Talk:Khizi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Khizi (town))

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qazax which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xızı. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Xızı → Khizi – Move to "Khizi" per WP:UE/WP:COMMONNAME/WP:ENGLISH. Proof of anglicized name being the common name:

Results from Google News: Khizi: 1,800 Xızı: 3

Results from Google Scholar: Khizi: 167 Xızı: 37

This is the same name but an anglicized version (the current name is made up of Latin letters, but isn't the English spelling of the city). Unlike other small villages, this is a fairly-sized town, which has made a lot of appearances in English-language media, in most of which, "Khizi" has been used much more, establishing its WP:COMMONNAME I'd also like to ask the closing admin to give more attention to the arguments being made rather than the vote counts, as there are people who go over each RM and repeat unrelated policies as an "Oppose" argument.

Additional note: Almost all instances of the English-language media sources use "Khizi" to refer to the city and not the wider Khizi District, therefore "Khizi" being a redirect to the district is wrong. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I am not crazy about the practice of "transliterating" place names already written in Latin alphabets. The practice is inherited from Soviet times, when languages of the area used Cyrillic alphabets and there was a legitimate need to do that. With Latin alphabets, the reality is that no one transliterates and few people see a need in that. Azeri is just about the only widely-spoken language in the world that uses a Latin alphabet but also "transliterates" it based on the writer's own understanding of English phonology. Turkish uses the same alphabet, yet no ones gets the idea of transliterating Turkish proper nouns. I believe that 30 years have been enough for the Azeri alphabet to gain a place in the sun and that it does not require to be additionally anglicised. Parishan (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about getting rid of Azerbaijani letters or its version of spellings. This exact thing was discussed twice in a similar RM a few weeks ago in Talk:Sharur#Requested move 10 February 2021. We can use the non-anglicized version only if the settlement is completely uncovered in English media (e.g. tiny villages) or its non-anglicized version is the common name (like in Gdańsk), per WP:UE. There's absolutely no reason to keep the non-anglicized version when the anglicized name is in common use among English-language media. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not believe any of these places, big or small, are well enough represented in quality English-language sources to claim an established common name. This Google-based quest for determining common names for places quite removed from English-language contexts, often reflecting sources of questionable reliability, has already led us to POV monstrosities like "Hin Tagher". It would be a pity to see this done to more articles. Parishan (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:GOOGLETEST exists. Using Google to find the common name is common practice and it's not up to my or your opinion to think if it's well-represented enough, especially when there are almost 2,000 results for "Khizi" on the News and almost 200 on Scholarly articles/books. We're on the English Wikipedia, we're supposed to use the common English name, not a foreign language name which has letters that most English Wikipedia viewers don't even have on their keyboard. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not see how a search engine test is more reliable than data from English-language gazetteers, which are directories specially created for conventionalising English-language placenames. The "not-having-on-one's-keyboard" argument is not genuine: most English-speaking people do not have "ç" on their keyboards but this is no reason to rename pages containing the name "façade" or "François". In fact, most European languages use special characters not found in English, and this does not seem to cause any trouble in naming pages. Why should Azeri be any different, when even Turkish is not? No one is having trouble with Çanakkale, for example. All Azeri characters are Unicode-friendly and well reflected on any operating system from 1998 or later. I really have no idea why this is a problem. Parishan (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not having it on their keyboard isn't an argument. My arguments were presented above with clear sources and policies backing my change. This is not a case of changing Azeri names just because "it doesn't have English letters", there's an established name for this city in English-language media and Wikipedia policies tell us to prefer that over the native, non-English language. And that is exactly what I'm trying to do. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above.--NMW03 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NMW03: per what above? With respect you appear to be a visitor from Azerbaijani Wikipedia - do you know that we use local names for small settlements on en.wp? Only big cities like Munich have English exonyms. List of English exonyms In ictu oculi (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You forgot to mention that we use local names only when the settlement is almost completely uncovered in English-language media (per WP:UE), which in this case, it's clearly not as it has almost 2,000 news stories and 200 scholarly books/articles mentioning it by its anglicized name. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @In ictu oculi: This doesn't mean that I cannot participate in discussions. I agree with Golden.--NMW03 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a vote. Agreeing with Golden isn't enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @In ictu oculi: Golden has provided reliable sources and policies, which is why I support. All the oppose votes seem like WP:STONEWALLING without any proper policy backing their change. You can't complain about people's vote just because you don't like.--NMW03 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's more an issue of the way en.wp works. You may think that a village of 1,600 should have the old Soviet era name because it appears in Soviet era and non-current sources under that name, but see List of English exonyms - look at this list and please tell me what is the population of the smallest settlement on this list with an exonym. (the only real issue here is whether a non-admin is going to do a sudden non-admin close without looking at the geo stub corpus) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Attacking anyone who votes Support in an attempt to force them to change their vote is disruptive. Please stop. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @NMW03: I am politely inviting another editor to look at List of English exonyms and please tell us what is the population of the smallest settlement on this list with an exonym. This will help us all, please. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Population of a settlement is simply irrelevant to its relevance. There are countless dead/ghost cities and towns that are more famous than major cities. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this village of 1,200 people does not have an English exonym. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As shown by almost 2000 News stories and 200 scholarly books/articles, it clearly does. Population number doesn't change a place's relevance. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then of almost 2000 News stories and 200 scholarly books/articles - please give us some WP:RS examples from 2019-2020, please. The sole book example since 2000 on Talk:Khizi District has the new name Xızı District. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • OC Media, DailySabah, National Public Radio, VestnikKavkaza. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • And why are these 4 webpages WP:RS? These aren't exactly the BBC are they? could easily counter-cite Radio Free Europe. I note with your first source that it appears to be translated from Russian, so hardly surprising that it would use the old Soviet spelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • All of those media are generally reliable and are cited throughout all articles relating to Azerbaijan. It doesn't have to be in the perennial list to be a reliable source (and not everything that isn't there is unreliable). Not sure what you're counter-citing with RFE/RL source since it mentions neither Xızı nor Khizi? If you don't actually have anything to say other than drag this argument into an endless cycle, then I'd rather not waste time and let the closing admin decide on what action is appropriate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closers and relisters. Suggest this does not deserve a relist, it's not going to pass. This tiny settlement with a one sentence content simply does not have enough current WP:RS English sources to make a case retaining the Soviet era name counter to WP:MODERNPLACENAME. We have 1000s of similar non-descript geo-stubs in Category:Populated places in Azerbaijan by district. There doesn't appear to be anything historically significant about this village to justify returning to the Russian name. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise that "Khizi" isn't a Soviet spelling. WP:MODERNPLACENAME are for when the name of the city has been officially changed to a new name. This is not the case here. "Khizi" is the same name as "Xızı" but an anglicized version, which WP:UE tells us to use. The content of the article or the population of the town is simply irrelevant to its renaming, so it'd be best if you didn't bring it up at every comment. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UE and the sufficient sourcing provided by CuriousGolden. Gnominite (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khizi&oldid=1203273406"