Talk:Roman Azerbaijan

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Mid‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This redirect 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
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What the...

I'm sorry, but is this some sort of cruel joke or did the creator of this article not realize that there was no such thing as Azerbaijan 2,000 years ago (not until the previous century, actually; the name it was derived from was Atropatene, and even then, that was located south of the Arax River). If the article is about Caucasian Albania, then the proper name of the article should be Roman Caucasian Albania or Roman Aghvank. Giving this article the name of a republic which only established 100 years ago is as inane as creating articles such as "Roman France," "Roman Holland," "Roman Turkey," "Roman Yugoslavia," etc. Either the article's name should be changed to one of the proposed titles or its information should be merged into the article on Caucasian Albanian proper.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I named the article I knew the problem, of course. But, Marshal Bagramyan, I remembered the wikipedia article Roman Wales that I expanded some weeks ago: even in this case there was no "Wales" name during Roman times (the area was called "Britannia secunda"). Then I remembered how many times I have read articles and references to "Roman England" instead of "Roman Britain", like here: [1]. Or a famous book on Romans in Ireland written by V. Di Martino ('Roman Ireland, The Collins Press. London, 2003') with the title "Roman Ireland" and not "Roman Hibernia". So I believe the only important thing to do in these special cases is to clearly pinpoint in the article's introduction that there was an ancient name (and the related time of use), like I did. Regards.--VGassman (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? You honestly have constrained yourself to the sole belief that the "only important thing to do in these special cases is to clearly pinpoint in the article's introduction"? The important thing here is to not create an anachronistic article in the first place! I'm sorry but your excuses just don't cut the ice. Two wrongs here don't make a right. It doesn't matter what's plastered on the internet nowadays or if wanna-be historians are hopelessly reckless when it comes to the facts these days. The scope of this article would seem to limit it to the current-day borders of Azerbaijan, which 2,000 years ago would also have included the Kingdom of Armenia as well. If you're not going to give us a more convincing argument and are simply going to throw up your hands and say "what more can I do?", then I will duly nominate this article for deletion and suggest that it is either renamed to one my propositions above or deleted altogether and merged with the article on Caucasian Albania. I've noticed that you have also created an article called Roman Georgia as well, which is another egregious anachronistic mistake since the proper name here would be Iberia. Wikipedia may not be perfect but to maintain this article with this name will only make it the butt of more jokes on why it is so unreliable sometimes.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest to change even the name of Roman Wales....another anachronistic article written by INSANE wikipedians, as you "politely" wrote. Good luck forever.--VGassman (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, this article is a POV FORK of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania#Roman_Empire and the name is OR. This has little or nothing to do with anacronism..., the article is about Roman Caucasian Albania but is yet called Roman Azerbaijan. There was no such thing as Roman Azerbaijan. I am trying to redirect the page but the redirect was blacklisted and only an admin can redirect that. I wonder who performed such a blacklisting! Ionidasz (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot redirect the article without consensus. Take it to WP:RM. Provide your reasons and see if community agrees with you. Grandmaster 06:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you are thinking about concensus or rules, you of everyone else. The article is a POV FORK and the title is OR. Also, Marshal told me that Brandmeister already created the article which was merged. That's a recreating of a POV FORK. Ionidasz (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not based on stupid nationalism.There are plenty of references about.T.H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]