This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Georgia and
Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
For two weeks the town is no more under Georgian control, but is part of the Republic of South Ossetia. Therefore, exactly as
Priština is just a redirecting article, so should Aklalgori be too and the article acquire its official name as is in the
Russian Wikipedia.
Bogorm (
talk)
17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The official name (even where the official administrative entity is not actively disputed) is not entirely relevant to how Wikipedia articles are named. The main criteria is how the place is commonly known in the English language. Is there some evidence that Leningor is the more commonly used name in English? Recent news reports suggest not
682 for Akhalgori vs.
95 for Leningor in Google News. Google Web is even more dramatic
15,900 for Akhalgori vs.
119 for Leningor. All the searches were filtered to exclude Wikipedia and for English language sites.
older ≠
wiser17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Evidence of usage is what matters, therefore I oppose the requested move per Bkonrad's findings; the current name is clearly more established in usage. Note that the article stands at
Pristina, not Prishtinë or Prishtina; this is a very good example of where we don't use the spelling of the de facto controlling authority by default.
Knepflerle (
talk)
18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Huh? You oppose my findings but then say the same thing as I did? Can you be a little clearer about whether you think the article should be at Akhalgori or at Leningor?older ≠
wiser18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
No, it is! You probably know that a renowned city in India is no more called Bangalore but Bengaluru (since the last year, if I recollect it correctly), and what can Google do for this?
187 000 for Bangalore and
55 forBengaluru. The results are such just because the change is recent and because there are conserva tive circles unwilling to accept the native Indian names when there are colonial ones for their convenience. And this is blatant POV and an impediment against the official government's policies. And it is inappropriate to impose on Wikipedia colonial or pro-Georgian appearance, which is what the current name does (both in Leningor and Bengaluru).
Bogorm (
talk)
18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
That is your allegation! If you had deigned to behold the first line of the article about
Bengaluru, you should have been apprised of the expression "officially Bengaluru" - the current name is a challenge to the policy of the Indian government and is hinting at revisionism. The same about
Leningor with the unique difference that the first revisioism is 60 years old and the second 2 weeks.
Bogorm (
talk)
18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Btw, is
this really the official site of the town? I mean that it's hosted at narod.ru which means that it could've been created by anybody. It contains only one page and doesn't look very official imho.
Alæxis¿question?18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If you read Russian, "Официальные документы" and "власть" mean "official documents" and "governance" and they sound pretty official. Remember that the town is under the rule of President
Kokoity only for two weeks.
Bogorm (
talk)
18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, actually I can read Russian :) Is it linked from some other (South) Ossetian site? You must agree that a site hosted at narod.ru is somewhat suspicious.
Alæxis¿question?19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
(To Alæxis) Простите, я не рассмотрел вашу страничку прежде чем написать последний комментарий, я не хотел обидеть Вас. Между прочим, я узнал, что Вы уважаете испанскую Википедию равно как и я, потому что
ее статья о Цхинвале является первой правильной из всех Западных Википедий. Вы как думаете, стоит ли начать процедуру по ее переименованию здесь -
Tskhinval (особенно если меня здесь встречают в штыки) ?
Bogorm (
talk)
19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If you had read that page more closely, you'd have noticed that it is dated to 03.09.2007 and reports
Eduard Kokoity's visit to the town which was then firmly under Georgia's control. Pretty much a silly claim.--
KoberTalk18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
To counter your allegation that to use the common name is 'wiki-colonialism' and 'pro-Georgian', wouldn't using the name given by a regime that barely any government recognises be a pro-Russian statement? I mean, there are some crank scots who insist that Franz of Bavaria is King of Great Britain and King of Ireland...yet we don't give him those titles because we go with what he is commonly called.
Narson (
talk)
19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)reply
Franz von Bayern is the only legitimate king for all Catholics of England devote to the (catholically) legitimate
Jacobite succession after yonder deplorable upheaval of 1688 which is extolled as Glorious Revolution toppled the Dei gratia King of Britain
James II! Please do not deride Franz of Bavaria, Jacobite King of the faithful Catholic part of Britain. I am well aware of the English history and of the regime-like oppressions on Catholics after 1688, it is not conducive to the image of the country to remind the readers thereof.
Bogorm (
talk)
19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose As we go by the most common name in English Akhalgori is clearly the most common name in English. Revisit the issue in future if it can be demonstrated that Leningor becomes more common. The most pressing concern is ensuring NPOV by presenting both South Ossetian and Georgian POV equally. --
RussaviaDialogueStalk me19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. Strongly suggest that everyone read
Wikipedia:naming conventions, and also
WP:NOT. Much (not all) of the discussion above, including (but not only) the proposal itself, is promotion. It may come as a shock to realise that Wikipedia is not interested in taking sides however worthy, in fact we're very interested in not taking sides. And when in doubt we tend to leave things as they are, while we seek
consensus. So to move an article on the basis of discussions such as the above would not be very good at all.
Andrewa (
talk)
20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose What are the odds that the new occupiers, whoever they turn out to be next month, will impose their own post-Communist name before English-speaking sources adapt to the present change? Let's see what happens.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Wikiproject Banners
Can we stop trying to re-order wikiproject banners to suit a POV? They are the same 'level' of wikiproject both with small membership numbers (20 for Georgia and 13 for Ossetia last I looked), so lets keep them in alphabetical order.
Narson (
talk)
09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I did not know the alphabetical order is the official policy of arranging the Project affiliations. What is this claim of yours founded on? This would very easily suit NATO POV, since Kosovo is before Serbia and Georgia before South Ossetia alphabetically, therefore I insist on not imposing such rules unilaterally!
Bogorm (
talk)
09:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I didn't make a claim that it was policy. There isn't, as far as I can tell, any policy on banners. So your question is why did I revert? Because your edit was to further a POV and is thus unacceptable. Please consider branching out from a single area of interest.
Narson (
talk)
09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Consider all towns in
Kosovo and Metochia) where the banner of Kosovo project preceeds the Serbia project - therefore either in both cases controversial states before the internatinally recognised or the opposite, no double standards are to be put up with.
Bogorm (
talk)
11:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
As pointed out above the name Pristina is the English language equivalent and that is used on the English wikipedia. K comes before S in the alphabet. There is no double standard. Justintalk11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
There would not be d. s. , provided that you show one single source obliging us to stick to alphabetical order! User:Narson until now has failed to do so. Until then the double standard is as clear-cut as blattant!
Bogorm (
talk)
11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Why do you wish to change it? To satisfy a POV orientation perhaps? If you want a policy reference, how about
WP:POINT and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Or are you arguing that isn't what you're doing, your only motivation is to improve wikipedia and not to promote or espouse a particular viewpoint? In my experience, when someone comes here screaming and ranting about bias, it is purely to skew the article to their biased viewpoint.
Wikipedia is all about consensus and you won't generate a consensus if you start by assuming bad faith in contravention of
WP:AGF(another policy reference for you). If you want to change it, you have to convince people by the strength of your argument. Justintalk11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
"disrupting the encyclopedia" - this mendacious accusation goes too far - I have only switched the project affiliations, not erased any of them. Seek the POV-ing in your staunch reluctance to unify the appearance of the talk page with the banners on Kosovo towns' talk pages - blatant incontestable, presumptuous DOUBLE STANDARD! For the last time: my proposal is: either new state over the old (as in Kosovo towns but thanks to POV impositions not here) or old state over new (thanks to POV impositions here) !!!Bogorm (
talk)
12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
"therefore either in both cases controversial states before the internatinally recognised or the opposite" - no, false conclusion. We neither have nor need a rule to place "controversial states" (whatever that means) first or second. The absence of a rule on alphabetisation certainly doesn't imply such a rule. The only convention is that there's no need to make pointless edits, and swapping the order of banners certainly counts as pointless. There's no "double standards" because these banners and their order provide neither a standard nor a statement. This is one edit away from deserved inclusion at
WP:LAME.
Knepflerle (
talk)
12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Hm, die letzte Andeutung ist allzu anmaßend: werden Sie bestreiten, daß in allen Artikeln über Kosovo-Städte Projekt Kosovo über Projekt Serbien ist und hier umgekehrt? Was ich will, ist schlichtweg einen Einklang zwischen den beiden Fällen! Daß Sie einen solchen bekämpfen, ist überaus bedauernswert.
Bogorm (
talk)
12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
There is no need for the banners here to "match" in some completely arbitrarily determined sense those of some other place. It just doesn't matter.
Knepflerle (
talk)
12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Georgia and
Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
For two weeks the town is no more under Georgian control, but is part of the Republic of South Ossetia. Therefore, exactly as
Priština is just a redirecting article, so should Aklalgori be too and the article acquire its official name as is in the
Russian Wikipedia.
Bogorm (
talk)
17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The official name (even where the official administrative entity is not actively disputed) is not entirely relevant to how Wikipedia articles are named. The main criteria is how the place is commonly known in the English language. Is there some evidence that Leningor is the more commonly used name in English? Recent news reports suggest not
682 for Akhalgori vs.
95 for Leningor in Google News. Google Web is even more dramatic
15,900 for Akhalgori vs.
119 for Leningor. All the searches were filtered to exclude Wikipedia and for English language sites.
older ≠
wiser17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Evidence of usage is what matters, therefore I oppose the requested move per Bkonrad's findings; the current name is clearly more established in usage. Note that the article stands at
Pristina, not Prishtinë or Prishtina; this is a very good example of where we don't use the spelling of the de facto controlling authority by default.
Knepflerle (
talk)
18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Huh? You oppose my findings but then say the same thing as I did? Can you be a little clearer about whether you think the article should be at Akhalgori or at Leningor?older ≠
wiser18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
No, it is! You probably know that a renowned city in India is no more called Bangalore but Bengaluru (since the last year, if I recollect it correctly), and what can Google do for this?
187 000 for Bangalore and
55 forBengaluru. The results are such just because the change is recent and because there are conserva tive circles unwilling to accept the native Indian names when there are colonial ones for their convenience. And this is blatant POV and an impediment against the official government's policies. And it is inappropriate to impose on Wikipedia colonial or pro-Georgian appearance, which is what the current name does (both in Leningor and Bengaluru).
Bogorm (
talk)
18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
That is your allegation! If you had deigned to behold the first line of the article about
Bengaluru, you should have been apprised of the expression "officially Bengaluru" - the current name is a challenge to the policy of the Indian government and is hinting at revisionism. The same about
Leningor with the unique difference that the first revisioism is 60 years old and the second 2 weeks.
Bogorm (
talk)
18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Btw, is
this really the official site of the town? I mean that it's hosted at narod.ru which means that it could've been created by anybody. It contains only one page and doesn't look very official imho.
Alæxis¿question?18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If you read Russian, "Официальные документы" and "власть" mean "official documents" and "governance" and they sound pretty official. Remember that the town is under the rule of President
Kokoity only for two weeks.
Bogorm (
talk)
18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, actually I can read Russian :) Is it linked from some other (South) Ossetian site? You must agree that a site hosted at narod.ru is somewhat suspicious.
Alæxis¿question?19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
(To Alæxis) Простите, я не рассмотрел вашу страничку прежде чем написать последний комментарий, я не хотел обидеть Вас. Между прочим, я узнал, что Вы уважаете испанскую Википедию равно как и я, потому что
ее статья о Цхинвале является первой правильной из всех Западных Википедий. Вы как думаете, стоит ли начать процедуру по ее переименованию здесь -
Tskhinval (особенно если меня здесь встречают в штыки) ?
Bogorm (
talk)
19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If you had read that page more closely, you'd have noticed that it is dated to 03.09.2007 and reports
Eduard Kokoity's visit to the town which was then firmly under Georgia's control. Pretty much a silly claim.--
KoberTalk18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
To counter your allegation that to use the common name is 'wiki-colonialism' and 'pro-Georgian', wouldn't using the name given by a regime that barely any government recognises be a pro-Russian statement? I mean, there are some crank scots who insist that Franz of Bavaria is King of Great Britain and King of Ireland...yet we don't give him those titles because we go with what he is commonly called.
Narson (
talk)
19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)reply
Franz von Bayern is the only legitimate king for all Catholics of England devote to the (catholically) legitimate
Jacobite succession after yonder deplorable upheaval of 1688 which is extolled as Glorious Revolution toppled the Dei gratia King of Britain
James II! Please do not deride Franz of Bavaria, Jacobite King of the faithful Catholic part of Britain. I am well aware of the English history and of the regime-like oppressions on Catholics after 1688, it is not conducive to the image of the country to remind the readers thereof.
Bogorm (
talk)
19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose As we go by the most common name in English Akhalgori is clearly the most common name in English. Revisit the issue in future if it can be demonstrated that Leningor becomes more common. The most pressing concern is ensuring NPOV by presenting both South Ossetian and Georgian POV equally. --
RussaviaDialogueStalk me19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. Strongly suggest that everyone read
Wikipedia:naming conventions, and also
WP:NOT. Much (not all) of the discussion above, including (but not only) the proposal itself, is promotion. It may come as a shock to realise that Wikipedia is not interested in taking sides however worthy, in fact we're very interested in not taking sides. And when in doubt we tend to leave things as they are, while we seek
consensus. So to move an article on the basis of discussions such as the above would not be very good at all.
Andrewa (
talk)
20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose What are the odds that the new occupiers, whoever they turn out to be next month, will impose their own post-Communist name before English-speaking sources adapt to the present change? Let's see what happens.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Wikiproject Banners
Can we stop trying to re-order wikiproject banners to suit a POV? They are the same 'level' of wikiproject both with small membership numbers (20 for Georgia and 13 for Ossetia last I looked), so lets keep them in alphabetical order.
Narson (
talk)
09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I did not know the alphabetical order is the official policy of arranging the Project affiliations. What is this claim of yours founded on? This would very easily suit NATO POV, since Kosovo is before Serbia and Georgia before South Ossetia alphabetically, therefore I insist on not imposing such rules unilaterally!
Bogorm (
talk)
09:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I didn't make a claim that it was policy. There isn't, as far as I can tell, any policy on banners. So your question is why did I revert? Because your edit was to further a POV and is thus unacceptable. Please consider branching out from a single area of interest.
Narson (
talk)
09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Consider all towns in
Kosovo and Metochia) where the banner of Kosovo project preceeds the Serbia project - therefore either in both cases controversial states before the internatinally recognised or the opposite, no double standards are to be put up with.
Bogorm (
talk)
11:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
As pointed out above the name Pristina is the English language equivalent and that is used on the English wikipedia. K comes before S in the alphabet. There is no double standard. Justintalk11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
There would not be d. s. , provided that you show one single source obliging us to stick to alphabetical order! User:Narson until now has failed to do so. Until then the double standard is as clear-cut as blattant!
Bogorm (
talk)
11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Why do you wish to change it? To satisfy a POV orientation perhaps? If you want a policy reference, how about
WP:POINT and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Or are you arguing that isn't what you're doing, your only motivation is to improve wikipedia and not to promote or espouse a particular viewpoint? In my experience, when someone comes here screaming and ranting about bias, it is purely to skew the article to their biased viewpoint.
Wikipedia is all about consensus and you won't generate a consensus if you start by assuming bad faith in contravention of
WP:AGF(another policy reference for you). If you want to change it, you have to convince people by the strength of your argument. Justintalk11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
"disrupting the encyclopedia" - this mendacious accusation goes too far - I have only switched the project affiliations, not erased any of them. Seek the POV-ing in your staunch reluctance to unify the appearance of the talk page with the banners on Kosovo towns' talk pages - blatant incontestable, presumptuous DOUBLE STANDARD! For the last time: my proposal is: either new state over the old (as in Kosovo towns but thanks to POV impositions not here) or old state over new (thanks to POV impositions here) !!!Bogorm (
talk)
12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
"therefore either in both cases controversial states before the internatinally recognised or the opposite" - no, false conclusion. We neither have nor need a rule to place "controversial states" (whatever that means) first or second. The absence of a rule on alphabetisation certainly doesn't imply such a rule. The only convention is that there's no need to make pointless edits, and swapping the order of banners certainly counts as pointless. There's no "double standards" because these banners and their order provide neither a standard nor a statement. This is one edit away from deserved inclusion at
WP:LAME.
Knepflerle (
talk)
12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Hm, die letzte Andeutung ist allzu anmaßend: werden Sie bestreiten, daß in allen Artikeln über Kosovo-Städte Projekt Kosovo über Projekt Serbien ist und hier umgekehrt? Was ich will, ist schlichtweg einen Einklang zwischen den beiden Fällen! Daß Sie einen solchen bekämpfen, ist überaus bedauernswert.
Bogorm (
talk)
12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
There is no need for the banners here to "match" in some completely arbitrarily determined sense those of some other place. It just doesn't matter.
Knepflerle (
talk)
12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply