Talk:Zaporizhzhia

Double ZH

I suggested to undo this page move as per simplification of double consonants outlined at Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian. --Irpen 01:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So long as we're consistent. I have problems with some parts of Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian, wherein we assume people can't learn to pronounce Ukrainian properly and simplify shcho to sch. Double consonant produce a specific sound and I am often correcting Ukrainians on their pronounciation. But again, so long as we're consistent here, I'm ok with the move.--tufkaa 16:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. —dima ^{• talk • sb •} 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Zaporizhzhya"? In the US it's known just like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.7.254 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the last official transliteration system it must be spelt as Zaporizhzhia with double ZH (there is no simplification for such cases: "3. Транслітерація прізвищ та імен осіб і географічних назв здійснюється шляхом відтворення кожної літери латиницею.") --Serhii Riabovil (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree, There are many such approaches where each letter should by transliterated. It makes name longer, but on the other hand, more correct. In God we trust, the rest we Test! (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ten years later. Can we finally move this page to its proper place (Zaporizhzhia)? JonStryker (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The process for proposing changes of article names that are likely to be objected to can be found at WP:RM.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Many pages exists, but minor of it categorised

Today, many pages applies to Zaporizhia, but most of this articles haven't Category:Zaporizhia. So, if you have time, please look all of these articles and add [[Category:Zaporizhia]]. --Movses (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ship Locks

On the Francophone page on locks it is mentioned that the locks in this town have the record of highest vertical difference of water level taken in one step ('chute') Is this true? (The 3 Gorges Dam do 114 m with 5 locks) If yes, shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? --Bancki (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Capital

This statement is wrong :"Vyshnevetsky's fortifications served as a prototype for later Zaporizhian Siches" . Vyshnevetsky never knew about "Siches", so the fortress could not serve as prototype.

Few paragraphs below there is mumbling about "Capital" of Sich. This is absolutely wrong. SIch was paramilitary camp, stronghold and other similar definitions, nothing more

Khortytsia Island never been among of the historic locations of the Zaporizhian Sich . NEVER! --Zas2000 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In English, "prototype" means that it served as a model for later works. The original builder need never have built another or known about subsequent developments for his work to be a "prototype". Perhaps you should leave the details of English meaning to the English speakers? --Taivo (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

These fortifications are considered as a prototype of Zaporizhzhya Sich

Dear Taivo, I would like to emphasize that Khortytsya is the prototype for somebody, but not for others. Removing the word "consider" completely changes the meaning of the modern understanding of the situation. There was about 70 km upstream of the river similar fortress called Kodak., by the way also built Vishnevetsiky Because you are English native speaker it would easy for you to find the right expression for this.--Zas2000 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have citations to back up the claim that the original Kodak Fortress was built by Vishnevetsiky?--Toddy1 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)\

• It seems I am wrong, Vishnevetsky did not built Kodak fortress. This fortress has been built by

French engineer Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan in 1635 year. --Zas2000 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Did the later siches follow the pattern of the earlier one or not? --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• What kind of pattern do you mean?

Cossacs business

The Cossacks business was to rob anyone who has something valuable and sell prisoners to the slavery to Crimea, Ottoman Empire and others country of Middle East. Actually, they were like sea pirates.

Where were Siches The position of the Vishnevsky Sich have been chosen practically very wrong. The island was tiny. There were no more than hundred cossacs in Veshnevetsky fortress. All others real Siches were 100 km downstream the river, near modern Nikopol' city. They were settled next to Nikitin ford across the Dnieper. The Milky Way (Chumatsky shliakh) passed through here. Cossacks controlled the trade rout from Europe to the Crimea and the Ottoman Empire here. Crimean Tatars have made sudden invasions of Rech Pospolita here. All Siches were based on small island among many others . High reed, grass, broad width of Dnieper protected Siches.

What could be common between Vishnevetskii Sich and other ones? Not much, maybe it was just described above business. Vishnevetsky Sich has been existed only for 3-4 years. For this short time it could not be founded traditions, habits and so on. The opinion that Veshnevetsky Sich is protoSich is comimg from a historian Grushevitsky. If you open another book, IP Saveliev, "Ancient History of the Cossacks," you'll see that the founder of the Zaporozhye Sech is Hetman Lanskoronsky. He was active in 1512, long before Veshnivetsky. In Lanskoronsky time cossacks built small forts before rapids.

This is shortly about could we consider the Veshnivetsky Sich as ProtoSich--Zas2000 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your English is very hard to follow and I'm not at all sure what you are saying here. Please write more concisely and summarize your principal thoughts. --Taivo (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not make changes to the article until you have reached a consensus on the Talk Page first. --Taivo (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be correct in the end, but 1) you have failed to talk before editing something controversial, 2) you have failed to clearly articulate your position, and 3) you have failed to provide proper references. Your references may be good, but just throwing a Russian book title out there without summarizing what it says fails WP:V. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works. Read WP:BRD before you do anything else. Then come here and build a WP:CONSENSUS. It is a requirement that if you use a source that is not in English (on the English Wikipedia) that you translate the relevant passages for the benefit of those who do not know that language. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please can we stop this edit warring and make a compromise

Please can we go through the disputed parts sentence by sentence here - and explain our disagreements (if any).--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1552 Dmytro Vyshnevetsky erected wood-earth fortifications on the island of Mala Khortytsya in the Dnieper River near Khortytsya island.

• As this sentence is common to both your latest revisions, I assume that you both agree on its wording.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, I don't like the word "erected". Much more appropriate to use here - "built", because Vishnevetsky mostly digging in the ground on this island. --Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some historians believe these fortifications were a prototype of the Zaporizhian Sich.

• Taivo prefers the following wording:--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

These fortifications were a prototype of the Zaporizhian Sich.

• Please can Taivo explain why he objects to the alternative wording.

Simpler wording is always preferable to more complicated wording if the two are roughly equivalent--thus "prototype of" is preferable to "some think it is a prototype of". Zas2000 has not offered any proof that this simpler wording is not supported by sources. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it is important that he offer a translation or a summary of non-English sources in terms of the critical information. I could make no sense of his English "explanation" above (it sounds like Google translate, which means it is incomprehensible in many regards). What is required is for Zas2000 to offer some sources that clearly state "some historians say X and some historians say Y" before the longer wording is acceptable. But he needs to present English summaries of the critical parts of these works--not just throw a Russian book title out there. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no problems with the English language in this sentence. Here I fight only for the historical truth. As in any science, different historians might have different opinion on the same subject. Namely this opinion I prefer to follow in the text. I would like to stress that this opinion ("someone considers the fortress as a prototype, someone is not") widely accepted in Russian literature. I gave references from very known source. Unfortunately, this book does not exist in English. As far as I know, Wiki does not prohibit the use of references from other languages. I recommend to my opponent to take classes in Russian language and not to be confused historical and linguistic problems

--Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have asked you to summarize the issue from this Russian source. And while there are no prohibitions to the use of non-English references, in discussions such as this it is accepted practice for the person offering a non-English source to summarize in English the relevant issues. If you want to talk about language proficiency here, then we could have a conversation about your familiarity with English. --Taivo (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to find some references to Sich establishment in English. It is not easy. Real scientific works has not been translated yet. The most cited author is D. Yavornitsky, "History of Zaporozhian cossacs (Istoria zaporozhskich kazakov)". There are different opinions about when and where the Sich had been established. Most commonly used point of view is that Sich was founded in 1572 on the island of Mala Khortitsya. At the same time, some historians, such as IP Saveliev, make reference to the Polish chronicler of the XV century of Marcin Bielsky, who has told about the Cossacks and small Siches at the beginning of XV century.

This is my summary for Siches, nothing more I can tell you. However, I would like to repeat that the situation in which scientists have different opinions on thе same issue is common --Zas2000 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However, the question isn't when the Siches were established, but whether they followed the pattern of the Vishnevetski Sich. If they generally followed that pattern, then the Vishnevetski Sich is a prototype. --Taivo (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This question is even more difficult, I will look through Yavornitsky book. --Zas2000 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Below you can find some quotes from Yavornitsky book "History of the Zaporozhye Cossacks, vol. #2 (my translation, sorry), which may explain why he thought the Khortits fortress as a prototype for other Siches. I think, the quote 2 gives some kind of answer. I could not find other explanations anywhere else

1.Who was the true organizer of the SIch structure , what kind of military means did they have at the early days of Sich, how far their military activity was spread out ? The answer is no one knows.

2.“To protect the southern borders of Speech Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Vishnevetskii came to the idea to create a fortress with a strong garrison on one of the islands of the lower Dnieper, from where they could reflect the attacks of Muslims ( Crimea tartar and Turks) “.

3.Сossacs have not forgot the way which was found by Vishnevetskii --Zas2000 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those summaries. Between #2 and #3, that is a fairly clear indication that Vishnevetskii's fort was, indeed, a prototype for later siches. --Taivo (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sich was a stronghold of the Cossacks who lived on the border of the Rzeczpospolita and Moscow kingdom south of the rapids of the Dnieper.

• This sentence does not make sense - as now written, it is saying that the Moscow Kingdom was south of the rapids of the Dnieper. But in reality it was the Cossacks who were south of the rapids of the Dnieper. There also needs to be wikilinks for Rzeczpospolita and Moscow kingdom. My proposed rewording:--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sich was a stronghold of the Cossacks who lived south of the rapids of the Dnieper on the border of the Polish–Lithuanian Rzeczpospolita and the Moscow kingdom.

I agree this doesn't make sense, but no alternative wording that makes sense has been offered. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have therefore put in my slightly revised wording, which is grammatical, and makes sense.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest next: "The Sich was a stronghold of the Cossacks who lived on the southern border of the Polish–Lithuanian Rzeczpospolita and the Moscow kingdom after the rapids of the Dnieper river.

--Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"after the rapids of the Dnieper river" is not grammatical in English. "After" refers to time, not to a place. --Taivo (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1789 Mennonites from Prussia accepted an invitation from Catherine II of Russia and settled in what became the Chortitza Colony, northwest of Khortytsia island.

• Zas2000 has expressed a preference for Catherine The Great instead of Catherine II of Russia. Why? What difference does it make?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Her name must match the title of the article in Wikipedia. I think the title of the article is Catherine the Great right now. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now says "Catherine the Great"--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Catherine The Great, really there is no difference--Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Zas2000 has expressed a preference for it to say that the Mennonites were from Danzig. Please can you provide a citation for this.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A Mennonite family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, 1789—1923

By David G. Rempel, Cornelia Rempel Carlson, University of Toronto Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8020-3639-2, 9780802036391 --Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this say that all of them were from Danzig, or just some of them?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know the answer for this question. I may just say that I have never seen the information about German settlers who came from other places of Prussia, everywhere mentioned only Danzig. Present boundaries of the city includes several former German colonies: Chortitza, Nieder Chortitza, Burwalde, Einlage, Blumengart [2]

--Zas2000 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Zas2000 objects to the words "northwest of Khortytsia island". What is your objection?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This "northwest of Khortytsia island" detail is not required. Mennonites owned all of the island and sold it in 1916, see below--Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mennonite-owned mills and factories were built in Alexandrovsk and later expropriated by the Communist government.

Expropriated = To transfer (another's property) to oneself.

Appropriated = To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.

• One of you prefers expropriated and the other appropriated. Please can you each explain your preference.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now says "expropriated".--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bolsheviks used the word "Expropriated" . They transfered "capitalist" property to all people of the state, rather than specific individuals. About permission - Bolsheviks were in power and there was a law that allows them to do this action.

--Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Khotritsa Island belonged to the Mennonites until 1914, when the island was sold to the city.

• Please can Zas2000 provide a citation for this statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many references, unfortunately most of them in Russin or Ukranian, see for example http://wn.com/Khortytsia_Island, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khortytsia, http://ukraineplaces.com/central-ukraine/khortytsia-island-of-freedom--Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

After the Russian Revolution many Mennonites immigrated, fled as refugees, or were deported from the area. Currently few Mennonites live in Zaporizhia.

• This information has a citation. If Zas2000 objects, he needs either to provide a citation for the changes, or to explain that the wording of this sentence is not a fair summary of what it says in the book cited.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is simple. This page is about the city and not Menonnites. If someone wants to talk about Mennonites let writes a separate page.-Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently few Mennonites live in Zaporizhia.

• Zas2000 prefers:

Currently few Mennonite families live in Zaporizhia.

• Zas2000, please can you explain why your version is preferable.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is simple. This page is about the city and not Menonnites. If someone wants to talk about Mennonites let writes a separate page.-Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mennonite buildings still exist in the area and in the other main Mennonite colony centre, current day Molochansk.

• Zas2000, why do you object to this sentence?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is simple. The same reason as before.This page is about the city and not Menonnites. If someone wants to talk about Mennonites let writes a separate page.-Zas2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Section on City population

• Where did these data come from? There is no citation, and as far as possible citations should be provided. Would it be better if these data were in the same format as used in the article on Dnepropetrovsk? This has the virtue of allowing us to see citations for all the points.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Taivo, what is your objection to this?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to that. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Have restored section.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is not possible to find a single reference to that data. Here are collected numbers from various sources. Say, like the Nazi census in 1942. In the Russian wiki page for Zaporizhzhya, after discussion, these data were taken

Ethnic structure

• Taivo, what is your objection to this?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to that. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Have restored section.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Toddy1. --Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been fully protected one week due to edit warring, as reported at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Taivo reported by User:Nipsonanomhmata (Result: Protected). If the discussion here on this talk page leads to an agreement, you could ask at WP:RFUP for the protection to be lifted. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mennonites

Hi Taivo, would you like to have the information about Mennonites, specially about Molochansk. The story about Molochansk proper to keep at the different page exclusively related to Mennonites. --Zas2000 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zas2000 (talk • contribs)

Population

Below is a table of information on the population of the city together with sources. I suspect that for population after 2000, population.mongabay.com has just assumed the 2000 population. We could do with more information, with the source listed against each line.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - figures from population.mongabay.com are marked "Figures © 2004-2007 mongabay.com." and "All city population figures have been estimated using various factors and based on data from qualified sources. These figures are estimates and are by no means intended to be used as official statistics. I have made my best effort to make these numbers as accurate as possible." - see [3].--Toddy1 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Year	Population/Esitimated Population
1781	300	Russian Wikipedia
1795	1,200	Russian Wikipedia
1804	2,500	Russian Wikipedia
1861	3,800	Russian Wikipedia
1870	4,600	Russian Wikipedia
1885	6,700	Russian Wikipedia
1894	16,100	Russian Wikipedia
1897	16,400	Russian Wikipedia
1899	21,500	Russian Wikipedia
1900	24,200	Russian Wikipedia
1910	38,000	Russian Wikipedia
1913	63,600	Russian Wikipedia
1916	72,900	Russian Wikipedia
1917	58,500	Russian Wikipedia
1926	55,300	Russian Wikipedia
1937	243,100	Russian Wikipedia
1939	289,200	Russian Wikipedia
1942	103,400	Russian Wikipedia
1950	315,000	population.mongabay.com
1955	380,000	population.mongabay.com
1956	381,000	Russian Wikipedia
1959	449,000	Russian Wikipedia
1960	459,000	population.mongabay.com
1965	554,000	population.mongabay.com
1970	664,000	population.mongabay.com
1970	658,000	Russian Wikipedia
1975	730,000	population.mongabay.com
1979	780,700	Russian Wikipedia
1980	795,000	population.mongabay.com
1985	844,000	population.mongabay.com
1989	883,900	Russian Wikipedia
1990	880,000	population.mongabay.com
1992	918,400	Russian Wikipedia
1995	879,000	population.mongabay.com
2000	878,000	population.mongabay.com
2001	815,300	Russian Wikipedia
2005	878,000	population.mongabay.com
2005	822,931	population.mongabay.com Cities in the world with 600,000 to 1 million inhabitants in 2005
2010	777,300	Russian Wikipedia
2010	878,000	population.mongabay.com
2015	878,000	population.mongabay.com

• Hi Toddy1, Fine data, they are similar to those we have in the article. The question is, could use these data or not - we have no official statistics, especially for earlier times of the city. It seems that we could make reference to population.mongabay.com site. What do you think?--Zas2000 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zas2000 (talk • contribs)

What I did in the article on Dnepropetrovsk is to hunt down individual figures from different dates, and later supplemented them with uncited data from another Wikipedia.

We could use the estimates on population.mongabay.com. But we should be trying to find other data from other sources, and gradually build up a list of data.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --zas2000 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1781 - 0,329 - http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
1795 - 1,23 - http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
1804 - 2,5 - http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
1861 - 3,819 - http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
1870 - 4,601 - http://www.archive.org/stream/americancyclopae01ripluoft#page/292/mode/1up
1885 - 6,707 - http://www.vehi.net/brokgauz/all/002/2004.shtml
1894 - 16,1 - http://genobooks.narod.ru/Rossia_1898/216-217.htm
1897 - 16,393 - http://www.archive.org/stream/bolshaiantsiklo00igoog#page/n381/mode/1up
1899 - 21,503 - http://books.google.com/books?id=LgNUAAAAMAAJ&q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F+%D0%9E%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0%22&dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%25
1900 - 24,196 - http://genobooks.narod.ru/Rossia_1906/rk108-109.htm
1910 - 38 - http://books.google.com/books?id=aIJMAAAAIAAJ&q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D1%8C%D1%8F%22&dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80
1913 - 63,6 - http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
1916 - 72,9 - http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
1917 - 58,517 - TV series "City Z", film "Year 1926"
1926 - 55,295 - http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/J/JIROMSKAYA_Valentina_Borisovna/Polveka_pod_grifom_%27%27sekretno%27%27.(1996).%5Bdjv%5D.zip
1937 - 243,148 - http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/J/JIROMSKAYA_Valentina_Borisovna/Polveka_pod_grifom_%27%27sekretno%27%27.(1996).%5Bdjv%5D.zip
1939 - 289,188 - http://books.google.com/books?id=yHokAAAAMAAJ&q=Aleksandrovsk+intitle:geography&dq=Aleksandrovsk+intitle:geography&lr=&hl=ru&cd=25
1942 - 103 - TV series "City Z", film "Year 1942"
1956 - 381 - http://books.google.com/books?id=aIJMAAAAIAAJ&q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D1%8C%D1%8F%22&dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80
1959 - 449 - http://bse.sci-lib.com/article043711.html
1970 - 658 - http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=14&hl=ru&q=%5bZaporizhia+658000%5d&btnG=%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8
1979 - 780,745 - http://www.sovetika.ru/sssr/nas7904.htm
1989 - 897,6 - http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/ehm/Zaporojie/183731
1991 - 900 - http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=4&hl=ru&q=Zaporizhzhya+intitle%3A%22Atlas+of+World+Geography%22&btnG=%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8
2001 - 815,256 - http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/urban-rural/zaporizhya/
2010 - 776,918 - http://www.zp.ukrstat.gov.ua/images/stories/Exp_dem_1377.pdf

--Movses (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is brilliant - thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your entry for 1917 gives the source as: TV series "City Z", film "Year 1926". Surely you mean "Year 1917"? Do you have some more details on this TV series - enough to make a citation?--Toddy1 (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's really 1926. By the way, TV series was filmed from 1921 to 1991, so "film 1917" don't exist. For citation you can use Сергина В. Город Z: 1921-1991: Исторически–познавательный ТВ проект для любой зрительской аудитории.- К., 2005.- 1 компакт – диск: Оптический диск.- (Невыдуманные истории).- Систем. требования: DVD- video; PAL--Movses (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please can you check the link that you provided for the 1899 data - I think it must be wrong, because the link does not produce the data.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. This source for another year. That's the correct link from this source (1861 year - 3729). Unfortunally I can't remember the source for 1899. --Movses (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Half a century classified as 'Secret': All-Union census in 1937 (Полвека под грифом 'секретно': Всесоюзная перепись населения 1937 года) is the source you cited for 1926 and 1937. It downloads a zip file called: Polveka_pod_grifom_sekretno.(1996).[djv].zip Inside that zip file is a .djvu file. What software is required to open this file?--Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For example, WinDjView. --Movses (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The source you quote for 1939 is Economic geography of the USSR by S S Balźak, V F Vasyutin, Ya G Feigin. pub Macmillan, 1956. The data you referred to was not visible when I tried to access it on.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Really strange. But I have rounded figure in others sources: in English, in Russian. --Movses (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Deep view. Zaporozhye (Aleksandrovsk) 55744 289188 418.8. First number it's 1926 census, second number it's 1939 census, but I don't know what is the third number. Probably it's grouth (289188-55744)\55744 = 418.77% --Movses (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How many plants?

Dear Movses, Could you give me the information, how many factories were built in Zaporoshie in the 30 th? What are their names (especially in metallurgy), when they began to run? --Zas2000 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zas2000 (talk • contribs)

Read this. --Movses (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• How about this : Строящиеся заводы — металлургический, инструментальных сталей, ферросплавов, шамотный, а также РМЗ объединились в комбинат под названием "Запорожсталь". --zas2000 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

В 1939 г. заводы комбината "Запорожсталь" стали самостоятельными предприятиями с такими названиями...--Movses (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why not place this information in the article instead of deleting the proposed?

As a result of removal of correct information about the city is just lost? Some information is better than none at all--zas2000 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Table

Why do you insist on the table? The position of the graph is bad - it does not match to the laptop screen. Could you explain why need this vertical table? Why the horizontal one does not satisfy you? --zas2000 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The table allows us to see what the population was at different times. Its format ensures that sources are listed for each item, and also makes it easy to add further data.

The chart is the wrong format for the data. That format chart works best where data are at equal intervals. Personally I would prefer it deleted, but you seem to insist on it, so I compromise. If you want I can draw a correctly formatted line and point chart and upload it.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, try to implement your idea into suggested chart. However, I would like to be a bit annoying - "my" graph has all data, compact, and the information about soarces

--zas2000 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The table can be drawn in more compressed form, and if this were a report for work, you would do it that way. But this is wikipedia - people will find more data for other years, and a simple format is easy to update, whereas a more complex format becomes more difficult to update.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Year	Population	Source		Year	Population	Source
1781	329			1926	55,744
1795	1,230			1937	243,148
1804	2,500			1939	289,188
1824	1,716			1943	120,000
1859	3,100			1956	381,000
1861	3,819			1959	449,000
1864	4,354			1970	658,000
1870	4,601			1971	676,000
1885	6,707			1979	781,000
1894	16,100			1989	897,600
1897	16,393			1991	896,600
1900	24,196			2001	815,300
1902	35,000			2010	776,918
1910	38,000
1913	63,600
1915	about 60,000
1916	72,900
1917	58,517

Industrialisation

zas2000 - an edit you did [4] put in a sentence that does not make sense. "At the same time American specialists taught to smelt the ferroalloy production in Kryvoi Rog." Who was teaching? Who was being taught? What were they being taught to smelt?

• Americans taught Russians to make ferroalloys. Close to the Nikopol city ( not far from the Kryvoi Rog metallurgical plant ) are the manganese mines. which are very important to produce ferroalloys. The Ukrainian Shield for Ukraine is the same as Canadian Shield for Canada. It gives coal, uranium manganese and other important stuff --zas2000 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would also help a lot if you would say which page numbers of the book you got the information for the paragraph from.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not have the book at hand now.--zas2000 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitler +Manstein

Dear Movses, I've discussed with you the origin of this picture sometimes ago.

• I told you how to use and to find the information about this picture in German archives.

• Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1995-041-23A,_Ostfront,_Adolf_Hitler,_Erich_v._Manstein.jpg#filehistory

you will find next phrase:

"Original historic description: Hitler begrüßt Generalfeldmarschall von Manstein auf einem Feldflugplatz im Osten 1943 [freigegeben am 18.3.1943]"

"freigegeben" - means time of the picture was taken- 18 of march 1943. This is a date when Hitler arrived to Zaporozhie to meet Manstein.

WHAT DO YOU NEED ELSE?

--zas2000 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• AGAIN AND I HOPE FOREVER:

Do next:

• 1. go to: http://www.bsb-muenchen.de/Special-Collections.71+M57d0acf4f16.0.html
• 2. Special collections->Image archive->Start search->Freie suche-> type Manstein ->click "Suchen" -get results->picture #42->double click and you will see picture #42 and

the information :

Saporoshje Körperschaft HQ d.Heeresgruppe Süd Ereignis Besuch Hitlers 10. März 1943 (WK II; Ostfront) Name Hitler, Adolf [Politiker 1889-1945] Beschreibung Gruppenb (im Profil in Uniformledermantel m.Mütze Manstein d.Hand gebend; Manstein m.RK; Baur 2.von rechts; Richthofen ganz rechts; im Hintergrund e.Flugzeug; Soldaten m."Hitlergruß"; Angehöriger e.Propagandakompanie = PK m.Filmkamera; Flugplatz in d.Nähe d.HQ) Technik Fotografie (m.Freigabevermerk) Künstler Hoffmann, Heinrich [Fotograf 1885-1957] Enth. Pers. Manstein, Erich von [Generalfeldmarschall 1887-1973]; Baur, Hans [Pilot, Gruppenführer, Generalleutnant 1897-1993]; Richthofen, Wolfram von [Generalfeldmarschall 1895-1945] Sigel 13; 16; 20; 21; 22; 23; 70 Bild-Nr. hoff-47262 --zas2000 (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Added to file description (diff).--Movses (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not give much confidence in the exact date the photo was taken when one archive says 10 March and another 18 March.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

von Manstein's book says that Hitler visited on both 17-19 February and 10 March, so the date in the Bavarian State Library must be the correct date.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep Soviet propaganda out of this article? Great Patriotic war is not an English term and The first Red Army tank to enter the city was commanded by Lieutenant Yatsenko; he and his crew were killed in the battle for the city; the grateful city still keeps the memory of these soldiers are no wear near encyclopaedic sentences. Yatsenko was simply unlucky but not noteworthy.

By the way: Soviet soldier are never Russian soldiers cause Russia was not an independent country during WWII, thus how could there have been Russian soldiers? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Maybe you know that during World War II on Germany's side there were also other countries. You might meet in NAZI troops on the Eastern Front - Germans, Czechs, Italian, Austrians, Slovaks, Romanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and others. For the Soviet people, who fought against them they were all "Germans". Similarly, if you could ask the Wehrmacht soldiers - who were their enemies, they will answer "Russians".
• 2. At a time when the picture was taken there was not a "Soviet soldier". At that time there were "Red Army soldier".
• 3. Zaporozhye was a city of the Soviet Union during the war. This war was called in the USSR (and currently is called) as the Great Patriotic War. Changing the deep essence of the national spirit of the "Great Patriotic War" to "World War II" is offensive to the people of the USSR, who lost nearly 30 million people in this war.
• 4. About Lieutenant Yatsenko crew.

It is not propaganda. The city has the street and memorial after Yatsenko crew at present. I am wondering how you will feel to see Yantsenko tank , when only 30 % of population is survived after two years of the occupation. Your phrase Yatsenko was simply unlucky but not noteworthy is a shameless, that I have ever heard on this occasion. --zas2000 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) The Nazi Party was a political party in Germany. It was very popular in Germany. Nevertheless most German soldiers were not members of the Nazi Party. German allies also sent troops to fight against the Soviet Union; the two most useful allies against the Soviet Union were Finland and Romania, which had lost territory to the Soviet Union in 1940 when the Soviet Union was Hitler's ally. The Finns and Romanians fought for normal patriotic motives. Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and Italy also sent part of their armed forces; my understanding is that they should be regarded as anti-communist rather than pro-Nazi. There were also volunteers from across Europe - some of these were raised by local equivalents of the Nazi Party. In summary, it is not correct to refer to refer to the enemy as "Nazi troops".

During the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, the USA was ruled by the Democratic Party; but nobody refers to the aircraft that bombed Yugoslavia as "Democratic aircraft".--Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(2) He was a soldier serving a country called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR). The English adjective for someone or something belonging to the USSR is "Soviet". So it is correct English usage to call him a "Soviet soldier". Red Army is also acceptable. He may have been a "Russian soldier"; there was a Russian Soviet Socialist Republic; we do not know whether he was a Russian or not.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(3) War memorials in Ukraine are marked . The term "The Great Patriotic War" therefore seems applicable.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(4) There is a source for Yatsenko; it would be nice if there was a photo of any memorial to him, or the street sign. Remember this article is about Zaporozhye, so the story behind memorials is applicable to the history of the city.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Toddy1: "my understanding is that they should be regarded as anti-communist rather than pro-Nazi"

My understanding is rather opposite: they were pro-Nazi rather than anti-communist.--zas2000 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Toddy1: nobody refers to the aircraft that bombed Yugoslavia as "Democratic aircraft"

Some people call it as "so-called" democratic arm forces. Ask Serbians.--zas2000 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Toddy1: Soviet soldier

Red Army was renamed as the Soviet army in 1946. --zas2000 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Toddy1: (1941-1945) vs (1939-1945)

You have found a formal reason for the use of the term Great Patriotic War. For me, more important the real background behind this term. Local people believe that it was Patriotic War--zas2000 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Toddy1: Yatsenko

see this :

--zas2000 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Zas2000 does not seem to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; it is not an memorial (hence wording like "grateful city" do not belong in an encyclopaedia), we should not honour people nor judge them. "How I will feel to see Yantsenko tank" is irrelevance, wikipedia is about facts not feelings of editors.

• "How I will feel to see Yantsenko tank" I've used this specially for you in message, not in WIKI--zas2000 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we are writing an encyclopaedia for the English speaking word what "local people" call things is irrelevant; a 15 year old boy from Ohio is not familiar with the term Great Patriotic War, we write this wikipedia for him, not for the people of Zaporizhia.

• This boy, when he will turn into a mature man would not be comfortable that he does not know about GPW and how people in some parts of the earth feel about this. Do you offer this way to live for the people - do not see beyond the your nose. This is not human existence.

To be in frame of the WIKI , the reference for the GPW is supplied in the article. --zas2000 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In my last edits I try to come up with wordings that make everybody happy. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Zas2000 - please can you verify my understanding concerning streets and memorials:

• The street named after Yatsenko, is it in the Ленинский or the Орджоникидзевский district? Russian wikipedia [5] appears to say that the street is in the Орджоникидзевский district, but the book Zaporizhia Streets - The Mirror of History appears to say it is in the Ленинский district.

I've checked the street position on the city map. It seems, the Yatsenko street makes connections between two districts (Ordjonikidzevkij and Zhovtnevyj). Not easy to find the boundaries b/w districts. --zas2000 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• The tank memorial is in the Жовтневый district?

The Answer is "yes".--zas2000 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have only ever been in the city at night, so I am unfamiliar with it.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please could you consider writing an article on Yatsenko.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Article says:The city has a street between Ordjonikidzevkij and Zhovtnevyj Districts ( crossing the Kapustianskuju balku (Cabage Ravine), in old times itwas called "Mariupol' shliakh "(road) ) and a memorial in Zhovtnevyj District ( Sovetskaya Ploschad'(Soviet square) ) dedicated to Lieutenant Yatsenko who commanded the first Red Army tank to enter the city; he and his crew were killed in the battle for the city.[11][23]

I really do not know is it necessary to give too much details) Mariupol' shliax - is the way to the Kichkas ford across Dnieper ( the place where DnieroGEs is now) --zas2000 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wehrmacht soldier is Nazi?

To Toddy1: "The myth that the Nazi-era German armed forces, the Wehrmacht, was not involved in war crimes persisted for decades after the war. Now two German researchers have destroyed it once and for all. Newly published conversations between German prisoners of war, secretly recorded by the Allies, reveal horrifying details of violence against civilians, rape and genocide."

• http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=77855742&aref=image048/2011/04/02/CO-SP-2011-014-0042-0049.PDF&thumb=false
• http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,755385,00.html
• http://lenta.ru/articles/2011/04/19/soldaten/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zas2000 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not new. Blaming the SS was a convenient get-out for the Germans. There are plenty of accounts by Germans in the Heer of murdering prisoners and civilians.

It is also well known that millions of Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans in 1941 were deliberately allowed to die of starvation and disease as a matter of policy. The Germans also deliberately took food from captured territories causing increased mortality due to malnutrition. The German long-term plan was that Ukraine and European-Russia should be emptied of their native inhabitants by a combination of murder, starvation and deportation.

Have you read Hitler's Willing Executioners, which deals with German anti-semitism?

The Romanian Army also participated in war crimes on the Eastern front.

The Germans also committed war crimes in 1914 in Belgium - see German atrocities 1914, a history of denial by John Horne and Alan Kramer, pub Yale University Press, 2001. Interestingly this reveals that when the Germans invaded Belgium, France and Holland in 1940, the German armed forces were ordered not to commit executions of civilians as they had in Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939. Instead of executing civilian combatants (as they were entitled to under the laws of war), in 1940 in the invasion of Belgium, France and Holland the Germans gave such people POW status! They did not do this in Eastern European countries - indeed Volume IV of Germany and the Second World War justifies the execution of captured Soviet civilians who took up arms against the Germans.

It is worth noting that the NKVD also undertook mass murder of Russian and Ukrainian civilians. There was a huge wave of mass executions of political prisoners in 1941. But there were other mass-executions later; for example, when the Red Army recaptured Kharkov the first time, the NKVD executed about 4,000 inhabitants of the city - these included any girls who had been out with German soldiers.

The higher command of the Red Army also had to make strenuous efforts to stop the murder of Germans captured by the Red Army - the problem was that the hate-propaganda inflamed people against the Germans. Calling German solders Nazis was part of this hate propaganda. The higher command of the Red Army argued in November 1941 that creating conditions where German soldiers fought to the death was not in the interests of the Red Army. Nevertheless about 95% of Germans captured by the Red Army in 1941 were murdered.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• toddy1 says: I am an amateur in this problem. Some comments I could give you, but I have no time. In general, I'm anxious about the 15-year-old boy ( and 50 th) who does not know about the Great Patriotic War.--zas2000 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

--zas2000 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Railway bridges

von Manstein's book only mentions the big Dnieper railway bridge. He does not mention a second railway bridge. You have added a claim that the Germans "demolished two railway bridges again". We need a citation for the claim that the Germans demolished a second railway bridge.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.zounb.zp.ua/resourse/scarbnicya/Adelberg/indexf.html

There are two bridges in the city, which connect right and left banks of the river (at present time - three, built in 1970). Connections comes through the island Khortitsia across Old and New Dnieper streams. Third bridge makes connection to the left bank through the island as well. --zas2000 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Because you are interesting of a city history, it will be interesting for you this person http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

Никифорова, Мария Григорьевна

Makhno is nothing compare to her.--zas2000 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. I wish that the article on her had good in-line citations. Because it does not, merely translating the article would not produce a good defensible article for English Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It has good reference to Archibald Malcolm "Atamansha: the Story of Maria Nikiforova, the Anarchist Joan of Arc." — Dublin: Black Cat Press, 2007. — ISBN 9780973782707 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zas2000 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• About Marusia Nikifirova see * Чоп В.М. «Маруся Никифорова» , Запорожье РА “Тандем-У” 1998, pages 68

[6]

In chapter "Alexanderovsk and Guliaj Pole" there is an episode about the fight at Kichkass bridge --zas2000 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bryansk joint-stock company

I mean city Bryansk, the Bryansk joint-stock company probably originally from this city--zas2000 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that the Bryansk joint-stock company did business in Bryansk, just as Lonrho did business in London and Rhodesia. But with company names, you link to the company, not the name of a place in the city name. In any case the manufacturing was not done in Bryansk; it was done in Yekaterinoslav/Dnepropetrovsk.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To Movses

I have a question - in a morning when you wake up, are you looking the references (your ID) that you are You?. There is obvious information that city is on the left bank of the river, very few Dnieper or Volga cities are on the right bank. Because you like Chekhov's "Man in a Case" need some regulations ( references) I remind you one of the important rule of WIKI: WIKI is not a store of references. Do we need to add a references bounded (from dictionaries) to the each word used in the text? --zas2000 (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read really important bases of wikipedia — Wikipedia:Five pillars and the sentence

All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references.

--Movses (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is better quality if references are provided for information. So I agree with Movses.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mayor of Zaporizhia

For people who might be interested: I just created a Wikipedia article about the city's mayor Oleksandr Sin. Feel free to contribute to it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, my geography school teacher was a wife of Alexandr Sin :-) --Movses (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity... She is also Korean? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no, she is slavic (Russian or Ukrainian - I don't know). Another curiosity for me it's link to interview between Sin and journalist Sergey Sidorov, because Sergey my off-line friend :-) --Movses (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info; I should get to know more celebrity's :-) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the city

The history of the city on the page is not specially long, though it may well grow longer.

If you want to put the history in a separate article, you need put a proper summary with citations in its place. (This will of course be work.) Just deleting a random selection of sections is not OK.

I suspect that the best thing to do would be to wait and develop the history section further. If you want to then make a summary and propose to move the current contents to a history page, please propose this on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This article not about history of Zaporozhye, but about city at all. I see too big accent in history, while article about city it's not the history only. --Movses (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the benefit of telling the history of a city is that it introduces readers to features of the city in an way that makes them interesting.

In the long run, if the history section continues to grow, then writing a summary of it and then moving the full text to a separate article could be the right thing to do. But now is the wrong time to do it. And when it is done, it should be done after achieving consensus.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Kichkas/Kichkassky bridge

Taivo - which is the correct English name for the first railway bridge over the Dnieper at Alexandrovsk: the "Kichkas bridge" or the "Kichkassky bridge"? Source: monograph on the history of the city's bridges.

Whichever the name is better, I think the article should use only one version - not one in one place and one in another as present.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In English, it's called "Kichkas Bridge" as here. Per WP:COMMON, common English usage takes precedence, so it should be Kichkas in the article. --Taivo (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Geography section

I suspect that it would be better to have the geography section immediately after the introduction. This would allow the user to be introduced to the island, the rapids that used to exist before the hydro-electric dam, the issue of the city being built on the left bank, the names of the branches of the river either side of the island, etc.

As it is, some of these things have had to be explained in the history section so that people can understand the history.

• Let's try --zas2000 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also the geography section has only one citation, and is written in non-natural English. It is also rather cryptic; how many of our readers have any idea what the Ukrainian Shield is? (Apparently "The Ukrainian Shield is the southwest shield of the East European craton." This might be meaningful to geologists; it means nothing to me.)

• I bet , you didn't know most of the information about Zaporozhie, now you do. "Ukrainian Shield" has reference - everyone may read about. Ask yourself - how it was happened that in plain steppe one may meet huge rocks?

More over, Ukrainian, Baltic and Cannadian Shields have the same age and the same geological origin. DneproGes was designed by American hydrologists which build all Canandian hydro powers. I vote to leave this information --zas2000 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No there is not a reference in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• see this: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/76065/, V. A. Glebovitskiĭ 2.2 The Ukrainian shield, fig. 2.28 // The early Precambrian of Russia. — CRC Press, 1997. — Т. 2. — С. 82. — 261 с. — ISBN 9789057020117

--zas2000 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want this stuff about the Ukrainian Shield, you need to put it in with citations, and put it in so that it makes sense to normal people - this is not a page on geology - so it has got to make sense to nongeologists.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is claimed that the island is the pearl of Ukraine - either there needs to be a citation for this, or it needs to be deleted. Please can we have some citation to back the claim that the island is special - perhaps then the reader might understand why it is special. The only time I was on the Island, was for a New Year party, so I have no idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not insist to keep this "pearl" information. But locals like to mention it, they even called it as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ukraine.--zas2000 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Great - then there must be references to it in books or articles. Please cite some.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• For example: http://www.7chudes.in.ua/, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семь_чудес_Украины\

Again, for me no difference have we this infor or not--zas2000 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an acceptable reference

This is not an acceptable reference:

http://synthart.livejournal.com/87884.html Here you may get the additional information about SotsGorod and pictures of the city buildings and plan of the District #6

Please format the reference properly, saying title, author, etc. I am not your copy editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes blogs like livejournal are not alowed on wikipedia even if they look like they have been written by people who seem experts. see WP:BLOGS; they problem is that because somebody looks an expert they could still be somebody who enjoys telling lies....
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Zaporizhialeninaven1930.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zaporizhialeninaven1930.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The collage and its caption

The collage

The top right photo in the collage.

There seems to be some disagreement over the caption to the collage.

• When the collage was created, User:DDima put a description in the collage file as follows: "Collage of Zaporizhia in Ukraine. Top, left to right: Bridge crossing the Dnieper River; Lenin Prospect as seen from Lenin Square; Dnieper River in Zaporizhia; Slavutych-Arena football stadium; Zaporizhia Oblast Administration building."
• The photo he used as top right was File:Запорожье 9100219.jpg. This was taken by Mixabest and did not have a caption in it. But the file is used on both Russian and Ukrainian language Wipedias ru:Ленинский_район_Запорожья, ru:Ленінський район (Запоріжжя), uk:Проспект Леніна (Запоріжжя) where it is described as "Проспект Леніна" (which translates into English as either Lenin Avenue or Prospekt Lenina).
• On 3 October an IP editor from Japan added a caption describing the top right hand photo as "Mayakovskogo Street".[7]
• On 21 October an IP editor from Posen (Poland) changed the caption describing the top right hand photo as "Town's Gate".[8]

It seems most likely that the creator of the collage and also Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias know which street is shown in the top right hand photo, so I have changed the caption to say "Lenin Avenue" (though I was strongly tempted to write Prospekt Lenina). If it really does show another street, please present evidence here.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ferry+Bridge

To Toddy1: В результате вашего редактирования пропала интересная и полезная информация о Кичкаской переправе:

• Мост назван по имени древнейшей переправы, существовавшей со скифских времен
• Мост построили сразу после последнего из порогов
• Кичкаский мост был первым железнодорожным мостом в нижнем течении Днепра и находился в 10-14 км от города, т.е находился вне городской черты
• Причем здесь коммунистическая революция? Революция была через десять лет после окончания строительства моста, с какой целью вы о ней пишите?
• Мост связал Никопольское железно-никилевое местрождение с Донецким углем. --zas2000 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to edit Wikipedia in a language you can only read using translation software. The bridge is important in the history of the city of Alexandrovsk, because it led to the industrial growth of the city in the period after the bridge was completed.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

World War II did not start in 1941

The article states that "The war (World War II) between the USSR and Germany began on 22 June 1941.". No, World War II did not start in 1941. World War II started in 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union attacked Poland together. What happened on June 22 1941 was that the Soviet Union was forced to change side in World War II, from then on fighting against their former cooperation partner Germany. Joreberg (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But the war between the USSR and Germany started on 22 June 1941. Before that the USSR was Germany's most important ally. (And territory annexed as a result of the alliance with Hitler is still occupied by Belarus and Ukraine (formerly the Belarussian and Ukrainian SSRs.) However, if you can think of a better way of wording it, please suggest a wording here.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zaporizhia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928142629/http://www.tsuab.ru/PUBLICATION/VESTNIK/2009/4/4-2009-06-meerovich.pdf to http://www.tsuab.ru/PUBLICATION/VESTNIK/2009/4/4-2009-06-meerovich.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140915022529/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2014-04-13/ukraine-s-eastern-tension-turns-deadly-in-worst-case-scenario to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-13/ukraine-s-eastern-tension-turns-deadly-in-worst-case-scenario
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130525061340/http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/J/JIROMSKAYA_Valentina_Borisovna/Polveka_pod_grifom_%27%27sekretno%27%27.(1996).%5Bdjv%5D.zip to http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/J/JIROMSKAYA_Valentina_Borisovna/Polveka_pod_grifom_%27%27sekretno%27%27.(1996).%5Bdjv%5D.zip
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/ehm/Zaporojie/183731
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zp.ukrstat.gov.ua/images/stories/Exp_dem_1377.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110831103451/http://www.gis.zp.ua:80/products/chortitza_1.htm to http://www.gis.zp.ua/products/chortitza_1.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zaporizhia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65BBXgL7l?url=http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5 to http://meria.zp.ua/test/index.php?id=5
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6197bGS8H?url=http://establishment.com.ua/articles/2011/1/17/3256/ to http://establishment.com.ua/articles/2011/1/17/3256/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060523084750/http://www.meria.zp.ua/ to http://www.meria.zp.ua/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Website link in the infobox template

An editor deleted https://web.archive.org/web/20060523084750/http://www.meria.zp.ua/ from the infobox template from the article on Zaporizhia.[9] As there was no edit summary, I assumed that it was an accident.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus .Some arguments/rationales are lacking in policy and/or outright pathetic.Also, the locus of transliteration of Ukrainian names needs a centralized discussion to be debated, rather than on a per-se basis.Overall, I don't see any meaningful evidence about the most-prevalent name in English sources and this article remains unmoved. ∯WBG^converse 07:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Zaporizhia → Zaporizhzhia – Rationale provided below. — 46.200.143.183 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: [A long list of links in support of the move follows including UK gov, US gov, Aus gov, CA gov, UA gov, IATA, city local government, city university, international organization OSCE, AFPC, UNICEF, COE, euronews, rferl, WTO, Unesco, World Bank, WHO, UN, books from 21 century and there are so many more] — 46.200.143.183 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. https://geonames.usgs.gov
  2. http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html
  3. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/ub2zuvdx5#?date=2018-06-16
  4. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/188364849?q&versionId=204987162%7Ctitle=Zaporizhzhia-Southern
  5. http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/55-2010-%D0%BF +
  6. http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/code-search.aspx (Zaporizhzhia) +
  7. http://zp.gov.ua/en +
  8. https://zaporizhzhia.city/ +
  9. https://www.znu.edu.ua/frontpage/3594.eng.html
     http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/extractsEasternEurope.zip
  10. http://www.euronews.com/weather/europe/ukraine/zaporizhzhia
  11. https://ua.usembassy.gov/message-u-s-citizens-consular-visit-zaporizhzhia-may-19-2017/
      https://nato.mfa.gov.ua/en/about-ukraine/dip-in-ukraine/missions-list/114
  12. https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/121389
  13. https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=QmCxCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA84&dq=%22zaporizhzhia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc1Z_p0OjbAhWDTZAKHTg1AIkQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=%22zaporizhzhia%22&f=false
  14. https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=lhrjAAAAMAAJ&q=%22zaporizhzhia%22&dq=%22zaporizhzhia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc1Z_p0OjbAhWDTZAKHTg1AIkQ6AEIRjAF
  15. https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=reJtAAAAMAAJ&q=%22zaporizhzhia%22&dq=%22zaporizhzhia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc1Z_p0OjbAhWDTZAKHTg1AIkQ6AEIXjAK
  16. https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%22zaporizhzhia%22+consulate&ei=zKEtW9iXOcbB6AS2xLqgDw&start=40&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=947
  17. https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=16886
  18. https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/ukraine-handbook_2012_revised-12-may-2012.pdf
  19. http://www.afpc.org/publication_listings/viewBulletin/3849%20/true
  20. https://www.unicef.org/ukraine/5_Trafficking_in_Ukraine_en.pdf
      https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16460&LangID=E
  21. https://rm.coe.int/report-of-the-ccje-18th-plenary-meeting/1680766bde
  22. https://www.rferl.org/a/1142658.html
  23. https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/full?dockey=1323-11706851-2C0MMC7J7HFBQKUJ06E0LN1UU3
  24. local name is Запоріжжя, transl: Zapori+double`zh`+ia`
  25. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/rev_ukr3e.doc
  26. https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/kopiya_ifcd_projectframework_en.xlsm
      https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-reactor-simulators-for-education-and-training/vver-1000-simulator
  27. http://projects.worldbank.org/procurement/noticeoverview?lang=en&id=OP00050779
  28. http://www.who.int/health-cluster/countries/ukraine/HRP-Ukraine-2017.pdf
  29. http://www.ua.undp.org/content/ukraine/en/home/presscenter/articles/2017/05/12/report-ukraine-should-channel-support-to-smes-through-big-banks.html

and so many more— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.200.143.183 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2018

• Change to Zaporozhye. Zaporozhye is by far the most common name for the city in the English language, just as Kiev is the most common name used by people who speak English for Київ/Киев.
  • Google books Zaporozhye about 25,500 results.
  • Google books Zaporizhia about 3,520 results.
  • Google books Zaporizhzhia about 2,720 results.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment remark: most sources using zaporozhye are from 1940-2010. Zaporizhzhia is so far the most common name nowadays. 46.200.143.183 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

also there are About 4,890 results via your link for zaporizhzhia and not 2720 as you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.200.143.183 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How strange. The numbers are different now than this morning, but the relative proportions are not much different.

• Zaporozhye was about 25,500 results, now 26,500.
• Zaporizhia was about 3,520 results, now 5,650.
• Zaporizhzhia was about 2,720 results, now 5,020.

as wpcommon name is not something ple used 100 years ago and is what people are using now - narrow search to 21st century and the Zaporizhzhia will be top used by reliable sources. so i find its not objective to present those numbers, 26k to 5k are not objective, and i see that you dublicated it multiple times in this discussion and `comment`, one time here is enough. do not use it as comment-argument everywhere here please, thank you. 46.200.143.183 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per the numerous submitted links corroborating the nomination. Zaporizhzhia is Ukraine's sixth-most-populous city and the English transliteration of its Ukrainian name should reflect the city's actual name. Under no circumstances should the city's name be changed to "Zaporozhye", which is the English transliteration of the city's Russian name. Ukraine has been an independent country since 1991 and the names of its places as well as of people who carry its ethnic identity should be reflected by Ukrainian names of Ukrainian cities being transliterated into English as Zaporizhzhia and Kyiv, not by Russian names of Ukrainian cities being transliterated into English as Zaporozhye and Kiev.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Zaporizhzhia is a more correct transliteration from Ukrainian to English. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME applies here, therefore WP:RECENTISM changes to the Ukrainian government's geographic transliteration system is trumped (in spades... and I can live with the bad pun). The only relevant issue is the one brought up by Toddy1: so much has been written about the region in the English language, it's a question of what the most common name is in the Anglosphere; so is it to be "Zaporozhye" or "Zaporizhia"? Looking through much of the academic/scholarly work, we need to bear in mind the context of the usage as much of it encompasses historical themes and issues, and those historical issues are relevant for the articles which have been concurrently listed for RM by the same IP nom, plus an article which had been moved against consensus. There have been no solid policy and guideline rationales provided for those moves (see Zaporozhian Cossacks and the fall-out from a series of undiscussed moves now being redressed on the Zaporizhian Sich article. I honestly think this RM should be closed with no action, and a new RM discussing the appropriate nomenclature according to English language sources be opened. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Zaporizhzhia is correct transcription in English. We don't call Nu York, why should you say Zaporozhye then? Goo3 (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Goo3: "We don't call Nu York..."?! I fail to see any logic in your position. 'New York' is an English language name, and is absolutely and undoubtedly the WP:COMMONNAME for an Anglophone country that's used this name for centuries. It has never been called 'Nu York', nor would there be any rationale for transliterating it (incorrectly) from the English language to the English language. You have provided a non-argument for your !vote. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Zaporizhzhia is correct transliteration. Ales sandro (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the historical usage in English to refer to this area clearly uses - EB1911 wikisource:1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Alexandrovsk refers to the Zaporozhian Cossacks (a third different spelling). I don't see enough usage for this spelling in modern sources to justify a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment on sources: CIA World Factbook uses Zaporizhzhya, a different spelling than this one, but closer to the proposed target. The airport in this town [10] also uses "Zaporizhzhya". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: The World Factbook also uses 'Kyiv', and is by no means a reliable or definitive tertiary source in itself for geographic nomenclature, or anything to do with ethnic groups. It's only as good as the sources it draws on. Please read the copious quashed arguments for changing the name at Talk:Kiev/naming. They read a lot like this fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

My main point is there's absolutely no reason to move from a historically-used English spelling to the current Ukrainian romanization if we're moving to the "wrong" Ukrainian romanization. This city is not quite so prominent (like Kiev) that there is a clear COMMONNAME in English; most sources simply don't discuss this city. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support From above statements: neither zaporizhia nor zaporozhye are being used today and that just seems weird to use sources from soviet times, it's 21century now  M.izhyk (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Zaporizhzhia per WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources;  Тимофій Іллічевський (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment there are a lot of partisan comments here; I've added the {{Not a ballot}} template. I've also removed my oppose vote; I see more support for "Zaporizhzhya" than "Zaporizhzhia" in sources, but enough that a move may be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - The addition of the template is much appreciated, power~enwiki. This has continued to be treated as a !vote by highly partisan contributors who haven't actually provided policy and guidelines rationales outside of I like it/I don't like it spectrum. For all of the sourcing provided to 'prove' the case for "Zaporizhzhia", why are major Ukrainian news outlets vastly in favour of using "Zaporizhia": see Google news results at c. 115,000 results for Zaporizhia as opposed to c. 5,130 results for Zaporizhzhia? WP:RS media outlets are an excellent source for evaluating what the common name actually is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common name in reliable English-language sources remains Zaporizhia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment could you please present some arguments to support this claim? 46.200.143.183 (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

They've already been presented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

where? i see arguments for zaporizhzhia, i see some arguments from soviet times for zaporozhye. where exactly on this page you see argumets for zaporizhia? with single ZH? 46.200.143.183 (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "government" in Kiev did not change the name back to Alexandrovsk, so the city is stuck with with its Soviet-era name. The English-language version of this name is widely used in English-language books. If tomorrow, the government changes the name of the city, then (if the new name starts being used in English) a date threshold will become relevant. However, they have not changed the name. Regarding the argument for the "Zaporizhia" spelling - which seems to be mainly used by Ukrainian publications writing in English - see Iryna Harpy's post of 21:11, 29 June 2018. The "Zaporozhye" spelling seems to be mainly used by people whose first language is English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Toddy1, please do not dublicate the same comment many times as i asked above. thank you. there is no point to discuss its ex-names as its not Oleksandrivsk now. furthermore, this `for` voter still did not provide any reason and sources as he/she claims that support zaporizhia with single zh. You cited that Iryna Harpy supports his/her statement, which is not tryu as she supports zaporozhye. please do not disinform the public. 46.200.143.183 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This is one of four related RMs raised together. One has closed as not moved and another seems about to be. I belatedly suggest a centralised discussion here. It's obviously a controversial issue. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment that move was also initiated by me and i decided not to elaborate side articles without changing the main article, so closed discussion there cannot be used as argument. if you wish i can reopren move and copy paste same `For` from this page but it wont have sense46.200.143.183 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Three of them are on different aspects of the same historical topic: Zaporozhian Host, Zaporizhian Sich, and Zaporozhian Cossacks. The modern city (once named Alexandrovsk) is a different topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Zaporizhzhia

We would like to ask to correct the transliteration of the city name.

Argumentation: In accordance with the decision of the executive committee of the Zaporizhzhya City Council, dated August 28, 2017, No.476, the transliteration of the spelling of the geographical name of the city of Zaporizhzhia on maps and other publications in Latin was approved as - "Zaporizhzhia" [11], in accordance with the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated January 27, 2010 N 55 "On the ordering of transliteration of the Ukrainian alphabet in Latin "(which is valid).

Unfortunately, my editing has been rejected. At this time, mistakes occur oftenly while using the Latin name of the city. I consider it would be appropriate to prescribe the correct name of the city in English in the article.

Thank you for your time

https://zaporizhzhia.city/enВласова Альона (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The opinion or decrees of the Zaphorizhia City Council don't matter in the English Wikipedia per Wikipedia policies. All that matters is English common usage--the placename that is used in English, not Ukrainian or Ukrainian transliteration. You must prove that a majority of reliable sources from the English-speaking world (not English language materials published in Ukraine) are using anything other than Zaporizhia. Wikipedia is not prescriptive, but descriptive. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Official names to understand that English Wikipedia chooses its article titles and spellings by how that subject is most frequently written in English. Thus, French Wikipedia will have an article about London, but it will be written as Londres, because that is how the French refer to the English city where I was born. Whilst Zaporizhzhia may have changed its own spelling in its own tongue, that may not be reflected on Wikipedia by an immediate change of spelling. We would have to wait until the majority of Reliable Sources start to refer to it in that way. That said, it's quite OK to mention the formalisation of regional spelling in the article itself...just please don't keep trying to change the spelling throughout the article until such time as there is a consensus (agreement) to do so. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Per Taivo and Nick Moyes, we follow WP:COMMONNAME. The city council are merely replicating the Ukrainian transliteration which happens to be spelt with a double 'жж / zhzh'. This has nothing to do with the long used English language variation, and is highly unlikely to do so. Whatever 'mistakes are made' regularly, unaccepted conventions for the spelling aren't going to resolve them. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Zaporizhia → Zaporizhzhia
• Zaporizhia Oblast → Zaporizhzhia Oblast

– Wikipedia guidelines tell us to name articles based on commonly used name in up-to-date, reliable sources. Relevant:

• WP:TITLE “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.”
  • WP:COMMONNAME,“generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources),” “it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.”
  • WP:NAMECHANGES: “we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.”
• WP:PLACE: “a widely accepted English name, in a modern context,” “For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed”
• WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name . . . rather than an older one.” “Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.”
• WP:WIAN: “Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current,” “English-language news media,” “standard histories and scientific studies.” Recommends a list of specific sources, which support the move.

There are three commonly used names, and none is an outstanding winner in the popularity contest (see the search results survey, below).

But Zaporizhzhia is the romanized Ukrainian name according to most of the schemes documented in Romanization of Ukrainian, including six of the English-language-oriented ones (the other three exceptions are outdated systems: Zaporizhzhya in the British Standard and BGN/PCGN 1965, Zaporizhia in Ukrainian National 1996, and others are European systems that give us Zaporižžja and the like). As a matter of Wikipedia history, the current article title was chosen to conform to the now-superseded Ukrainian National 1996 system.

Critically, Zaporizhzhia is the name given by the Ukrainian National 2010 system which has also been adopted as official by the authoritative UNGEGN in 2012 and the BGN/PCGN in 2020, so this spelling now appears in most geo-name databases, maps, and other references, and will continue to be used going forward. Examples include the UN’s Toponymic Guidelines for Map and Other Editors for International Use,[12] and the BGN/PCGN’s geo names search,[13], and English-language references and style guides that ultimately refer to them.

The Ukrainian oblast (region) is named after the city in all languages, and should carry the same name per WP:CONSISTENCY with other members of Category:Oblasts of Ukraine. Note that this is not the oblast’s official name, which is Запорізька област or just Запорізька in Cyrillic and Zaporizka oblast or Zaporizka in Latin-alphabet text.

Below are my results of a search survey. Please remember to consider WP:GOOG when interpreting search results, notably that the estimates at the top of each search page are wrong and you have to page to the end to see real numbers, and that your results will vary from mine based on your logged-in status, location, and the ambient temperature on Mars. And most importantly, that Web Search includes few reliable sources while Books and Scholar includes many.

Google Web Search
(advanced search, English, last year, with quotation marks and -Wikipedia)

Zaporizhia 149	Zaporizhia Oblast 114
Zaporizhzhia 154	Zaporizhzhia Oblast 68
Zaporizhzhya 161	Zaporizhzhya Oblast 45
	Zaporizka oblast 75

Google Books
(advanced search, English, 21st century, with quotation marks and -Wikipedia)

Zaporizhia 3,760 (11 pages)	Zaporizhia Oblast 668 (4)
Zaporizhzhia 3,370 (10)	Zaporizhzhia Oblast 340 (5)
Zaporizhzhya 4,380 (9)	Zaporizhzhya Oblast 31 (4)
	Zaporizka oblast 224 (3)

Google Scholar
(since 2020, with quotation marks and -Wikipedia)

Zaporizhia 272 (13)	Zaporizhia Oblast 16 (1)
Zaporizhzhia 930 (47)	Zaporizhzhia Oblast 16 (1)
Zaporizhzhya 438 (21)	Zaporizhzhya Oblast 7 (1)
	Zaporizka oblast 2

 —Michael Z. 21:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per detailed nomination and per all the "support" !votes from two years and four months ago at Talk:Zaporizhia#Requested move 22 June 2018, above. I stand by my reasoning in that RM — "Zaporizhzhia is Ukraine's sixth-most-populous city and the English transliteration of its Ukrainian name should reflect the city's actual name." If anything, the use of "Zaporizhzhia" over "Zaporizhia" has increased exponentially in the intervening years. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per wp:commonname and that's what it's actually called. blindlynx (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: as here, [14], per Common Name.-Arorae (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The first non-wiki google hit for 'zaporizhia' hardly shows wp:commonname not to mention it's not exactly a wp:reliable source for wp:place names. blindlynx (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support both city and oblast per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Demographics: Language: Hebrew?

Could someone (perhaps User:Mzajac) please verify that the referenced sources really say Hebrew was the native language of portions of the population in the past? It seems implausible. Might the language concerned be Yiddish, spoken by a "Hebrew" (meaning Jewish, in this context) section of the population? Thanks and best wishes -- --Frans Fowler (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The 1897 census source says evreĭskiĭ iazyk (Ru.), which I believe means literally “Jewish language,” not Yiddish (Idish) nor Hebrew (Ivrit). The other sources are not immediately available, but elsewhere[15] I see that the 2001 and 1989 census results list yevrei (Ukr. “Jews”) and “language of own nationality,” without naming either language. So the safest label might be “Jewish language,” which sounds odd, or “Yiddish or Hebrew.” Historically, Yiddish-language papers were published in Ukraine, so I speculate that just “Yiddish” is reasonable. I believe devout Jews would all read Hebrew and it may be considered their native language, but I have no idea how much it was used outside synagogue (and the census-takers didn’t record such distinctions anyway). —Michael Z. 03:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. In my limited understanding, Hebrew was a dead language except in religious contexts till it was revived by Zionist settlers in Palestine, and the likelihood is that Jews in Ukraine spoke Yiddish outside the shul. I am changing it, and I just hope that's right. --- Frans Fowler (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A fine distinction: these Russian, Soviet, and Ukrainian census results are normally labelled “native language” (Uk. ridna mova or Ru. rodnoĭ yazyk), and are sometimes interpreted by respondents as ancestral language, childhood language, or something else, and not necessarily even fluently spoken by them. In interpreting older censuses they serve as a proxy for ethnic identity. Most Ukrainians are bilingual, for example, but censuses (latest in 2001) only asked for one native language. Pretty sure most historical Yiddish-speakers would know one or more other languages too. And I imagine by 1989 or 2001 it might might include Hebrew as well. —Michael Z. 17:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Split proposed

The history section of this article is long enough to merit its own article. See also Ukrainian-language article: History of Zaporizhzhia. Thoughts? -- M2545 (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support  Looking at WP:SPLIT, the article hasn’t reached the absolute size limits mandating a split, but the history section certainly is “out of proportion to the rest of the article,” as mentioned. —Michael Z. 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: Pinging M2545 and Michael: I have boldly split the pages up. Ping me if any questions arise. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Запоріжжя.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Dnieper to Dnipro river

Pls change Dnieper river to ukrainian version - Dnipro river 176.115.13.139 (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

Any reference to “Dnieper” is using the disgusting bastardized russian (lowercase intentional) transliteration of a place-name located within the territory of the free, independent, sovereign nation of Ukraine. It should be replaced with “Dnipro” throughout this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. After nearly nine months of russian fascists torturing, raping, murdering, and mutilating Ukrainian children, women, elderly, and soldiers, it is shameful to still use the putrid language of the terrorist invaders. 2607:FEA8:7A20:AF50:1DE6:6E22:877B:FA6D (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:COMMONNAME and maybe Talk:Dnieper Cannolis (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Nuclear Plant in Lede

"Zaporizhzhia is known for the historic island of Khortytsia; multiple power stations including Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (the largest nuclear power station in Europe)" - Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is in the oblast, but not the city of Zaporizhzhia.  And even if it were, I'm not sure why that detail would be important enough for the lead.

Please remove the entire paragraph; "nothing" is better than the low-quality content of that paragraph. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The minor detail can be removed, but the power stations are still important. User:QuicksmartTortoise513 22:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed these details. It is clear that two of the power plants are in Enerhodar, 60km away, so not relevant in the lead of an article on the city itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Запорожье новый терминал.jpg
• Фасад нового терминала в аэропорту Запорожье.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Replace link in Russian invasion (2022) section

I suggest to replace Further information: Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast with Further information:2022 bombing of Zaporizhzhia because city is not occupied, so current article for further reading is not relevant. Zemleroika11 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Thank you. I added the second link instead of replacing, since the two articles now cover Zaporizhzhia in two phases of the war.  —Michael Z. 21:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

But this article is about city, not region, and city was never occupied Zemleroika11 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops, quite right. Fixed.  —Michael Z. 00:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add logo in Infobox

Please, add logo which is saved on Commons as File:Емблема (логотип) Запоріжжя.png. Here's a link to the city's official website, which confirms the version of the logo: [16]. --Keneris^☎ 14:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Add literal translation for the Ukrainian word Запоріжжя on the top, “Beyond the rapids” PoisonHK (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Russian Name Calling

The majority of Ukrainian namings have been adopted as both primarily and only applicable names, up to the lowest administrative subdivision structures, especially of the cities of Ukraine. Hence, why is the Russian naming of Zaporizhzhia - Zaporozhye, still present in this article? 2601:43:3:BC50:2CA8:F4A:2D0C:D28F (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The city has a significant Russian minority, so the Russian name will be kept. Summer ^talk 10:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand how the presentation of an alternate English spelling, that’s practically never used, can be purported to follow from the subject’s ethnic composition. I believe Minnesota has plenty of people with Scandinavian ancestry, but we don’t indicate how the state’s name is spelled in Norwegian and Swedish. There are several alternate spellings, also including Zaporizhia, Zaporizhya, Zaporozhe, and Zaporozhie. They don’t all belong in the lead. —Michael Z. 19:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do most of the population of Minnesota speak a language other than English at home? Also, per Ngram, "Zaporozhye" is still used often. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So, giving up on the “Russian minority” line of argument, or am I supposed to address both of you now? But nor do I understand how that English spelling can be purported to follow what language people in either Minnesota or Zaporizhzhia speak at home.

The name in question, “Zaporozhye,” is not in a language other than English.

Per Ngram, lots of English spellings were used up to 2019.[17]  —Michael Z. 04:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You claimed this alternate spelling was "practically never used", which is not the case, and mentioned Minnesota for whatever reason. But U.S. states with large communities that speak languages other than English do have the name in the foreign language too, e.g. Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana etc. For Zaporizhzhia, the majority language at home is Russian. Mellk (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No, obviously, none of those articles have either a foreign language (but we’re not discussing that) nor an alternate spelling based on a different language in bold in the lead.  —Michael Z. 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard this city referred to as "Zaporozhye" in English. Removing it for now until a source is provided that it's an alternate English name. HappyWith (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)