Jump to content

Talk:Karakend

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 13 December 2020

[edit]
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: not moved. No prospect of consensus. I would suggest that the next step is to develop a proposal for a naming convention. This proposal would clarify those proposals below regarding the best names for en:Wikipedia to use, and also clarify the scope of the convention. If consensus can be achieved on this convention, then propose an RfC to adopt it. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– I would like to suggest that the article names for the historically Armenian-populated towns and villages in the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) (along with the historically Armenian-populated towns and villages in the Artsakh-claimed Shahumyan and Getashen districts - which took part in the Artsakh declaration of independence) should be changed to the Armenian language names, which in the vast majority of the cases represent the common names for the localities. When multiple names exists ", Nagorno-Karabakh" can be added to the page names for clarification. When the common names of individual localities turn out to deviate from the proposed norm - this can of course also been taken into account. I've tried to follow the instructions for moving multiple pages per WP:RM#CM as much as possible for this request.

Apart from the larger towns in Nagorno-Karabakh such as Martakert, Stepanakert, Martuni and so on, right now Nagorno-Karabakh page names are generally set to the names decided by the Azerbaijani government since the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and the Azerbaijani parliament dissolving the NKAO, and have not been set to conform with WP:COMMONNAME which is the main Wikipedia guideline for place names. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about it not being prudent for official names to form the basis for determining article names.

Using the 1989 demographics for Nagorno-Karabakh (+Shahumyan&Getashen) [1] as a basis to determine the historical majority population of the towns and villages would be useful in this regard. The majority population for towns before the First Nagorno-Karabakh War has been used as a useful neutral point of departure on NK Wikipedia articles in other regards, which is a bit more anchored in modernity with regard to WP:COMMONNAME, while still taking the historical context of the region's towns and villages into account. Some historical figures for the demographics of the region are also available here: [2]

I've listed three of the larger NK settlements in the list above as examples, however the actual amount of articles are too many to practically list here. The List of cities and towns in Artsakh lists the towns and villages currently controlled by Artsakh, which are all former NKAO villages, except for the towns in the Lachin corridor. It also lists the historically Armenian populated towns in the former NKAO now controlled by Azerbaijan after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The articles for the towns in the Lachin corridor outside of the former NKAO that had Azerbaijani majorities, currently under Artsakh/Russian control (Lachin, Zabux, Sus) and the former NKAO towns and villages that had Azerbaijani majorities, such as Shusha, Khojaly and Ümüdlü - would retain their Azerbaijani place names under the same rationale.

AntonSamuel (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - sorry to add this to the top, but I didn't want to mess up anyone's formatting or insert in the wrong spot. I have always thought it's strange to have article names that the actual residents generally do not use, and may not even recognize. It makes no sense whatsoever. But I also agree that it's not fair to have a village depopulated of the natives renamed. So the proposal to use the name of the majority ethnic group in the last Soviet census is exactly what is fairest and most sensible in my opinion. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Against You've failed to point how these names are the common names. Qarakənd was always Qarakənd until the Armenian separatists changed its name after the war. There's literally 10 results for Berdashen on Google Scholar, while 7 for Qarakənd, 12 for Karakend, 5 for Karakent, and 7 for Garakend. Here, the Azerbaijani name is undoubtedly preferred (31 for Azerbaijani name, and 10 for the new Armenian name). And the others are pretty even as well. They don't meet WP:COMMONNAME as you put it. Also, if we used demographics for names, many place names in Armenia would've been in Turkic. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly oppose. Your logic implies that all the current names of Armenian-majority villages have remained the same since Soviet times and have automatically become WP:COMMONNAME. This is false. In fact, a large number of Armenian-majority villages have also been renamed by the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh. I suggest using names that were used in Soviet times instead, which are a much more established WP:COMMONNAME rather than a new name given to a settlement by an unrecognised government. How to know what the name was in Soviet times? Here's a great soviet military topographic map that includes every single village and shows their Soviet names. I'll reply to each of the 3 listed moves separately below:
  • Qarakənd is still listed as Qarakənd on the Soviet map I listed above. In addition to this, "Qarakənd" gives 135,000 results on google (note that Qarakənd is the primary topic for this village, so almost all results are about this village) and "Qarakənd Karabakh" gives 16,700 results, compared to 149,000 results for "Berdashen", most of which are about the Berdashen town in Armenia, and "Berdashen Karabakh" only gives 11,200 results. This, combined with the Soviet use, makes the current article name the established WP:COMMONNAME.
  • The name for Hasanriz in Soviet times was "Aterk". I agree with changing it to this name. In addition, "Aterk" gives 74,600 results on Google, while only 45,200 for "Haterk" and only 5,470 for "Hasanriz". Therefore I suggest changing Hasanriz article's name to Aterk.
  • Kiş is listed as "Gishi" on the Soviet map, suggesting its common name, therefore I support changing it to Gishi, Azerbaijan. Listing "Nagorno-Karabakh" to disambiguate the page name is not helpful, as that is a former autonomous oblast that stopped existing in the 1990s. Since there is no "Gishi" anywhere else in Azerbaijan, I don't see any reason to specify the village's district or region. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: When exceptions exist - this can be taken into account as I mentioned. However, practically all of the Armenian-majority villages in 1989 were also historically Armenian, and their place names can be said to represent the main common names with regard to the people who have lived there historically or that live there today or very recently, and can also be found in most academic and media reports about the localities. Regarding past Azerbaijani and Armenian populations in Armenia and Azerbaijan outside of Nagorno-Karabakh, such as for Baku and Yerevan - this is a separate issue, as Nagorno-Karabakh has been a disputed area for a considerable amount of time, and remains so today.

@CuriousGolden: Sure, the Soviet map can be useful as well to help in determining the common names - However, the 1989 demographic map also feature the same names in Russian script as far as I can see - and in some cases both the Azerbaijani and the Armenian names. The majority of the names for the villages that were established before 1989 have stayed the same - I can see that on the Soviet map as well. Regarding Haterk vs Aterk - if the latter is used in the majority of contemporary sources that can be found, that's fine. However if not, since the difference is more cosmetic it would be prudent to use the correct Armenian transliteration - Haterk, for clarity. "Nagorno-Karabakh" is useful as it the long-established common name for the region and serves to represent a more neutral term for the geographical region. Using "Khojavend" would be problematic in that it would be using the official name for the Azerbaijani administrative division of the region, which is not standard per Wikipedia guidelines as I mentioned earlier. "Khojavend" also isn't the common name for the town in question, "Martuni" is.

AntonSamuel (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, historical assertations are not related to this issue. The village can be an Armenian for the past 5,000 years, it still doesn't matter. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The historical names and the historical context (if 1989 is considered historical) does matter, as they indicate what the common names of the localities most likely are and is useful as a basis. If individual corrections are then needed - I have no problem with that. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AntonSamuel: If by "1989 demographic map", you're referring to this, then what names it uses is almost completely irrelevant. That's a mere modern infographic map and it does not represent anything of the Soviet names. It even uses "Berdzor", "Karvachar" and "Jrakan", all of which are entirely new names that have never been used as a WP:COMMONNAME to refer to those specific cities. 2) From the sources I provided, "Aterk" seems to be WP:COMMONNAME. We can most likely include (Armenian: Haterk) near the name.
"Khojavend" in this case is the district's name, not the city's and as I haven't seen anyone call the modern Azerbaijani district of Khojavend, "Martuni District", I believe it's the WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, I looked more into "Gishi" and it seems like it's only used in Iran other than Azerbaijan, so it can just be changed to "Gishi, Azerbaijan" rather than having to specify it even further with "Khojaved" (which is unnecessary since this is the only Gishi in Azerbaijan). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is still that the Armenian names for the NKAO Armenian majority towns and villages in the vast majority of cases represent the common names, and it's therefore useful as a point of departure to utilize them, and if needed individual corrections can be made - and if the more authentic old Soviet map can be used to help with these corrections, I don't have an issue with that. I've explained why I consider "Nagorno-Karabakh" to be the most prudent term to use with regard to neutrality and clarity over terms such as "Khojavend" and "Azerbaijan" - it is because of the disputed nature of the territory that it would be prudent to use NK with regard to WP:NPOV, when also considering the wide usage of "Nagorno-Karabakh", it brings an added clarity. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have problem with using Armenian names for the villages as long as they aren't new names given to them by the unrecognised government and are common names that were used in Soviet times as well. I still think "Nagorno-Karabakh" is too ambiguous to use and don't see how using "Azerbaijan" is not WP:NPOV, when United Nations, OSCE, PACE have all recognised the territory as part of Azerbaijan. Surely, these international organizations aren't promoting a POV? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, however, for villages that have been renamed, and the new names then clearly can be seen to be the common names when looking at the individual names - these should still be used. An "unrecognized entity" is still governed by and inhabited by people, and sometimes name changes are practical or have reasons that aren't necessarily connected to nationalism or such. I know the international community's position with regard to territorial integrity and the de jure status of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. However that the region is in dispute, and have been for 100+ years is not controversial, with Armenian autonomy/independence in Karabakh having been present from the early Middle Ages to the 1800s when it became part of the Russian Empire, as well as being established under the Soviet period as the NKAO. Therefore, with regard to neutrality, clarity and recognizability - ", Nagorno-Karabakh" is the most prudent disambiguation tag to utilize I would argue. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that if the renamed village's new name has obviously become an established WP:COMMONNAME in media, then its article should be named by its new name. Nagorno-Karabakh has been disputed for 27 years continuously, not 100+ years and ancient, mid history is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. We can reflect its disputed status in the lead, but the article title needs to reflect common facts, not what an internationally unrecognised country claims. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles serve to inform readers about the specific topic, and its historical context is relevant for understanding that topic - you seemed to argue that there is no difference in how the international community sees Baku and Stepanakert - which is incorrect. All proposals put forward by the OSCE Minsk Group such as the Madrid Principles have included some differentiation/autonomy for Karabakh Armenians. The Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict is similar in many ways to the Yugoslav Wars - with differing national narratives being very difficult to reconcile, and there being a communist/socialist regime during the Cold War that suppressed ethnic tensions of the early 20th century in the Balkans (which can be compared to the Armenian–Azerbaijani War in the early 20th century), reemerging with the collapse of the system in the late 80s/early 90s such as the Kosovo conflict - which is very similar to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. That the region is disputed, has a long history of independence/autonomy, that it has been autonomous in the Soviet period and then self-ruling as a breakaway state after that is not controversial, as well as that there is a right of self-determination (but not necessarily succession/full independence) that is guaranteed by the UN charter and UN resolutions. So taking all that in mind - ", Nagorno-Karabakh" remains the most useful, neutral as well as precise disambiguation tag available, I would argue. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're making wrong comparisons. Kosovo is recognised by most of the world. Perhaps a better comparison would be Donetsk and Luhansk, where a country invades recognised territory of another country and uses the ethnicity as a reason. Regardless, how is it being autonomous change the common fact that it's autonomous within Azerbaijan? If the name only exists outside the mentioned country, then not using "Azerbaijan" is just redundant. If the name existed in different places within Azerbaijan, we could specify the region or district, but it's unnecessary in this case. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh, my comparison was mainly with regard to a "dormant" conflict - however, Kosovo is far from universally recognized internationally and is not a member of the UN as well, and the scope of the ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural/religious heritage that has occurred in Kosovo on both sides makes it a good comparison in general I would argue.

"Nagorno-Karabakh" is a well established and the accepted term for the region and used by the majority of UN states when referring to the region. Using the common name for a geographic region, or an autonomous region, as well as when it's in dispute, as a disambiguation tag is standard on Wikipedia - here are a couple of examples: Copceac, Gagauzia, Gaidar, Gagauzia, Tomai, Gagauzia, Ocnița, Transnistria, Rotari, Transnistria, Mitrovica, Kosovo, Kamenica, Kosovo. This formulation was also favored by the administrator that moved Khojavend to Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh at the move discussion on Talk:Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh.

Taking all that's been argued in mind, my suggestion for the three example articles based on the Armenian majority names, and also taking common name investigation (with smoother/correct transliterations used) into consideration is:

AntonSamuel (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) I support the first move. 2) I suggest moving second to Aterk as I've already discussed above (Not sure why you saw the need to use the common English name for Qarakend, but thought Armenian name of Haterk for Aterk would be better even when it's not the common name in media). 3) I still stand on my point that Nagorno-Karabakh is not a good way to disambiguate a page and avoiding using internationally recognised country names, e.g. "Gishi, Azerbaijan" is redundant. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we disagree - I look forward to hearing from other editors and administrators as well with regard to the issue. I've explained before why I consider "Haterk" to be a smoother transliteration of the Armenian name, similar how "Kobanî" is the more correct version of the common name, while "Kobani" or "Kobane" might be the actual common name in English-language media. If you think Qarakənd is better transliterated into "Garakend" or something else, that can be discussed. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is of more importance than "smoother transliteration". How other articles are don't matter since it's WP:OTHERSTUFF and each case is different. There are 6 results for Haterk on Google Scholar, while 9 for Aterk. Combined with previous google searches and its Soviet use, Aterk is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRITERIA does take into Consistency into consideration: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.". More useful examples are the Turkish cities of İzmir and Eskişehir. Since Haterk is the proper transliteration of the Armenian name, and prominent in English-language sources as well, I would argue that "Haterk" would be the best option. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how İzmir and Eskişehir are in any way related to this Aterk/Haterk matter. If you mean that they use Turkish Latin alphabet, instead of transliterated, then by that logic, Karakend should be kept as Qarakənd since Azeri alphabet is also Latin. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think some policies apply to one name, while others don't apply to the other. Both names should follow WP:COMMONNAME. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article titles contains many aspects which have to be balanced/taken into consideration, such as mainly using commonly recognizable names per WP:COMMONNAME, that titles should be mainly based on English-language titles per WP:UE, using spelling which contemporary readers are likely to use most of the time when searching for the topic per WP:SMALLDETAILS (relevant for the use of Haterk) and that the issue of neutrality in article titles should be taken into consideration per WP:NPOVTITLE as well as consistency per WP:CRITERIA (both of which are relevant for the use of Nagorno-Karabakh as a disambiguation tag). AntonSamuel (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how WP:SMALLDETAILS is relevant to Haterk/Aterk matter. "Aterk" matches every policy you've listed above, even though some are irrelevant to our discussion and in fact it's much more WP:NPOV than "Haterk" as Haterk is a name given to it by the unrecognised government, while Aterk is the WP:COMMONNAME as I have proved 3 times above already. "Aterk" is the correct, common name. If you want the Armenian name for it there so much, it can definitely be in the lead in a {{lang}} like the Azeri name. I think we're getting carried away from the main topic further by each comment.. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haterk is a traditionally Armenian-inhabited town, and since Aterk is another transliteration of the Armenian name used in Soviet times - though less correct, and since the majority of readers familiar with the village are most likely either Armenian speakers or residents of the town or connected to it otherwise and would most likely use the correct transliteration "Haterk" when searching for the name, per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:CONSISTENT, it would be prudent to use Haterk. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:CHERRYPICKING please. WP:SMALLDETAILS isn't even related in any way to this discussion, that policy is about distinguishing names with small details to not get them confused. These unrelated policy linkings seem like a WP:PLAYPOLICY, please avoid it. You're ignoring the basic principles of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:COMMONNAME. This is not Armenian Wikipedia, we're not going to change the name to a non-common name because Armenians will search for it, that's absurd. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMALLDETAILS states that "The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for.", and I argued previously why Haterk would be the most probable search option for contemporary readers familiar with the subject. I've made it clear that I consider the use of more correct transliterations valid for all names - not just this case, so I don't believe that I'm cherry-picking in this case. The policies I've mentioned are all part of the Wikipedia:Article titles guidelines so I doubt that I could be legitimately accused of playing the policies against each other like you're suggesting, simply for arguing that they should be taken into consideration. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea how what you cited from WP:SMALLDETAILS supports the use of "Haterk" over "Aterk". What you think is "correct" transliteration is your WP:OR, which is not supported by Google Scholar results nor Simple Google results which all favour "Aterk" over "Haterk", establishing its WP:COMMONNAME. You're playing policies against each other, which is a WP:PLAYPOLICY. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you assume good faith and to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and the spirit behind them a bit more if you would argue using that line of reasoning - WP:OR/WP:TRANSCRIPTION states that "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources." and WP:GAME/WP:PLAYPOLICY is about "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." - arguing for a more correct transliteration for the common name of a place by taking the different aspects of Wikipedia:Article titles into consideration would hardly fall under that description I would argue. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you cited would be relevant if there wasn't an already established WP:COMMONNAME for the village which is Aterk as I've proved 4 times by now and I'm not assuming either good or bad faith in your edits and comments, I'm just saying that what you're doing reminds me of WP:PLAYPOLICY, either deliberate or not. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've argued quite clearly at this point why I think its reasonable to conclude that Wikipedia:Article titles and the policies it contains such as WP:COMMONNAME allows for consideration and adjustments with regards to spelling and correct transliteration of the common names like I've proposed, in this case to Haterk. If you don't agree, that's fine - other editors and administrators will hopefully chime in as well soon enough. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Update: For clarity regarding which of pages beyond the three example articles that would be affected by the proposed move - I've created an infopage with a list of the towns claimed or controlled by the Republic of Artsakh which had Armenian-majority populations in 1989 - with their Armenian-language names being the likely common names for the majority of them - and would therefore be affected by the move request if not already moved to their likely common names (with smoother/correct transliterations used). I've proposed using the ", Nagorno-Karabakh" disambiguation tag when needed, and I would also argue that it's suitable per WP:NPOV to use the administrative divisions of the former NKAO as disambiguation tags, for localities in Nagorno-Karabakh that share names. The infopage is based on the List of cities and towns in Artsakh article, which also contains localities claimed, controlled or previously controlled by Artsakh, which had Azerbaijani majorities in 1989. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're still using the logic that the current Armenian name for a village is automatically WP:COMMONNAME if the inhabitants are Armenian. That is simply not the case as I've argued above. Large portion of Armenian-inhabited villages/towns' names are also quite new as Artsakh's government renamed them after the war (e.g. renaming common name Qarakend to a completely new name, Berdashen). Easiest way to determine the common name is to use the names that were used during Soviet times as that is the most obvious WP:COMMONNAME in most cases and prominent authors such as Thomas De Waal have preferred to use Soviet names to achieve WP:NPOV ("The use of names is problematic. Where a town has two names, one Armenian and one Azerbaijani, I use the one that was in currency when the dispute started in 1988" - Author's note, Black Garden). There can be few exceptions where a new name became WP:COMMONNAME and those cases can be looked at individually, but en masse, we need to use Soviet time names. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the Soviet-era names for these localities match the Armenian names, and reflect that the localities that have had Armenian-majority populations historically - this was my observation when I gave the Soviet map you linked a cursory view. The majority of the villages have also been inhabited mainly by Armenians in the past 30 years, so it's more than likely the Armenian names are the contemporary common names. However, as I've explained, the Armenian names are used as a helpful basis, and when there are exceptions such as for Berdashen/Karakend, and the Armenian-majority villages have other common names, discussions can easily be opened afterwards on the talk pages of those articles to point out the discrepancies so that they can be corrected. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? Large number of the names in the Soviet map that I observed are different than the newly renamed Armenian names. And again, WP:COMMONNAME isn't determined by what the local people call it, but by what international, trusted media and community call it. You can always include the new Armenian names in the lead, but article names need to fit WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. And I don't understand what you mean by "discussions can be opened afterwards", are you implying that we need to en masse rename all village articles to Armenian names without treating each case differently? That's not very helpful and definitely not abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my take on the Soviet map. We've had this argument before, in short: WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME takes many criteria into consideration that needs to be looked at such as recognizability, naturalness and consistency - so contemporary use is relevant, while not the only factor: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) ", "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." It's far more practical and prudent to use a useful and likely basis for common names when the current article titles are mostly official names, yes - rather than looking at 100+ articles for smaller villages individually. Regarding Wikipedia guidelines, I've followed WP:RM#CM as much as possible for this request. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you gave that quote, because it says exactly what I said in my previous comment. We need to use names most prevalent in international media rather than what an official or an unrecognised government calls it. And in this case, Soviet names are the most common indicator of a common and WP:NPOV name rather than a new name given to a village by a government, that is considered hostile by the other party. And, as WP:RM#CM puts it, names that someone could reasonably disagree with is controversial and it should be looked at individually and in our case, where we're talking about villages in a highly-contested region, almost all name changes are controversial, therefore, yes, we need to look at each village's case individually. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two quotes describes the matter quite well regarding criteria for article names, here's a more concise use of the two quotes to be more clear: "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria [including recognizability, naturalness and consistency] for article titles outlined above." Contemporary use has relevance, regardless of the de jure status of a political entity: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." It's simply not practical to look at 100+ articles for smaller villages individually, when they've been attested to have historical Armenian populations and the current state of the articles are their official names, and the Soviet names correspond to the Armenian names in the majority of the cases, status quo stonewalling and filibustering constructive additions/contributions should be avoided on Wikipedia. I've asked an administrator for advice regarding this request in order to make sure I didn't do anything majorly out of place process-wise [4], and explored the possibility of listing it elsewhere as well, beyond the Nagorno-Karabakh talk page and the Republic of Artsakh talk pages on which I've created links to this discussion in order to make it as open as possible. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused about the purpose of the quotes as you're implying that they're saying different things than what I did. I'm repeating, for the third time, we need to use the common names, not official names and the WP:COMMONNAME is determined by English-language international media, not the local population. It seems I have to repeat things multiple times in this discussion. I support changing village names to their Soviet names, let it be Armenian or Azerbaijani, doesn't matter. I've demonstrated this above by agreeing to rename Kish to Gishi and Hasanriz to Aterk. I'm getting kind of exhausted because we both seem to either misunderstand or not understand each other, so I'll ask directly. Do you support changing the villages' names to their Soviet names (unless in rare cases where the Soviet name isn't WP:COMMONNAME) or not? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've argued quite thoroughly now why I believe the Armenian names for the historically Armenian majority villages are prudent to use as a basis as they represent the common names in the majority of the cases, and correspond to the Soviet names in the majority of the cases, and how corrections can be made afterwards. As I've said before, if you disagree with my assessment - that's fine. I hope we'll get some further input from others soon. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to respond to my question. I'm firm on my position that we need to use Soviet names as they're the WP:COMMONNAME most of the time. Yet you seem to imply that you want to use Soviet names only if they correspond to the Armenian name and that's well.. not how Wikipedia works. I won't go further into this because I'll be repeating myself and that I have done numerous times in this discussion already. If you want, I'll try to make a list that shows which name changes I think should be done according to the Soviet map. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: No, I don't think that the Soviet map is the most useful to use for the historically Armenian-majority villages as a primary basis compared to the Armenian names, when looking at all of the aspects of the situation and the relevant policies that need to be taken into consideration such as contemporary use. However, the Soviet names can be helpful nevertheless when checking and making corrections. While you're welcome to contribute with any list you want, the reason why I've created the infopage and its list was to inform about the specific pages that are concerned by this move request. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: The Soviet-era names can be useful to use for corrections - however contemporary use should also be taken into account, many places have been reorganized or renamed - not just for motives related to the conflict, but also for less contentious/technical/practical reasons - similar to how many cities in Russia have been renamed after the fall of the USSR. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AntonSamuel I agree. And we are talking only about the former NKAO or including the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh which Artsakh claims? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: This proposal only includes localities which were Armenian-majority in 1989 in the former NKAO (+ the Shahumyan & Getashen districts) and not localities in the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. I've created an infopage with a list of all articles the proposal concerns here: [5], which I've linked to earlier in the discussion under "Update". AntonSamuel (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. De-facto and de-jure Azerbaijani must have an Azerbaijani name.
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.

Recent move request closure

[edit]

@Andrewa: Hey, I was wondering regarding your recent closure of the move request discussion above - with the current lack of clear consensus for the proposal and the current problematic situation with the majority of the articles not being named according to the common names of the localities concerned, but their official names - would moving the articles on a case to case basis be an option that you would recommend as well? While an RfC for creating a naming convention may be optimal, because of the scope of such a project and the contentiousness of the issue, a thorough common name investigation for individual articles might at least move things forward a bit. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already in the process of making a list of uncontroversial move changes that'd fit WP:COMMONNAME and avoid WP:OFFICIAL, so I doubt there'll be too many articles to look at after doing the moves in my future list. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the past discussion about the matter is any indication - many of moves will probably turn out be controversial nevertheless, so following WP:RM#CM will probably be best for most multiple-moves or single-moves if a RfC about a naming convention is not opened. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An indication that there is a need for a new naming convention is if, as here, in the affected RMs people are regularly raising arguments that seem contrary to policy.
There are two ways of going about it. And it's not necessary to choose between them. They can both be attempted at the same time.
One is to work with specific examples, raising RMs for these examples, and if consensus can be achieved on these then they provide evidence to guide and hopefully support a naming convention. But in view of the lack of consensus for the above RM, that may not be very productive in this case. It might work better if multi-moves were avoided, but I would not be hopeful. The best examples to work on using this approach are ones where WP:IAR can be successfully used to overrule the existing naming conventions and policy. Such examples are good evidence that the rules need to be tweaked. (And conversely, if they can't be found, then maybe the existing rules are fine.)
The other is to try to develop a naming convention that can achieve consensus. One of the indications that this might be the better approach is if, as here, people seem to want to discuss the general principles rather than the case at hand. Specific examples still need to be discussed, but they are discussed as examples, not as formal RMs.
Another indication is if existing article names seem contrary to the existing rules, as is claimed to be the case here. If these names are legitimised by the proposed new convention, that's an argument in its favour. It's a particularly strong one if there are many such names, as is also claimed to be the case here, or if there have already been consensus RM decisions to adopt these names.
Does that help? I can't of course guarantee that this other approach will be any more successful. But it might be worth a try.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). If New Zealand (apologies to my next door neighbours) deserves its own specific page, then surely Azerbaijan does too. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) might also be helpful, but is not IMO as relevant. Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One specific thing that I've noticed mentioned in all these conversations that I would like to address is the Haterk/Aterk issue - which may come up in other places. Aterk is the Russian transliteration of Haterk. There's no H because Russian does not have an H. So I really don't think it makes sense to spell it Aterk in English, since you're going from Armenian to Russian to English, instead of Armenian to English. Similar issues may arise with names like Dahrav, Vaghuhas, etc. Let's please make sure there isn't any double transliteration. Pretty please. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't realize this before, but that sounds right. I don't mind Haterk. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and also I'd point out similar issues can come up with the letter E at the beginning of a name - such as the monastery Yerits Mankants - which with Russian translit would have been Erits Mankants. --RaffiKojian (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Thanks for the feedback! I'll look into doing some single-page move requests that will hopefully be able to serve as examples. This page can also be renamed to "Karakend" without problem, which wasn't a point of contention and is the English-language version of the current name as well as the most likely common name from the investigation that was done in the past debate. Creating a name convention for either all of Azerbaijan or just the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region (which I was more or less attempting for this move request) would probably be ideal however. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Andrewa, as a result of the discussion, it was decided to keep the article name "Qarakənd". However, @AntonSamuel unquestionably changed the name of the article. Samral (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you refer to this move on 19 April 2022? That does seem out of process. The edit summary Moving to contemporary name used by the local population and administration is no justification for ignoring the RM result. AntonSamuel is currently active, so I have raised it on their user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Hey, in 2022 after this discussion there was a move discussion on Mokhratagh that touched upon all villages in Nagorno-Karabakh [6]. I interpreted this as enough cause for a move. Today the context of all Nagorno-Karabakh articles has of course changed with regard to the 2023 war and the Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. AntonSamuel (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AntonSamuel, With the same logic, why didn't you change the name of article Madagiz to Sugovushan? Are you making Armenian propaganda? Samral (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Madagiz had an Armenian ethnic majority before the 2020 war (and before the First Nagorno-Karabakh War), Mokhratagh and Berdashen also had Armenian majorities and was under the control of Artsakh after the 2020 war. AntonSamuel (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was no justification for ignoring the RM result. If you wish to overturn an RM you need to got to MR or another RM, and put your case there. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: I understand - I will take this into consideration in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I now move the article now at Berdashen, Nagorno-Karabakh back to Karakend to back out this out-of-process move, and you can then go through the proper process of presenting your new information? Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back. Feel free to raise a new RM if you think this one will succeed. Andrewa (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karakend&oldid=1206943636"