Talk:Farukh

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Recent move

You cannot seize something that does not belong to you

edit

You cannot seize something that does not belong to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navruz azeri (talkcontribs) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Navruz azeriIt is impossible to occupy the de-jure own territory. Please do not vandalise the article. If you in doubt about the fact that former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast belonged to Azerbaijan, then you can read it at least from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_Autonomous_Oblast Zohrab javad (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nagorno Karabakh oblast has never been azerbaijan

If you in doubt about the fact that former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast belonged to Azerbaijan, then you can read it at least from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_Autonomous_Oblast --Zohrab javad (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 27 March 2022

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

Result:
No consensus. Closure requested <permalink>. See no agreement below to either rename this article or to keep its current title. Nor do we see consensus for other spellings mentioned below. Since these titles were bounced back and forth in January, the long-term title, Farux, will be used for now per Wikipedia policy. As is usual for a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a name change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

FarukhParukh – Reliable sources use both names to designate the village, so I propose to return the former name of Parukh per WP:COMMONNAME: Parukh, Nagorno-Karabakh = 59,800 results, Farukh, Nagorno-Karabakh = 32,200. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

*Oppose Official name is Farukh. Reputable news outlets mention it as Farukh. Moreover, google search is a weak argument to say that Parukh is more common. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support from policy is preferable to support from iranian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

edit
2A01:E0A:173:85E0:6430:DE3D:409C:EC97 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello admins,

First - Republic of Artsakh not existing. Kohdjali and Askeran district are Azerbaijani land. So need correction.

Thanks

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Recent move

edit

@Paine Ellsworth: Hey, moving the article to "Farux" and the way you've rearranged the Azerbaijani and Armenian scripts and transliterations on the page is not an improvement of the article in my view. I don't think the anglicization of "Farux" to "Farukh" is really controversial for the village, the anglicization is a clear improvement of the page's readability. The "long-term"-name Farux was used when the article was a stub, using GEOnet Names Server as the only source, not taking into account any of the historical or political context of the village. AntonSamuel (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Neither agree nor disagree, AntonSamuel. For the necessary revert back to the long-term-consensus title, let me refer you to WP:RMCI#Determining consensus and the Wikipedia policy, WP:TITLECHANGES. Also, a read of WP:OWN is suggested (these are not "our" articles). The rest was covered in the survey and discussion of the move request above. It would amaze me if anybody would be able to discern a consensus in that move request. A no-consensus outcome in a case like this means that the article reverts back to its most stable title, which in this case is "Farux". I would ask, please, that any further discussion about the closure take place on my talk page – thank you for that! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply