Talk:Stepanakert/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stepanakert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! :) I will be reviewing this article for GA status! I will be using the GAProgress template below to show my progress of this review. Once I am finished, I will be placing everything in the GATable GAList2 template to explain what needs to be changed for GA status. Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 20:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article is well made, but there are a few issues, listed below, that need to be fixed before promotion to GA.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The portion quoting the OSCE Minsk Group in the Air section should either be placed in quotes (although it may be too long for a quoted copyrighted section) or paraphrased entirely, check MOS:QUOTE for further information.
   The Twin towns section contains a word to watch: the word "purportedly" is used when explaining Azerbaijan's description of Montebello's twinned status with Stepanakert. As it is already stated that the sentence is of Azerbaijan's view, saying that it is "purported" adds more doubt to their point of view.
   Fix these and this part is good!

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References and bibliography are listed

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   For the most part, sources are reliable, but I do not know if the Great Russian Encyclopedia (second bibliographical citation) is trustable when it comes to disputed territories like Stepanakert, as there will be some Soviet/Russian bias (noting the GRE's articles for Sevastopol and Donetsk).

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig did not bring up any major copyvios aside from the OSCE Minsk Group portion, although that is quoted. Addressed in 1b's comments

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to cover all the main points

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This is a very important part of this article, as it discusses a disputed territory. That being said, I reckon neutrality has been handled well.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Not many new edits since the article got nominated for GA, but the article remains quite stable as a result.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One of the images, File:Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg, is currently being nominated for deletion as a result of incorrect and unknown attribution, so I will hold off on this until the deletion discussion is complete.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The aforementioned image, File:Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg, doesn't seem to be that relevant, as there appears to be no mention of a tribune in the article's prose.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold until issues listed are completed. Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: Hello :) Thank you so much for reviewing the article and providing helpful information on how to get it to GA status! I have implemented the suggested changes. I paraphrased the OSCE statement (feel free to let me know if it is sufficiently different or too close) and I removed the word purportedly. As for the image, I removed it altogether and replaced it with a 19th century Russian postcard that claims to depict the garrison of Khankandy which is discussed in that section. I completely agree with your concerns about the Great Russian Encyclopedia, however, at least for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, it seems editors on both sides have a rough consensus that Russian/Soviet sources are generally ok to use, in addition, the controversial information that it is used to support is also confirmed by corresponding western sources. Please let me know of any other changes I can make to improve the article! Best, TagaworShah (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Thank you for responding so quickly, I truly appreciate it! Your work on the article has been excellent and it's very worthy of GA. Here are the rectified issues:

1b - OSCE: So I think I've made a mistake in the review, in which I hadn't checked Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing when dealing with the OSCE statement... now I think the best solution would be to put it in quotes as per MOS:QUOTE, something like:

The OSCE Minsk Group, which mediates the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, stated that "operation of [Stepanakert Airport] cannot be used to support any claim of a change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh" and "urged the sides to act in accordance with international law and consistent with current practice for flights over their territory."

So that section is  On hold until corrected

1b - Word to watch: As you said, the "purported" section is fixed  Done

6a and 6b: The postcard image contains correct attribution and is copyright-free as per Russian law, which is another plus. So, I will confirm that part as  Done

2b: I agree with your explanation, and so as such, I will also confirm this as  Done

Thank you once again :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: Hello, Thank you again for your review and helping me fix the issues in the article! I have replaced the paraphrasing with the quote you provided. I truly appreciate the help! Best, TagaworShah (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Awesome! In this case, that means this article is now GA! Thank you so much :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox formatting of Armenian and Azerbaijani names

Both small villages and large settlements in the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh alike have a mostly uniform Wikipedia layout in regards to naming: The romanized Armenian name is oftentimes displayed as the official name and thus in bold, while the Armenian name in the native alphabet, as well as the Azerbaijani name, are put into the native name box and formatted regularly. Alternatively, the romanized Armenian is occasionally rendered as the common name, the name in the Armenian alphabet is "native", and the Azerbaijani name is displayed as the official name and thus in bold yet smaller than the other designations.

Excellent paradigms for this formulation are the Martuni, Karakend, and Umudlu articles; the Vank and Chartar articles are great examples for the second option.

My call is not a political one, but one for uniformity and impartiality.

Stepanakert, among some other articles on (formerly and currently) Armenian-majority settlements, features the Armenian and Azerbaijani names side by side in the infobox. However, it would make more sense for historically Armenian-populated settlements in the current NKR to have a uniform infobox, with the Armenian name taking priority by virtue of WP:COMMONNAME (for at least the last 98 years) and Template:Native name. The Azerbaijani name would, of course, be also displayed by virtue of international law. This would self-evidently not apply to historically Azerbaijani-populated settlements in the NKAO/NKR like Khojaly, which was only somewhat recently renamed to Ivanyan, a name which is virtually unused, even among Armenian communities. Similarly, it would make sense for the city of Shusha to retain its (romanized and native) Armenian name in the infobox, but subordinate to the Azerbaijani name for sake of the current status, which is to say, again, international law. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone possibly append their opinion on this matter? It has been a week, and I believe this to be a relaitvely significant issue. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• Option A i.e. the Martuni format. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A for Stepanakert only. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged:; @Kevo327: Thanks a lot to you two for your input. I would like to wait a little for other people to join in and opine, but I don't believe this to be a major point of contention. Either way, I'll wait, and thank you for adding your thoughts in the meantime. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• Keep. Edits like that are not NPOV. Stepanakert has special importance in Nagorno-Karabakh, same as the town of Shusha. The latter's article is featured using slash for the two names, although the town was Azeri-majority before the war and the Azerbaijani name was the official name before the conflict. The current wording was just fine. Also, historic names should not be mentioned in the top of the infobox, especially when we do not know the exact dates - there is special place for that in the history section. --Mastersun25 (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 ::While Stepanakert and Shusha both have mixed Armenian and Azerbaijani history, they are in two separate socio-political situations, which is why I proposed highlighting Stepanakert AND Shusha at the same time (also for WP:COMMONNAME purposes). BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and Stepanakert/Khankendi/Vararakn (compare ancient names with Tashkent, Dushanbe, etc.) last had an Azerbaijani majority in 1915 (according to the "Caucasian Calendar"—even though right before and after that census, there had been Russian and Armenian supermajorities in the city, respectively. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• Keep The official name of the city is Khankendi, not Stepanakert. An unrecognized country cannot do official work. The city is located in Azerbaijan according to international law. Thus, Khankendi should be the official name in the information box. VivaEspana11 (talk page) 09:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:EljanM

this isn't a keep or delete vote, the word keep is invalid here, you two should familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia before wasting user time. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You've not replied my comment in Talk:Aşağı Ağcakənd yet. VivaEspana11 (talk page) 12:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:EljanM

• VivaEspana11 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is fine the way it is. Both names should be mentioned in bold. Grandmaster 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Per above. However, I tend to think that places that were reclaimed by Azerbaijan during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war should contain only Azerbaijani names in the lead (because of both de jure and de facto Azerbaijani control). Brandmeister^talk 21:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

**It is truly bizarre that Grandmaster and Brandmeister—both Azerbaijani accounts with a variation of the word "master" in their name—commented on this discussion almost a month after my initial posting. Around half an hour apart. Sockpuppet investigation might be suitable sometime. (?) BaxçeyêReş (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• • • Indeed. Artsakh articles are a honey pot for sockpuppets. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey! My name includes word "Master" too so don't forget to report me for that as well. It clearly would make more sense to try to get other users banned instead of carrying out a healthy discussion, isn't it? --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

*****Hey! There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against you, so opening a new one until the current one is resolved would be senseless, much like your "attempts" to foster "healthy discussions" while using ad hominem attacks. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• • • • Also the information in the infobox that the name "Vararakn" was used until 1923 is factually incorrect and absolutely unsourced, would someone bother to edit that? Or is it not that important in your opinion? --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

*****I suggest you visit an ophthalmologist, Mastersun25. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• • • • • Well, I suggest that you should stop using a sockpuppet account to pretend being a third party to this conflict, pushing disruptive edits to every AA-article on Wikipedia. User who accused everyone of being sockpuppets, turned out to be Armenian sockpuppet himself. What an irony! --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Etymology

Your text – "Another sources claim that the settlement was built in late 18th century, as a place of rest for the heads of the Karabakh Khanate."

Your added sources:

1) Russian encyclopedia doesn't say the settlement "was built" in 18th century, morover it actually confirms Armenian historians' attestment. Quote from the source: "According to the middle century Armenian sources, settlement on the site of the present. cities under the name. Vararakn has existed since the end. 5 c. and belonged to Caucasian Albania. In 10-16 centuries. was part of the arm. of the Khachen principality, in the 16-18 centuries. arm. Melikosti Varanda. From ser. 18th century as part of the Karabakh Khanate... From the end. 18th century used the name. Khankendi (Azerb. - Khan village)."

It doesn't say "the settlement was built in late 18th century", it says From the end. 18th century.... So what you're trying to do with your text and edit is called WP:OR.

2) We can probably leave the Az source, but it has to be properly attributed like it was with long-standing article version, e.g. "Most Azerbaijani sources claim that the settlement was built in late 18th century"

3) Verlag Dr. Köster is a WP:SPS publisher. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ok, I will change. ok, no problem, remove it till I find another one. Aydin mirza (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing to change. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, what about "Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923"? Both sources say that "local names were Khankendi in Azeri and Vararakn in Armenian, was officially renamed 'Stepanakert'" and "at Stepanakert (Khankend, Vararakn)". You are very carefull with the sources and expressions, so it should be edited. do you edit it? --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: The sources match exactly what is said in the article, Norman Davies is unambiguous in saying that when the city was renamed Stepanakert(1923) the Armenian name for the city was Vararakn. The other source presents the same thing that until 1923, there were two names for the city, one Armenian and one Azerbaijani. That’s quite literally what the sources say, there is no problem with that. What there is a problem with is your edits. They mess up the flow of the article, are poorly sourced, and add nothing new expect turning neutral statements into partisan statements. I suggest you revert back to the previous well sourced version.TagaworShah (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Armenia: A Historical Atlas the book you've used doesn't reflect what you've written. You just copy-pasted 7th reference witout even bothering to change the page. Neither does this supposed Russian encyclopedia. It only says the names was used not renamed, which was already written. Do not edit-war and revert without reaching consensus, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

TagaworShah, reg to the sources, firstly, Davies says "local names were Khankendi in Azeri and Vararakn in Armenian". So it should be reflected in the article according to the source. Is it right? Secondly, Payaslian say "Stepanakert (Khankend, Vararakn)". If you think that my editions mess up the flow in the article, we can add Azerbaijani name. is it ok? --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, 1. I didn't copy paste 7th references, I've just changed the sentance and kept the same citation. 2. reg Russian Encyclopedia, where is it(Khankendi) already written? You reverted editions with the source(I mean in the section Etimology). you could just change "use" with "rename". but as usually, you prefer to revert. In this case, don't say me about edit war. I make editions, not revert like you without any discussions. Let me remind you, that users and editors are free to challenge. 3. are you going to edit now? (I mean to note Azerbaijani name Khankendi as both sources note). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin mirza (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

eg Russian Encyclopedia, where is it(Khankendi) already written? – yes, it is already written. are you even reading the article before editing? Quote from the section: " By the 19th century, the settlement was renamed Khankendi ("village of the khan" in Azerbaijani) [1]. Btw, 7th reference says 19th century, and it is already mentioned as “renamed”, so your edit literally doesn't provide any improvement to the article.

Accorning to Azerbaijani sources a settlement was built in late 18th century... – your change isn't properly attributed, and the long-standing version of that section is completely fine and needs no change, since no reliable source(s) say that the settlement “was built” in 18th section, and contrary to that, most sources confirm the Armenian Vararakn settlement as first. The current wording of "Most Azerbaijani sources claim that the settlement was built in late 18th century" is properly attributed, hence you were reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin Mirza: The article already perfect reflects what the sources say, look at my previous comment on explanation on why that is, there is nothing wrong with the way that it is right now.TagaworShah (talk)

I'd also recommend you to read my respond. I explained you why it is not perfect. Khankendi is shown once in this section as supported only by Azerbaijani sources, but it's not indeed. My editions are reverted very quickly and easy even with revieble sources, because inserted sentance or even the word is not the same as in the source. Ok, I'm agree. So, I'm asking now about "Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923", where both sources say about two names. Why is only one name reflected here? As I can destroy the perfect flow in the article, so, it'd be great if you edit considering a.m. issues. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say, quite frankly, you're not making a lot of sense. Everything is written according to reliable sources cited. Khankendi is shown once in this section as supported only by Azerbaijani sources, but it's not indeed – the claim that's attributed to Az sources is the "18th century built" claim. The Az name isn't attributed to anyone, it just says and I quote: "By the 19th century, the settlement was renamed Khankendi".

So, I'm asking now about "Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923", where both sources say about two names. Why is only one name reflected here? – because of chronological order? What are you even trying to say? For Armenians, the name always (or at least till the year cited) remained Vararakn, and it's correctly shown in the section. It's already noted that the name changed to Khankendi in 19th century. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that you understand what I'm trying to say. We'll back to this subject with third party voice. --Aydin mirza (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead section tag

Hello @Jr8825:, I hope all is well. I saw that you added the “lead too short” tag on the article so I expanded the lead based on how I saw other leads formatted for different cities. I went ahead and removed the “lead too short” tag but now I realize I probably should’ve asked you if you think the lead now properly introduces the article content in enough depth? I’m open to any suggestions, i’d like to get the article to good article status (if that’s even possible for something so controversial), and a solid lead is a good start. Thank you in advance. TagaworShah (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

@Grandmaster: Your edit is simply inaccurate. Per the sources in the article, the majority of the time during the Russian empire, from the first census in 1886-1912 the population was recorded as mostly Russian. Only the 1915 census saw an Azerbaijani majority and then by 1921 the next census was majority Armenian. Saying the population was majority Azerbaijani in the Russian empire is WP:TEND as you are misrepresenting the sources, only for a short period of the Russian empire were Azerbaijanis the majority. Also, pre soviet censuses are already discussed in detail in the demographics section, they do not belong in the lede. Please revert yourself. TagaworShah (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What he said. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My edit says: In the Russian empire, the population of the town was predominantly Russian or Azerbaijani. As is clear from the sources, at different times, there was either Russian or Azerbaijani majority during the imperial rule. What is inaccurate here? Even if recorded only in 1915, the town of Khankendi had an Azerbaijani majority at one point. And I do not see why Soviet censuses belong to the lead, and Russian imperial ones are not. I already proposed to keep all the demographics out of lead, but it received no support. Grandmaster 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Saying Russian or Azerbaijani is not a fair assessment, it was Azerbaijani for a minuscule period and Russian for the grand majority of the recorded censuses of the Russian empire. We don’t use non official censuses in the lede, they belong in the demographics section, it is already mentioned in the demographics section. The lede should accurately reflect the sources with due weight, the very brief Azerbaijani majority does not have the same weight as the Russian or Armenian majorities, a few years versus centuries. TagaworShah (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If we are summarizing demographics, then all the major changes need to be reflected, especially if they are mentioned in the demographics section. I do not think that there is a rule that does not allow to use Russian imperial statistics, and use only Soviet ones. WP:WEIGHT certainly does not apply here. Also, all Russian imperial sources are official. Caucasus calendar was published by Russian authorities who were in charge of Transcaucasia. Grandmaster 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a rule that does not allow using Russian imperial statistics, and use only Soviet ones. Statistics aren't the issue here, the issue is adhering to WP:DUE weight. One year's Azeri majority from 1915 doesn't have the same due weight as Russian or certainly Armenian populations, which have been majority (especially Armenian) for far more years. If you have arguments to present pertaining to this discussion and to WP:DUE, and how come one year's statistics of population is significant enough for the lead, then go ahead. Don't change the conversation again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE does not apply to selective use of historical records. It does say that you can remove a historical fact because it was short term. WP:DUE is about minority and majority scholarly views, and not historical facts. If you could prove that majority of reliable sources disagree with the fact that Azerbaijani people constituted a majority in this place in 1915, then WP:DUE would apply. Otherwise, it has no relevance here. Also, it is not one year, it was from 1915 on, at least until early 1920s. Grandmaster 20:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It does say that you can remove a historical fact because it was short term. - Your fact is still in the appropriate section of the article, the issue here is that it isn't significant enough for the lead. Please read carefully and don't misinterpret my position, and yes, WP:WEIGHT does apply in cases such as this. One year statistic doesn't have enough significance to be included in the lead with the city's 100+ yr/o population record. And the info is only for 1915, I don't see anything abt "until early 1920s". But even then, it wouldn't change anything, and it would still be WP:UNDUE for the lead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Though I can probably guess it, I'm frankly puzzled on why there is such a grand obsession over demographics in the lede section. While I disagree with Grandmaster's initial edit, TagaworShah's has, inconceivably, made things worse, burying important information about the town in a section whose only aim is to provide broad outlines of the town. This oneupmanship has to be tamped down. Nobody cares about the swelling size of the Russian or Azeri population in 1886 and then in 1915 and then again in 1921 in the introduction of an article. They just want to know where it is, how big its population is, and what its current status is. I'd cull it myself if I knew I wouldn't be immediately reverted and I'd trigger an editing frenzy. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Fix the lead in whichever way you see fit. I was just trying to accommodate all viewpoints so we could no longer see conflict and expand the short lead, if you want to remove the historical demographics from the lead go right ahead, I won’t revert you, that’s just how I thought the lead would be better. TagaworShah (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's what I proposed from the very beginning, to keep details on demographics out of the lede. Anyway, it looks better now. But where does the claim the "local Armenian population continued to use the former name until the 1920s" come from? It had no Armenian population before 1920s. Grandmaster 23:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I’m glad you like the lead! That statement comes from Norman Davies “The autonomous republic's capital, whose local names were Khankendi in Azeri and Vararakn in Armenian, was officially renamed 'Stepanakert.” Local Armenians just means Armenians of the area not necessarily the town although there was a small population in the town before 1920, Davies confirms that Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923. TagaworShah (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That quote certainly does not say that "local Armenian population continued to use the former name until the 1920s". At best, it could be interpreted as Vararakn being used at some point in the past. But the only official name for the town in the Russian empire was Khankendi, and you can see it also on Russian imperial maps. It had no significant Armenian population either before 1920s. So it is good that it was removed. Grandmaster 17:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Care to explain why you deleted the entire history section of the lead? I consulted multiple good and featured articles for different cities around the world to construct that, they all had the major history of the city in the lead. I heard your concerns about going into specific demographics in the lead, so I took that out but just outright deleting the entire history section from the lead? I have not seen a single good city article that has its history entirely missing from the lead. And then you also deleted sourced content from the history section, why? Statements from Raffi were given due attribution, the rest was sourced by the Russia encyclopedia, the history section is supposed to be an in depth look at the history, not a summary. TagaworShah (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some of the edits. I gutted the introduction because it was too detailed and most of the information is stated, in almost as many words, in the body of the text. A lot of it was also filler. The agreements and treaties and passing from one ruler to the other had almost no bearing on the settlement itself, meriting brief mentions rather than passages heavy on context, but shorn of any information about the town itself. I also made more stylistic changes to improve on readability and prose. I am open to providing some history, but it would have to be very concise. Maybe something like, "With its foundations in the earlier period, Stepanakert has enjoyed a long history..." Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: I don’t see why the history in the lead need be extremely short? Other similar city articles have it just like this. What I think is important is mentioning all the former names in the lead and when they were changed, the first history paragraph was crafted drawing inspiration on the Los Angeles article. The second paragraph is also very important as Stepanakerts soviet past and the Nagorno-Karabakh war are very significant to the city’s history and touched upon extensively in the sources. It’s not like the lead is too long, it’s pretty standard for an article of this size. I also don’t understand why you removed the stuff about the meeting of the Armenian meliks with Abbas Mirza in the city or what part of the Russia empire it was located in? TagaworShah (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Stepanakert is not Tokyo or Los Angeles. It's OK to have a shorter article if the content is simply not there. Indeed, some of the sources cited are not by specialists (Norman Davies for one). When you start adding all the filler, the lede just becomes cumbersome. The lede is for essential details, a Sparknotes version about the city. As it stands, you're providing far more context than the article currently merits. I didn't notice if the meliks and Abbas Mirza met in the settlement, but that wasn't clear in the text itself. If they did indeed meet in Vararakn, that of course can be added. I disagree with your recent re-insertion, but I won't be the one to revise or remove it. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Ok, I have cut the lead down significantly to only be the most basic and important details. It now matches the length of other cities of this size. What do you think? Also, I understand that Norman Davies may not be a specialist of the region, but a highly distinguished historian is a highly distinguished historian. Yes, Raffi does mention a meeting between the meliks of Karabakh and Abbas Mirza in Khankendi(what he called it), I will go ahead and add that back. TagaworShah (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. I would still gut the second paragraph in the lede because it's too detailed, or reduce to about just one sentence and combine it with the third paragraph. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I too think that it looks better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: I reduced the second paragraph to one sentence and combined it with the third. What do you think? TagaworShah (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Much better. The article could definitely do with some other sources (mainly in Armenian or Russian) that could help expand on the city's history and development during the Soviet and post-Soviet eras. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Most definitely, i’ve been collecting sources from the Russian and Armenian wikis to expand the section in order to get it to good article status. If you know any good sources or anyone who is experienced with Russian and Armenian sources than that would be much appreciated. TagaworShah (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: The quote says that at the time of the renaming of the city to Stepanakert, the local names were Vararakn and Khankendi respectively, Payaslian implies the same thing. We are not talking about official name, it is already stated in the article that the official name changed from Vararakn to Khankendi in 1847, we are saying what the local Armenian population called it. And the city DID have a significant Armenian population before 1920, the caucasian calendar of 1915 cites a significant Armenian minority, there has always been at least some Armenians living in the settlement per the history and demographics section, and local Armenians means Armenians of the surrounding area too, who still called it by it’s original name, there was also the church of Vararakn as well in the rown that has since been destroyed in the 30s but evidences that the name was still in use by Armenians but, we already have two historians confirming that so I won’t bother with that detail. TagaworShah (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me at least one Russian imperial source using the name Vararakn? I can show you many using Khankendi. It was a location of a Russian garrison. But Armenian presence there was minimal. I wonder how come that the official name of Khankendi gets no mention in the lead, but Vararakn for which there is no reliable evidence is mentioned as a matter of fact? Grandmaster 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also refer to the discussion above on why we are keeping the lead section concise. TagaworShah (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It is good to keep it concise. But some mention of an official historical name would make total sense. Grandmaster 17:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is from Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

Stepanakert (until 1923 - the village of Khankendy) is a city, the center of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan SSR. Renamed in honor of S. Shaumyan. [2] Soviets kept track of their renaming activity. Do you see any mention of Vararakn? Grandmaster 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: No reliable evidence? So John Everett-Heath, Robert Hewsen, and the Great Russian Encyclopedia and all the other citations for the name are just making it up? Yeah no, we have reliable third party historians confirming the antiquity of that name going up to at least the 10th century. Khankendi is already mentioned in the lead, it’s literally one of the official names, we don’t need to mention the name of the small Russian military outpost that occupied less than a century of the city’s history in the lead. If you remember, I did originally write that also but, took it out since it’s already covered in the history section and not needed in the lead. Also, i’m a mobile editor and can only reply at the very end of the discussion to one reply so if you could condense everything you have to say in one reply that would be much appreciated. TagaworShah (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Yeah i’m more inclined to believe what modern historians have to say instead of what the soviet encyclopedia has to say, why use that when we have the Great Russian Encyclopedia published in 2016? (I know you speak russian so i’m just gonna leave it the way it is)

Со­глас­но ср.-век. арм. ис­точ­ни­кам, по­се­ле­ние на мес­те совр. го­ро­да под назв. Ва­ра­ракн су­ще­ст­во­ва­ло с кон. 5 в. и от­но­си­лось к Кав­каз­ской Ал­ба­нии. В 10–16 вв. вхо­ди­ло в со­став арм. кня­же­ст­ва Ха­чен, в 16–18 вв. арм. ме­лик­ст­ва Ва­ран­да.

Or Robert Hewsen published by the University of Chicago?

Originally called Vararakn, this Armenian village on the right bank of the Gargar (Arm. Karkar) River

Or John Everett-Heath published by Oxford University?[3]

Khankendy replaced Vararakn in 1847

Or Rouben Paul Adalian?

Originally Vararakn, renamed Khankend in 1847 during the Russian period

Or Claude Mutafian?

…the former Armenian Vararakn, then a small town

As you can see we have a multitude of reliable third party historians confirming the name Vararakn, I would understand if it was just the Armenian soviet encyclopedia (i’m not inclined to believe what the Azerbaijani soviet encyclopedia says either) but when you have this many historians confirming it, there is no denying it. TagaworShah (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That was not my point. My point was that the official name of Khankendi is not mentioned, while Vararakn is, despite never being official. You argue that both were in use before rename in 1923, but GSE does not support the claim. In any case, I don't think that this revert was justified. [4] And mentioning the Azerbaijani official name is not the same as mentioning in historical context. Khankendi was the official name not just in Azerbaijan, but also in the Russian empire. Grandmaster 18:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Vararakn was the official name of the town for at least a thousand years per the Great Russian Encyclopedia. By the time the Russian empire renamed it, it was a semi-abandoned village with barely any houses or villagers. It was then turned into a small military outpost inhabited by a few russian soliders and there descendants. This is not a significant part of the city’s history at all. Following the lead of other similar cities, we mention the original name of the ancient settlement and the significant periods, which is the soviet period as that is when it regained significance, a name given during the Russian colonial period where the city had no significance and was barely inhabited isn’t needed in the lead. TagaworShah (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This place never had any significance before 1923. Why more than a hundred years of Russian history deserve no mention whatsoever in the lead? Grandmaster 19:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually think that all historical information is better be removed from the lede, considering that the place does not have much history to talk about. The way they arranged the lede in the Russian wiki makes more sense. Grandmaster 19:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Yeah exactly it had no significance before 1923, why should we mention anything from the Russian empire in the lead? I removed all the history from the Russian empire from there since it simply wasn’t significant, it just clutters the lead. The original name of the ancient settlement it was built on is significant as that was its name for over a thousand years. The Russian colonial name that lasted less than a century and comprised one of the least significant periods of the city’s history is not necessary. TagaworShah (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That settlement was of no importance at any time of its history before 1923. At least in Russian times it was a military headquarters. Btw, that deserves a mention too. Grandmaster 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly, the Russian wiki article is not a good standard to look at. If we look at the good articles for cities similar to Stepanakert they all briefly mention the most ancient period of the city in the lead. History is important in the lead, i’m planning on getting this article to good article status so i’ve followed all the guidelines and examples to create the best lead. TagaworShah (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: The military outpost is mentioned in the history section, I will be expanding that even further soon, I did include it in the lead then cut it out because it wasn’t important, the lead is good as it is now. TagaworShah (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Али2008 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Здравствуйте! Город Ханкенди является Азербайджанской территорией, видь НКР никто не признал, пожалуйста опишите его частью Азербайджанской Республики"

Али2008 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please write in english, and please provide reliable sources to support your change if you would like to change the name of a city. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Вопрос

А почему Степанакерт, видь город называется "Ханкенди"? Али2008 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Привет,

Пжлст прочитайте наш стандарт WP:COMMONNAME. Англиязычные СМИ его обычно зовут «Степанакерт», поэтому, на ВП тоже зовем так. спс, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, вы же говорите что Крым это Украина? Так Карабах тоже Азербайджан, запад поддерживает же Украину, почему нас не поддерживают? Армения в ОДКБ, а Азербайджан в сессии НАТО и ЕС. Али2008 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

На английском ВП, статус мест в международном праве — не решающий фактор, когда мы решаем о географических именах.

Пока англоязычные обычно зовут место «А», ВП должен звать его «А», и не «Б».

Иногда происходит, что результат дискуссии — «политкорректное» имя, а обычно все хорошо.

Вам можно найти больше информации здесь)

Спс, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

217.76.13.38 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is Armenia Artsax. Stepanakert

 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. Cannolis (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxflag

Hi. Pls add Azerbaijani flag on the description part, near the name Azerbaijan in country section. 185.81.82.214 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see section 'Infoboxflag' just below. --T*U (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: --T*U (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear User, please see |Accompany flags with country names section. Using {{flag|Country}} template is the true way described here. Almost every city infobox has {{flag|Country}} template. For example see: Yerevan ,Kapan , etc..Yakamoz51 (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yakamoz51: I am afraid that you are misinterpreting the Manual of Style/Icons guideline. The 'Accompany flags with country names' section that you point to, specifies that if you use flag icons (whether in an infobox or elsewhere), the flag should not be used alone, but used together with the country name, at least in the first use of the flag. More specificly, it does not say 'accompany country names with flags'.

The relevant section of the guideline is the section just before: 'Avoid flag icons in infoboxes', which states quite clearly: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field and Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. The section then continues to describe cases where the use of flags in infoboxes may be proper (and useful), like military conflicts and internaional sports event. Finally, the use of flags in human geographic articles is discussed, and the guideline states that the flag of the country and of the first-level administrative level may be used (not 'should be used').

I am aware that many (but certainly not all) articles about cities are using such flags. In this case, I could not see that the addition of the flag did convey any 'information in addition to the text', so I removed it. You are in your full right to revert my edit if you find it wrong, but I would much prefer that you explain what additional information the flag gives instead of citing a completely irrelevant guideline. But by all means: Enjoy your flag! Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear T*U, thank you for your explanation. I didn't aware this guideline before you mentioned. As you also aware almost all cities in WP has flags next to their country name although it appears that it is optional. So let's keep it. Best!Yakamoz51 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Artsakh map

In my opinion, there is no valid reason to have the Republic of Artsakh map in the article since the republic has de-facto dissolved and the city is under the Azerbaijani control. I did not want to edit the article before knowing your opinions. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality?

2023, it was reported that Azerbaijani authorities had taken control of the city, with almost the entire Armenian population having forced to flee to Armenia ahead of their advancing forces.

Azerbaijan want the city population to stay but Armenian politicians in Yerevan want them to move to Armenia.

Be Neutral please? Wikipedia is the place where the poor kids learn, please don't destroy those poor kids future. 2404:C0:5410:0:0:0:9CB:6E36 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is not neutrality and objectivity in this article, especially official name of city

Although the unofficial use of the name Stepanakert in the past when it was under the rule of occupying forces was somewhat acceptable (these regions were never legally part of any country other than Azerbaijan), it is now reconciled when the occupation is over and Azerbaijan has regained control of the city. It is important that the name of this article be changed to Khankendi/Xankendi in Azerbaijani for English wikipedia. 78.190.236.17 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you scroll up, you'll notice there's ongoing discussion on this issue already. But as it is a contentious topic subject to ongoing arbitration enforcement, non-extended-confirmed users may not participate in discussions about moving articles. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Recapture instead of capture

For neutrality, we should change “Capture by Azerbaijan” to Recapture by Azerbaijan. Camal2015 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For neutrality, we should "Liberation by Azerbaijan" instead of capture or recapture by Azerbaijan. 78.190.236.17 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It was always Azerbaijani town residing within internationally recognised borders of Azerbaijan. Iliko (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Name

This and other territories of Azerbaijan that liberated on 19-20 September have own names. Ex: not Stepanakert but Khankendi DEFINETLY. Research it! 188.253.239.186 (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

Change "Nagorno-Karabakh" to "Karabakh Economic Region" as it is done below the map. Sources are the same as for the map's text. Iliko (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus for such a drastic change. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023 (2)

change Stepanakert to Khankendi 188.253.239.186 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Please, name all Azerbaijan's regions correctly!

 Not done See above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Needs Neutrality for Notable people

This section is written from the Armenian perspective. Notable Azerbaijani and other people whose examples are given below should also be added to the list.

Agha Baji Javanshir

Bakhshi Galandarli

Fakhraddin Manafov

Flora Gasimova

Ibrahim Khalil Khan

Shirin Mirzayev

Marat Manafov

Zahra Shahtakhtinskaya

Hezarfen (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Outdated information in "Politics and government" section

The photos given under the name "Government buildings" are incorrect. There are no buildings named "The National Assembly", "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and "Government building" in Khankendi city. Photos containing this outdated information should be removed. Hezarfen (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Administrative divisions of artsakh" section is obsolote

Khankendi is de facto and de jure administered by the Republic of Azerbaijan. There is no administrative structure under the so-called artsakh. This section needs to be removed. Hezarfen (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hezarfen hello. FYI, I've removed the template, as it was also present in the template above. The template you mention can be reworked or renamed — Toghrul R (t) 08:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

The following discussion 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.

---

80.69.53.140 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done Empty request  // Timothy :: talk  13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Legal action against Wikipedia

The following discussion 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.

---

Khankandi is an internationally recognised part of Azerbaijan and according to UN laws, Sovereign countries have the right for choosing toponyms in their territory. Wikipedia is violating international laws by resisting against changing the names of the page. Government of Azerbaijan will take legal actions against Wikipedia if you keep doing this. Don't cry later! Aydinyol (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 11 November 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus to move at the moment. Let's wait for a couple more months to see if newer sources are more consistent in using either name as the primary name (if both are used) or common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Stepanakert → Khankendi – Due to recent events, control of the city and region has shifted. Reflecting this, English-language sources have now started using Khankendi as the WP:COMMONNAME for the city instead of Stepanakert. This is demonstrated in sources like the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, the BBC, France 24, and more. Remember that due to WP:NAMECHANGES, extra weight is given here. Also at times, English-language sources use both names of the city at the same time, but very rarely is the city only referred to as Stepanakert since Azerbaijan has taken control. After all, it is fully integrated into the country today, and I think that sources have reflected this change in the way they refer to the city. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I might add that even Google has seemingly established the COMMONNAME for the city on its website. On my English-language Google search engine, the "heading" for the city is Khankendi and not Stepanakert, even when I search up "Stepanakert". Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also, even if Stepanakert might be regarded by some as WP:COMMONNAME, that wouldn't carry much weight because: there are several issues with that: 1) Artsakh Republic that controlled the city is legally set to dissolve while the city's Armenian population has left it, thus waivering any claim to the Stepanakert name; 2) the city now is under both civilian and military control of Azerbaijan on the ground, particularly after the military parade in the city; 3) continued usage of the Stepanakert name would endorse outdated, inaccurate and potentially WP:POVish view. Brandmeister^talk 00:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is unconditional, if it was the common name it wouldn't carry less weight because of those three reasons. Also I don't think there is any POV issue here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur. COMMONNAME has the first say on the issue, within the context of WP:NAMECHANGES due to recent changes in the region (meaning that we must look for sources since Azerbaijan's takeover of the city). Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, same reason the Urfa article is not called “Şanlıurfa” even though that’s what it’s officially called by the state and what shows up on Google, it’s not the common name in English. Same goes for Stepanakert, which is still by a large margin the most commonly used name for the city. Recent reliable international third-party sources in the English language virtually all use Stepanakert alongside Khankendi even though it’s not official anymore because it is the common name (Few examples: [5][6][7]) All these sources refer to the city as Stepanakert in the present day not as a former name, the consensus wording among recent sources post the Azerbaijani offensive is saying known to Armenians as Stepanakert and Azeris as Khankendi, they’re almost always mentioned together. Seeing as for the past 100 years the city has been known as Stepanakert, where it became a regional capital and then a breakaway capital, reaching 75,000 people who all call it Stepanakert, even in exile, and now the city has lost its importance and become a ghost town, its safe to say the numerous consensus’ that have been reached regarding Stepanakert as the common name in English still stand. Also WP:NAMECHANGES does not really apply because Azerbaijan renamed Stepanakert 30 years ago, it’s not a recent change. TagaworShah (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  TagaworSha — I really don't see where exactly Stepanakert is being used (currently) as the COMMONNAME for the city. WP:NAMECHANGES is extremely relevant in this scenario, because Azerbaijan has only actually had control of the city since late September/early October. De facto, the city's name changed from Stepanakert to Khankendi after Azerbaijan took control, because when the Republic of Artsakh was still in control, the name of Stepanakert was still de facto the city's official name (if you get what I mean). As for the sources you provided, The Telegraph was written by the same author who used "Khankendi" a week prior on Al Jazeera (nevermind that The Daily Telegraph is politically biased), and 2 and 3 were written before Azerbaijan gained full control of the city. It would more relevant to find international, third-party reliable sources that are from the past two to three weeks at most. Lastly, this sentence: Seeing as for the past 100 years the city has been known as Stepanakert, where it became a regional capital and then a breakaway capital, reaching 75,000 people who all call it Stepanakert, even in exile, and now the city has lost its importance and become a ghost town, its safe to say the numerous consensus’ that have been reached regarding Stepanakert as the common name in English still stand; it's not based in any factual interpretation of the current situation or in any Wikipedia guidelines. Who said that the city has "lost its importance"? I would suggest refraining from saying such opinionated statements. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  All of the sources currently mention the city as being named Stepanakert by its almost entirely Armenian inhabitants, a city going from a bustling capital to a ghost town is not an opinionated statement, it’s the facts on the ground. There is no name change that happened, Azerbaijan has called it Khankendi for the past 30 years and none of the changes you mentioned, like Google, are recent, they have been in place for a while. Armenians still continue to call it Stepanakert, all the sources I presented are after the dissolution of the Artsakh republic which shows that they are not referencing the former de-facto authorities but actively confirming that the name is still used in the present day. Virtually all the reliable English-language sources continue to use both names to this day, even the own sources you provided prove that, so how is it not used in the present day? Stepanakert is the established English language common name and it is still used side by side Khankendi in sources, there are no changes to the status quo in how it is portrayed by reliable international news outlets, changes in political regime and google are not what Wikipedia goes off of. TagaworShah (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate your arguments but the proof you provided is inadequate, and NAMECHANGES does take precedence here, since those in de facto control of the city have only been calling it Khankendi since this year. I've provided more sources that show the usage of Khankendi in the past few weeks by third-party, reliable, international English-language sources.
  Another example that I found: Agence France-Presse (reliable third-party source) says Khankendi, which Armenians referred to as Stepanakert, showing the preferred current usage of Khankendi as the COMMONNAME today. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  None of the sources you presented prove that the city is not still called Stepanakert on the present day, take again for example Urfa and this New York Times article [8], they call it Sanliurfa in the title and throughout the article but add that locals still call it Urfa, which is the English language common name. These sources are doing the same thing, all of them mention Stepanakert alongside Khankendi, it’s never just Khankendi. The specific article you’re referring to is referencing the Artsakh republic when they said “called,” Armenians still call it Stepanakert and that is reflected in all the RS who mention it as Stepanakert to the Armenians, who btw are still the entire local population of the city even with only 50-1000 people left, and they still call their city Stepanakert. Also AFP just last month wrote an article titled Stepanakert Streets Empty After Azerbaijani Operation In Nagorno-Karabakh[9] where they said The streets of Stepanakert, known as Khankendi in Azerbaijani this was also after the flight of the Karabakh Armenians and the assumption of de facto control of the area by Azerbaijan. All the sources continue to use Stepanakert, which means it remains the common name even if Khankendi is used beside it due to official purposes like Sanliurfa and Urfa. There is no evidence that the name Stepanakert is no longer widely used in English sources. TagaworShah (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  1. I don't believe making parallels to Sanliurfa and Urfa to be of any use, because those names can be used interchangeably, while Khankendi and Stepanakert are usually not used interchangeably. I suggest dropping this comparison— it's not particularly relevant.
  2. What I'm seeing from sources like AFP and AP is that Khankendi is being mentioned as the established name of the city, followed by a clarification that Armenians refer(red) to the city as Stepanakert. This format is in "favor" of Khankendi as the COMMONNAME.
  3. Whether there are 50 or 1,000 residents left and whether they are Armenian or not is irrelevant. What matters is the English-language common name for the city since Azerbaijani control.
  4. The AFP article I cited is dated from November 8th; the one you cited is from October 3rd. The Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians only ended on October 3rd. The later article is more relevant.
  5. "All the sources continue to use Stepanakert" — that's not what I'm seeing.
  6. "it remains the common name even if Khankendi is used beside it due to official purposes" — from the sources I am seeing, it's actually the opposite; I see Stepanakert being mentioned for contextual purposes, but not as the common name. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's even possible anymore to say such a statement like All the sources continue to use Stepanakert — that's just blatantly untrue. A very reliable, reputable, international, third-party source such as the Associated Press is referring to the city as "Khankendi" over "Stepanakert", as shown here. AP is saying Khankendi, which Armenians called Stepanakert; this is quite clear in what the common name is. And as you know, articles by the Associated Press are diffused all over the world by its associated newspapers and websites, from here to here to here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Paul, respectfully, you have made your point abundantly clear and are now just repeating the same information over and over again below every single oppose vote, if you don’t have anything new to add, there is no need to debate the oppose votes with the same points repeated, that just clutters the voting page. If Sanliurfa and Urfa were “interchangeable” then the official name would be the article title, but it’s not because Urfa is the common name, it was the historic name and it is a different name that was changed recently by Turkey. The sources use Urfa in the exact same way that Stepanakert is being used now in relation to Khankendi so I don’t see how it’s any different. You are providing the 4-5 sources that came out this week after the military parade, a common name is not established from 4-5 sources in the past week that’s just jumping the gun, especially when Stepanakert is still used by all of these sources and it was the primary name in sources just a month ago, there was no recent name change, Azerbaijan has called the city Khankendi for the past 30 years and Armenians continue to call it Stepanakert to this present day, the “Armenians” they are referencing are the de-facto regime not Armenians at large, the argument that Armenians no longer call it Stepanakert is incomprehensible. When all the recent reliable sources are using both names simultaneously, I see no indication that one of them has fallen out of common use, names don’t become common names in a week. TagaworShah (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that you have specific views on the subject, but the fact of the matter is that the oppose votes have not presented much of an argument in favor of Stepanakert being the COMMONNAME. I won't repeat what I previously said and the evidence I had already presented. Something I will add, however, is that it doesn't matter how Armenians call the city but how English-language sources call the city. Don't mix the two up. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Last comment, because you are misinterpreting that last part, English-language sources call it Stepanakert and say Armenians call it that, wasn’t referring to anything else. TagaworShah (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: with due respect, Urfa example is baseless in this context. As Urfa article states: "In 1984, the Turkish National Assembly granted Urfa the title "Şanlı", meaning "glorious". Since "Şanlı" is just a title in Turkish and makes the city's name more lengthy and diffucult to pronounce many English sources haven't adopted it. However, when you speak with natives of that city or with a Turkish citizen they sometimes call it "Urfa" and sometimes the other. They are actually interchangeable names and it makes sense to adopt "Urfa" as article name since it is a more common name among English speakers.Yakamoz51 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about common names in written English-language sources, not what the Turkish government or the citizens call it but how reliable source choose to frame it. TagaworShah (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Radio Free Europe has adopted the change [10]. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Note: They actually haven’t, that article is a translation of RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani service which has always used Khankendi instead of Stepanakert, the international RFE/RL uses both names like this: “Abandoned vehicles line the roads on October 2 in Stepanakert, known as Xankendi by Azerbaijan, following the mass exodus of ethnic Armenians from the Nagorno-Karabakh region.” https://www.rferl.org/amp/azerbaijan-seizes-lifeless-nagorno-karabakh/32620674.html TagaworShah (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; an example

(jabz) 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The city is now part of Azerbaijan both de-jure and de-facto. And I think WP:NAMECHANGES is relevant here because even though the name was officially changed 30 years ago, the name change is taking full effect now. Grandmaster 09:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and close The WP:COMMONNAME is not “Khankendi”, it’s “Stepanakert” by a long mile, per Google:

1. Stepanakert - 2 090 000 results
2. Khankendi - 424 000 results

Stepanakert is nearly 5 times more common. Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMONNAME for article titles and the common name is evident here. Moreover, this move request was started with a false claim that Khankendi is the common name, which is evidently not the case. If Khankendi becomes the common name we can revisit this discussion, but right now, Stepanakert is clearly more common. Vanezi (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES comes into play here; search results from years prior do not hold as much value as those in the past month. Therefore, your Google search results don't indicate what you claim. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Name change does not apply because it is not a recent change, Azerbaijan has tried to replace the name Stepanakert for over thirty years now. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh: Up until late September, the de facto breakaway Republic of Artsakh was in control of the city, and under that state's authority, the city was officially known as Stepanakert. Azerbaijan has only had de facto control over the city since late September to early October. Otherwise, de jure, Stepanakert has been called Khankendi for over 30 years. The issue is that the name change is a de facto name change within the city itself. NAMECHANGES does apply, and thus, COMMONNAME must be evaluated in the context of Azerbaijani control in the past month or so. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now My view is simply that the circumstances of the shift require a waiting period before its consequences can be properly ascertained in an encyclopedic manner.

Official names are not necessarily used on en-WP.

Last I did any sort of checking, cherry-picked listings of well-known RS notwithstanding, the COMMONNAME was still clearly Stepanakert. Time will tell how universally the shift is adopted.

Furthermore, OP's invocation of WP:NAMECHANGES is mistaken because the Azeri name was already Khankendi. The only thing that has changed is that the Azeri government has decided to forcefully impose its unilateral will on the population of Nagorno-Karabakh, resulting in their flight en masse from the region.

I would also just like to note that almost everyone (with the exception of the current OP) whom I have seen suggest this sort of thing appears to be a resident or citizen of Azerbaijan.

There is WP:NODEADLINE. I would be likely to reconsider my position at a much later time. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that WP:COMMONNAME advises to take neutrality as well into account. In that regard WP:POVNAME says: "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use". Here it's clear that the non-neutral name Stepanakert is not in current use anymore, so the COMMONNAME argument is further spurious. Brandmeister^talk 14:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a case of neutrality, there are no non-neutral terms in the title like “the great city of Stepanakert” it’s literally just the name of the city in Armenian, that policy does not work like that and should not be applied to cases like this. TagaworShah (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A non-neutral term is not necessarily “the great city of Stepanakert”, here Stepanakert is the name under Artsakh Republic which no longer controls the city as a belligerent in the NK war and is set to dissolve itself. Also WP:MODERNPLACENAME says: "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one". Brandmeister^talk 08:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support agree with the nominator. Regarding the numbers in Google search, we should also take into consideration that there're various ways to write the name of the city: Khankendi, Khankandi, Xankandi, Xankändi, Xankendi. So, comparison of "Stepanakert" and "Khankandi" is not fair. Moreover every time you search for a term in Google it shows you different results. Because of their algorithm they cannot provide proper numbers.

And I would like to mention maps too:

1. Bing - Khankendi
2. Here Maps - Khankandi
3. Google - Ստեփանակերտ Xankəndi
   1. They put both names in local, however when you click on it, you see Khankendi on left.
4. Yandex - Khankendi / Stepanakert
5. OpenStreetMap - Xankəndi
6. Baidu - Xankendi

Aredoros87 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. We cannot play 3 monkeys anymore. things have changed on the ground and also in the English sources..I don't see any valid reason any more to keep the current name. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to big media outlets, search engines, online maps and being official, Khankendi is also preferred by English reference sources/dictionaries such as Oxford Reference, britannica.encyclopedia.com.Yakamoz51 (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now seems premature. Artsakh itself does not officially dissolve until 1 January 2024. This is also a topic area whereby events can change quickly. Has the surrender/capitulation documents been published by Azeri authorities yet? Do the remaining Armenians, while very few in number, have any autonomy? Is there any special status that would apply to linguistics (ie. Armenian language)? It seems doubtful, but again, we don't know for sure. "Stepanakert" yielded 2.4 million results on Google search, with several news articles being recently published from Reuters, the BBC, and The Telegraph still referring to the city as Stepanakert. I'm not strictly opposed to an eventual move, but it probably shouldn't occur prior to the official dissolution date. Archives908 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Artsakh self dissolution date is not related with being common name. Additionally, the sources that you mentioned prefers Khankendi in their recent articles. Yakamoz51 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support since news outlets report this name, not Stepanakert. Also maps argument is a pretty good one as well. Per WP:NAMECHANGE.

Beshogur (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Neutral Admins should stop the discussion and make the decision as to whether to change the title or not since the discussion started to involve non-confirmed and partisan editors. EloquentEditor (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 14:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support per nom. WP:COMMONNAME is not Stepanakert. Stepanakert is historical name in Armenian given by Armenian inhabitants of region in the past. Not "English" name. There is also no evidence for Armenian name of city "Stepanakert" in current maps, news or other sources. Including official sources in English (maybe except for Armenian sources). When we examine the search results and news of the last three months on Google, we see that the name Khankendi is common While the name of the city is stated as Khankendi in English in current news sources, many news sources also specifically state in their articles that the name Stepanakert is the name given by the Armenians (not common name in English) to the city of Khnakendi. Hezarfen (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Take notice that WP:COMMONNAME may be applied on a recent amount of time only rather than on the totality of results. This is how Kyiv got moved. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 01:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support The de facto and de jure name of the city is Xankendi. Moreover, the majority of sources now also use this name.--Scherbatsky12 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, both for the majority of sources using Stepanakert, and for recognizability and naturalness (WP:CRITERIA) because is most significant for the period of growth and city-status beginning in 1926 until the population was ethnically cleansed (refer to the demographics chart). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  However, you fail to provide the evidence that COMMONNAME is in favor of the usage of the term Stepanakert. From sources such as AP, AFP, France 24, Al Jazeera, and others cited above, the COMMONNAME seems to be Khankendi from my evaluation. Note that sources since the change in the control of the city are given more weight than those prior due to WP:NAMECHANGES (de facto).
  Additionally, both Khankendi and Stepanakert pass the recognizability test; however, the naturalness test is subjective here and would be based on the COMMONNAME. Also, I would refrain from bringing in outside arguments (which you did when talking about ethnic cleansing, which is not relevant to the task at hand of finding the proper English-language COMMONNAME). Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons listed above. Stepanakert is still the most WP:COMMONNAME, and we ought to wait for the name to become more established before moving the article. It's only been a month and a half. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Sawyer-mcdonell: I appreciate your input. However, it would be even more valuable if you referenced sources or other information supporting that Stepanakert is still the COMMONNAME. Stating it doesn't make it true. Likewise, sources are provided above in argument for Khankendi. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

From opposing comments, I understand that Stepanakert is the common name among Armenian population who used to live there, and other people who had some connections with the city. But we are not doing a poll here and ask whether you are in favor or opposing the change. There should be some recent and reliable sources to assume it is the WP:COMMONNAME.

Btw, the change is also not a month and a half old. Britannica says "the city was founded after the October Revolution (1917) on the site of the village of Khankendy and was renamed Stepanakert in 1923" So it had the name of Khankendi until the Soviets changed it. And later, Azerbaijan "officially" renamed it as Xankändi during their independence from USSR. However, English sources preferred its "de facto" name until recent changes on the ground.

Now, English sources (newspapers, maps, encyclopeadias, search engines) overwhelmingly prefers again Khankendi. And there is an increasing trend as you can see from the old talks. Yakamoz51 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that {{Authority control}} links also prefers Khankendi except one of themYakamoz51 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

i voted on this very late last night, and looking at the arguments & newer stats on the trends now, i do think that wikipedia policy probably does support the change. although regrettable, english-language sources have shown a shift in what they call the city & i will rescind my opposing vote. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Yakamoz51. Stepanakert was the de-jure name from 1923 to 1991. Before and after that, it was and has been Khankendi. Taking into consideration the fact that the city is in full control of Azerbaijan within international borders, the change is very reasonable. — Toghrul R (t) 07:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Toghrul R: Please remember that the argument being made is WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:OFFICIALNAME. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Paul Vaurie I know, these are my additional notes on the issue. Of course, I do also support COMMONNAME proposal made — Toghrul R (t) 05:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Neutral per nom. None of the oppose votes above are giving much if any sources post--final-Azerbaijan-offensive that use solely Stepanakert. For those English sources since the offensive that use both names, they seem to all lead with Khankendi, indicating its newly gained eminence. If the opposes could provide some good English refs to the contrary, I'll be amenable to changing my vote. Cheers, Dan the Animator 10:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Dantheanimator Here is a recent Reuters article from just yesterday November 21st that uses Stepanakert as the primary common name: “… Stepanakert city, known as Khankendi by Azerbaijan, following a military operation conducted by Azeri armed forces and a further mass exodus of ethnic Armenians..”

  https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-provide-over-4-million-aid-those-affected-by-nagorno-karabakh-crisis-2023-11-21/ TagaworShah (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks TagaworShah for posting the article! Thought I'd do a bit of searching to find any other articles aside from the Reuters one (which is great btw) just to see if this is a larger occurrence or an isolated incident and sure enough, I found US News, Arab News, and Al Arabiya articles with the same phrasing. Something I noticed though is that it looks like in all the articles, including the Reuters one to my knowledge (I don't have their subscription so I can only see the top bit), is that the use of the phrasing "Stepanakert city, known as Khankendi by Azerbaijan," is restricted to the caption of the same identical photo. In the other news articles, there's no mention of the city within the article body so I'm not really sure whether this is the phrasing of the newspaper per se or of the photo provider (which seems to be third-party/unaffiliated with any one of the above news groups; my guess is its a public access image and the caption is the unaltered version from that original photo). I'm curious though to know whether the Reuters article is the same as the others (e.g. the caption is the only place where the city is mentioned) or if it uses the phrasing or even mentions the city within the article body (no worries if you don't have the subscription: just thought I'd ask in case). That said, I'm not fully convinced that the common name is still predominantly Stepanakert but given all these news groups chose to use that phrasing without altering it (which they likely could've, especially if the photo has a CC license), I now agree that Khankendi may not be current common name apparently. Given this, I'll strike my earlier oppose and switch it with neutral for now. If you find additional RS that use the Stepanakert-leading phrasing outside the captions (e.g. within the body of the article) or, at the least, use it in the caption of a clearly different photo, I'll change my vote to oppose. Until then, I don't find the Stepanakert name-retention argument very compelling since the name's use now seems to be rather limited (based on the above). Anyways, feel free to reply/ping me here with any additional follow-ups and thanks for taking the time to message me! Best, Dan the Animator 09:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support For many of the reasons (here) I mentioned earlier in the discussion. Emreculha (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. COMMONNAME has an explicit exception when the title of something has clearly changed in recent literature. The city being de jure part of Azerbaijan in 1991 is irrelevant and is a weak argument, but de facto control recently clearly is more important. SnowFire (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Several recent news sources does not determine the common name. This is called WP:RECENTISM. One can also find news sources still using "Stepanakert".[11] When there is a clear overwhelming change in RS, including scholarly sources, then the request should be made again. At the moment it is too early. Mellk (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mellk. ----Երևանցի ^talk 06:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Khankendi is clearly the most common name now used by the reliable sources in English.KHE'O (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if many news media seem to have adopted 'Khankendi' in their reporting, many – if not most – consistently mention both names, since 'Stepanakert' will be the name that the city is best known under. Until news media in general do not need to explain that 'Khankendi' is the city mostly known under the name of 'Stepanakert', and until sources that are not just reporting news, but are discussing the city and its history, start to use 'Khankendi', it is too soon to change the article title. WP:RECENTISM. --T*U (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RECENTISM is mainly related to emerging events. But in this case there is a stability at least for the last two months.

  31.145.12.106 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wanted to comment on this in case others vote the exact same way going forward. Similar to what Parishan said below, both names will continue to be used side-by-side for quiet some time or at least until the conflict truly becomes history (e.g. it becomes less controversial). That said, as editors, we should be focusing on which of the names is predominantly leading (e.g. is Stepanakert in paratheses or is Khankendi?). Personally, as explained in my vote and recent updates/comments, I'm not convinced with either side at the present but I think it's important we're using the same approach/framework in assessing a common name here so we can disagree on the real question of the names' use in media. Cheers, Dan the Animator 09:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. WP:RECENTISM is hardly applicable here. Naturally, given the sensitivity of the issue, many third-party sources will continue to mention both names for a while, at least to avoid seeming like they are taking sides. However, there is room for only one name in the article title, and we already see that Khankendi, which has been in increasing use since 2020 (which is not that recent), has by now gained prominence and has effectively marginalised Stepanakert. It is quite obvious to me that the name Stepanakert, while still mentioned by sources, has become rather a clarifying parenthesis with regard to the new common name Khankendi. Parishan (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok the contrary, many sources still use Stepanakert as the main common name or as an equal name (i.e Stepanakert for Armenians, Khankendi for Azerbaijanis), take for example this Reuters article published November 21st: “ …Stepanakert city, known as Khankendi by Azerbaijan, following a military operation conducted by Azeri armed forces and a further mass exodus of ethnic Armenians..”

  https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-provide-over-4-million-aid-those-affected-by-nagorno-karabakh-crisis-2023-11-21/ TagaworShah (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, there will always be exceptions. I can cite recent articles from Associated Press: one which gives priority to Khankendi and another one that uses it as the reference name all throughout the article (while mentioning Stepanakert only once). Parishan (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Why don't we wait until 1 Jan 2024 and deal with the title then? Either way, we should wait until the problem is resolved. By then I think everything will be settled.--owennson (Meeting Room、Certificates) 04:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stepanakert remains the more common name for the city; as others have brought up, Khankendi possibly being more commonly used recently is just WP:RECENTISM and does not reflect usage for all time periods. When usage of Khankendi surpasses Stepanakert (again, for all time periods) a move would be appropriate. Control of the city/region and settlement/resolution of the conflict are completely irrelevant factors when it comes to Wikipedia article titles; common name is the only thing that matters. Lightspecs (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not require for a name to surpass another name in frequency for all time periods. Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant here but how can one expect published sources to rectify themselves retrospectively or expect any future source to use a placename anachronistically? WP:MODERNPLACENAME requires "up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications", and Khankendi seems to fulfil this requirement. Incidentally, does the mere fact that Britannica uses the Azeri name not invalidate the WP:RECENTISM argument? Parishan (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose : Per Republic of Armenia v. Republic of Azerbaijan, recently fleeded population are the people of Stepanakert. They use Stepanakert as the name of city. Sharouser (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Sharouser: That is categorically irrelevant. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Total oppose, Stepanakert is still the clear common name of the city. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  @AntonSamuel: Care to provide some guideline or reasoning for your opinion? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Major prestigious news agencies like Reuters “Stepanakert city, known as Khankendi by Azerbaijan” and The Washington Post “..fate of more than 120,000 residents, including those in the capital, Stepanakert.” use the name Stepanakert as the primary name, these articles are both very recent from the past week, there is still no consensus among reliable international sources about a new common name.

  https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-provide-over-4-million-aid-those-affected-by-nagorno-karabakh-crisis-2023-11-21/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/28/nagorno-karabakh-refugees/ TagaworShah (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, clearly premature. Mellk (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, The city is a legal and de facto Azerbaijani city. In the primary media, the city is referred to as Khankendi. Therefore, the title of the article should be Khankendi."--Qızılbaş (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the proposal. It seems clear that the common name has shifted following the developments.--Nicat49 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 14:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strongly support per nom. The city is now part of Azerbaijan both de-jure and de-facto. The fact that it was not called with an official name until now was erroneous, and here it was associated with the fact that Azerbaijan does not control its territory. There are no longer any obstacles after Azerbaijan gains control and this should be a precedent in similar cases.Cuman 11:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

COMMENT : Here are some recent sources that uses Khankendi as primary name:

• MAPS
• Bing - Khankendi
• Here Maps - Khankandi
• Google - Xankəndi- Google shows both local names on map, however when you click on it, you see Khankendi on left.
• Yandex - Khankendi / Stepanakert
• OpenStreetMap - Xankəndi
• Baidu - Xankendi

• Dictionaries
• Oxford Reference- Xankändi
• Britannica- Xankändi
• Encyclopedia.com- Khankendi
• World Factbook- Xankändi

• Media publishers
• BBC: the city of Khankendi, known as Stepanakert to Armenians
• VOA News 1,
• VOA News 2
• The Times
• Reuters 1
• Reuters 2
• AP 1
• AP 2
• AP 3.
• AP 4 AP: Khankendi, which Armenians called Stepanakert
• ABC News,
• Agence France-Presse
• France24 says "the city of Khankendi, known as Stepanakert to Armenians".
• Radio Free Europe

• Authority control Databases
• VIAF Virtual International Authority File
• KATALOG DER DEUTSCHEN NATIONALBIBLIOTHEK
• National Library of Israel Names and Subjects Authority File
• The Library of Congress
• Music brainz

Maps, news, dictionaries, databases already use Khankendi. So it is very diffucult to say it is premature.Yakamoz51 (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, too soon to see whether the common name has changed - wait for a year after the conflict and see where we are. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The pending dissolution of the previous government in the region and the abundant sources indicating widespread usage of "Khankendi" nomenclature, especially in the recent sources, affirm the reason for the name change. The official stance of the Azerbaijani government, de facto in control of the region, also refers to the city as Khankendi. - Creffel (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Name of article

Why still name of article is Stepanakert? It is already in a control of Azerbaijan. It is not Stepanakert. It should be changed to Khankendi -- Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You’re welcome to formally request a move if you wish (for instructions, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves).

In my personal opinion, the current name would probably end up being kept on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several names of cities that had their name changed in the past few decades, and their names were changed in wikipedia. Several in the 2000s one as recently as 2019. And wikipedia changed the name, lets stay consistent here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_name_changes?useskin=vector Midgetman433 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Xankəndi

after September conflicts in Qarabağ this city is controling by Azerbijan so we should change the name of article Abolfazlyashar (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani army hasn't entered the city proper yet and the flag hasn't been raised as it happened recently e.g. in Aghdara. This says that until 2025 Khankendi will host Russian peacekeepers and the city will be governed on a mixed basis, with no Azerbaijani police yet. I think we should wait a bit until the city is brought under full Azerbaijani control. Brandmeister^talk 16:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient. Emreculha (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani army entered the proper city and the flag of Azerbaijan has been raised in Khankendi. Azerbaijani polices are the olny policing force that police the Khankendi city currently. The Khankendi city is now under full Azerbaijani control. The building of

the so-called "Ministry of Internal Affairs" of the separatist regime in Karabakh is under full Azerbaijani control. [https:// t.co /swmKaklrJp Video of Azerbaijani police in central Khankendi]. The terrorist separatist regime dissolved itself. Azerbaijan has full control. The name of the city must be changed from Stepanakert to Khankendi.78.164.52.103 (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

President of Azerbaijan entered to Khankendi. No dispute exists. The name has not been changed yet. 194.135.167.168 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Brandmaister, we are already in Khankendi, so i think Wikipedia must change name to Khankendi. 188.253.230.45 (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Khankendi is under the control of the Azerbaijani army and law enforcement agencies. The owner of the city and region is the government of Azerbaijan. The name of the city is changed not by the Russian peacekeepers, but by the Azerbaijani state. Sorry, this was not an adequate answer. Such answers question the neutrality of english Wikipedia. Sword313 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Name of Khankendi

Dear @RadioactiveBoulevardier, I followed your arguments in the discussion article. There are issues you are right about. However, there are also controversial issues in this (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)) article.

1. 1 When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. (Stepanakert is Armenian, Khankendi is Azerbaijani). There is no English name to verify to this city. (There is no option like Munich- Munchen) (Kindly check Rule: English name)

1. 2 You said that English media use the name "Stepanakert". However, both names are used in the sources. VOA News 1 , VOA News 2, The Times 1, Times 2, Reuters, AP

1. 3 For modern country names, The World Factbook maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated , The name of this city written as a Khankendi in CIA World Factbook Map Source (Kindly check Rule: Widely accepted name, art. #7)

1. 4 Until 1991, the name of the city of St. Petersburg was "Leningrad". It was also mentioned that way in British sources. The Soviet Union collapsed, the city's name was changed to St. Petersburg. Why wasn't Leningrad used despite the legal change?

In addition to these arguments, the city is completely under Azerbaijani control. The lands in question are considered Azerbaijani territory by the United Nations. (Kindly check city names of Turkish Republic Northern Cyprus).

For the above reasons, I recommend changing the name of the page to Khankendi. Emreculha (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is also the principle of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, Stepanakert is the most commonly used name of the city and the name that it’s 75,000 residents used for it until very recently so that’s why it’s the article title. TagaworShah (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any logical relationship between naming and population. The cities of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are calls with Turkish names by their inhabitants. Please indicate the source for the article you are talking about (Especially against cl. #3). If Wikipedia's criteria are going to contradict each other, there is no point in discussing it anyway.Emreculha (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear, the most commonly used name in reliable sources is the one that is used for the article, for this article that name is Stepanakert. TagaworShah (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names) rules are clear. It determines the conditions. It would not make sense to name the substance just because 75,000 people who "lived" there use a name. I am still waiting for source informations against cl. #2 and #3. Emreculha (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The quick search on name Khankendi in Google Search and Google maps shows that the sources such as bp.com, al jazeera, bbc.co.uk and etc. using Khankendi as a COMMON NAME to identify the city in Azerbaijan, which makes your justification and argument incorrect. 195.188.142.114 (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google Trends search shows overwhelming use of Stepanakert: even in Turkey, for the past 12 months there's a 2:1 ratio for searches of "Stepanakert". The top news results for "Khankendi" on Brave Search are all .az domains.

I wasn't arguing in favor of one side of the argument or another, merely explaining to our Russian-speaking visiting colleague where I assume consensus is currently at. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

TagaworShah Unfortunately, you are clearly taking a biased approach. Xankendi is currently under the control of the Azerbaijani police and army. All Armenian flags in the city have been lowered. Even on the roads leading to the city, the Azerbaijani name of the city is written on the roadside signs. In such a case, to what extent is it correct to use the unofficial name of the city? --Baskervill (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of data you got from Google Trends. However, no one calls this city Stepanakert in Turkey. However, we are talking about a city that is completely under the control of a country. (and it is a very politically sensitive city)--Emreculha (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @RadioactiveBoulevardier, First of all, I didn't know about Google Trends. Thank you :)

However, you made a name mistake while doing research on Google Trends. In Turkey Turkish, the name of the city is "Hankendi", not "Khankendi".

If it is valid, you can see that the name Hankendi has a ratio of approximately 9:1 in the comparison in question (yearly). (source)-Emreculha (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

After adding Hankendi and Xankendi, the numbers in US, UK, India, Canada, etc are still overwhelmingly preferring Stepanakert. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier, I think I'm making a mistake somewhere. UK and US results are different for me. (with Khankendi). Source 1, Source 2.

I think it would be better to search for "Khankendi" for the English version, "Xankendi" for the Azerbaijani version, and "Hankendi" for the Turkish version. Emreculha (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally Canada and India, Germany If I'm making a mistake somewhere, please correct me Emreculha (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's the (full) link to what I mentioned above: [12] RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, are you searching for the term "Khankendi", or the whole topic (which Google has decided should be headed by that name)? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the way Trends URLs work I can't really see much of what you actually searched for. Check the links in a new tab. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why the links are not opening. It works for me too. Another point is that there is only one version of the concept of Stepanakert, but there are different versions as Hankendi, Khankendi, Xankendi, Xankəndi. The trend is different for each. I can't understand why it doesn't open for you (source) Emreculha (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Emreculha's statements. The region has been entirely captured by Azerbaijan, and the mainstream media began using Khankendi as the prime name. For instance, BBC uses Khankendi as the main name here[13]. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Name of article should be changed to Khankendi, its official name, definitely. Big media companies including BBC, Al Jazeera mentioned name of city as Khankendi, not Stepanakert. Not only this article, all of places where was under the control of Republic of Artsakh should be changed to official names. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This most recent link works, but it seems to show overwhelming use of "Stepanakert" in the Anglophone world. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Renaming to Khankendi

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The city is under the full jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, which is proven by the latest visit of President of Azerbaijan Aliyev to the city. Besides, world-known media such as ABC News [14], Reuters [15], and even France24, which is known for pro-Armenian coverages, [16] have started presenting Khankendi as the main name and adding "known as Stepanakert by Armenians". Thus, the article's name must certainly be renamed to Khankendi as it is stated in WP:COMMON. EloquentEditor (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I am agree. Gadir (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I am waiting for other editors' responses so we can come to an agreement and take action. EloquentEditor (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) 👍 Gadir (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think, with also usage of Khankendi by big media outlets, it conforms to WP policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakamoz51 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

With the reasons and sources I have stated here , I think the name of the page should be changed to Khankendi. -- Emreculha (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Official names, we do not change the name of an article just to recognize an official name. The naming of the article should be in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title. Among other considerations, has "Khankendi" replaced "Stepanankert" as the "commonly recognized name" of the city? - Donald Albury 12:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As Emreculha and EloquentEditor mentioned above and I add more, English media use both names. But they usually use Khankendi as the main name and add "known as Stepanakert to Armenians". BBC: the city of Khankendi, known as Stepanakert to ArmeniansVOA News 1, VOA News 2, The Times , , Reuters 1, Reuters 2 , AP 1, AP 2, AP 3 ABC News, and even France24 says "the city of Khankendi, known as Stepanakert to Armenians".

The World Factbook maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency updated the name of this city as Khankendi Factbook

Given that big media outlets, CIA factbook, and all the current residents of the city use Khankendi , we can definitely say that it is the current common name of the city.Yakamoz51 (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

English references

In addition to big media outlets, factbook and being official name, Khankendi is also preferred by English reference sources such as Oxford Reference, britannica, and encyclopedia.com Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 12:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, replaced. Because all the people who called the city Stepanakert left there. And the city is now inhabited by those who call it as Khankendi. And according to all the laws of that territory, it is called only "Khankendi" . 109.87.192.15 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by non-ECP editors that are not allowed to participate in move discussions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic due to GS/AA Donald Albury 12:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Only Khankendi, no Stepanakert An unrecognized state in Nagorno-Karabakh no longer exists, the city of Khankendi is completely under the control of Azerbaijan, they even hung a state flag there. But the Armenian moderator cancel edits about renaming the city, leaving the unrecognized and irrelevant name “Stepanakert”. Please make the title "Khankendi" in the article 109.87.192.15 (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC) The name of this city is de jure and de facto "Khankendi" The flag of Azerbaijan has been raised in "Khankendi" and de facto Azerbaijani rule have been established! All international organizations states that this citys name is "Khankendi" and all the countries recognized by the UN (legitimate states) refers the name of this as "Khankendi". The source below (which is neutral and well recognized) states that the flag of the Azerbaijani republic have been raised and de facto sovereign control has been established by the republic of Azerbaijan. Therefore the title "Stepanakert" needs to be edited to its original name of the settlement, which is "Khankendi". https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20231015-azerbaijan-president-raises-national-flag-in-nagorno-karabakh-capital HistoricalFactCheckX (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)