MOS is that kilometres have precedence. I wish that that were not the case, but it is. We need to abide by the MOS. We cannot change to miles having precedence, unless someone can create a good reason for doing so. I can assure you that the editor who introduced measurements in kilometres without miles would never have done so if he/she had known that he/she was creating a precedence.
:::::::::::::::The lesson from this mess, is to be very careful when adding text to articles not to use kilometres without putting miles first (unless some idiot like Toddy1 has already put kilometres into the article).--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 15:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I'm confused now - are we saying that we ''can'' change from one guideline-defined style to another ''without'' a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style? Or are we saying that the fact that kilometres were added earlier than miles (even if by the same editor) ''is'' an acceptable substantial reason? If the latter, then I will accept that. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 16:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::What we are saying is what the MOS has always been saying. I'll repeat again: MOSNUM spells out, in painful clarity, which units are expected to take precedence in any given article, in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary and in the absence of strong national ties. There is no actual ambiguity about this; anyone can see what it says. There are three categories of article defined there: US-related, UK-related, and other. This article clearly falls into the last of those three categories, and MOSNUM very clearly stipulates what that means in terms of units of measurement. '''Nowhere''' does MOSNUM say that the unit presentation style is determined by the first significant contribution. It has never said that. That is a standard you have invented yourself, which does not have community consensus and therefore does not carry any weight.
::::::::::::::::::I recognise the fact that you, Toddy1, do not like this (and indeed you are not required to like it), but it is the consensus and you are expected to abide by it. It's not a problem that you personally believe that miles are a better distance unit, but I would ask you to respect that your own personal preference is not a good reason for a Wikipedia article to follow a certain style. (Why is your preference for one unit more important than another editor's preference for a different unit? This is exactly why we have a Manual of Style). There is no "defeat" or "victory" here, and thinking in such an adversarial way is not helpful. The lesson is ''not'' to avoid using kilometres because you don't like them, or to try to force articles to use the miles-first style against MOS advice because it's your personal favourite style; that will only create more pointless disputes such as this one and it is likely to be considered disruptive behaviour. The lesson is to follow the standard Manual of Style prescriptions for unit use unless there is a good reason not to. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Because kilometres were added earlier than miles, they have precedence (unfortunately). Therefore to have miles first would be a change that required a substantial reason. The stuff about ''km über alles'' is irrelevant. All that matters is which style was there first.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 18:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Thanks for the clarification. I support the change to km first therefore, and have changed it that way myself now there is no opposition. [[User:Speccy4Eyes|Speccy4Eyes]] ([[User talk:Speccy4Eyes|talk]]) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Thank you. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::The current consensus ("It is {{convert|243|mi|km|order=flip}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Coordinates + Total Distance|url=http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Kiev_UP_and_Dnepropetrovsk_UP.html|website=MapCrow|accessdate=16 August 2015}}</ref> southeast of the capital [[Kiev]]...") is confirmed. Reason for formal closure: preparing closure of [[WT:MOSNUM#We should clarify "In most articles..."]] --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 10:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
===References===
<references/>
| |||