Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Editors are fairly easily split here, over a legitimate question of transliteration. Given the robust debate, I don't think a relist would be particularly fruitful. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic → Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic – It's simple, Nakhchivan is the Azerbaijani version of the English name of the region, which is Nakhichevan

Google Books results:

I think it's clear that Nakhichevan is the correct English name for the area. Երևանցի talk 21:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say there's any "common" English name for the region. One is used more, sure, but that doesn't mean it's common. It's not exactly in common usage, like Germany vs. Deutschland, and in the absense of an overwhelming English usage, I see no problem in sticking with the transliteration of the name. (And I don't understand what you mean: one is the Azeri version of the English name? That makes no sense, as Nakhchivan appears to me to be a direct transliteration) --Golbez (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
obviously I meant the Armenian name, not English, because the word Nakhichevan is of Armenian origin. To be honest, I don't understand the point you were trying to make. Anyway, let me give you an example. The German state of Bavaria is called Bayern in German, while Bavaria is the most commonly used name for the area in English.--Երևանցի talk 00:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
"Bavaria" is very much a common name in English. Many English speakers have heard it, and have used it. It's in the name of a very well known automaker. "Bavaria" is basically the English name for Bayern. (just as Tokyo is the English name for the capital of Japan, and Spain is the English name for a country in Iberia) There is no English name for the region of which we speak. There is an Armenian and an Azeri name. And while one may be used more, that doesn't mean it has a healthy presence in English. In that case I see no problem with sticking to the local name. As for "obviously", no, it wasn't obvious because you didn't say anything like that. :) And also, that doesn't improve your position. So what if it's the Azeri version of the Armenian name? It's still an Azeri region and they have the right to dictate what their region is called. There is no overwhelmingly common English usage, therefore we should go with the official transliteration. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean, I will admit, I knew of the Armenian version more, because it is used more in scholarship. However, I think we need an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to switch from the local name to a non-local name, and I'm not really seeing that here. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that Nakhichevan is used almost 7 to 9 times (see above) more often than Nakhchivan enough? If the ratio was 2:3 or 4:5, it would be much arguable, but come on, just look at the Google Book results, it's obvious that English academic circles generally use Nakhichevan. --Երևանցի talk 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No, because that doesn't take into account whether there is a common usage or not. Being used more does not make it common. It takes a significance preponderance of evidence - beyond mere Google result counts. (Also, 9:1 on books, but two caveats: It's a mere 2:1 on Google Web, and when you confine the book search to 21st century books - in other words, losing the baggage of the past - the ratio is roughly 1.2:1, not 9:1.) Also, when you confine it to Azeri sites, Nakhchivan comes out ahead 2:1. Now, true, that's one of the only times Nakhchivan comes out ahead, but these results are in the English language from the region's own country, and that should not be discounted. --Golbez (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No, because that doesn't take into account whether there is a common usage or not. What does?
One usage might be used more, but that doesn't make it common. What does? I don't know. Inclusion in standard dictionaries? Like "Japan" is, which is not a local name but is definitely the common English word for a country? Asking a thousand random people which term they've heard of? (ps: I doubt anyone of a random sampling would have heard of this, further hurting the notion that it has a "common" name) It's one of those "I know it when I see it" situations. --Golbez (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
How can the ratio in 21st century sources be 1.2:1 as you claim, when the current autonomous republic was founded in 1990? Look at the numbers for the "Autonomous Republic", it's 2,880 vs 311, in other words 9:1. --Երևանցի talk 17:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your statement ... books can be written about something after it's been founded. (also, yes, the current AR was founded in 1990, but the name existed long before that) And it's not "as I claim", run the search yourself - click "Search options" and confine it to 21st century. It doesn't show result numbers, but Nakhchivan had 32 pages of results and Nakhichevan had 39 pages; ~1.2:1 based on my math. I only looked for the name minus Autonomous Republic; when I add those, for 21st century sources, Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has 22 pages, and Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic has 15 pages, for a ratio of roughly 1.5:1. The usage in contemporary literature thus appears to be roughly even, with a small bias toward Nakhichevan; is that enough to overwhelm the local name? --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
the current AR was founded in 1990, but the name existed long before that you gotta be kidding me. I'm not even going to continue this discussion, it seems pointless to me. I have presented numbers and it's clear what's what, the rest is just your personal interpretation. --Երևանցի talk 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well okay, you can have your nonsensical view about how nothing can be written about something after it's founded, or how a name and its political designation can't have different origins. I guess? (Note: I don't honestly think you believe those, but since you didn't explain what you meant and since you're shutting down the discussion well, that's what we have, ind't it) But hey, whatever works for you. Just wait a few days for the Azeri contingent to get whiff of this. --Golbez (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You know it better than me that it is a very sensitive issue for the two people and I don't think you want to deepen the existing distrust between Armenian and Azerbaijani users. If my goal was renaming all Azerbaijani place names to Armenian ones, as you claim, I would probably start with Karabakh. I said all I found necessary to say. It looks like that our opinions don't meet here, it's OK, let's live in peace and see what others have to say. --Երևանցի talk 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Shit. You actually responded with civility and grace. Now I'm the jerk. :P --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I have heard of the region before as Nakhichevan. PatGallacher (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Nakhichevan is the common name of the area in English.--Երևանցի talk 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Vote struck per instructions at WP:RM/CM. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Nakhichevan is clearly the common name as its shown above. I seldomly hear Nakhchivan.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This region is a part of Azerbaijan, and its name should be spelled in accordance with the official spelling. I don't think that this place has a generally accepted English spelling, it is quite obscure for the general English or international reader. Grandmaster 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Official spelling? Wouldn't that be Naxçıvan? —  AjaxSmack  03:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, and a transliteration of that into a Latin script is Nakhchivan. There are other transliterations but that seems to be the 'official' one, as seen by the prevalence of that transliteration on .az sites. However, it does not appear Nakhichevan can be transliterated from that. --Golbez (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
        • As I noted below, "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" is the English name used at the official website of the NAR: http://www.nakhchivan.az/ Grandmaster 19:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Well I waffled because, on a cursory glance, there's nothing on there that states that it's official. Do you have a source saying it's run by the government? --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
            • The website says that it is rəsmi portal (official portal). And almost all the local authorities have sites at nakhchivan.az: [1] You can check the website of Azerbaijan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic at http://dmfa.nakhchivan.az/. It spells the name of the region the same way. Grandmaster 21:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that this isn't an issue of an Armenian name over an Azeri one since, as far as I can tell, Nakhichevan and Nakhchevan both stem from the same origins, regardless whether those origins are Armenian/Azeri/Persian. I'm going to have to play it safe and use the common name found. If there's no generally accepted name for the region, might as well used the more common terminology. See: Prague (Praha), Rome (Roma), etc. etc. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the main issue here is not what the region is called in English. In fact, it is immaterial. This article is about an autonomous region, and it should be named the same as the official name of this entity. In this case, we can see that the official website of the NAR uses the name "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic". See http://www.nakhchivan.az/. I do not think we can modify official names of the state subdivisions, especially when there's no international dispute or ethnic conflict with regard to its status. Grandmaster 06:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Per above Golbez and Grandmaster. I too see no problem in sticking with the transliteration of the name. Nakhchivan is the common name of the area in English. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 07:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Safir, please take a look at the Google Books search results above. Your statements seem to be groundless. --Երևանցի talk 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Google statistics variable statistics. Repeatedly OPPOSE! --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 03:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The spelling "Nakhichevan" resulted from the Soviet-time direct transliteration of the Russian Нахичевань which is a corrupt rendition of the Azeri placename Nakhchivan. It is by no means a "common English name", but something stemming from the idea that since Russian was the language of the Soviet Union, every placename was therefore to be transliterated from Russian regardless of its origin or location in or outside of Russia proper. Nakhchivan is currently located in Azerbaijan, and its name is transliterated according to its original Azeri sounding. Otherwise we would have to ask to rename the articles about the cities Lviv, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia, Aktobe and hundreds of others which are better known in English-language publications by English transliterations of their russified names (Lvov, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Zaporozhye, Aktyubinsk, respectively). Parishan (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Baku-Bakı, Bavaria-Bayern, Prague-Praha, Cologne-Köln, Moscow-Moskva, Saint Petersburg-Sankt Peterburg, Karabakh (Russian version)-Qarabağ (Azeri version), Kiev-Kyiv, Belgrade-Beograd, Geneva-Genève, Aleppo-Halab, Nicosia-Lefkosía, etc. --Երևանցի talk 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolkata-Calcutta, Chennai-Madras, Mumbai-Bombay, Guangdong-Canton, etc... when an entity has a preferred English name, even if there's an overwhelmingly common English name (Bombay was very, very prevalent before the rename), we tend to go along with what the entity wants to be called. The major exceptions, off the top of my head, appear to be Kyiv, Myanmar, Cote d'Ivoire, and Timor-Leste, though the latter two are because they can be translated into English. Heck, for that matter: Stepanakert-Khankendi. (Harder to do a Google test on due to the multiple spellings of Khankendi) --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Might be best to just go by the period in question. During the classical and medieval period, the region was known in Armenian as Nakhchvan, then it got lengthened in the late medieval/early modern period, Nakhichevan, now it goes by the spelling of the official regional government/Azerbaijan...though all this makes me wonder why we cannot do what we did for Nagorno-Karabakh and create separate articles: one for the current government (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) and one for the region (Nagorno-Karabakh). The history of the article gives not only the NAR's history but the region of Nakhchivan's. It's not a country to be treated in the same respect as other articles do for, say, Russia, but at nearly 80,000 kilobytes, we have to start having this discussion again and not ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, as we did some years ago. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Marshal axper, get your facts straight. It was NOT called Nakhchivan in Armenian, but Նախճավան (Naxčavan), at least in Ashkharatsuyts it was referred to as Նախճավան. See [2] [3] However, the discussion is not about what it was called by Armenians in classical/medieval period, but what it is called today in English sources. I think it's irrelevant to discuss splitting the article for now.→ --Երևանցի talk 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It was a typo, sorry...but I digress, I and other editors agreed with Golbez four years for a split, and yet some of the same editors here who are opposing a name change were singing a different tune back then. They held the discussion hostage and made clear that if the Armenian name was added in the separate article for the region, they would then systematically go about adding the Azerbaijani spelling for Armenian placenames, regardless of merit. Threats, demands for quid pro quo, and other instances of stonewalling are why nothing was accomplished in the discussion, and yet I feel that is the direction the conversation should turn to. The article should go by the official title of the region if the article is about the NAR? Is it? If not, and it is about the region as a whole, well then the first few words of the article should be changed to reflect that. You can't have it both ways.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The article should go by the official title of the region if the article is about the NAR? Is it? It is, but you still did not explain how that matters in determining the area's common English name. Google Books results show it obviously. I don't think 2,800 vs 311 is even arguable. --Երևանցի talk 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 3,000 mentions in toto does not make one common. It may make it more prevalent but not common. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment This isn't about what the Azeri government states in their official website. Wikipedia is not governed by the rules and regulations of the Azerbaijani government. Wikipedia has its own rules. 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.

As Wikipedians, these are the rules one must abide by. I remember the great tumult over the Tenedos and the Bozcaada matter. Though officially acknowledged as Bozcaada by the Turkish government, Wikipedia uses the more common Greek derived English name of Tenedos. I believe the same must and will happen to Nakhchevan.

In regards to the controversy brought up by Google hits, WP:WIAN has already solved the matter:

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.

We're talking about at least 9 times here! Come to think of it, I'm actually quite surprised that it has remained Nakhchivan till now. Chauahuasachca (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this is exactly about what Azerbaijani government calls it. This is an article about an Azerbaijani administrative division called Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Now you propose to call this administrative division by the name that the entity itself does not use. How's that even possible? Note that we are not talking about a place name here, as the rules above refer to place names. We are talking about the name of an administrative division, i.e. an official state subdivision or organ. In this case we can only use the official terminology. Grandmaster 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Er, Grandmaster, you're wrong. Many examples have been presented so far where the English name and the local name of administrative divisions are different. Bavaria, for example. Now, I don't know if the German government considers Bavaria an official name in English, but the point here is that it's not the official local name. Virtually all European divisions and a great number of East Asian divisions fall under this. (Now, this only applies to English names. Virtually none of the divisions in the Caucasus have English names, we just work with what's given. And I remember many cases where someone wanted to rename a division of the NKR to its Azeri correspondent, or vice versa, and that makes no sense; a country can name its divisions whatever the hell it wants to, and it would be POV to diverge from that. The question here is not about that, the question here is whether or not there is an English usage that we can use instead of the local version. My view is that, no, there is not sufficient usage in English to choose one over the other, so we should go with the local version.) --Golbez (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your point, but I also think that the examples above like Bavaria refer to place names rather than administrative divisions. A state division is an official construct, and it is better to follow official names when describing them. Obviously, there are exceptions to any rules, but I see no strong argument here to support deviation from the official name of this entity. Also, as you mentioned above, we usually follow what the place wants to call itself (of course unless there's an international dispute with regards to the status of the place). Grandmaster 20:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
GM, just look at the list on States of Germany - many are at an English name. Not merely translated or transliterated, but English name. This isn't just an example of a 'place name', we put the articles for these states here, because they have names in English, just as Germany is named Germany in English, despite that not being its name. Being an administrative division does not make one immune from having an English name. Now, this practice has dwindled incredibly in the modern era, as we have less need to make up names for places, but it still exists heavily for older places. My viewpoint is that Nakhchivan does not fall into the "has an English name" category. Now, there aren't many of these, and the barrier for entry is very high... but these do exist. Insisting that they don't is not helping your view, because it has nothing to do with your view. --Golbez (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose requesting a third-party opinion of specialized WikiProjects such as WikiProject Geography or something of that sort. With third-party voters, we'll have to reach our conclusion and do what is necessary. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that there are vote stacking on both sides. Therefore, I feel that there's a legitimate need to have third party opinions. I will conduct an RfC as soon as possible. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nakhichevan was mainly used by Soviet and Russian scholars, then western scholars just used transliterated version from Russian, so they might use it more - it doesn't mean that it is common English name. We see it in different cases as well. For example, Persian scholars and western scholars using Persian sources started calling Azerbaijanis as Azeris, while it is not common English name. With the same logic, we should keep common English name Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Sincerely,  Anastasia Bukhantseva  08:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
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.

Problem with statistics provided

For 1828, 404 were local and 1,228 newly settled. It claims 11.1% to be local, but in the text body it says 17%. Which one is accurate? Ergo, it is said in the text: After the resettlement initiative, the number of Armenians had increased to 45% while Muslims remained the majority at 55%. % does not necessarly mean an increase, it's a proportion. This sentence read as if numbers are provided rather than relative figures. To add injury, it is also wholly misleading. Lets view the statistics provided on the page. In 1828, 1,632 Armenians, it then jumps to 13,342 for 1831, from it, it is said that 10,652 were new settlers. The Muslim figures on the other hand jumped from 2,024 to 17,138 in the same period, the jump was proportional since the % remained stable from 1828 to 1831, even increasing mildly for the Muslims. So both the number of Armenians and Muslims increased exponentially, but the text only mention Armenian settlers, but says nothing about Muslim settlers when the Russians attempted to populate the region. A second anomaly can be found for the year 1896/97 where in a period of one year, the Azeri figure jumped from 49,425 to 64,151. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 July 2013

I don't know who calculated the percentage, but the statistics provided by the Russian envoy to Persia Griboyedov are available here: [4] According to him, the total number of native Armenians in the entire province excluding the city of Nakhchivan was 290 families, number of native Muslims was 1632 families, and the number of Armenian immigrants was 943 families. The same numbers in the city of Nakhchivan were 114, 392 and 285 respectively. As you can see, the number of the Armenian settlers increased dramatically, and this led to the tensions described by Griboyedov. Grandmaster 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Check figures provided below on the page, your reply does not settle the issue. According to the statistics after 1828 the Muslims figures increased with the same proportion as Armenians, so claiming such an increase for the Armenians and not for the Muslims is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, July 3, 2013
The figures are wrong, because Griboyedov counted in families, not persons. A family is usually counted as 5 persons, so all the figures must be multiplied by 5. Also, neither Griboyedov nor Chopin mention any Muslim immigration, only Armenian one, while Griboyedov mentions Muslims running away to Persia because of discrimination by the Russian authorities. It could be assumed that some of those Muslims who escaped to Iran returned, as Griboyedov mentioned how people of Sadarak who ran away were returned by force. In any case, the claims of Muslim immigration are not supported by any source. Grandmaster 21:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
According to George Bournoutian, who cites Shopen (Chopin), "Between 1828 and 1831, 45,207 Armenians immigrated to Erevan (23,568 from Iran and 21,639 from Turkey), and 3,883 to Nakhichevan (3,856 from Iran and 27 from Turkey)" [5].--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm reading Chopin right now. He says that there were 4507 Armenian immigrants in Nakhchivan region, and 1100 in the city of Nakhchivan. I wonder where did Bournoutian take his figures from. They contradict the source he refers to. See pp 603-623. Also, population of Ordubad is counted separately. Grandmaster 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
He cites the edition in his footnotes...and has translated the Russian survey in Shopen's work into English in full in his book, The Khanate of Erevan Under Qajar Rule, 1795-1828 (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 1992), pp. 204-270.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have Shopen's book, in fact, it is available online here: [6], you can check for yourself. The scan is not good quality though, the statistical pages are split in two, you need to put two pages together to see the accurate table. This book is PD, and there are better scans available on torrents. Bournoutian's figures do not match the source. Also strange that he does not mention the page number. You can see that in Shopen's book statistics start from page 540 onwards, and Nakhchivan is mentioned on page 603 and the following pages. The number of Armenian immigrants just in the city of Nakhchivan and Nakhchivan mahal exceeds the figures cited by Bournoutian, and that is without calculating the immigration to other parts of the modern NAR. Grandmaster 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The statistics for the whole Nakhchivan province was provided by Shopen on pp 635-638. The total Muslim population of the province was 3,863 families or 17,138 persons. The number of local Armenians was 530 families, or 2,690 persons, and the number of Armenian immigrants was 2,137 families, or 10,652 persons. The Nakhchvan province did not include Ordubad and Sharur, and population of those regions was counted separately. Ordubad district had 7,247 Muslim population, 2,388 local Armenians and 1,340 Armenian immigrants. Sharur district had 6,310 Muslims, no local and 1,757 Armenian immigrants. Grandmaster 09:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

In the table of "Demographics" section "Azerbaijanis" must stay first, because Azerbaijanis are and was in the history the main population of the city. It is logical order. We cannot put minorities first just because their names begin with the letters standing previous in the English apphabet. It is unlogical and absourdus. Please don't return disputed version without consensus here. --Interfase (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Western Asian countries

To all editors that maintain this article, hello! I am currently involved in a conversation at Talk:Kosovo whereby I have opposed it featuring at Category:Countries in Europe based on its disputed status coupled with disputed territories not being included in their own relevant country categories. Broadly speaking I would prefer consistency so that politics be kept out. In the case of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, I see it is included in Category:Western Asian countries and is the only non-sovereign entity to appear on the list. To my knowledge, only Nagorno-Karabagh has proclaimed independence within Azerbaijan and this article does not indicate that such is the case with Nakhchivan. My questions are, is there any specific reason it is added to the list? Has there been a consensus whereby this entity was found to meet the criteria for other reasons? And if the answer is no to both, would anybody object to its removal? All comments here are appreciated. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's autonomous but it's not at at all independent. It should be removed; I think whoever added it didn't understand that "republic" doesn't mean "independent". --Golbez (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
✔--Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Golbez. The problem is that the appropriate category is being discussed exclusively on the Kosovo article talk page, as indicated by Oranges Juicy. I don't perceive this to be a 'page decides' issue but that of its being overridden by other fundamental policies, and that it should have been handled via an RfC in the first instance. As it's a contentious article (and issue), Oranges Juicy has expressed a concern regarding being seen to be FORUMSHOPPING, which is certainly not the case. The discussion is lengthy, and having to start again via a DRN is an energy sinkhole. Could you recommend another approach in order that this consensus stalemate doesn't erupt into fresh edit warring? I entered as a neutral party, but have become too embroiled to be able to present it to the DRN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. That category is not at all relevant to this article; Kosovo is not at all relevant to this article. All that I see is that this article does not belong in "Western Asian countries", as it is not a country. I don't see how this intersects with a dispute on another page, unless you're just independently asking for advice, but I'm not remotely familiar enough with the situation to offer any. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It's me who owes you an apology, Golbez. Yes, it is a related matter, but not pertaining to this article. I was asking for independent advice, but this is certainly an inappropriate forum to do so. Feel free to trout me (actually, hurl a whale my way as I've been around long enough to know better). I've gone on an ill-advised fishing trip. Thanks for responding... and tolerating being subjected to abominable puns. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyrillic name

It should be removed because Azerbaijani Republic does not use the alphabet since the breakout of Soviet union. Beshogur (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Unless it can be verified that the NAR (or simply the Azerbaijan Republic as a matter of fact) uses the script officially, it should be omitted. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I haven't been able to find any sources to support Azerbaijani being written using Cyrillic script anywhere other than in populations living within Russia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. 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: 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) 20:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. 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: 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) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Poldasht-Shah Takhti Bridge countries

"In 2007 the Poldasht-Shah Takhti Bridge was completed, allowing residents of the republic to access Azerbaijan proper without having to cross Iranian territory."

I may be misunderstanding, but this bridge crosses between the republic and Iran, so this sentence must mean Armenian terrritory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garymcm (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm guessing it's the first crossing of the Aras River between Iran and the NAR, so yeah, that would make it the first time you could walk from Azerbaijan to the NAR without either passing through water or Armenian territory. --Golbez (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

map Improvement

the map it shows this area is ambiguous unless you already know what the shape of the areas for its relative position which obviously if someone's coming to this article probably does not know this I had to go to two other articles find out in fact What's a shape of this area was and then realize it was a darker shade of the area being at there's a light shaded area and a striped area either a better map or something that simply has the few areas names on it would be welcome Tapalmer99 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nakhchivan_Autonomous_Republic/Archive_10&oldid=1182566621"