Jump to content

Talk:Stepanakert/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Golbez, Grandmaster and future others; "de jure"

What the UN resolution on azerbaijan is isn't about Stepanakert, the city. I have mentioned it and if you don't agree to it, bring reasons and explanation what it has to do with the city. If not, then leave it. If no agreement. A dispute will be open. WH'll explain first? Aregakn (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Every area of conflict has a certain status, which is an important info about such location and needs to be mentioned in the article about it. I really see no point in your mass reverting and editing against consensus in articles that resulted in a number of arbitration cases. Reach consensus first, and then make your edits. Grandmaster 15:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You absolutely have to mention the disputed status; it is the capital of a country that is disputed and completely unrecognized. See also: Tiraspol, Sukhumi, Hargeisa, and Tskhinvali - All are capitals of countries with similar or equal status that mention the dispute in the opening paragraph. Especially since Stepanakert is the capital, the dispute needs mentioning. And GrandMaster is right: The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. That's it. One reversion, then discussion. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
1) I am not seeing reason to bring other articles as a proof or bases to act one way or an other as these issues are different.
2) I see no connection of both your statements with how Stepanakert is connected with the UN resolution. The UN resolution is about territorial integrity, then we can either put it in Nagorno-Karabakh War or NKR or both these articles. there is no sense to mention the resolution in an article not about it.
3) The status of the republic is already mentioned, if it's about the status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aregakn (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm not understanding your complaint. Where is this UN resolution being mentioned? All I see is a statement that the NKR is unrecognized, de facto independent, and a citation verifying said remark. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A little surprising it is, that you do not remember a revert of your own [1]. I see that you don't even read the information you are editing. Aregakn (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
... And, where in this diff is the UN resolution mentioned? Is it in the source? Then say you want a better source, rather than criticizing the diff itself. Where, in the version prior to it, was Azerbaijan mentioned in the intro, apart from having a separate name for the city? Please start making sense. --Golbez (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the point of the discussion. There is only 1! here is the edit that is reverted by you and others: "largest city and capital of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, a de facto independent republic which is recognized as a part of Azerbaijan." Whatever the De-Facto independent state is recognised by whoever, it is not relevant to the article "Stepanakert". It is relevant to the article of that state.

For example, if I write in the Article of Königsberg: "The city-fortress was captured by the 1st Baltic Front and the 3rd Belarussian Front in April 1945, and 2 days later the Northern German Army was totally destroyed by the same 2 Fronts and the remaining forces - captured." Even though those 2 events are relevant to each other in in some ways interconnected, because the same German army-division was defending Königsberg and that the same soviet forces, that captured the city in some days forced the Northern German Army succum, the 2nd sentence I write "...and 2 days later the Northern German Army was totally destroyed by the same 2 Fronts and the remaining forces - captured" are NOT relevant to the article under the name Königsberg. It is relevant to articles of the North German Army, 1st Baltic Front, Assult of Königsberg etc. but NOT the article of Königsberg as it has no DIRECT relevance. Aregakn (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant to point out that it is the capital of an unrecognized country and is otherwise recognized as part of Azerbaijan. You claim that applies only to NKR, but the rest of us here are saying that it also applies to things within the NKR as well. Your analogy is flawed. How about this: Instead of poorly attacking our edit, why not supply one of your own? Note that it will still have to mention Azerbaijan in some fashion. The articles on the other capitals I noted above do that, and they're doing it right. --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, it is not recognised as part of either and the process is in continuation. Secondly and once again, tell me what relevance the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has DIRECTLY to do with the CITY Stepanakert. If you do not, I shall start the 3O process. You don't present any reasons why it is about Stepanakert. Aregakn (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Because it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. It sounds like what you're saying is, everything within the NKR need not mention Azerbaijan at all, so long as only the NKR article itself does? Not gonna work. Never. Go to 3O, but I note that precedent - as indicated by the capitals I linked earlier - is well on our side. I also note that you again failed to supply a suitable suggestion for an edit, choosing again to attack our work. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think that every signle town, village, monastry, tree, dog and cow articles about NKR has to mention, tat it is on something like "de-jure Azerbaijan", then you probably do not know what article is about what. Do you want to see the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh recognised by the Azeri president on an official document? FACTUAL? I can show you. Aregakn (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that at all. I said, at the very least, the capital needs to mention the disputed status. Period. --Golbez (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn, I appreciate the sarcasm but I don't think it's about "trees" and "dogs". The geographical locations including the region, cities, villages, etc need to mention that they are a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. If you do mention the trees, dogs or monastries are located in "NKR", then de-jure status automatically needs to be mentioned. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the bases that you think, that companies, NGOs, Scientific Patents etc. (that i kept short in my "sarcasm") should not be mentioned about the dejure, and the towns and villages should? And you didn't tell me, guys, if you want to know when it is, that your President has recognised the Republic. Aregakn (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no basis. I am not sure where you're going with this. If articles about NGO's, companies, Scientific Patents contain the information about their location, then the de-jure location needs to be mentioned. It's very simple.
PS: What do you mean by "your president recognized the republic"? President of US? or Azerbaijan? If you're talking about the President of Azerbaijan, then please do post the relevant link. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. So you mean, that either there shouldn't be mentioned the location of the company or NGO or whatever, or should the "de jure" come along? :) And if I am writing about the ministery of defense of NKR the fact that it's mentioned not recognised state should be also said, that it is on the "de jure" azerbaijan territory? Or the president of NKR? And it's not that people who want to know about where NKR is or why it isn't recognised they have to click and read?
No, not the states :). I have not yet found the book free on the net, but I can send you the file (if you know Russian) and it is from Kazimirov's book. Regards, Aregakn (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's the proper way of doing by indicating the de-jure status. The reader may click or not click on the wikilink to go on to read about "NKR", but including a couple of words on the de-jure status in the original article won't harm anybody.
Sure, you can send the file to me by email, although I doubt the President of Azerbaijan would ever recognize "NKR" as you claim. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If this supposed admission that Azerbaijan represents NK is only in a Russian book that isn't available on the internet, then I'm reasonably confident it didn't actually happen and is either a construction or a misinterpretation by the author. Such a statement would be major news; the fact that it is not means it did not happen in any relevant fashion. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me Golbez, but the process of discussion of ceasefire had been taking place and the mediator is Russia. What makes you think that an official document signed by the president of Azerbaijan and sent to NKR through Russia (as a mediator) does not exist. Are there any reasns to call Russian head of the mediator mission and the Russian Official docs false? If you think so, maybe one can find them in Azerbaijan as well, because the documents are registered and you can see the numerical number.
As for the "de jure" thing, I am sure it is irrelevant to (for example) the company article, that is registered in NKR by NKR legistlation to be spoken about the "de jure" status of NKR. For Azerbaijan that company isn't registered and doesn't exist if it considers the NKR legistlation and all activities there non-existant. Aregakn (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Because if it was actually said that Azerbaijan recognized the NKR, it wouldn't be relegated to some Russian book; it would be widespread knowledge. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are talking about Kazimirov, then you must know that he always makes controversial statements. In the light of firm statements from Aliyev, I doubt he would ever sign something recognizing Sahakian's rule on Azerbaijani territory and even if he himself wanted to, it would have been prevented by his advisors. So, please so send it to me. I'm interested in seeing the document you received from Kazimirov.
No, even if a company is registered in "NKR", that makes it de-facto because it's on de-jure Azerbaijani territory and for your information, Azerbaijan considers the current residents of "NKR" who lived in NKAO prior to 1988-94 and were born there after the ceasefire Azerbaijani citizens. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
They consider them their citizens... without any way of counting them or knowing their names, and certainly without asking them their opinion on the matter. I think that just sums up how ridiculous this whole conflict is. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they do, but only those who lived in NKAO prior to 1988-94 and were born there after the ceasefire, not ones dragged there from Middle East by incentives to populate the occupied territories and increase in numbers. And we've been over this. Opinion matters in the context of international laws. Nobody seemed to have cared about opinions of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis in mass deportations from Armenia in 1948-53 and 1987-89. Of course, it's ridiculous. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am talking not of Kazimirov himself. I am talking of the official document signed by the president of Azerbaijan refering to Nagorno-Karabakh as a republic. I am not asking anybody to comment and analyse the author as it is not propper if you do not have those comments published. What I am speaking of is published.

As for de jure, those companies are non existant DE JURE for Azerbaijan. Or one can claim something different? Aregakn (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"per Tiraspol"

In this regard, Lihaas is correct. Tiraspol and Hargeisa are the countries closest to Nagorno-Karabakh in status, and both of the other articles describe them as cities in Moldova/Somalia first, and as capitals second. Tshkinvali and Sukhumi describe themselves as capitals first, but on the other hand, they are capitals of recognized countries, which the other three are not. That is why I did not immediately revert the change, which MarshallBagramyan now has. So, how about some discussion on this? Are Tiraspol and Hargeisa wrong, or is Stepanakert?

(Also, if the article is going to be placed at Stepanakert, then is it poor form to say that's a city in Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan would say that Khankendi is a city, not Stepanakert.) --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Population numbers

The population numbers vary significantly between different language versions of this article. This English version states 40,000, and so does the russian, dating the number to 2005. The Swedish article claims that population has dropped due to the war to 30,000. The German article claims 53,600 (Jan 1, 2004), and the Slovenian article 56,600 on the same date. I have an external source ([2]) claiming 52,900 on Jan 1, 2002. Does anyone have a reliable source on the correct number? (I have posted this issue on the Swedish and German wikis too.) /Dcastor 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the current article lists two different population figures! Also, I think that the introductory wording "The city population comprises about 53,000 ethnic Armenians" could be improved. I realize ethnicities can be a sensitive topic for people who feel strongly about the region, which is all the more reason to take out the part about "ethnic Armenians". The reader is left to wonder, "... And how many non-Armenians?" or to assume the author is implying a 100% Armenian population (which is contradicted later in the article). Or course, it's been almost 5 years since the previous post on this subject, so maybe I'll go ahead and change this. 65.24.251.91 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

re ISO

The attempt to place and give certain prominence to the ISO label for the sahar seems like an attempt at inserting or maintaining a particular POV, and should stop. I can think of no other place in the entire Wikipedia where we place such prominence on the naming used by the ISO, and of course the ISO naturally and uncontroversially uses the official Azeri name for it, so there's no need to double up on said officialness. That the ISO uses the Azeri name for an Azerbaijani division is uncontroversial; however, this article is obviously about more than merely the sahar. --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please change the name of the article as "Khankendi"

Why this article is exist with a name which "occupied country" uses? It's internationaly recognized as Azerbaijan's city and Azerbaijan calls that city as "Xankəndi".

In this case we should call Istanbul Constantinople right? This argument is absurd.

=====================================================================

If not, please change the city names of Northern Cyprus also. Change them; Morphou is currently "Güzelyurt", Keryneia is "Girne", Nicosia is "Lefkoşa", Kokkina is "Erenköy" and Trikomo is now "İskele" in Turkish. They are same subject. You are not objective about this subject, and completely doing cringe for Armenians. There is Azerbaijani city and its name is "Xankəndi" (Khankendi)!.. *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ...and his friends 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it is the capital of a country, and unlike all the other cities in Nagorno-Karabakh that we use the Azeri name for, it seems particularly impolite to use the outside name for the capital of a country, even an unrecognized one. Furthermore, okay, so Azerbaijan owns it... so what? Does the Azerbaijan national government in Baku have sole rights of naming cities, or do the people in those cities have the ability to call themselves by their own title? I'd like a source that states that Baku maintains sole, unilateral rights over naming municipalities within the borders of Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it important? Then why Northern Cyprus's cities are exist with their Greek names? If (so-called) NKR is exist, the TRNC also exist and its cities must be exist with its Turkish names. *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ...and his friends 21:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That's an argument to bring up on those pages, that has little to do with this one. And really, the only comparable city here is Lefkosa, being the capital, and that's a complicated matter because it's the capital of two countries. If it were solely the capital of the TRNC then I would indeed support renaming the article Lefkosa; however, the complexity of its name means it isn't really the best example to live by. But this isn't the article on Nicosia/Lefkosa, it's the article on Khankendi/Stepanakert, and the two aren't exactly analogous due to the shared nature of one. --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason for calling it Stepanakert is that the city was bearing this name before the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Azerbaijani government renamed it Khankendi when it already lost control over it. The situation with Cyprus is (as far as I know) the other way around, the cities had Greek names before Turkish occupation. That's why most of sources (on which WP is assumed to be based on) prefer the names beforethe conflicts, for objectivity. Another example is Shusha, which currenlty is called Shushi by Armenians, but the corresponding wiki article calls it Shusha, since it was the Soviet name. Хаченци (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the case with Shusha; it could well be, I just don't know. I just assumed we went with the Azeri names for all towns in Nagorno-Karabakh except for Stepanakert, since (at least in my opinion) it's rude to use a different name for the capital of a country, even an unrecognized one. It was basically, Armenians get Stepanakert, Azeris get everyone else, everyone happy? :P --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"it's rude to use a different name for the capital of a country" is not a legitimate reason, especially in politics. It's only because the city's name was Stepanakert in the Soviet era. "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a prime example of that. I don't know why in this world someone would not translate "Nagorno" to "Mountainous", but apparently they (whoever it is) chose to use the Russian version of the region to show neutrality. --Երևանցի talk 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Rude was perhaps the wrong word. Here's how I put it seven years ago (holy crap): "Especially since it is the capital of a breakaway republic, it would be kind of an insult to the local population to call it by the name the country they're breaking away from considers official" --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This shouldn't be about what the governments of Karabakh, Armenia, or Azerbaijan call it. This is about WP:COMMONNAME. I think finding the common name may bring us closer answering the question at hand. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

Also, according to WP:WIAN:

Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.

Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That easily gives the edge to Stepanakert, but that's because Stepanakert is an easy, common transliteration from Armenian, whereas there are multiple ways to transliterate the Azeri name of the city. However, I tried several and added up they didn't come close to the usage of Stepanakert. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Khankhendi can be spelled many ways but so can Stepanakert (i.e. Stepanagerd, Stepanagert, Stepanakerd, and etc.). I think the reason why Stepanakert is more of a common name is because the city was known as Stepanakert throughout most of the past century and today's geo-political situation enforces that as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stepanakert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stepanakert

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stepanakert's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Constitution":

  • From Slovenia: "Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia". National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. Archived from the original on 23 December 2010. Retrieved 26 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Republic of Artsakh: "Constitution". Nagorno Karabakh Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 23 July 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stepanakert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepanakert

The city has only one name Stepanakert. Even under the Soviet era the city was called Stepanakert and before named Vararakn. I don't see the point of this discussion-confusion, besides there have never been a city with this name Khankendi, this causes only confusion. I wish Wikipedia that i respect very much and contribute in this great organization every year, will remove this as dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoghik66ca (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  1. Curps 18:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC).
    • I don't really wish to take sides in this Armenian-Azerbaijaini conflict, but the people who actually control the city call it "Stepanakert". Just like we have articles entitled Taipei instead of "Taibei", and Senkaku Islands instead of Diaoyu Islands, we should probably use the name used by the entity that is actually physically exercising control over the territory, with redirects from the name used by the opposite side. -- Curps 18:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Davenbelle 18:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Curps; "Stepanakert" is what the folks who live there call their city. Davenbelle 18:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 20:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the city has been under the control of Armenia for a goodly long time, and there's no evidence that control will change in the near future, we should use "Stepanakert". Of course, if there's a long-term change of control, then by all means we should change the name of the article, and all common names should be mentioned in the article. --Carnildo 20:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. The government of NKR call it Stepanakert. So do the BBC: [3] Dmn / Դմն 20:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Dmn, leaving "government of NKR" aside, just a quick note that official BBC policy is to refer to both names, calling it Khenkendi/Stepanakert Stepanakert/Khenkendi. See, N-K profile page [4]--Tabib 08:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. It is more known under this name and the name is unlikely to change in the future. Second name should be included as alternative, plus redirect. Section on name disputes/changes should exist. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. It was Stepanakert during the time it was in Soviet Azerbaijan, and has always remained so to the split-away government and people. The act of changing the name to one the residents would obviously never embrace seems silly. I (obviously) vote for Stepanakert. --RaffiKojian 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • One important clarification, Raffi. When saying "residents" in your comments above, you are one-sidedly referring *only* to Armenian residents, omitting Azeri population of Karabakh (appr. 40,000) and of then Stepanakert (appr. 10,000), expelled during 1991-1994.--Tabib 06:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  7. I also vote for Stepanakert. It's what the majority of the NKR residents (yes, the *Armenian* ones), refer to it as. Tommmmmmy 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. The only way the people living there will be changing what they call it will be if there is another war and it falls to the Azeris. Until then it makes sense to refer to this city by the name of Stepanakert in Wikipedia. Caerwine 13:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. The city is internationally known as Stepanakert Valentinian 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. From some points mentioned above, my vote goes to 'Stepanakert'. *drew 16:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


  • It's been 6 weeks; time to merge, I think... — Davenbelle 17:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said, I will accept any solution that the majority supports, be it Stepanakert or Khankendi or Stepenakert/Khankendi (or vice versa). However, if I am not mistaken, according to Wikipedia rules, the poll should be voted by a minimum of 15 users, and 70% of support is required for any position to be declared acceptable. Is there a way to attract the attention of other editors (hopefully not all of them Armenians and/or Azeris, see what I'm saying... ;-), so that they would read through the talkpage and then vote for themselves? --Tabib 06:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose?

I didn't get the meaning of uploading a photo of "Serzh Sargsyan with Ilham Aliyev and Dmitry Medvedev, June 2011" on the Notable natives part? Is one of the mentioned politicians relates to this section? The photo itself was even made in Tatarstan and has no connection with Khankendi at all. So I propose to consider it as "unnecessary" and delete it from the article--Hilal knight (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Huge NPOV violation

Why does this article not gives us an info about which country it de jure belongs? "also called" should be changed into officially considering it is part of Azerbaijan. See Kobanî. Edit: anyway restored the deleted contents. Beshogur (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were not constructive and the original version of this article has been restored. Refrain from further vandalism. The article covers significantly the de jure status/information already. Any other issues, can be brought before the talk page for a general consensus to be reached. Archives908 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Further vandalism? A joke right? I restored the original content which was present for years. Putting Armenia into infobox is clearly pov pushing. You should watch your edits. Already reported you. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yea, I see. Completely baseless and quite inappropriate to report an editor because an articles' narrative doesn't fit your agenda. I see you are very quick to falsely report editors before even allowing a discussion on the talk page. Very irrational behavior to say the least. As for this article, you do realize that Stepanakert is a city and not a country, right? Not only is the de jure status already adequately mentioned here, but is also significantly covered in the Republic of Artsakh article; the capital to the state which it is in. Your edit was not an improvement to this article. Archives908 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
If you do not know how it should be, see Kyrenia. Beshogur (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I still fail to see what your point or logic is? I have said this (now my third time) de jure status is already covered in this article. How many times can we possibly include the same information before it becomes completely redundant? Archives908 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
On a side note, this page has experienced an increased amount of vandalism the past few days and even today...considering the events going on, I think it may be worthwhile to protect this page. Thoughts from other editors? Archives908 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Using bold doesn´t make you right. Plus I added pre vandalism version on the report page if you wonder. Beshogur (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Critiquing how I use italics doesn't make you right. Nor does ignoring the recent increase of vandalism or ignoring my suggestion to amicably discuss your concerns. Archives908 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if I am lying or not. Beshogur (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I just wanna say that this so called President "Library" "source" is not WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Archives908 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
What? Any source on that. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The "source", published by a country without freedom of press, cites Wikipedia and Tourism. Az amongst others. Before I get accused of racism (again) by someone, people might wanna google what freedom of press means. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
What are you, Beshogur, even arguing about anymore? I am utterly perplexed. I have, very politely, asked you 3 times to make clear your concerns. Archives908 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it? Plus, didn't expected this from you. Did you even read what you reverted? It says Armenia on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
4th time now, what are you arguing about? What is your primary issue with this article? We are trying to understand. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Iran does not have freedom of press? You sure? The next thing you are probably going to tell me is that the sky is blue ;). Also, what Iranian sources do you see here? Are they part of Khamenei's library? I didn't know he had one. Anyhow, enough banter. Beshogur, you might want to stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground/forum. Read my comment again if you didn't get it, and you might wanna answer Archives908 as well. Sorry if I made this thread even messier, just wanted to point something out, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908:, can you explain why didn't you change it at the first place? When blocked ip users removed contents, did nothing but suddenly when I restored contents which were present for years, I am doing vandalism right? I did put the earlier version of the article, why are you trying not to see it? 17:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Beshogur (talk)

No worries at all, HistoryofIran, thank you for pointing that out and I appreciate your assistance in reverting the recent vandalism on this page! Beshogur, I have done nothing wrong so please stop with the accusations. This page has seen an increase of vandalism lately and I simply restored the page to what it was prior to the IP editors unsourced and unexplained edits. Your edit/source provided is not an improvement to this article. I will await to see what the Admins have to say about all this, since you have unjustly reported me. Archives908 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a proud papa, seeing an entirely new generation of Wikipedians argue over pointless shit in the same articles that I was working on 15 years ago. Godspeed, you crazy jerks. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified smugness, Mr Golbez? Perhaps if you had been better as an administrator all those years ago then those that today seek to use Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda dissemination would not be able to. And see how smugness spreads, now I am doing it! It would have been more productive if you had just cited your 8 March 2006 comment on the name issue. I noticed a quite unusual bit of bias in the article though - you can listen to the "official" Azerbaijani name of the town (a name nobody who has lived there has used for a century), but you can't listen to the real official name of the town! 88.108.77.10 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
did... did you just accuse me of pro-Azeri bias? oh. my. god. on the same day I was accused of pro-Armenian bias. I haven't been this happy on wikipedia in years. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

change Stepanakert to Khankendi Leyla Husainzadeh (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

@CuriousGolden: The same argument as the name (Stepanakert vs Khankendi) applies to the coat of arms. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not deleting any coat of arms, I'm including both. You're the one trying to delete Azerbaijani coat of arms. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Stepanakert Coat of Arms

(Copied from my talk page to a more suitable venue. --T*U (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

Hello. I saw your recent edits on Stepanakert article. Don't want to meddle in this topic too much myself and wanna know your opinion regarding official coat of arms of this city before making any move. The city is officially under Azerbaijani jurisdiction and it has different Coat of Arms than in the article. Please note that all UN countries, including Armenia officially recognize the city being part of Azerbaijan. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: Hi! I am also not a regular editor in the topic area, I just came there by chance as a spin-off from somewhere else. (I usually get my fair share of drama from editing in Balkan-related topics, so I do not have need for any more excitement.) Just off the cuff I would say that both COAs (with proper, neutral captions) could be presented in the article in a similar way as the "Country (de facto) / Country (de jure)" solution. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1: As a precedent and in terms of maintaining consistency; please note that the other three "states with limited recognition" in the Post-Soviet region (Transnistria and it's capital Tiraspol, Abkhazia with it's capital Sukhumi and South Ossetia and it's capital Tskhinvali) do not include the de jure Coat of Arms. Also note, that the main pages of all four of these articles (including Artsakh) do not include any de jure emblems either, ie. the flag of Georgia or Moldova, etc... Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: Parallels are not correct. As a matter of fact, all these mentioned cities don't have de jure COAs, also in de jure country language sections. Unlike Abkhazia or S.Ossetia, which are recognized by several countries, N.Karabakh is recognized not by any single UN member. --Verman1 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1: I don't think you understood my earlier comment. Not one of the four Post-Soviet disputed republics have any de jure emblems. That includes Transnistria, which like Artsakh, is not recognized by any UN state. Archives908 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: You're correct regarding recognition, but I disagree in terms of COAs. Tiraspol doesn't have a different COA under Moldovan jurisdiction, but Stepanakert does under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. This is the main point that needs to be reflected in the article to give it more neutrality. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1: You talk about "neutrality"; if that is your argument then you would also have to add former Georgian emblems to the capitals of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and then all the other capitals of states with limited recognition like Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Taiwan, etc.. I'm afraid this will open up a Pandora's box full of edit wars. Archives908 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: Please don't accuse me of something that I am not intended. Parallels between N.Karabakh and the above-mentioned countries are not valid since their capitals simply don't have any different emblems by respective de jure countries. --Verman1 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1: I haven't accused you of anything. What you don't seem to understand is that all of these disputed states used to have former emblems in some capacity. Example: South Ossetia's flag was the flag of Georgia. Northern Cyprus's COA was the COA of the Republic of Cyprus prior to the Turkish invasion. So, if you are going to update one capital of a disputed republic- then for consistency- all should be updated. And this task will result in lengthy talk page discussions and countless edit disputes. Archives908 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: The key word in your argument is "former". Azerbaijan doesn't have any former emblem for Stepanakert/Khankendi, the emblem used by Azerbaijan is contemporary and official, recognized internationally since the international community accepts the city being part of Azerbaijan. Former emblems of other cities are irrelevant, they can only be used in the History section of respective articles. This won't result in any kind of edit war or whatsoever. --Verman1 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1: No, the key word is "consistency", which again is not getting across. In addition, you are aware that the current de facto government in Stepanakert only accepts one "contemporary and official" seal. Do you have any academic sources which show that both emblems are recognized by the de facto government? Do you have any academic sources proving that the de facto seal is not recognized? Just because a country isn't internationally recognized, we cannot assume that their emblems are outright invalid as well. You need proof of this. Archives908 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: I am talking about recognition by de jure government. De facto government emblem is already in the article. I am not suggesting to delete the existing emblem, rather add emblem of Khankendi recognized by de jure government. The third-party user above also suggested this version. I don't see any point to continue the discussion since all your concerns have been resolved. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1: Do not assume my concerns have been resolved- they have not. And by no means have we reached a consensus. For the fifth time, NONE of the other partially recognized states (or their capitals) have de jure emblems, therefore, as per (WP:CONSISTENT); we must respect consistency among these articles. Archives908 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: Wrong. Stenpanakert/Khankendi has de jure emblem. --Verman1 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Verman1:Beyond the ridiculousness of using this article as its own precedent, this emblem does not appear to actually be official. It is just an imaginary emblem created by a Wikipedia user, and these emblems have been removed from other wikipedia articles such as Agdam. In light of this, can someone with permissions please remove it? Achemish (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Achemish: Done. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion started in my TP, I could not help getting interested, so allow me a couple of comments from the outside. Archives908, it is not as if WP:CONSISTENT trumps all other arguments. On the contrary, the scope of WP:CONSISTENT is to regulate article titles, which is not relevant here; it says nothing whatsoever about article content. Regarding article content we have WP:OTHERCONTENT, which specificly warns against using arguments like "Article X has / does not have such information". The situation concerning disputed states varies from state to state, so we need to look at the specific circumstances of each case. If the former government of Khankendi keeps up a de jure municipality-in-exile, they may well have a de jure Coat of Arms, perhaps also a de jure mayor (like most municipalities of what is now Northern Cyprus have had for decades), and such information may certainly be relevant to have in the article. But Verman1, the information needs to be properly sourced. As far as I can see, the CoA shown in az:Xankəndi is not sourced in Commons, so it can not be included here without a source showing that it really does exist and that it is in official use. --T*U (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Again you are adding wrong information from the source. The source doesn't clearly mention about any ground attack to the city, it only says about the "attacks", which might involve only aerial or artillery strikes, which is not ground attack. Khankendi airport is actually located in Khodjaly, which was under Azerbaijani control until February 1992 and in fact Armenians attacked it in February 1992, not Azerbaijani forces. --Verman1 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

All this talk about the coat of arms for a city that is de jure part of Azerbaijan, as if Baku controls what the coat of arms is. Unless a source can be given that they do, or that a recognized municipal government-in-exile exists, then the people who actually live in the city and run it have chosen a different coat of arms. Full stop. None of this stuff about recognition is at all relevant to that. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sorces and Old name of the city

Dear all! I have request. 1. Regarding to source Mkrtchyan, Shahen. Is he reliable source if he has no any historical education? ahs he published in any reliable edition? 2. considering that nobody can accept him as reliable source, why do we find the information from him about the old name of the city "Vararakn"? I put the tample unreliable sorce and after 2 weeks according to the rules remove it if nobody discuss and show us the reliable sorces --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: what makes you think that Shahen Mkrtchyan is unreliable? The source he's being cited from is the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, produced by the Armenian National Academy of Sciences. I don't have expertise on sources for Armenian history, do you have any particular reason to question its reliability, other than the fact that it's Armenian? Admittedly it's an old source produced during Soviet times, but outside of political issues related to the USSR my presumption is that it's a reasonably scholarly work, acceptable in the absence of more modern alternatives for information on Armenian history. Jr8825 • Talk 01:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You're telling other editors "Pls, discuss firstly in Page Talk" regarding reverts [[5]], yet you changed these pages first without discussing your decision anyhwere [[6]], [[7]]. Here you claim that the source "isn't reliable", despite the source being from Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia produced by Armenian National Academy of Sciences, a Soviet time state publishing company. The only thing I see here is that you just don't like it being Armenian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
User:ZaniGiovanni, 1.I say about Mkrtchan Sh.who is not historian, so, in this case is not reliable. 2. I put template and haven't changed, deleted or edited any information in the article without discussion. 3. as regards to Armenian Encyclopedia, in another cases it could be reliable, but the article of non-historian in this encyclopedia seems strange. additional to this we can't find any confirmation of this idea in another sources, considering that it's having been ancient name. 4. the last, in the articles refers to both sides(Azerbaijan and Armenia), as usually, local sources are not preferable, in some case even unacceptable. I have this expirience and think that this terms and conditions for all on this Project, isn't it? please, show us the independent source that confirms this idea. --Aydin mirza (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aydin mirza: Consider listening more carefully before replying. First of all, adding tags like "unreliable source" should absolutely be discussed here, given the controversy surrounding the topic, and you didn't do it [8]], [[9]]. Other editors have every right to revert your edits before the discussion is over (Stable version). Moreover, you have already been shown that both Armenian and Azeri sources consider Shahen a historian, yet somehow you find other "whataboutisms" to continue your "arguments". Edit-warring is prohibited on wikipedia bear in mind. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
User:ZaniGiovanni, I don't wish editwarring. I will open the discussion this reliable source. maybe, really it's only way. Reg these both sources like azertag.az and artzakhtert I told before, but you don't want accept(I will try use such kind of source in the future and back to you when it will be rejected). Honestly, I'm suprised that you seriously apply to azertag. I didn't know that such kind of sites announce or decide professioanl skills. I don't mind if the information about the ancient name of the city is right, but please, put reliable source. Has anyone confirmed this version? if Mkrtchan took it from source, pls, put it. if it's encyclopedia, so, put it. but Shagen Mkrtchan is not historian, we can't apply to him like only one reliable source. I didn't changed anything in the article, I just put template and no rules prohibit it. is my position clear now?--Aydin mirza (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
He is a Soviet Armenian historian, and reliable enough. Other sources have also been added confirming his research, see history of the article. I'd also appreciate basic grammar from you. Thomas De Waal while not even being a historian, is cited many times regarding Karabakh topic. All of these recent "arguments" from you just seem like a one big WP:JDL. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
User:ZaniGiovanni, as I see, no way to negociate in this way. at least I can use this discussion for the future, considering your way to definite the reliability of the sources. as regards to Thomas De Waal, he was writting the current events, not historian research of the past needs professional skills. Additional to that I don't think that he's absolute acceptable reliable source. I apply to more independent sides in this projecy if there is of cause. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
At this point you are just not listening to anyone here, or pretending to not understand what multiple editors have told you already. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

dear User Talk:Jr8825, pls, see WP:SOURCEDEF, espcially this: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. Can you argue which terms pass in this case?WP:SOURCEDEFAydin mirza (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Being a notable academic reference work, I'll presume the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia had a reliable peer-review process unless a trustworthy academic source says otherwise or criticises it. I can't vouch for Mkrtchan's reputation in the field as I'm not an expert, but the fact that he was chosen to write in the encyclopedia, and that the only references to him I can find online describe him simply as an Armenian historian, means I haven't seen any particular warning signs about his reliability. I take it at face value that he's an expert on Armenian history. Regarding your claim that he's "not a historian", do you have any basis for this allegation? Point to a reliable, secondary source that describes him as a charlatan, or this is going nowhere. Excluding him as a source because you personally don't like him would ultimately be WP:OR. Jr8825 • Talk 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear User:Jr8825, I don't Mkrtchan Sh. personally to like or not him. my only argument that he has no historian education(he graduated Pedagogish Institute) and all his published researches and books, except Armenian editions, are not reliable. There are many intelligent people from different fields make research in history and publish the books. we can read it, some of them are accepted by worldwide centers or associations and publish their books. In this case we can apply to them in encyclopedi project (like wikipedia) but with notice another really professional reliable sources. Sorry, but with all respect to Mkrtchan Sh., which worldwide editions accepted his researches? I think our negociation should be over, if you ask me such kind of question. I push in this case, because I faced in some article to so hard requests to confirm every sentance and more than once I've heard that Azerbaijan sources are not preferable. I request equel rules and conditions for all. besides, I told you and repeat(last time), please, find reliable source to the information. I don't mind the information, but request more reliability. I think we can over here. I just really soory for the users of wikipedia, especially young generation, considering the level of professinal side.--Aydin mirza (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It has been raised in the edit comment that Mkrtchan is not a historian. In both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources he is described as historian. (https://www.artsakhtert.com/arm/index.php/carriage/item/21149-shahen-mkrtchyan, https://azertag.az/store/files/2021/APREL/04/Hesabat%202020%20eng_Layout%201.pdf p210).Maidyouneed (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

both sources are not reliable and in another situation and another articles nobody accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin mirza (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC, seriously misleading map

The current map is used in the articles of the currently controlled towns Republic of Artsakh including Stepanakert, however it displays the former Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and the Artksakh's claimed areas of the former soviet Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in the same color as Artsakh. Without any difference in color tone or any kind of map marker. ListeningBronco (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

In order to fix this, I've removed the areas of formerly Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh from the map which are no longer controlled or claimed by Artsakh, and added a different color tone to claimed areas of the former soviet Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, to show the difference. ListeningBronco (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Current map
Proposed map

@AntonSamuel, Jr8825, Beshogur, Impossiblegend, RopeTricks, Steverci, EkoGraf, Գարիկ Ավագյան, El C, and Solavirum: ListeningBronco (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, unfortunately, at the moment there are no sources that would confirm/reject Artsakh's claims and official position to the previously Armenian-occupied territories. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Գարիկ Ավագյան: Is Artsakh not kinda defunct? Haven't heard anything for a while. Beshogur (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Beshogur Nope. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Գարիկ Ավագյան is there any source that confirms that Artsakh ever controlled or claimed these territories, since the they are called the Armenian occupied territories. ListeningBronco (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    ListeningBronco Sure. These territories were part of Administrative divisions of the Republic of Artsakh. You can find sources there. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. ListeningBronco (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi ListeningBronco. Requests for comments are generally used to solve content disputes: is there such a dispute going on? JBchrch (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think an RfC is needed here at this stage. I agree the current map isn't ideal but there hasn't been much discussion on this and hopefully we can find a solution without the need to drag in other editors, particularly as it's a rather technical issue for those unfamiliar with the region. I support adopting the proposed map as it better reflects the situation following the 2020 war. Although I think Գարիկ Ավագյան raises a valid point – it's unclear (as far as I'm aware) what the official Artsakh/Armenian position is regarding the territories which Artsakh previously occupied outside of the former NKAO – I agree that your proposed map, displaying Artsakh's claimed 1992 borders (i.e. the former NKAO + Shahumyan and other miscellaneous claims), is the most logical solution. The Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh never had any recognition as part of Artsakh anyway.
    As an aside, have you edited in this topic area before, ListeningBronco? This RfC, complete with vector map and pings to regular editors on other pages in this topic area, strikes me as something an entirely new editor would find difficult to produce. Jr8825 • Talk 19:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    To respond to your second paragraph, JBchrch I have made minor edits using an IP adres in the past. The user's I've pinged here were all recent contributors to the 2020 Karabagh War article, I've pinged them considering they would have an interest in the current topic. ListeningBronco (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    JBchrch, Jr8825 There is indeed a dispute going on with creator of this file AntonSamuel. He has reverted me as I overwrote the file, and is refusing to discuss at the file talk page or here, but reported me to commons administrators for what he called overwriting his file, hence I opened this RfC. ListeningBronco (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've recently made the current map, hoping that it would be an improvement in quality with regard to the previous map(s). I modified an older location map and modeled the map's color scheme and layers of borders approximately according to the previous lower quality jpg map that was a bit skewed/out of place regarding coordinates and inaccurate regarding borders: [10]
I think it's informative that the map shows and/or differentiates between (in some manner):
  • The pre-2020 war borders/line of contact
  • The post-2020 war borders/line of contact
  • The post-2020 war Lachin corridor
  • The former NKAO
  • The areas of the former NKAO controlled by Azerbaijan after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War
  • The Artsakh-claimed Soviet Shahumyan region that took part in the Artsakh declaration of independence.
  • The Artsakh administrative regional boundaries
If the current border and color format is a bit problematic or confusing in that it doesn't differentiate enough between the aforementioned layers of borders, the map can certainly be changed with regard to this - I don't have an issue with that. I did try and experiment a bit regarding that with the first couple of versions of the map that I uploaded, however, having a lot of lines dotted or thinner made the map a bit unclear and confusing when shown in a smaller format - as it is on most articles where it's used, so I elected on having multiple layers of borders with the same width and character for the purpose of clarity.
AntonSamuel (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stepanakert/Archive_2&oldid=1178184357"