Talk:Zangezur (disambiguation)

Dian Nikolow's revert

Dian Nikolow, this article is about things called Zangezur. It's not about every phrase that contains Zangezur. Zangezur Copper and Molybdenum Combine cannot be under this article, and neither does "Zangezur Corridor" (even if it was not a WP:OR speculation currently nominated for deletion). Generally, if you think the words after the disambiguate word can be in ()s like Zangezur (film), Zangezur (Football club) etc, then they can be in disambig list with the relevant articles accordingly named Zangezur (film), Zangezur (Football club) etc. The items of the list should answer the questions "which Zangezur?" rather than "which part of Zangezur" or "what's in Zangezur" or "whereabouts in Zangezur". More explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Disambiguation And may I advise a general rule that would prevent others reverting your reverts and the start of edit warring? Do not revert somebody's revert (unless you see open vandalism) but rather discuss on Talk page, like I am doing now, if you disagree with another user's edit and/or it's explanation. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing it instead of editwarring.

A montain by that name gets included, a soccer team by that name gets included, a province with that name being alternative gets included, etc, why wouldn't a possible corridor with that name. I think it belongs here and should stay. This is far from Zangezur Copper and Molybdenum combine. This is related. If you strongly insist on removing it then please do so after we reach consensus about this, it can be talked about. Dian Nikolow (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for valuing discussion and consensus. “I think X belongs here and should stay.” “X is far from Y” “X is related.” statements simply demonstrate your point of view, a wish for it to stay, rather explaining to uninvolved third party editors (like I’ve done) exactly why it should stay. In this case, Zangezur is not the name of that non-existing corridor but its proposed location, where’s Zangezur really is a historical name for Syunik province. The term you’re disambiguing should answer to question “which Zangezur so I don’t get confused between many things called Zangezur”. If there were many different entities called Zangezur Corridor, then we could have a disambig list called Zangezur Corridor. But this is neither that not nor the other. You’re confusing disambig list with “see also” kind of list. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't simply say my wish, I explained the reasoning behind why I think it should stay. For example, instead of being in "Undefined" section, it should be under section "Others". The corridor doesn't exist yet, sure, but the page about it exists, as a possible name already used by Azeris/President for the possible future corridor (or transport link, but that's not what we are discussing..). Since the page exists, and it is related to "Zangezur" name, it should stay.

You are now disputing the Wikipedia policy itself. Let be bring the example from the policy.

Louisville Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because people outside Louisville would not readily identify it as the "Zoo", and including all zoos in the world in the disambiguation page is impractical (though List of zoos is listed in the "See also" section

Read WP:DABNOT and specifically WP:PARTIAL, please. --Armatura (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice example from the policy. We too are not including "Zangezur Corridor" in "Corridor", just like "Louisville Zoo" not include in "Zoo".Dian Nikolow (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just open the links, read the policy carefully and ask questions in Wikipedia Help if it's not clear. Then try to find the Louisville Zoo under Louisville_(disambiguation) and see if you can. You want to include the (non existing) 'Zangezur corridor' and everything else in the world that is / was / may be in Zangezur region into "Zangezur" disambig article, which is the same as the zoo example - not a correct thing to do. The trees, the bears, the scorpions, the ghosts, and even the rails in Zangezur region should not be in Zangezur disambig article, it's not a 'See Also list', it's a Disambig list. Ask other (neutral) editors, if you want somebody else to interpret the WP rules for you. Trying to legitimise an illegitimate propaganda concept (which on its own rights already violates WP:CRYSTAL) by including it in disambig lists is not the right way of starting in Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear, don't worry. First you present the very example from the policy, it didn't work, now you say that go check that, but it's not policy anymore and totally different page, just because it's not there doesn't have any relation with this page. No one would put a zoo in there, but this is something that has that name and specifically related to the region. We are not here to discuss about what it is, calling it a "propaganda term" is you personal opinion and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Also, why did you revert my edit? I only added explanation and I got it from the article itself, to make things clear for the reader. What is your objection to that? It's not "undefined", if you want a definition go to it's page and see for yourself. It' clearly stated there. From your edits/removes/reverts it's seems that you trying to prevent the reader from reaching anything possible Azerbaijani history/background/origin. Please refrain from doing such controversial changes without reaching a consensus.

I am sorry but it seems instead of reading the WP:PARTIAL policy and deriving conclusions from the examples provided there you chose to just re-add things, Wikipedia does not work like that. The mountains and the park also WP:PARTIAL, that's why they were also removed, it's not just that corridor (as you hinted). As I already explained, if the Zangezur Molibden Combine (in Armenia) was in that list I would remove it as well, for the same reason - it simply does not belong there. I said the vague unsourced statement of "today's Syunik province is sometimes called Zangezur" can be re-added if a reliable source backs that statement yet you chose to just re-add it without source, against WP:VERIFY. As for your comment about my edits "trying to prevent the reader from reaching anything possible Azerbaijani history/background/origin", I recommend getting familiar WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. You are apparently new to Wikipedia, and the wrongest point to start in Wikipedia is from WP:EDITWARRING and WP:BATTLEGROUND in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, maybe you could edit less controversial topics for a bit and then once you gain more experience - move to more complex topics. --Armatura (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for Wikipedia:Third opinion so you don't stay under impression that there is some kind of Anti-Azerbaijani conspiracy going on here. Regards --Armatura (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is totally incorrect, that's not what I do. About mountains, and others you like to remove without consensus, you seem to like examples, check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_(disambiguation) Simply saying this does not belong here is incorrect, It totally does belong here, because it carries the name and is highly related to the region. About your removing of Syunik, if you went to it's page you would find more than enough sources for that, if you are as experienced as you claim to be, you should know this things, instead you simply remove without strong reason. Maybe you should move to simpler topics, instead of offering me? Unnecessary, repeated and incorrect usage of WP policy links is not a good thing to do either. Again, the "Rocky (disambiguation)" page, you are free to check it. Especially the sections "Places" and "Other uses".

"X is incorrect; Y totally belongs as Z is highly related" is not an argument, it is emotional repetition of personal point of view. Removing the mountains and the park was per WP:PARTIAL: Mississippi River can be included at Mississippi (disambiguation) only because its subject is often called "the Mississippi" (now try to whisper 'the Zangezur' and imagine if anybody would refer to Zangezur Park or Zangezur Mountains or the 'coorridor' as 'the Zangezur'). I removed the province per Wikipedia:Verifiability: all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. removal of those did not require asking for initial consensus and I acted per Wikipedia:Be bold. You don't need to show me a user-made example which itself may be incorrect to prove your point of view, there is a primary source for WP guidance and it clearly says no WP:PARTIAL. Please keep Wikipedia:Civility, read about Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and wait patiently for third opinion, which is requested. I have not reported you under any of the mentioned policies, they are for your information, as a newcomer. Avoid WP:Aspersions --Armatura (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like Zangezur as another name for the Zangezur corridor, doesn't mean that it must be removed. Also, you other revomes, hope the third person will read the discussion carefully, and also check your edits from edit history to see how legit were they. You didn't need to show me a user made example either, which itself fit you incorrect idea, but you did anyway. Please you keep Wikipedia:Civility. I have no objection for an un-biased third opinion, thanks for requesting it. Not sure how this is related to the discussion, but neither have I reported you in anywhere. Un-biased third opinion is welcome. Multiple of them would be the best.

The third opinion request is for this disagreement and this article only. If you can prove I violated civility, or my edits vilate other policies, feel free to report. Otherwise, please keep aspersions to minimum and focus on the subject, not myself. --Armatura (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, uninvolved editor here. Saw that this was listed on 3O, but someone else clearly beat me to helping out. I agree with Armatura that the Zangezur Mountains, the Zangezur National Park, and the Zangezur Corridor should all be left out of the disambiguation for Zangezur per his arguments about WP:PARTIAL. However, I would argue in favor of keeping Syunik Province on the page, because, as Dian stated, the article for the province states that the region has also been known by the name Zangezur, and there's a reference to support that. Whether or not that claim is reliably sourced or not is something to discuss on the talk page for the province, but including references in disambiguation pages goes against WP:DABREF, so Dian is right about that. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Benmite, for providing the second neutral opinion for the dispute. I am very happy with your conclusion and deleted the clearly redundant bits accordingly. OK with not needing a ref on disambig page, but still would like to see a good referenced argument about current Syunik Province being called Zangezur (it's not clear even who's calling that place like that), as per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Regards. --Armatura (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Hello! I am involved with none of the editors nor pages involved. I am completely new to disambiguation discussions. Disambiguations guidelines are guidelines, not policy, so if we disagree with the hardset definition of the guidelines, as Armatura does, we can look at Ignore All Rules. So let's look at the guidelines. Are any of the disputed additions known just as the "Zangezur"? Could they reasonably be confused and need to be added? We call the Rocky Mountains the "Rockies" really frequently, it's known as that, thus meriting inclusion despite WP:PARTIAL. However, for this case, I do not see widespread use of "The Zangezurs" for the mountains. I would have to agree with Armatura in this case. The "Others" section could be removed entirely. I think the guideline on PARTIAL definitely applies here. I don't know enough about Armenia/Azerbaijan to say that the Syunik Province link deserves to stay in or out, but since this is less of an egregious policy violation, until it can be proved we should leave it in per WP:IAR of WP:V. I believe that due to the contention, it may be best to leave it in until proven otherwise since it is in the Syunik Province article. I hope this helped, but if you disagree it may be best to seek an RFC. I would also appreciate it if both editors remembered to solely focus on the dispute, and to sign posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Sennecaster (What now?) 12:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Sennecaster. Agree. Syunik province can stay but just needs a reliable source, as anything else in Wikipedia. Regards. --Armatura (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]