Talk:Yekaterinburg

Untitled

a bit on the last Tsar's murder in Yekaterinburg should be put in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblast_Swerdlowsk is still not existing and should be picked up. Bernd

Go for it, dude! Ellsworth 14:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's really silly, why didn't they change the Oblast names as well? Saint Perersberg, the main city of Leningrad Oblast... --Vladko 18:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I would guess the reason was to compromise. There were people who were opposed to the cities' name changes, so they got to keep the oblasts names to even it out. Plus, retaining some of the Soviet names makes it look like the Russian history is not re-written all over again, as it had happened more than on one occasion in the past.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is also because it’s more hard to pronounce Yekaterinburgskaya oblast’ then Sverdlovskaya oblast’. :) 217.151.225.40 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

St. Petersburg is not the main city of Leningradskaya Oblast. Moscow and St. Petersburg are special federal cities as far as my English can explain it. And he is right. It is difficult to pronounce Yekaterinburgskaya oblast’. One more reason it will make too much problems with docs. i mean passports, official acts and maps, etc. it will be expensive. I hope you understand.--94.50.132.133 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavy plants & Transsib

There are so many, and only Uralmash mentioned? and not even formatted as link? That's just strange.
All the universities/academies are listed, and not much more... As if the whole city was a big school.
Not even a reference to the Trans-Siberian railway :-(

Not all universities/academies. And there are soooooooo many schools)--94.50.132.133 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg Reference

This article really needs to put in stuff about Yekaterinburg's reference. No help to my paper!:(

No Culture?!

This article lacked the culture section in this article. This discussion on changes is more like a complaint. This article needs a culture section. It did not help me at all on my project, which needs culture. Please get some culture in here! Thanks!

Before it, give some culture Ekb, please. It is a joke. --94.50.132.133 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg "LInks"

TO ALL: The second link has been updated to a month before today. There has also been a culture section added. Just some information nedded spreading. Thanks.

Literacy Anyone?

I really needed to find stuff about the literacy for a debate, but I didn't spot anything about that one here.

Do you mean the literacy rate in this city? I don't know for sure, but I'd think it's unlikely to be any lower than Russia's average—definitely in the range of 95-99%.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Link is needet to the article on Pavel Bazhov.Pavel Bazhov. --Eleven.diamonds (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Map

How about adding a map? +Hexagon1 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New highest temperature record

Yekaterinburg recorded a new all time high temperature record today;

https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1283797672898580481

Meltingpot (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Education

"[...]Yekaterinburg is considered the leading educational and scientific center of the Urals. Urals A.M. Gorky State University, Ural State Technical University, Urals State Pedagogical University,Urals State University of Forestry, Urals State University of Mines, Urals State University of the Railways, Russian State Vocational Pedagogics University, Urals State University of Economics, Military Institute of Artillery, Urals State Conservatory, Urals State Agricultural Academy, Urals State Academy of Law, Urals State Academy of Medicine, Urals State Academy of Performing Arts, Urals Academy of Public Service, and Urals Academy of Architecture are among them."

I think the education section is a bit silly. I mean, do we really need to have a list of redlinks three-four lines long? I think the redlinks could be removed from this list, and just leave the existing there. --HJV 12:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We can re-format them as a list. Actually removing them from the text is what I would consider to be silly. It's perfectly good information, and the links will eventually turn blue, albeit not overnight. Having a lot of red should be a motivation to write articles, not to remove information.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

prison camp mention?

what about mentioning the prison camp? here is a video of the camp--Tvwatcher (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source (meaning a youtube video is out), I don't see why not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl

no mention here that sone parts of ekaterinburg forest was so heavily polluted by chernobyl that it'll be a no go area for at least 25,000 years, and if you go there at night theres glowing luminescent fungus growing on some trees....

for a breathtaking series of photos on chernobyl see elena filatova's site

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/spring2007.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.206.85 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"glowing luminescent fungus growing on some trees". Come here. I will show each forest. There is no any glowing. BUT pollutions are. Not so dangerous. Mushrooms are very very tasty. As bears and we like. Chernobyl is more then 2 000 km from me (here).--94.50.132.133 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

City Symbols

Yekaterinburg adopts the flag

Yekaterinburg Population

I repeat it here again. According to OFFICAL Russian statistical report the population of Yekaterinburg on 01.01.1913 was only (then shown as Ekaterinburg in English version) 43.000 inhabitants. Thus increase of 30.2 fold to 2002. This must be a for sure a Russian record. Moscow had in 1913 only 1.650.000 inhabitants. St.Petersburg 1.500.000 inhabitants. If this is again removed away I wonder why such historical facts cannot be published in these English language Wikipedia pages. The Russian point of view of controlled information is not valid here. From where all the population have come to Yekaterinburg? On 01.01.1913 the six major towns in Urals had population of;

• Chelyabinsk 45.000
• Ekaterinburg 43.000
• Orenburg 74.000
• Perm 47.000
• Oufa (Ufa) 103.000
• Zlatoust 34.000

All figures were rounded to nearest full thousand. The number of industrial population rose from 102.000 in 1865 to 300.000 in 1902 in the Urals. In 1914 only thirty of the 125 metallurgical cetnres which had flourished in the Urals were still in operation.

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.82.235 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i can explain. but in English it is not easy for me. First of all it is Stalin's industrialization (part of First Five-Year Plan). Second - Russian WWII (Great Patriotic War, see rus.version). Короче, when it was the german danger in the west (they-germano-italo-spanish-romano-and-others were killing everybody, even children and woman) russians went with their plants and factories to the urals. for example, Ekb. And they stayed there even when the war was ended. was won by russians-and-our-allies (fr,gb,usa). Ave USSR))) . That's all. Nearly.--94.50.132.133 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Bold text

Population

Population of Yekaterinburg is 1315000 (2008), it Russia's fourth largest city http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/B07_13/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d01/04-14.htm

(Population of Russia, its federal districts, federal subjects, districts, urban localities, rural localities—administrative centers, and rural localities with population of over 100,000)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Фальшивомонетчик (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to insert a 2007 estimate into a list that uses the 2002 data and then claim that the item moved up one rank in that list. The "Population" parameter is intended for the 2002 Census population number, and that number only. More recent estimates go in the "PopulationLatest" parameter ("PopulationLatestDate" takes the year for which the estimate is given); I have recorded the 2007 figure there. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:20, March 4, 2009 (UTC)

Page layout

Is it my settings or is the page a bit messy? I see text overlapping some image frames. Can/how can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajik24 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing any overlaps. Could you, please, specify where exactly the text overlaps on your screen? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Taiga ???

There are no forests like taiga nearer 500km to Yekaterinburg. There are partially wooded plains (mostly cultivated for agriculture) around the city. --85.92.19.239 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

It seems that this page needs to be updated as soon as possible. the data is correct as for 2002, and it has been 7 years since then. therefore, i suggest that you editors initiate a more up to date comprehensive writing about this city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.8.162 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The only bit that's dated 2002 is the population reported by the Census, and since there were no Censuses since then, it can't really be updated until 2011 (when the results of the 2010 Census become available). The rest of the information is either historical or not tied to recent dates. Do you have a specific passage in mind that you feel badly needs to be revised? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

File:Eburg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Eburg.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:EKB keyboard fixed.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:EKB keyboard fixed.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:EKB keyboard fixed.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Ekaterinburg

The common use for the city seems to be 'Ekaterinburg'. Google search for the names yielded an 11.2 million results vs. 0.98m for the 'ye' version. Also, the city is officially Ekaterinburg.link --Львівське (говорити) 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Ekaterinburg is in far more common usage and the correct terminology. I also get 11 Ekat :1 Yeka. This is the correct spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atban3000 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was unable to replicate 0.98 mil hits for the "ye" version—I get eight mil. With millions of (unrefined) hits either way, it becomes less of a matter of what's more common (obviously, both are common enough) and more of a matter of what's standard. The BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian results in "ye" spelling, and the search at [1] shows "Yekateriburg" as the "approved" spelling (with the "Ekaterinburg" version being merely "recommended"). All major English geographical dictionaries and encyclopedias also list the "ye" variant as primary, and the "e" variant only as an alternative. There just is no compelling reason for this move. And the "official" argument is especially misleading—Russia does not have "official" place names in English; only in Russian. Just because the English version of the official website uses one of several possible transliteration does not make that choice "official" (heck, it's not even used consistently). Even if it did, Wikipedians are first obligated to check what practices are used in the English language, and use the "official" name only as a supplemental argument.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 6, 2012; 16:54 (UTC)

I think google-plus messed it up for me. I logged out and did a clean search on google and it was still 11:1 in favor o "Ek". A search on Google Books to check how its used in publications yeils a 220:68kdifference in favor of Ek over Yek. Also, BGN aside, the OFFICIAL spelling by the 2010 Russian standard is E, not Ye, for what its worth. IMO, it covers most importantly common use, and official use - this should be clear cut.--Львівське (говорити) 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting 11 mil to 8 mil (e:ye) on my work computer and 7.5 mil to 1.5 mil (ye:e; yes, the other way around) on my home computer—and I don't understand why (I'm not logged into google on either computer). Gbooks results are more in line with what you have. Which only proves that raw ghits count is a horrible horrible choice to decide on a Wikipedia article's title :) (and that both spellings are widely used).

That aside, the official Russian standard (and I assume by that you mean GOST) is quite beyond the point here. This is the English Wikipedia, written primarily for Anglophones, so the transliteration methods prevalent in the English-speaking world take priority. And for geographic names, BGN/PCGN (on which our WP:RUS is based) is the prevalent method; certainly not GOST! There is of course no argument against mentioning the "e" spelling in the lead (and setting it as a redirect), but the "ye" spelling is clearly the one most common in geographic and reference literature (among other things, the Credo search I did confirms that), so that's the one which should be used as the title. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by moving the article to "Ekaterinburg"—the "official spelling" is neither official nor even that important per our guidelines, and with unrefined google hits count being the only remaining argument, there is really nothing else left on the "e" side.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 7, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)

Support : In the coverage to the FIFA World Cup almost every renowned media house and FIFA itself are officially using "Ekaterinburg" and also as suggested above the official website of the city also uses the name Ekaterinburg and Google results also clearly show which one is more widely used. I support a move to "Ekaterinburg". Cricket246 (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I always follow the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, which is a superior authority than Google (and/or football media) on English usage discrimination. The ODWE gives Yekaterinburg as primary and Ekaterinburg as an acceptable variant. Bjenks (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

че такой скайлайн то поставили тухлый?

ставьте вид на сити — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.73.159.189 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Не бузи, чертила, все зашибок будет. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.208.73 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

2010 Census

There is nothing wrong with either "at the 2010 census" or "as of the 2010 Census". The latter, however, is what's used across hundreds and hundreds of other articles. Why should this one be different?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2014; 11:59 (UTC)

Both are used on many thousands of articles. In this instance, "as of" is ambiguous and "at" is concise. "As of" can variously mean "from", "since", "at", "by", and more. So "at the 2010 census" is preferable to "as of the 2010 census". Also, "census" should not have a capital letter, unless, for example, it is part of the name of an organization (the U.S. Census Bureau). UglowT (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not convinced. While "as of" may indeed variously mean different things in different contexts, the meaning in this particular sentence is crystal clear. Note also that "as of" is used in virtually every article about Russia, so let me ask this again: what makes this one so different? You yourself admit that both variants are extensively used, and Wikipedians generally agree that changing from one style to another just for the sake of making a change is hardly ever a good idea. As for the capitalization, it is also merely a style issue (again, see the link above). Using either "2010 Census" or "2010 census" is acceptable, but using the former is more consistent within the context of Russia. If you truly believe the capitalization is wrong ("wrong" as in "grammatically incorrect"), I suggest you submit a move request with regards to the Russian Census (2010) article. If you are right and the community agrees, then all instances of capitalization will need to be fixed. And if it is, as I suspect, simply a matter of style, we'll have a permanent record to refer to in the future. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2014; 17:37 (UTC)

This is what was before: "Population: 1,349,772 (2010 Census)". My edit was an improvement to make out of this a proper sentence.

For the capitalization of "census", the question is whether it is a common or proper noun. I am more inclined to say the former, but one could reasonably argue the latter.

The other point of contention is your change of "at" to "as of". On the terms of your own argument that "Wikipedians generally agree that changing from one style to another … is hardly ever a good idea", "at" should be retained.

But there is a far stronger argument against the use of "as of". I was being charitable when I said it has various meanings. Every dictionary I have checked so far agrees that "as of" means "from" or "beginning on". This means a duration, yet the census captured the population at an instant (the population would have changed after the census was conducted).

For these reasons I think it is fair to retain "at" and "Census".

Much more can be said on this. But I have found myself unexpectedly busy and I will have to leave our conversation to another time. I will leave a message on your talk page, if that's all right? UglowT (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have nothing against you making this statement into a proper sentence :) My point was that in articles where this kind of a statement is already a proper sentence, "as of" is typically used. And while "from" and "beginning from" is the meaning in phrases such as "something begins as of such-and-such date", the phrase here is not constructed along those lines. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guideline on the usage of "as of" primarily deals with, and I quote, information that is valid only at a specific moment in history, such as population statistics and current events. See WP:ASOF, which goes as far as recommending using the {{as of}} template to flag facts which will become dated at some point in the future... to ensure that people will update [them] (and which includes 2010 US Census usage example in the template documentation). I don't know how this reconciles with the dictionary definitions, nor, frankly, do I really care much, but this kind of usage for "as of" is indisputably an established practice. It is perhaps something to discuss with a wider community, too...

That said, the issue is truly too minor to spend so much time and effort on it. But you are more than welcome to contact me on my talk page when you have time, of course. For the moment, I'm satisfied with the compromise solution of retaining "at" but capitalizing "Census". Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2014; 20:07 (UTC)

Timeline of Yekaterinburg

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"On the border of Europe and Asia"

The article calls the city "on the border of Europe and Asia" a few times, citing some websites that claim that. However, the city is (and is further down in this page noted to be) on the eastern side of the Urals, meaning that it is firmly in Asia by every definition given at Boundaries_between_continents#Europe_and_Asia. Any objection to correcting this to "near the western border of the Asian continent? Calbaer (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with Jekaterinburg ?

The Y-letter in English is not a big deal. It's both a vowel and a consonant. And not a problem in areas of the World , where English is the native language. But what about spelling "Jerusalem" as "Yerusalem" ?, "Jericho" as "Yericho" ?, "Japan" as "Yapan" ?, "Iwo-Jima" as "Iwo-Yima" ? and the former "Djakarta" through the present "Jakarta" to "Yakarta". I suggest we go back to "Jekaterinburg". Boeing720 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Transliterating word-initial Russian "е" as "ye" is a feature of the BGN/PCGN romanization system, which was specifically designed to address the needs of English speakers. Due to that, the BGN/PCGN system is the one on which the English Wikipedia's Russian romanization guideline is based. Few major transliteration/romanization system of Russian used in English transliterate word-initial "е" as "je" (the only one I can recall off the top of my head is a version of the Russian GOST, and that one was obviously not developed with English speakers in mind). If you see the "Jekaterinburg" spelling in an English text, normally it means that it ended there via other languages with their own Russian transliteration systems (like German), or there is a reason in play other than the author picking a commonly used romanization system and sticking to it consistently (or perhaps the GOST system I mentioned a few lines back was used). As for your other examples, none of those are relevant here, since they are not Russian (different languages have different romanization guidelines) and all of them fall under WP:COMMONNAME anyway. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2017; 14:25 (UTC)

The short answer is that, because none of the other place names you listed is pronounced in English with the same initial consonant as "Yekaterinburg", the spelling of the initial consonant in those names isn't relevant to the spelling of "Yekaterinburg". There may be reasons to consider using "j" to spell the consonant that "Yekaterinburg" does start with (at least in Russian), but those other names aren't among those reasons.

As for the suggestion to "go back to 'Jekaterinburg'", this Google Ngram shows that at no time since at least 1800, with the exception of just barely in 1815, has the usage of "Jekaterinburg" in Google's corpus of English-language literature reached even one-tenth that of the combined usage of "Ekaterinburg" and "Yekaterinburg". Even if "Jekaterinburg" ever prevailed in English before that, why would we "go back to" a practice that lost its prevalance over two centuries ago? Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Move to Ekaterinburg

This page should be moved to "Ekaterinburg" as per the logics mentioned in the move request a little bit above!! Cricket246 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Invalid sentence?

"The average number of employees of large and medium-sized organizations is 440,300 people."

Either this is a typo, or there's something else wrong.

Gwrede (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC) The average number of employees of large and medium-sized organizations is 440,300 people.

Fixed - Josephua (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• 2 Berliner Baeren anagoria.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Catherine not Peter the Great’s wife

Please adjust the text to reflect that Catherine the Great was the wife of Peter III, not Peter the Great. The timeline listed refracts this inaccuracy. Thanks! 2601:249:8A00:3AE0:FD83:3906:28A:8535 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)