This subject is featured in the Outline of Kazakhstan, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
Kazakhstan is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Kazakhstan at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:
Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:
whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman00:52 19 February2007 (UTC)
The Turkic people began imbricating on the Iranians starting at least in the 5th century AD.
"Imbricating?" I believe a more appropriate and more widely understood verb would be encroaching.Sca (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably, but imbricate is a real word (it was added here), and not really synonymous with encroach.
However, the passage has removed by now – seems excessive to me, it provides relevant information without which the passage from Iranian to Turkic is overly unmediated, and even if the use of the rare word that was subsequently replaced adds to the copyvio suspicion, the part in question should be easy to rephrase and is quite short and trivial anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to ask the opinion of the community about the edits of User:Jens2015 here, which suffer almost invariably of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. This is an encyclopedia article about a country, not a local newspaper. We don`t write on the USA article about the inauguration of an hospital, and the same common sense rule should also be valid here. Alex2006 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Alessandro57: I see what you mean, but the term "contiguous country" is simply not commonly used, and in fact, google:"contiguous country" does not support such use. The term has certain circulation, but in an entirely different context, meaning "bordering" (Canada is a contiguous/bordering country with USA). (Yahoo Answers do not count as a RS). Even if we accept such definition as valid, I don't think it has a place in the first sentence of the lead -- it simply is not an important, pending property of the country. Spain is not defined as "discontiguous" as far as I can see, nor is United States, although, I concede, Contiguous United States is a term of art. Turkey is defined as rather ridiculous contiguous transcontinental parliamentary republic (but that's an issue for that article). How does it help reader's understanding at all? Why is it important? No such user (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hallo @No such user:, I agree with you, this is a typical example of wikipedia pedantism. :-) I just reverted your edit to answer your question on the history's comment line, but feel free to remove the adjective if you feel that is superfluous. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)