From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Republic of Adygea)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / Human geography (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.
WikiProject Caucasia  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Caucasia, Caucasian people and Caucasian languages 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Should it be spelled Adygea or Adygeya?[edit]

Both of these are spellings for this Russian Republic. Here's some facts provided by Cantus:

  1. Adygeya was moved to Adygea.
    • Google search: Adygeya=43,800; Adygea=3,400
    • Britannica=Adygea
    • Encarta=Adygea
    • Columbia=Adygey Republic
    Consider conducting a poll regarding the name to be used as the encyclopedias do not seem to reflect the most common spelling.


  • I think that Adygeya is better variant. At the moment this is the only differ with Brittanica, where using "Adygeya".--Soul Train (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
"Adygeya" is simply a transliteration from Russian; "Adygea" is more of a conventional name in English. Neither is incorrect (and there is a great number of other alternatives as well), but conventional names are preferred.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2013; 14:35 (UTC)

Europe or Asia?[edit]

Is it in Europe or Asia? Badagnani 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in Europe (west of the Urals is considered to be the European part of Russia).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible information to add in on the discrimination issue[edit]

Could someone take a look at this and see what's good for including in the Politics section of the article? Octane [improve me] 19.09.07 2224 (UTC)

Words in box should be clear and self-sufficient[edit]

Ezhiki, you say I should not make it clear that the rankings are WITHIN the Russian Federation. You say someone can hold their cursor over the words "Rank". That's true, but I never thought of that and neither will lots of other people. It does not make the box wider as you implied, so I don't see the problem with making the text clear without hovering over the words "Rank". Korky Day (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Korky! Thanks for your comment. The wide infobox problem does not occur in IE and Opera; only in Firefox. I was unable to fix it, and neither was anyone else I asked, so for now we are trying to avoid widening the infobox whenever possible.
As for the way the "rank" link is handled, it is pretty typical for this kind of infobox. Since the infobox refers to a federal subject of Russia, it, in my opinion, should be fairly clear that whatever ranks are shown in the infobox, they would also refer to the rank within Russia. This is especially true when this particular piece of information is something the reader needs to know, in which case hovering the mouse pointer over the "rank" link or clicking on it should refute whatever doubts that reader had.
Still, since this was obviously a problem to you, it probably means it might have been a problem to numerous others who just did not take time to let this be known. So, I had this issue fixed, but instead of adding the clarification to one federal subject's infobox, I modified the infobox itself—it now explicitly says that the rank is within Russia (I had to make the detail lines smaller and replace "Russian Federation" with "Russia" (the names are equivalent anyway) in order to avoid widening the infobox in Firefox). I hope this addresses your concerns. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for improving the infobox; I'd be more than happy to help. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your friendly response. You're trying, but there are still problems. I'm using Firefox myself and I see no problem. Russia is not the Russian Federation. I think the infobox at the very top needs to make much clearer that it refers to a republic in the federation. For naive readers, that's still very unclear. Korky Day (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the deal with Firefox is; perhaps the issue was fixed in recent versions. I don't use Firefox myself, but the infobox widening problem was pointed out to me by at least two people who did.
As for the name, I see what you are trying to say, but please note that according to Article 1 of the Constitution of Russia, the names "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are equivalent (see here, for example).
Finally, regarding your observation that it may not be immediately obvious to a naive reader that the article is about a republic within Russia, perhaps adding a header of some sort would help? So, instead of starting with the block listing the names of the republic in different languages, there would first be an infobox-wide header stating "Federal subject of Russia" or some such. Do you think that'd help? It's pretty trivial to add, although I'm not sure what the visual impact would be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Pronunciation[edit]

I noticed the Russian pronunciation is marked as dubious. I don't speak Russian myself, but from what I know about Russian phonology, the spelling seems to indicate it's pronounced as /ʌdɨˈgʲejʌ/. Don't yell at me if I'm wrong: I'm not saying I have the phonology down pat. If anyone here speaks Russian, please fix it and remove the dubious mark. If you speak Russian but don't know IPA, please respond to my post and I or someone else might be able to help. Also, why not find the Adyghe pronunciation too? (Ejoty (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

I speak Russian and only know enough IPA to be able to read it, and to me your version seems more correct. The one that's marked dubious sounds more Ukrainian than Russian, but that could also be dialectal, specific to south Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast. Thanks for your input. It shows you approve of the reduced vowels. The article on Russian Phonology uses different exact phones for the reduced vowel phoneme of /a/ and /o/, so I'll change my version to [ɐdɨˈgʲejə] to be consistent. If someone can tweak it more, that's cool. If the previous pronunciation is south Russian or the one used specifically in Adygea, then we should be told that. I'm not sure if it should be specified in the article itself or here in discussion for us, but surely at least one or the other. Here goes the change (Ejoty (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

/* Archeology */[edit]

Should an archeology heading be added to mention Mezmaiskaya cave? Write now its mentioned under a red-linked river, and See Also. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 moved all. The competing rationale of consistency versus conciseness both make sense. However, I don't see any evidence that consistency in federal subjects of Russia is a formal guideline. Add to that the data on common name presented by pmanderson below and the 'support' argument becomes stronger and more persuasive. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

– Move to short forms per WP:UCN (use common names); also note WP:OFFICIALNAMES. In all cases, the short form already redirects to the respective article. These articles were at their respective short names for years until recent undiscussed moves. —  AjaxSmack  10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose; in fact, propose to move the articles which still use the short forms to longer names. Having the articles above at short forms would be both inconsistent and ambiguous. Note that short forms may also refer to the historical divisions ("Chuvashia", for example, may refer to either the Chuvash Republic or to the Chuvash ASSR), and the rest of the federal subjects are named using the longer form because shorter forms are ambiguous to something else (e.g., Omsk Oblast vs. Omsk, or Komi Republic vs. Komi, or Republic of Karelia vs. Karelia). Moving these articles to shorter names would be out of line with the "precision" and "consistency" criteria of WP:AT (of which WP:UCN is a part), even though the "conciseness" criterion would be improved.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2011; 13:42 (UTC)
  • Support. These are the normal forms in English. Even Chuvashia is distinctly more common than the Chuvash Republic (whereas Czechia is vastly less common than the Czech Republic, so we don't use it). Also, for this article, that there are several versions of the long form (Republic of Adygea, Adyge Republic, Adyge Republic, Adyghe Republic); the present title does not appear to be the most common of these, and has no real claim to preference among them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    One solution would be to divide the article: this article is largely about the region. A separate article on the present republic (as distinct from the autonomous oblast), its structure, personnel, and so forth, should have the present title or a close variant (as French Fifth Republic is a different article from France). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    Regarding your first comment, you do have a point, but moving to shorter names would do little to address it. Multiple long forms are indeed possible, but so are multiple short forms (cf. "Adygea" vs. "Adygeya" vs. "Adigea"), and the fact that so many forms can be encountered in English indicates that none of them is more "normal" than another. Just because one variant gets more gbook hits than another does not make the latter somehow inferior or incorrect; just less common. When that's the case, we might as well approach the whole set of titles consistently, and since the articles about most federal subjects (including some republics) can only be titled using their full names, why not do it for all of them?
    On splitting the article, I fully agree with the principle. While articles about modern entities should contain a brief overview of history, the details do belong elsewhere. A split like that might also in some cases take care of the ambiguity (although not consistency) aspect of using the shorter names, too. However, I'm not sure how well a split would work for something like Adygea, seeing how the region is a part of the larger Cherkess heritage and was fleshed out fairly artificially during the Soviet era.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2011; 16:26 (UTC):
    Adygea is sufficiently well defined that this article discusses its history; if that history is only a century old, it is still worth documenting (as we document the history and identity of the more artificial, and not much older, Colorado.) If the subject of this article were the government of the Republic, this would be the right title; but that isn't the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    In short, I don't see any case for the present title but consistency, and that itself is largely inconsistent with our treatment of other subnational divisions. I await more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    Except it is not inconsistent with our treatment of other subnational divisions at all. Can you demonstrate a category where the titles of articles about some country's divisions are not uniform for reasons similar to those presented here?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 13:12 (UTC)
  • Support. I checked Mordovia in the news archive. Only one result in 30 is in the "Republic of Mordovia" format. Here are some examples: "courts would sentence Aleksandr I. Ginzburg to a 'death camp' in Mordovia, east of Moscow," (New York Times, Jul 12, 1978). "The court said Mr. Tobin would be sent to a prison camp in Mordovia, south of Moscow, within six days." (NYT, Sep 16, 2001). So although Mordovia's location relative to Moscow would appear to have shifted, the style of its presentation on first reference has not. Kauffner (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    This only shows that both the Mordovian ASSR and the modern Republic of Mordovia may be called simply Mordovia, which is one my arguments against the move. Simply "Mordovia" is ambiguous, and no, its location has not really shifted in relation to Moscow :) It did change its status in the 1990s, though. Also, you, too, are not addressing the consistency aspect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 12:17 (UTC)
    That's because, although not the same government, they are pretty much the same place (in the same sense that the Kingdom of France and the present Republic are pretty much the same place; we have articles on both). It is perhaps regrettable that the article on the Mordovian ASSR and the article on the federal subject as a state are both likely to be stubs; but there is no necessity. To choose another example, we have an article on Virginia, with a subarticle on the Colony of Virginia; we do not insist on the pedantry of Commonwealth of Virginia. We can be consistent either way; by being consistent in using the short form for the area we would also be consistent with the members of the CIS and with most countries of the world; we have the main article at Russia, not Russian Federation; leave that for infoboxes.
  • Support An even better analogy would be with Poland, where we use the shorter form rather than Republic of Poland. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't really care that this could lead to confusion with People's Republic of Poland, because it is the same place, and merely has a different form of government. This can be quite adequately pointed out in the History section, and a subarticle created if there is a need (or desire) to go into intricate detail about the history of the former government form. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to clarify that when I speak about the consistency aspect, I mean the consistency of naming of the articles about all federal subjects of Russia, not consistency of the title choices in any other similar sets of articles (such as the US states or whole countries). The sets of articles are not expected to be consistent with one another in how they approach the titling issue, but consistency within a set is usually expected (just look at the artificial titles we use for much of royalty and nobility). Sixty-six out of eighty-three federal subjects are titled using their full names, because their shorter names are ambiguous and taken (cf. Omsk Oblast vs. Omsk, Kamchatka Krai vs. Kamchatka, Republic of Karelia vs. Karelia, Altai Krai vs. Altai Republic vs. Altai, etc.); the remaining seventeen are all republics, and even for those seventeen the shorter names are often ambiguous with historical entities ("Adygea" may refer to both the modern Republic of Adygea and the Adyghe Autonomous Oblast, "Udmurtia"—to both the Udmurt Republic and the Udmurt ASSR, etc.). So, shorter names go against both the "consistency" and "precision" criteria of WP:AT, even though the "conciseness" aspect is somewhat improved. While I understand and mostly agree with Skinsmoke's Virginia analogy, since in that case the internal naming consistency within a set of US states is not sacrificed (they all are titled using a short form), enforcing full names there would indeed amount to unnecessary pedantry. Not so here.
    Since all five aspects are of equal value when it comes to choosing a title, we are supposed to pick the right balance. Sacrificing two for the sake of one just doesn't seem like the right balance to me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 14:14 (UTC)
That is pretty much the distinction I support: the one between Karelia and the Republic of Karelia. The question, therefore, even in terms of consistency, is what we do with articles which (like this one) cover both the region and the present federal subject; and either way we are being consistent: one way with Karelia, the other with Republic of Karelia. If we had only one article in that case, we would want to call it Karelia; neither Sibelius nor Glazunov wrote about the present federal subject. Why not the same for the rest?
There is one valid concern: categories should be uniform, so Category:Republics of Russia should have Republic of Adygea in it, as it has Republic of Karelia; but there is a work-around. Put the category on the redirect from Republic of X, and it will show up on the category page; to avoid having the article in the same category, put an invisible comment in the cat section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, should this RM be successful (which by the looks of things it will be), the category will, of course, need to be populated using the redirects, but that would only address a part of the consistency concern (and a minor one at that). Only a small fraction of our readers will ever see the nice consistent listing on the category page; the rest will stay in the article space where they will be left wondering why different federal subjects (and the republics) are named inconsistently (it is by no means obvious). That's the kind of thing WP:NCCS addresses, by the way, and there are plenty of cases where Wikipedia uses longer (and sometimes even artificial) names for the sake of achieving overall precision and consistency.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 6, 2011; 17:01 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks like common sense. Consistency is going to be an issue as demonstrated above, but since there isn't any formal convention mandating the use of full names in all cases, I don't see why these shouldn't then follow the "common name" convention. Rennell435 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • At present, Oppose. This request is too rough. I cannot support any request by only argument, without research. I recommend you research one by one and propose again next week. Takabeg (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • But there is evidence for the change, at least for this article and the Chuvash Republic; there is no evidence, but merely argument, against the change (and so for the present situation); since the present situation is recent, there never has been any evidence for it. Do look for yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • The kind of evidence presented for the changes so far is routinely dismissed in other similar cases. I don't see any proof that currently used longer names are either "a violation of idiom" or "otherwise inappropriate"; merely that they are slightly less common, and that's not usually enough to do away with consistency (and precision).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 13:12 (UTC)
        • As part of the consensus that wrote that paragraph, I do not believe it means what you suggest it means, and would appreciate an explanation of where you see "routine dismassal." I may know it too well to see whatever ambiguity you rely upon; guidelines should be clear.
        • More importantly, perhaps, we are not considering "forced consistency" of any kind. There are two possible names for these articles; both are consistent with other articles (one with Republic of Karelia, the other with Karelia). That being given, the move request is to the distinctly more common name in each case, and the one which prevailed until the recent move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
          • The "routine dismissal" (or "established practice", if "dismissal" sounds too sensationalist) is best demonstrated by the lack of categories where the articles are named inconsistently for the same reasons as those presented here as arguments for shorter names. I simply don't see any arguments here which would convincingly overthrow the [i]t is useful for all divisions of the same type in the same country to share the same article title format provision of WP:NCCS; and for Russia the prevailing (and in most cases, the only possible) format is "Name"+"Federal subject type".
            On your second point, the "Karelia" case is not consistent with the "Adygea" case at all. "Karelia" is a well-established historical region (the "land of the Karelian peoples") while "Adygea" is a term that refers to the links in the chronological chain of political entities all of which date back to a Soviet construct, which is a wholly artificial subset of the much bigger "land of the Cherkess people". Looking from another angle, nor is "Karelia" consistent with either "Altai", "Sakha", or "Komi", whose only similarity with "Karelia" is that they are the terms which conflict with the names of the corresponding Russian republics (as well as other concepts). The full names (such as the "Republic of Adygea"), on the other hand, are consistent not only within the subset of the republics, but within the whole set of the federal subjects of Russia, all of which are titled using full names. Which brings me back to the WP:NCCS' "it is useful..." clause. While it is possible to rename the articles about (most) republics to force their consistency with "Karelia" (no matter how artificial that kind of consistency will be); it is not possible to rename the articles about other types of federal subjects to achieve the same consistency. So, we can either have some articles use short titles and most articles use long titles (at the expense of consistency and precision), or we can have all articles use long titles. The benefits should be obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 19:37 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. More google, gbooks hits. We don't have Russian Federation, just Russia.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 18:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    What does "Russia" vs. "Russian Federation" have to do with this? The two are equally official; Wikipedia uses "Russia" because it's more concise (and, unlike here, a lot more common). With this article, we have additional precision and consistency concerns which no google hits can help resolve.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 21, 2011; 18:59 (UTC)


I don't believe anyone is going to dispute these findings. Certainly not me. The argument against the move is that the shorter variants' being "more common" is only one of the criteria at WP:AT (namely, "conciseness"), while the longer names names improve two criteria (namely, "consistency" and "precision"). And since the longer names are neither unidiomatic nor otherwise inappropriate, there is no reason not to use them. To quote WP:AT, [i]t may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles... over the others.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 19:37 (UTC)
No, it isn't only conciseness.
Use of the more common name, as WP:TITLE says, helps address recognizability and naturalness (indeed, those questions are why we prefer common names); the same policy commends titles which are "only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously."
Since - until this article is split - its topic is both the area which has been called Adygea for the last eighty years and the federal subject created in 1991, the more common title addresses precision better. Therefore (but who's counting?), this is 4½-½, since both forms address consistency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting way (not) to count :) Are you saying that "Republic of Adygea" is less recognizable than "Adygea"? And less natural, too?
The longer title looks a lot more recognizable (to me at least), as long as we are talking about the modern federal subject—it's immediately clear what we are talking about and there is no need to guess. Indeed, the hitcounts above do not even prove that the modern entity is most commonly referred to as "Adygea" and not as the "Republic of Adygea", because the results just aren't easy to separate that way; plus I would imagine some sources would introduce the federal subject by its proper full name and then refer to it by the short name thereafter, thus inflating the counts.
In all, the shorter title is more recognizable if we are talking primarily about all of the political entities known as "Adygea" in the past eighty years. The article in its present form, however, is intended to be primarily about the federal subject, hence the longer name is a better choice from the recognizability standpoint. That the article happens to contain a lot of historical information which could be moved to other articles is quite irrelevant, although I agree that doing so is ultimately necessary.
As far as the naturalness aspect goes, you are presenting it in the same light as you did with conciseness; essentially considering them the same but double-counting nevertheless. One could similarly argue that since the longer names are not "overly long" the conciseness factor is unaffected.
To summarize, I refer you back to WP:AT, which states that ambiguous... names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Using a term like "Adygea" to refer to the modern entity while knowing full well that it can with equal success be used to refer to the historical entities is a prime example of the problem this WP:AT's clause is there to address.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 21:26 (UTC)
Yes; I would also say that Russia was somewhat more recognizable than Russian Federation, or Poland than Republic of Poland. I grant the difference is not much, and the chief point of common name in this discussion is naturalness.
For (what is it? the fourth time?) I commend dealing with these concerns by splitting off a stub on the Republic as we already have a stub on the ASSR. I do not share them; similarly, I am not concerned with using a term like France or Russia to refer to the modern state while while "knowing full well that it can with equal success be used to refer to the historical entities." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, do you mind explaining what "stub on the Republic" it is that you want to see? This article is supposed to be about the modern republic, and that is what it is about (and placed under the correct name, too). The only portion in this article which is not about the modern republic is the historical background (having which is perfectly normal). If anyone wants an article about an alleged "historical region" called "Adygea", be my guest, create one in place of this redirect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 21, 2011; 18:59 (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.

File:Bandera de Nakhitxevan.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bandera de Nakhitxevan.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Flag[edit]

(will be equal to the 18 degree angle of all the stars: inaccurate of 1.Star and

Kullandığınız "Adige Bayrağı İmajı" yanlıştır. Adige Bayrağı'nın, yay şeklinde sıralanmış 9 yıldız bölümünde her yıldızın arası eşit 18 derece açılıdır. Ayrıca okların formları (uçları, kalınlıkları vs.) farklı ölçülerdedir. Bu bayrak, sanıyorum 1940 yılına ait. Adige Bayrağı'nın özgün ölçülerine -örnek olarak- aşağıdaki linkten ulaşabilirsiniz. Yanlışlığın düzeltilmesi ricamla, kolaylıklar dilerim.адыгэ-хэку-circassia-çerkesya/адыгэ-hыпым-и-cурэт-зэращlыкlэрdrawing-of-the-circassian-flagçerkes-bayrağının-ç/162796883760697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adygea. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adygea. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)