Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateYerevan is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
August 15, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2023[edit]

In the history section, it should be mentioned that Yerevan played an important role in de-Stalinization in Soviet times. In March 1954, Anastas Mikoyan gave a speech in Yerevan where he called for rehabilitations and a new policy for nationalities. Text and sources can be re-used from Yeghishe Charents, Alexander Miasnikian, and De-Stalinization articles.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! M.Bitton Yerevan has fully changed its transport system, but we still use old transport pictures (exaple: Yerevan doesnt have marshutka anymore and they have new trolleybuses). So, we need to change old images--O'micron (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@O'micron: I have no idea why you pinged me. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to Megamall[edit]

Please update under tourism and nightlife Megamall Armenia and add link Pdb100 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing vandalism[edit]

It appears that an inappropriate edit by a user that has now been permanently blocked from editing (User:Th78blue) is still in place. This user arbitrarily changed the dating system on the page from BC/AD to BCE/CE which goes against WP:ERA guidelines. Suggest that this vandalism be undone and the original style reinstated Theworks84 (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2023[edit]

It appears that an inappropriate edit by a user that has now been permanently blocked from editing (User:Th78blue) is still in place. This user arbitrarily changed the dating system on the page from BC/AD to BCE/CE which goes against WP:ERA guidelines. Suggest that this vandalism be undone and the original style reinstated Theworks84 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the user in question hasn't edited the article since April 2022. M.Bitton (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not relevant. He edit was a form of vandalism and it has been left in place. It is only logical for this to be reverted. Theworks84 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images[edit]

@Archives908 The talk page exists for a reason, you could have just expressed your personal grievances about two of the images here on the talk page instead of reverting without a valid reason besides personal preference, im always willing to listen to input and change some images but that behavior is not conducive to a positive editing environment. For the first concern, where do you see an empty field? The image was clearly of the Yerevan skyline even if it wasn’t shot in the same angle as all the other photos, I replaced it because right below the infobox there is a picture of the skyline from that exact angle and it was repetitive so I chose a different angle. Also Abovyan Street is not a “random road” it is one of, if not the most, well known street in Yerevan, hence why it has its own article, it runs straight through the center and contains some of the cities most prominent landmarks. The image I chose was designated by Wikimedia commons as a “valued image” of high quality and shows the 19th-century architecture of Yerevan which was not previously shown with the other collages focusing only on soviet and post-soviet architecture. TagaworShah (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CALM down a tad. Your harsh reactionary language is unwarranted. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to take it to talk and seek WP:CON regarding your changes. Not me. My edit summary was sufficient enough. Personal preference? Nope. More like restoring perfectly fine images which were replaced without any rationale or justification. Lots of "things" have articles on Wikipedia. Having an article does not automatically equate noteworthiness. That is why articles get nom'd for deletion all the time ;) Adding a random road, over the Matenadaran museum which houses significant historical artifacts is unjustified and based solely on your personal preference. As for the skyline image, please compare both images side-by-side. The original image has a clear view of the Kentron District, while the one you added is off-center, mostly of greenery and fields. It does not accurately reflect Yerevan's skyline. Archives908 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Telling other editors to “calm down” is Wikipedia:Incivility, nobody was screaming at you, in fact, all I asked was for you to have a conversation instead of blindly reverting which is wikipedia standard for civility and creating a positive editor environment, telling people to calm down is not positive. I provided justification for my switch as it is the standard for big cities and fyi there was no consensus for the previous collage either, someone just was bold and created it, that’s how collages work. Again, Abovyan street is the main street of Yerevan and one of the most significant, it’s not a random road, it’s a landmark of the city that is recognized by the Armenian government itself as such. The angle of skyline from Kentron is already shown the exact same in the Symbols section right below the infobox, is repetitive, please provide other image options or arguments based in wikipedia policy on why these images aren’t suited. TagaworShah (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incivility. Your remarks were, in my opinion, aggressive. That is why I felt the need to remind you of some key policies, like WP:BRD. Your edit was 'B'old, it was 'R'everted, and you should have then sought consensus through 'D'iscussion in WP:GF, rather than placing the blame on myself for not starting the discussion. I did not "blindly revert" your edit- in fact- I left a pretty clear WP:ES. You single-handedly decided to remove infobox images and replace them (like you did with Matenadaran) without providing any reason, rationale, or justification. I was totally in-line to restore the content. As for Abovyan street- it is your opinion that it is noteworthy and that it should be included. You have not provided any WP:RS highlighting its historical significance as a road. One can make the same argument for any other road in Yerevan with similar significance. To give prominence to this road, without any RS, is a violation of WP:RSUW. Even if you did provide a single source mentioning the significance of the road, per WP:ONUS, not all verifiable information need be included. There are alternative spots within the article where you could have placed that image. The issue with the skyline is that you decided to change the primary image of the city, ironically, to an image which cuts half the city out. The image below the skyline is not another image of the entire skyline of Yerevan. It is of Swan Lake and the Vardavar festival, which is not a complete representation of Yerevan's skyline and therefore not repetitive duplication. Archives908 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you maybe not accuse other editors of being “aggressive” and just focus on the task at hand without citing random wikipedia policies, it’s just Wikipedia:Gaming the system at this point to avoid conversation, please focus on the actual conversation. As for Abovyan street, it is the first planned street of the Armenian capital, you can read through the article to see its significance and the sources cited, it’s right in the center of Yerevan connected to republic square and contains some of the most important architectural artifacts of Armenia including rare 19th-century Armenian belle-epoque architecture that predates the soviet era and is not represented elsewhere in the article unlike the manuscript museum exterior which was already repeated in the article. The exact same kentron skyline image is repeated in the symobols section, not the swan lake picture in the infobox, the symbols section right under the infobox, if you don’t like the image I chose, feel free to suggest another that is not repetitive and represents the skyline, again that is a matter of personal preference and there is no consensus for the previous infobox images either. TagaworShah (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not stop until editors like you familiarize yourself with such policies and understand the proper way of engaging with others. You asked me to cite the policies, I provide the policies, and now you complain that its too many policies for you. Policies matter. Cope. I have already suggested an alternative for your random road picture, which, is not even a clear picture of the road itself, but rather a building adjacent to the road. Some of your pictures, and their captions are extremely misleading. Last I checked, a building is not a road.
Nonetheless, if you are so desperate to have this picture of a building on a road which allegedly has "national historical significance" (with not a single WP:RS), then find a subsection in the article more appropriate for it.
The current skyline picture should be maintained as it wholesomely shows the entirety of Yerevan's skyline, not a quarter of it as in your image. For your reference, the definition of skyline is "an outline of land and buildings defined against the sky." Bushes and fields and half the skyline is, yet again, misleading and does not match the caption. The image in the "Symbols" section is not even referencing the skyline or city center, but rather Mount Ararat in the distance. Mount Ararat is the topic of focus for that image as a national symbol, it has nothing to do with the city skyline. If the mountain is not clear enough, than that picture should be replaced, not the one in the infobox. Archives908 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow…just wow. All I ask is that you focus on the discussion at hand instead of trying to come after me with random policies in an effort to get me sanctioned and you instead decided to resort to personal attacks about “editors like me” and told me to “cope” that’s just plain old incivility and hostility. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reverting where it clearly states “ Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page.” That’s all I asked you to do is to bring up objections on the talk page instead of reverting simply because you disagree. As I said multiple times, I am open to discussion, if you’re not open to discussion and seeking a consensus that is not okay, there is no previously established consensus for the current infobox images. Please cite relevant policies regarding info boxes and image collages not standard wikipedia policies that either don’t apply or are already going on, as you can see I started the discussion and asked many times to focus on the content instead of coming after me personally. So, I do not agree with the current infobox images, they are repetitive and do not properly represent the diversity of architecture in Yerevan, if you don’t like the images I suggested, please suggest new ones that we can both agree on. TagaworShah (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes...let me remind you that continuing to edit while there is an on-going discussion and no WP:CON is generally a no-no. Per WP:TALK, and BRD more specifically, "you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." I'll go ahead and restore the original version of the article again until this discussion concludes. I urge you to please stay engaged in this discussion, no matter how great the urge is for you to restore your preferred version. Remember that you do not WP:OWN this article. I have been engaged in this conversation and will continue to, no matter how long it takes. There is no hostility on my end :)
Back to the topic of the images, I've already explained to you the concerns I had with your edit (poor image choices, descriptions which to do match the image, etc..) and offered reasonable compromises (ie. finding alternative spots within the article for your images). You have ignored my comments entirely regarding the content. I will not repeat myself and kindly ask that you take the time to re-read the above messages. In brief summation- there is nothing wrong with the current infobox, I see no duplications, nor policy violations. If images within the article are duplicated or misleading, then those images should be improved. In terms of the infobox, you are the one seeking to make changes, therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your preferred version is an improvement. You have failed to do that, in my opinion. You have stated vague reasonings (ie, duplications with pictures in the article), and I have countered it suggesting that we improve those images if need be (again, see above).
Now that we are focused strictly on content- can you pinpoint the policy violations that the current images within the infobox may violate? Be specific and precise, this way we can review the image(s) and the policy violation(s) one by one. Thanks! Archives908 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude you really need to read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary because this is not productive at all. Especially the sections where it says “Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit… Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo. In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.” For the third time, there is no consensus for the status quo, the present infobox collage was not discussed and has no preferential treatment to new infobox edits. I changed my edit to reflect YOUR suggestions, all of your suggestions, that’s what the talk page is supposed to do, I literally implemented every single concern you had and you still reverted instead of going to the discussion board to talk about any further changes, that shows a lack of respect for the work of your fellow editors, I have already shown that I am willing to compromise. All of the images are of excellent quality and many are even labeled as valued images on wikimedia commons, that argument is incomprehensible. The descriptions exactly match the image and the Abovyan street image was removed which you seem to have not noticed while reverting. Please cite some actual policy guidelines on how my edits made the article worse, as I already mentioned I changed the style to match that of other big cities like LA, Paris, New York, etc. that’s how the consensus is to do the infobox images for cities like this as the previous bottom captions were confusing. TagaworShah (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this correct, you want me to read policies you link, yet the moment I refer to policies you declare that I am "gaming the system". Seems a tad hypocritical. Anyways, you haven't answered any of my questions above. So I will keep on asking until I get an answer. What is wrong with the current pictures in the infobox? Can you pinpoint the policy violations that the current images within the infobox may violate? Why change the lead picture of the city skyline to another picture of the exact same city skyline? What is the point/rationale/purpose of that? The lead picture is a perfect representation of the skyline, I would love to know why you have such a strong desire to change it? Please do elaborate. Archives908 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said, there is no bias towards the status quo, in fact there is a bias towards change. Keeping the status quo is not a proper reason for reverting. I have explained above my reasons but I will explain them again clearly here 1) The style of the collage is outdated and the established consensus for the collages of big cities is to have them in the same style of New York, Paris, LA, etc. with the caption beneath every respective picture and linked, the caption at the bottom “from left to right” has been established by a consensus among editors to be confusing to readers. 2) The current images are repetitive and not representative of the architectural diversity of Yerevan, they only feature soviet and post-soviet architecture and do not cover the full character of the city. 3) I have been creating new collages for cities in Armenia and surrounding territories for the past year now, I replace bad quality images with ones that are deemed by Wikimedia commons to be of high quality and preferably more recent. 4) Aesthetics, as these are images and we are talking about very similar images, personal preference does come into play undoubtedly and you are showing it yourself by saying the current image is a perfect representation in your eyes, in my eyes it is not and the other image is a better representation, let’s not bring in unrelated policies to justify personal preference. There need be no “policy violations” to change an infobox collage, change is normal on wikipedia and encouraged, if there is no policy violations in my edit and you are just reverting for personal disagreement than that is not according to Wikipedia policy. TagaworShah (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not with the introduction of the collage. Not once have I ever brought that up as a concern, so I'm puzzled as to why you are bringing this up out of nowhere? Have I once brought up any objection to the format change? Nope. The only concern I have is in regards to some of the images that you want to replace; which I have made clear in this thread.
None of the images in the infobox are repetitive. If you feel that images are repetitive, please please please (literally begging you) to list them here and let's review them together to address your concerns! And for the fifth time, if there are repetitive images in the article, then those images should be removed or replaced. Duplication within the article does not imply that the infobox need be altered, it may just mean the article itself requires a bit of a clean up.
As for the lead image- it has absolutely nothing to do with personal preference. It is a picture of Yerevan's skyline. Nothing more, nothing less. You have neglected to tell me why the lead image is not an accurate reflection of the skyline. I have asked so many times for this answer. Is your answer "change is normal"? Is that really your justification? Because I'm afraid that isn't a valid reason for replacing one image of a perfectly fine skyline, with a near duplicate image of a perfectly fine skyline. Which is my entire point- you have zero basis/lack of any logical argument for changing X to X. Of course change is normal- and I am not opposed to it- so long as it provides a benefit. Changing X to X does not improve the article, so why change X at all? Archives908 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the skyline image I added is a near duplicate then why are you so opposed to that one? I have already stated that I don’t agree with the previous picture, keep in mind I spent hours on end finding the right pictures for the collage that go together nicely and keep a clean aesthetic, it was not easy, I tried keeping the previous skyline but it was too cool-toned and had a harsh contrast with the warm-tones, so I switched it out with one that by your own admission is nearly identical except it’s warm-toned and matches the aesthetic better. Change is normal, I did not agree with the status quo and provided my reasoning, and yes that is a perfectly valid reason to change the collage, please refer to the guidelines I quoted. I changed the duplicate images in the infobox precisely because I saw the new images as better suited for the infobox than the previous, I am not interested in changing them in the article, this is about the infobox collage. So again, please either pitch some new image ideas that we can agree upon or cite a relevant policy on why my new images are somehow making the article worse. TagaworShah (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also please point out all the SPECIFIC images you have a problem with in my new collage (including image codes), to save time. So we can address them all at once. Also please refer to Wikipedia:Collage tips where it states “Collages should ideally represent the full diversity of the subject. For topics with a wide selection of images, try searching the relevant Commons category for Quality, Featured, and Valued images. Try to avoid systemic bias toward one geographic area or one facet. Images also need to look good at small scale where details are hard to see. It's best to avoid using any images found elsewhere in the article.” The images I chose show the full diversity of architecture in Yerevan, are classified as quality/valued on commons and don’t just show one geographic area (Kentron), that’s why I chose them. TagaworShah (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through WP:COLLAGETIPS and I can't see any issues that the current images in the infobox have. 1) They are not duplicated 2) They display a variety of valued sites with cultural and historical significance. 3) Captions accurately depict the image.
Some of the pictures you have listed are mostly off-center and shot from odd angles. Like the city skyline. Why are you insisting that the city skyline be shown from such narrow perspectives? The picture you want to introduce is off-centered from the West side of the city, completely cutting out the foreground of the Kentron District. A lead picture, especially of a city center, should be as panoramic as possible. Yours have either been to zoomed in, off-center, or (like the original photo you suggested) not even of the entire city itself.
Anyways- let's review one by one.
Areas of concern (aside from the skyline image):
  • You replaced Vardavar with Yerevan Vernissage. Why? Vernissage is a stub with one source. The article should probably be nom'd for deletion, yet you want to include it (by way of a random picture of a rug) as one of infobox's primary images.
  • You replaced Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral, Yerevan (the largest cathedral of the Armenian Apostolic Church) with Katoghike Church, Yerevan (an article that gets barely 9 views per day). Why?
  • Most concerning was the replacement of a crystal clear picture of the Yerevan Opera Theatre, with a blurry, evening photograph with children playing on bikes in the foreground. The sky alone seems overly manipulated in terms of saturation and contrast. This one is definitely not an improvement for such obvious reasons.
I do not believe these 3 images should be changed per above rationale.
To show you that I do have WP:GF, I will recognize the positives of your edit:
  • Updating the collage format- amazing! And again- I have never raised opposition to that at all in this conversation.
  • The inclusion of the MFA building I have no issues on. Despite it being an evening photograph, the quality is spot on.
  • Your image of the Cascade is off-center, however, the original image has an awful crane in it, making it look like a construction site.
  • Tsitsernakaberd- I think your image is an improvement as the entire complex is shown more clearly.
  • Erebuni museum- is it necessary to include, probably not. But I have no objection to it.
  • Image of the Republic square/government buildings looks the same to me. I don't see any visible changes? No objection.
I have zero objection to the inclusion of these 5 images and the adjustments to the collage layout.
Neutral (I have no definitive opinion/ clarification required):
  • You replaced a centered facing image of the Matenadaran (which initially was removed altogether) with an ariel shot of the building, seemingly blending in with the surrounding landscape. Why?
I have no objection to the inclusion of the new Matenadaran image should you be insistent on the ariel version.
In summation- I have serious issues with 4 images and don't think they should be changed. I have no concerns with the other 6 and the implementation of the new collage. Let's come to a fair compromise here and wrap this up. Archives908 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i’ll consider the images and format you don’t have a problem with as what we have reached as consensus on so i’ll only
mention the ones we don’t agree on. 1) The second picture is not Vardavar it’s a picture of swan lake which doesn’t even have an an article, taken during Vardavar but you can’t even see the people in the photo when displayed in the infobox and it’s also of bad quality so by your own measurements I don’t see why that would be included, Vardavar is a holiday not a landmark of Yerevan, the vernissage is undoubtedly one of the most recognizable landmarks of Yerevan and there are plenty of sources to back that up by major news organizations that have done profiles on Yerevan, and they almost all use pictures of carpet sales to represent the vernissage, it also adds a much needed splash of color to contrast all the grays, Yerevan is the pink city not the gray city. 2) As stated in collage tips, the collage should represent the full diversity of the subject, Yerevan is a city that claims to be one of the oldest inhabited in the world, yet no actual medieval architecture of Yerevan is being shown, all of the buildings are soviet or post-soviet, that’s why I chose Katoghike, which is right in the center of Yerevan, accompanied by Surp Anna and very famous in Yerevan, we can’t just go based on interest in the west, these are well-known landmarks in Yerevan and English-language sources covering Yerevan . 3) The previous picture of the opera house is too wide-set and looks clunky, i’d be open to seeing some options that you have in regards to what other images we should use to replace it, here is another option I found: File:Ա.Սպենդիարյանի անվան օպերայի և բալետի ազգային ակադեմիական թատրոն.jpg. 4) You mean the skyline is not centered on the Opera house, because the picture itself is definitely centered, and it doesn’t need to be centered on the opera house, we already have a separate picture of it, again I already expressed my concerns with the previous skyline above, so I would love to see anymore skyline suggestions you have as well. 5) I included an aerial view of Matenadaran to show the entire complex, similar to the genocide memorial, Matenadaran is not currently shown in it’s entirety, only the old building and not the majority of the actual library, and personally, I think we already have enough of Yerevan soviet’s architecture shown, the Matenadaran undoubtedly holds important priceless artifacts inside it but the building itself is rather plain, as you saw im not opposed to including it, but I feel there are better things to include that more accurately represent Yerevan’s character, and if you have any other ideas for landmarks to replace it that would be appreciated. TagaworShah (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop asking me for other examples of pictures to use. Let me make this abundantly clear. The 4 images I have issues with should not be added due to the concerns I noted previously, unless we agree to a consensus. The status quo for these 4 images should be maintained until otherwise agreed upon. I have no alternatives for them, as I do not believe they warrant change to begin with.
1) The second picture is undoubtedly Vardavar. You can clearly see individuals partake in the water throwing festival in the foreground. Contrary to your logic, it makes perfect sense to have a picture of Swan Lake for Vardavar, since after all, this is the article for Yerevan. It shows Yerevan's residents partaking in the festival at a well known landmark where the holiday is celebrated in the city. If the image showed Vardavar in Gyumri or Vanadzor, then of course I wouldn't hesitate to remove it. The article for vernissage is a poorly sourced stub. To have carpets represent an entire marketplace is subjective. So too is the need for color in the infobox. These are your personal preferences, not facts or guidelines to follow based on any policy. Personal preferences are not policy, as such, the image of Vardavar in Yerevan is sufficient.
2) Katoghike does not have as much WP:N as the Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral. We should not be giving it undue weight in the infobox. If you want to include the image elsewhere in the article- I shall not oppose it. I actually think the image will serve a better purpose under either history of religion. This is a fair alternative.
3) Can you please link the precise file of your second recommendation for the Opera House? I take that you too realize now how awful the quality is of your original replacement, I mean the saturated sky alone is cringe. I feel like you desire more color in the infobox, but is incorporating artificial hues really a fair representation of the landmark? I think not. If we can't find a suitable alternative- the original should be maintained at least for the interim.
4) What are your concerns regarding the current skyline picture? Please list them out clearly. The alternative is not centered, and much of the foreground is cut. Please refer back to the definition I provided earlier of what a skyline is. A skyline should be as encompassing and panoramic of the city as possible. I am perplexed as to why you are so vehemently opposed to the current image.
5) Thanks for the clarification. As I said earlier, I am not opposed to the new image. The only concern I had was that the color of the building seemed to blend the building into the background, making it somewhat hard to distinguish. But if you are not concerned with that, then I will not object further.
So we can remove Matenadaran from the list of images of concern. That brings the images you prefer to introduce up to 6 (potentially 7 if Katoghike is moved to the body). While I insist we maintain 4, at least for now.
Since we have established a consensus for 6 images (possibly 7). I propose that you proceed with editing the collage and adding the 6 images you prefer, along with the 4 originals I believe should be maintained. This way, at least we make progress on updating the collage itself to the same standard as other cities. In the mean time, we can continue our discussion here, and if need be, replace individual images in the collage on a case-by-case basis. Archives908 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly said, Wikipedia policy is that there is no bias towards the status quo, in fact change is preferred over the status quo and there is no consensus on any of the images currently so essentially by saying that you want the status quo on those images you say that you want to maintain the images you like without achieving consensus which is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy, we must reach consensus on all the images, that’s why I suggest providing new examples as that is a way we can find pictures that we can both agree on instead of ones that only one of us do. As for the arguments, 1) Vardavar is not a landmark of Yerevan, it’s an Armenian religious holiday and it’s not specific in any way to Yerevan, and in the infobox you can’t even see the people because they’re so small it’s just tiny specks with no purpose and swan lake is not a recognizable place in Yerevan, you could tell someone that’s a picture of Portland, Oregon and they wouldn’t be the wiser, no landmarks present. Vernissage on the other hand is a recognizable well-known Yerevan landmark per CNN[1], Peter Balakian for the New York Times[2], also the New York Times[3], the Armenian Weekly[4] and many more, the vernissage article can be easily expanded. And the vernissage is represented in these sources just like the infobox image with the carpets so I don’t see the issue here. 2) The difference in notoriety when it pertains to Yerevan is negligible, Katoghike and Surp Anna are well-recognized landmarks of the city as well and actually show off the medieval architecture, that concern has not yet been addressed in showing off the full diversity of topic. Also, we must consider size, as I said I tried keeping the images but the previous one simply did not fit in the collage and messed up the formatting, Katoghike is the only one that fits. 3) [5] Here is the link, personally I don’t see how the first one is “cringe” but whatever, it’s a waste of time to harbor on that. 4) I already listed out every single concern clearly above, please refer above to why I don’t agree with the current skyline image. The one I proposed is very much centered and it was used in the article infobox for years, just because it’s not centered on the opera house doesn’t mean it’s not centered, in fact it shifts the focus to the actual skyline instead of the road. You yourself said it’s near-identical so I don’t see the hang up. 5) I’ll implement the agreed changes soon. TagaworShah (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be familiar with WP:EDITCON. Please have a read through. Per policy, "an edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." As such, the status quo images in the infobox did in fact have consensus as they were never reverted. You sought to replace those images, it was reverted, and therefore, the onus is on the editor who is implementing the change to provide rationale and establish a new consensus. Please try to comprehend this cycle. I fail to see how it is my responsibility to provide you with alternative images, especially considering the 4 remaining status quo images do not violate any wiki policies and I have provided justification regarding concerns around those 4 images you want to include. It is not productive for either of us to go round and round regarding those images. Since we cannot come to an agreement on the remaining 4 images, should you wish to link other images, then by all means, please do. I am in no rush- list as many alternatives as you like and we can try our best to discuss and come to a new consensus. Thanks for providing the link to the alternative Yerevan Opera image, my concern with this image is that it does not show the entire building and again is pictured from an odd angle. If you look at cities like Berlin, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Ottawa, and many others, their landmarks are almost always front facing. If they are off center, then typically, the entire structure is shown (see the Cairo Opera as a great example). This was exactly your main concern with the Genocide Museum and Matenadaran, being that the images did not reflect the entirety of the complex. You wanted images which reflected the landmarks more accurately, and I agreed with you on both. So I am a little confused why for the Yerevan Opera you want to add an image which is not reflective of the true size of the structure? Regarding all 4 images currently in dispute, I reiterate, please do link suitable alternatives and I am more than happy to discuss further. As for the 6 images we did reach a consensus on, as well as the collage layout, I will not oppose should you implement the changes from now. Archives908 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for not responding sooner but just know I have not closed off this conversation I just have come to a busier period than usual which affected my response times. All the images that we have not agreed upon are under active dispute per WP:EDITCON as you cited, I gave detailed explanation above about my qualms with each of the images, we must reach consensus on all the images as there is no consensus for the status quo and it has no preferential treatment to new editions in an edit conflict. Due to the difficulty that comes with formatting the infobox images in a way that is concise and aesthetically appealing I would like for us to come to a consensus on more of the images before I implement the change as to not mess up the format. Can we at least agree upon changing the Vardavar photo which is not of any Yerevan landmark to the Vernissage which I have provided authoritative sources as a recognizable landmark above and the skyline image per the reasoning above which was not touched upon in your latest comment? TagaworShah (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you have stopped saying there was no consensus for those images, as per WP:EDITCON they have never been reverted thus consensus was in fact established. Since none of the images were ever reverted, I don't believe it is utterly critical to change any of them. However, since you seem to demand change and have presented new images for inclusion, I have agreed to adding 6 (potentially 7 if Katoghike is moved to a more appropriate location in the body) of your suggestions (which is the majority). There are 4 images which you have been unable to convince me that would serve as an improvement to the infobox or the article itself. I oppose the removal of the Vardavar photo. Swan lake is a WP:N landmark in the city. "Swan lake Yerevan" yields 784,000 search results on Google, while "Vernissage market Yerevan" only yields 124,000 results. The sources you have provided are far from "authoritative". A 6 minute YouTube video is far from "authoritative". You may want to read WP:NOYT regarding YouTube. The NYT articles are paid articles- can't read them. The Armenian Weekly article is over a decade old source (WP:AGE MATTERS) that talks mostly about the economic activity of the market, not its alleged historical significance for the city. It is also written from a bloggers perspective- its not academic. These are hardly "authoritative" sources. I have asked you (see comment from November 21) to provide alternatives of the 4 images we cannot agree upon. I am still open to this option. May I remind you, that the WP:ONUS is on you to provide alternatives, rationale, and reliable sources for any changes you want to make. Per policy, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This includes the skyline image. I have already stated my concerns several times throughout this thread and its redundant to keep repeating myself. I reiterate again, please do list as many alternatives as you like and we can try our best to discuss and come to a new consensus regarding the 4 images. You seem to have totally ignored my comment regarding the Yerevan Opera, so I will copy and paste my November 21 comment with the hopes of getting a response. My concern with this image is that it does not show the entire building and again is pictured from an odd angle. If you look at cities like Berlin, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Ottawa, and many others, their landmarks are almost always front facing. If they are off center, then typically, the entire structure is shown (see the Cairo Opera as a great example). This was exactly your main concern with the Genocide Museum and Matenadaran, being that the images did not reflect the entirety of the complex. You wanted images which reflected the landmarks more accurately, and I agreed with you on both. So I am a little confused why for the Yerevan Opera you want to add an image which is not reflective of the true size of the structure? As a general note- I have already conceded to including more than half of your suggested images. Maintaining just 4 of them is more than fair. You too need to make compromises in order to achieve consensus here, not just me. This is the third time that I will suggest you implement the collage change and add the 6 images you want in the interim. Archives908 (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The images were reverted and removed by me, there is no consensus for ANY of the current images except the ones we both agreed on, just because they were the status quo for a short time does not mean they have any assumed consensus or authority over new images, that is Wikipedia policy plain and simple, you must seek consensus for keeping the contested images, it’s not a you decide what images stay or not discussion, this is a team effort and both sides must seek consensus per Wikipedia:Consensus. The Wikipedia:Onus is ALSO on you to provide reasons why the status quo should stay and why the new images should be reverted as you are the one who reverted them back and are demanding that they stay in place without consensus. As I previously cited, Wikipedia does not have a bias towards the status quo, in fact it has a bias towards change, change is preferable and editors should not shame other editors for implementing changes simply because they prefer the status quo. The reasons you cited against my pictures don’t add up, one Wikipedia:NOYT specifically states that videos that come from reputable international news agencies like CNN are permitted and do not fall under the guideline so I don’t know why that was even cited. Sean Lake is not a notable landmark of Yerevan by any measure, it does not even have a Wikipedia article, it is not listed in any major list of Yerevan landmarks from reliable sources, age matters does not apply to a landmark especially only 10 years, for real? I have provided sufficient reliable sources to prove the markets notability as a Yerevan landmark, you will need to provide another reasoning as to why that is not acceptable. As for the Opera, I am currently searching for alternatives. Lastly, the Skyline image, refer to my previous comment about that. TagaworShah (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be confused, so let me help clear things up for you (again). When an editor added the current images to the infobox, it has never since been contested. Therefore, per policy, the images attained consensus by default. The edit(s) were accepted and not contested in any way, shape, or form. You did not revert the original editor who added the images. You replaced them (some without any rationale whatsoever [aka like the Matendanaran image]). I reverted YOUR changes. Your interpretation of the policies are slightly skewed- I ask that you kindly stop twisting the timeline of events to fit your narrative. Per WP:ONUS, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I am not the one trying to change any of the existing images which were added by other editors and have already attained consensus by default. May I remind you that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is very clear regarding how consensus is established. You have boldly (and incorrectly) stated the status quo images did not achieve consensus, however, on Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly; as is the case for the current images in the infobox. While WP:BURDEN does state that it is both the responsibility of the editor who adds and restores material to demonstrate verifiability, you are the one trying to establish a new consensus with new images. It is your duty to provide clear rationale and WP:RS to back your position. We have reached an agreement with 6 images, but I am not convinced that the remaining 4 will be an improvement to the infobox or to the article overall. The CNN video fails to demonstrate how the market meets notability for inclusion in the infobox. The video is not about the marketplace itself. The video's primary topics are how carpets are made, history of the silk road, the cultural significance to the Armenian people, and the industry itself on a national level, not municipal. Have you even watched it? Ironically, the video itself states how carpet making is a dying industry and a mere fragment of what it once used to be. So, how on earth, is this relevant to modern Yerevan? How is this 6 minute video about the former importance of carpet making in Armenia at all notable enough for inclusion as a primary image in the infobox? It is far more logical for this image to be included elsewhere in the article or over at history of Armenia or economy of Armenia. I have suggested this as a fair alternative with some of the other images as well, but again, you seem unwilling to compromise. It seems you want to introduce your preferred version of the infobox without exploring other options. You do know that it is acceptable to include these images elsewhere, right? Your images like the church and the carpet would actually serve a greater purpose under other sections of the article. Also, as an FYI, just because a landmark does not have a Wikipedia article, it does not automatically imply the landmark is not notable. Wikipedia is an unfished project. Archives908 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is plain twisting of the Wikipedia guidelines, an edit has assumed consensus until it is disputed, those images are under dispute by me meaning they have no assumed consensus, it is incomprehensible to argue that they are not under dispute when I have paved out clearly on the talk page exactly which images are under dispute and why. Per Wikipedia:EDITCONSENSUS, this assumed consensus goes away once an edit has been reverted OR disputed, so even though I didn’t revert the previous images, I have disputed them meaning there is no consensus for their inclusion and it is on the person wanting to keep them in the article to seek consensus, again this is a team effort. I have provided clear reasoning and reliable sources to back up every single one of my proposed changes, at this point it’s completely a matter of your own personal preference and interpretation of the images and their significance as I don’t see any content arguments, only general notes on notability and reliability which have already been addressed multiple times and do not add to the discussion. It is not enough to agree on 6 out of 10 images, consensus must occur for all disputed images. TagaworShah (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo images were never reverted when implemented, thus attaining automatic consensus. You failed to provide an accurate WP:ES explaining why nearly all the images in the infobox had to be replaced. Shall we be reminded of your November 12 edit summary? On November 12, you wrote "+ new pictures". What did that even mean? What was the rationale, the explanation, the reasoning behind the need for "+ new pictures"?
There is no issue with you being WP:Bold, the original concern I had was that you replaced the existing images- which already had implicit consensus- with images (that some of which) are definitely not improvements. I have legitimate concerns regarding the notability and reliability of 4 images in particular and with the few sources you have provided here. I have brought to your attention my concerns (like I did with the CNN video source), but it unfortunately was ignored all together. You didn't even bother to address my concerns. We cannot reach a consensus if you keep ignoring my comments. I have also offered alternatives like finding other places within this article or other articles where these images might make more sense to be. That was ignored. I suggested that you try and find other alternative images we can review and debate upon. That was ignored.
Per WP:BRDDISCUSS, be ready to compromise. Please read this very, very, carefully: "if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even." There is no rule suggesting that we must come to a consensus on all 10 of your images. You certainly have the green light to implement the majority of your suggested images plus the new collage layout. It seems however, you are unwilling to compromise on 4 images and insist on an "all or nothing" strategy.
I remain open to WP:GF dialogue on my end. I still support the infobox to be updated to the new collage layout and I have conceded to 6 of your images to be included. The 4 that are left, legitimate concerns remain which have not been sufficiently addressed thus far. Therefore, the status quo for those 4 should remain- at least for now. This is a more than fair request and reasonable compromise. Archives908 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, once I disputed those images, any perceived consensus was gone as those images are now actively under dispute, any images that do not have consensus and are disputed are subject to change and must achieve consensus, that is non-negotiable, comprise is what we are here for, I have already compromised on most of the landmarks however it’s been rather one-sided on only me providing alternatives and justifying my images and you arbitrarily judging whether they’re worthy or not, like an employee running by a change with his boss, except we are supposed to be equals (see WP:OWN).
The original skyline image of the article that had consensus for years was the one I implemented the second time, that one actually shows the skyline and not a street leading up to the skyline. If you are unable to provide rationale based on Wikipedia policy why that should be kept (and they’re both “centered”) then we will revert back to the previous consensus for the skyline.
As for the Vernissage image which seems to be the final qualm, I am open to replacing that with another one of the Monuments of Yerevan, it seems what we have left are the Karen Demirchyan Complex and the Blue Mosque, Yerevan, i’ll let you choose which you would prefer, although I would say the Blue mosque has more historical significance as the Armenian government has attempted to list it as a UNESCO world heritage site. At this point I am indifferent to the inclusion of Katoghike or Saint Gregrory, i’ll leave Katoghike for now but if later on we decide St. Gregory is better I am open to replacing it, the reason I am waiting for us to finish the consensus is due to formatting concerns, it’s not easy changing the pictures and making it look right. TagaworShah (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The second image of the skyline you tried to implement on Nov 15 is a slightly more narrow perspective of the skyline. In my opinion, it is also off-center. But since that is a matter of perspective, I'll drop that concern. However, please recall the definition of what a skyline is- I included it in this thread on Nov 15. A skyline image should be as panoramic as possible. It's obvious that your proposed second image is more zoomed in as Mount Ararat is more prominent. How is that an improvement to the infobox/article?
2) I will concede to adding the Karen Demirchyan Complex in lieu of the carpets at Vernissage. It is a prominent landmark where high-level international events are frequently held and meets WP:N requirements for inclusion. Did you want to include the same image from its own article or do you have another image of the complex in mind? And just to be clear, this would be replacing the current image of the vardavar festivities at swan lake?
3) As I've said before, Katoghike is better off under the history or architecture section. Since you said you are indifferent to it, I recommend we maintain Saint Gregory since it is the largest and most notable Armenian church in the world. It checks off more H:IB criteria.
4) The final concern is the Yerevan Opera. You mentioned previously that you were still trying to find alternatives? No rush- but if you can please link any candidate images and explain how it serves as an improvement to the current image.
In summation- we seem to have reached a consensus for 8 images now with just 2 left which still require consensus (skyline and the opera). If you can kindly respond in a numerical order correlating to each topic- as I've done here- so we can keep this chat organized. Archives908 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) That Skyline image was the primary skyline image in the infobox for years prior to some months ago where it was replaced with the current ones. It shows the actual skyline of the city better as the current one is focused on the road leading up to the opera house and is taken at a lower angle so the skyline itself is less visible.
2) Ok we will go with that one, I am thinking the primary image of the Demirchyan Complex in its respective article is pretty good, and yes this will be replacing the Swan lake picture.
3) My primary concern with this is as stated in the beginning only including soviet and post-soviet architecture doesn’t reflect the full diversity of the subject and it’s architecture, i’ll leave it for now though, I recommend this photo[6] over the current photo however, it’s a lot clearer and more recent.
4) Here are my top three options for alternatives for the Opera house (not in order): [7][8][9] personally I prefer the one that’s not exactly “centered” on the front because it shows more of the architecture but I’m open to any of the 3.
If we can agree on those three points, I can work on changing it out. TagaworShah (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I understand the history of the image, but if another editor replaced it, then there must have been a reason for it. We could ping the user who implemented the change and try and find out the rationale behind it. Or- are you open to trying to find another alternative image? I feel like we could try to find one that is even better than the current one and the one you want to reinstate. Let's be honest, neither of them offer a true panoramic landscape of Yerevan's entire skyline. Perhaps we can find an alternative image that we are both happy with?
2) Awesome- works for me!
3) Again, feel free to add Katoghike in the article, I do not oppose its inclusion. I endorse including your preferred version of Saint Gregory, the image is much brighter and better quality.
4) I would recommend the first image you linked. It is similar to the current status quo, but brighter and better quality. I think we should avoid the evening one, as the architectural details are more difficult to see as the image itself is quite dark. As for the off-center one, the building's true size is not shown and it is also being obstructed by a statue in the foreground, with the base of the statue taking up 1/3rd of the entire picture alone.
In review- it seems we have reached consensus for three more images (#'s 2,3,4 above). Which leaves just the skyline. I'll wait for your response to the questions I asked above. Archives908 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so we agree on all the images except the skyline. Here are some decent alternatives [10][11] although I still hold that the second option I implemented which was the consensus beforehand is better suited for the infobox, city skyline don’t necessarily have to provide a full panoramic view, see Los Angeles article for example. TagaworShah (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles skyline image actually proves my point. The image includes the entirety of the city-center, which by most accepted definitions, generally includes the central business district found within a metropolitan conglomerate. See Toronto, Tokyo, and London where their CBD's are the focal point of the skyline. I still believe that the current status quo image is the most panoramic, as it includes the entire financial district of Yerevan, and most of the high-density urban areas of the Kentron district.
I'm torn between these two new images. The first image you linked is better quality and more crisp and clear, but the second one is more recent and thereby more accurate. Therefore, if I had to pick between these two, I would lean towards the second image, since it is newer and wider. It includes more of the city than the first image, which unfortunately, leaves a quarter of the city out.
As an FYI- the image you initially wanted to reinstate is from 2014, many new structures have since been constructed in the past decade which are not reflected in that outdated image. For that reason alone, it should be discredited.
I reiterate...I believe the status quo to be the best suited image, but if you are adamant on change, then I would have to default to the second image linked above as the next best option.
If that is what we are settling with, then it seems we have reached a total consensus. I trust you will implement the changes according to our agreed consensus in due course. If you need help with the layout of the collage, let me know. Archives908 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note- if you do come across any more skyline images in the future which are 1) recent 2) good quality and 3) offer more of a panoramic view of the skyline, then please do share as I'd be willing to revisit this conversation. Archives908 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I implemented the changes with the second alternative skyline, what do you think? I tried looking for other skyline images that would be better but couldn’t find any so for the time being I think this one is ok but i’m open to change it if new better images arise. TagaworShah (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, you were right about the Matenadaran blending into the background of that photo, I think the main facade being represented is fine, i’ll try and find a better picture. TagaworShah (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to restore the former status quo image of Matenadaran then? Or are you searching for alternatives? I don't think the new image is necessarily bad, in fact, I like how it highlights the entire structure. However, as I said previously, because the surrounding rocks are almost the same color, it is slightly hard to differentiate the building with the surround landscape (especially for readers with visual impairments). Archives908 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Archives908 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had another suggestion that just came to mind. What do you think of replacing the Erebuni Museum image with Katoghike? It would be better if we add the Erebuni Museum image under the "Museums" section of the article where it is linked in the 5th paragraph. And then, we could add the Katoghike image into the infobox. Thoughts? Archives908 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023[edit]

Your page "Yerevan" says: "A variety of nontrinitarian communities, considered dangerous sects by the Armenian Apostolic Church,[139] are also found in the city, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists and Word of Life.[140]"

Whatever one may think of them, the last two (Seventh-Day Adventists and Word of Life) are NOT nontrinitarian. You might, therefore, want to tweak that sentence. :) (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Seeing the city, it looks like Yerevan has a humid continental climate דולב חולב (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024[edit]


}Yerevan is part of Armenia. All the land that Turkey and Azerbaijan own is from Armenia.} 2603:8002:DF0:78D0:B02D:AC02:2ACA:7098 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]