Talk:Chernobyl disaster

There's already not-so-simple english version, probably fitting as the starting point for a merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.62.139 (talk • contribs) 15:29, February 12, 2009 (UTC)

We are a different Wikipedia, so no a merge is not appropriate. We exist to aid people with limited skills in the English language. Please read Simple English Wikipedia for more insight into what we do here. Thanks! (Please sign your comments using ~~~~ fr33kman ^{t - c} 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Chernobyl or Chornobyl?

Is this supposed to be different from the Normal English version?

This probably should be moved to Chernobyl.--Jondel (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Although Chernobyl is more common, it is just a transliteration from the Russian. However, the accident took place in Ukraine, where Ukrainian is official language, and Ukrainian transliteration uses "o" in the nuclear plant name. Therefore it should, probably, be Chornobyl. Regards, --Andrux (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be like changing Jesus to Iehoshua the original pronounciation. Chernobyl is already an establishd English word. I'm sure the same phenomena is occuring in the Ukranian wiki with words and names from English. Besides, this is also in conformance to the English wiki.--Jondel (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hej, nice comparison ))… and, probably, another filed for discussions. I do not agree that it is established English word. Frequency of Chornobyl with “O” is common enough in news, search engines (e.g. Google) and official document of state authorities in Ukraine, USA and EU [1], [2], [3]. Moreover, the dictionary refers to Russian every time, which is probably due to believe of its creator(s) that Ukraine and Russia is still the same country, which is not true. Anyway, it is up to people and governments to decide what to use, but Wikipedia should keep the encyclopedic style. Regards,--Andrux (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)