Jump to content

Talk:Karmir Shuka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Qırmızı Bazar)

Requested move 25 October 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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qirmizi Bazar → Qırmızı Bazar – Correct official name is Qırmızı Bazar. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:UE. I could not really find enough sources to make a determination on which spelling is more appropriate in English. But, UE states that If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual practice with all Latin-script place names In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 21 December 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 17:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qırmızı Bazar → Karmir Shuka – Move to "Karmir Shuka" per WP:AT/WP:COMMONNAME:

Results from Google: Karmir Shuka: 36,300 Qırmızı Bazar: 3,460 Qirmizi Bazar: 3,290

Results from Google Scholar: Karmir Shuka: 3 Qırmızı Bazar: 1 Qirmizi Bazar: 1
AntonSamuel (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Reliable sources (WP:RS/WP:RSP) utilizing "Karmir Shuka" as the name for the village: AP Time Los Angeles Times AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Utilizing search results from Google should be done with caution, but is acceptable per WP:NCGN:

Regarding multiple local names: "Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive."

As this matter concerns a larger issue that is a matter of contention - an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh may be needed if consensus cannot be achieved, as has been suggested before, however I hope the admin that closes this discussion will look carefully at all the arguments that have been made and take WP:VOTE into consideration.

AntonSamuel (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; either move to Krasny Bazar or keep. Krasny Bazar is the WP:COMMONNAME here, with 4 results on Google Scholar. Also, it seems like you repeated the name twice in your google search resulting in false results. The actual results for Karmir Shuka on normal Google is 13,400, not 36,300. Update: The name is also used by several WP:RS such as New York Times and TASS. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that TASS is not listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After a double check, I cannot see any issues with any "double" search terms in my links. Regarding why you got a different number - I don't know - maybe our search settings on Google are different. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting more results because you're adding a third word outside of quotes. It's just like how searching Qirmizi Bazar without quotes gives 626,000 results, but gives 65,700 with quotes. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see such an issue for links such as this: [1] which I get 36,300 results for. If you're looking at the code - the " Karmir Shuka" in the end is not included in the search but is there to name the link. If that's not the issue, perhaps there is an issue with the browser you're using or that we have different search settings. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, seems like the search for Karmir Shuka got fixed now and it shows 36,300. Regardless, simple Google search isn't a good way to identify common name as anyone can create random blogs online and spam the name, which would increase its search results. Google Scholar is a better source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with using only Google Scholar for smaller villages such as this is that then, a single paper written by an Armenian or an Azerbaijani researcher may then be the basis that is relied on, so regular Google searches at least represents a useful complement/indicator of common names. Regarding the Russian name, Krasny Bazar only has 649 results on a regular Google Search, and would therefore not be suitable to use per WP:COMMONNAME. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really weird way you're looking at this from. You're saying Google Scholar is biased because it can be paper from Armenian or Azerbaijani, but saying normal Google search results won't be? Normal Google search results can be affected by literally anyone, even me. It only takes me to create several blogs and spam the word I want. Google search results aren't a good indicator of WP:COMMONNAME. While, Google Scholar isn't perfect either, it's definitely better than default Google. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we're using Google results as a basis Martakert should be moved to Ağdərə and Martuni to Xocavənd since "Ağdərə" and "Xocavənd" give much more results on Google. (Over 1,200,000 results on google for "Ağdərə", while only 515,000 for "Martakert"). We might have to look at moving those pages if this page does get moved on same basis. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the case if you clarify with English-language "Karabakh" in the search, otherwise those are mostly not English-language sources which WP:COMMONNAME requires, they're mostly in Azerbaijani. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still goes on to show how unreliable Google search results are and they are not a proper basis for finding common names. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RaffiKojian: Ok. Let's change Sotk to Söyüdlü and Vardenis to Basarkeçər. Because these villages had Azerbaijani majority in 1989. Right? EljanM (TALK) 18:18, 21 December 2020
I did not suggest we extend this practice outside of the contested NKAO and Shahumyan Region. Why? I think in NK/Shahumyan neither side should be able to force their name on the people that lived in a place before hostilities began. At least until a peace deal is reached and the final status of ownership and possible resettlement is reached, or I suppose until Armenians are just completely driven out of Azerbaijan. The other Armenian villages in Azerbaijan outside of this region, and Azerbaijani villages in Armenia are now pretty certainly never going to change, and are not contested. So it makes sense for them to be named whatever the current people and country prefer. If you're suggesting I would be offended by an Azeri place name in Armenia, I would not at all. I love the name Shamshadin (and have defended it against someone who did not like its use), and Alaverdi is pretty cool too. That having been said, I can assure you Vardenis was nowhere near majority Azeri in 1988, and I'm pretty sure Sotk, which was founded in 1969, was not either. But I'm too lazy to look into it at the moment. --RaffiKojian (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A simple Google search is not sufficient for establishing a common English name for such lesser-known localities because, as CuriousGolden said it, no one is there to judge the significance and reliability of every hashtag that mentions it. As for Google Scholar, the results are too scarce: 3 results for Karmir Shuka and 2 results for Qirmizi Bazar (combined spelling of the "i") are not indicative of anything. Should we expect another renaming proposal in case tomorrow another author with a Google Scholar profile publishes an article using the name "Qirmizi Bazar"? And then another one if a month later some other scholar uses "Karmir Shuka"? I do not see this as too constructive an approach. For places barely mentioned in English-language sources, it is best to rely on spellings featured in global gazeteers, and they overwhelmingly prefer "Qırmızı Bazar". Parishan (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing it to the Armenian name sound very biased Carthago814 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Places belonging de jure to Azerbaijan should have names according to the owner.Geysirhead (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karmir_Shuka&oldid=1205449350"