Talk:Chankatagh

Azerbaijan Low‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics 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.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armenia Low‑importance

	Chankatagh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Artsakh

	Chankatagh is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Revert false edit[edit]

@AntonSamuel: Could you revert your move since you implied that translations were same in both languages, where in reality, it wasn't. "Canyataq" is the WP:COMMONNAME that was also used in Soviet times. If you disagree and still want to move, we can discuss it in a move request, but moving without a discussion is not appropriate. Also, as I believe you're neither Armenian or Azerbaijani, it's better to not move articles unless there's a transliteration for both names provided in the article that is the same in the future. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: I perceived the two names as similar enough for an uncontroversial move - and "Chankatagh" seems to be the common name:

Results from Google: Chankatagh: 419 Çanyataq: 274

Results from Google Scholar: Chankatagh: 1 Çanyataq: 0

However, if you think it's better, I'll move it back and start a proper move discussion instead. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if you moved it back to "Canyataq" (the "ç" is a misspell). Also, you're still using a wrong formula for those Google searches. Good way to find out the actual results is to use, for example, "Chankatagh" "Karabakh". Not sure why you're repeating Chankatagh again afterwards, since it creates unrelated results. "Chankatagh Karabakh" gives 419 results on Google, while "Canyataq Karabakh" gives 629. Canyataq also gives 1 result on Google Scholar. Combining this, with it's Soviet use, establishes Canyataq's WP:COMMONNAME. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you about that the "double" term issue on Talk:Qırmızı Bazar - I cannot see such an issue for links such as this: [1], perhaps there is an issue with the browser you're using or that we have different search settings. Using quotation marks in this way: "Chankatagh Karabakh" is not prudent, since you only include articles with that specific formulation, not if Karabakh is mentioned elsewhere and not just after the name of the town. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you about the double term on the issue on Qirmizi Bazar's talk as well. And I've used "Chankatagh" "Karabakh", not "Chankatagh Karabakh" to conduct the Google search. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Canyataq" is blocked for a move so I moved it back to "Çanyataq" in the mean time. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]