Talk:Akhalgori

Does anyone have any news on the status of Akhalgori in the current conflict? 164.67.237.253 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems that it is under Russian control now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Georgia-War-2008-08-11.jpg 81.18.58.234 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to quotes at the bottom of this page it is now claimed as Ossetian territory. 11:47 8 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/19/georgia.russia

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For two weeks the town is no more under Georgian control, but is part of the Republic of South Ossetia. Therefore, exactly as Priština is just a redirecting article, so should Aklalgori be too and the article acquire its official name as is in the Russian Wikipedia. Bogorm (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The official name (even where the official administrative entity is not actively disputed) is not entirely relevant to how Wikipedia articles are named. The main criteria is how the place is commonly known in the English language. Is there some evidence that Leningor is the more commonly used name in English? Recent news reports suggest not 682 for Akhalgori vs. 95 for Leningor in Google News. Google Web is even more dramatic 15,900 for Akhalgori vs. 119 for Leningor. All the searches were filtered to exclude Wikipedia and for English language sites. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence of usage is what matters, therefore I oppose the requested move per Bkonrad's findings; the current name is clearly more established in usage. Note that the article stands at Pristina, not Prishtinë or Prishtina; this is a very good example of where we don't use the spelling of the de facto controlling authority by default.  Knepflerle (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? You oppose my findings but then say the same thing as I did? Can you be a little clearer about whether you think the article should be at Akhalgori or at Leningor? older ≠ wiser 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Knepflerler opposes the move per your findings. :)--KoberTalk 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops I see -- I misread that -- sorry. older ≠ wiser 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have slightly clarified ;) Knepflerle (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose.


 * Google Books: Akhalgori - 80 + Achalgori (alternative spelling) - 99, Leningor - 3;


 * Google Scholar: Akhalgori - 19, Leningor - 2.--KoberTalk 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Opppose Per the above reasons. It is not yet the widespread name in English. Narson (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence for the usage: in the official site of the city it is the only acceptable - Ленингор, and that is more than sufficient. Bogorm (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No it is not per WP:NAME--KoberTalk 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is! You probably know that a renowned city in India is no more called Bangalore but Bengaluru (since the last year, if I recollect it correctly), and what can Google do for this? 187 000 for Bangalore and 55 for Bengaluru. The results are such just because the change is recent and because there are conserva tive circles unwilling to accept the native Indian names when there are colonial ones for their convenience. And this is blatant POV and an impediment against the official government's policies. And it is inappropriate to impose on Wikipedia colonial or pro-Georgian appearance, which is what the current name does (both in Leningor and Bengaluru). Bogorm (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's actually your POV. Your opposition to the long-agreed Wikipedia policy and an aggressive tone makes that clear.--KoberTalk 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your allegation! If you had deigned to behold the first line of the article about Bengaluru, you should have been apprised of the expression "officially Bengaluru" - the current name is a challenge to the policy of the Indian government and is hinting at revisionism. The same about Leningor with the unique difference that the first revisioism is 60 years old and the second 2 weeks. Bogorm (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 Strong support  - the city is under the rule of President Kokoity Dzhabeyi fyrt Eduard and he is the sole authority entitled to decide about the name just as the President of East Timor decides over his towns and not Bambang Yudhoyono. Bogorm (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, is this really the official site of the town? I mean that it's hosted at narod.ru which means that it could've been created by anybody. It contains only one page and doesn't look very official imho. Alæxis¿question? 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read Russian, "Официальные документы" and "власть" mean "official documents" and "governance" and they sound pretty official. Remember that the town is under the rule of President Kokoity only for two weeks. Bogorm (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually I can read Russian :) Is it linked from some other (South) Ossetian site? You must agree that a site hosted at narod.ru is somewhat suspicious. Alæxis¿question? 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Alæxis) Простите, я не рассмотрел вашу страничку прежде чем написать последний комментарий, я не хотел обидеть Вас. Между прочим, я узнал, что Вы уважаете испанскую Википедию равно как и я, потому что ее статья о Цхинвале является первой правильной из всех Западных Википедий. Вы как думаете, стоит ли начать процедуру по ее переименованию здесь - Tskhinval (особенно если меня здесь встречают в штыки) ? Bogorm (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had read that page more closely, you'd have noticed that it is dated to 03.09.2007 and reports Eduard Kokoity's visit to the town which was then firmly under Georgia's control. Pretty much a silly claim.--KoberTalk 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To counter your allegation that to use the common name is 'wiki-colonialism' and 'pro-Georgian', wouldn't using the name given by a regime that barely any government recognises be a pro-Russian statement? I mean, there are some crank scots who insist that Franz of Bavaria is King of Great Britain and King of Ireland...yet we don't give him those titles because we go with what he is commonly called. Narson (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)
 * While whether Akhalgori is pro-Georgian is debatable, distorting Bengaluru to the already abolished name is an as undeniable as blattant colonial revisionism. Bogorm (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Franz von Bayern is the only legitimate king for all Catholics of England devote to the (catholically) legitimate Jacobite succession after yonder deplorable upheaval of 1688 which is extolled as Glorious Revolution toppled the Dei gratia King of Britain James II! Please do not deride Franz of Bavaria, Jacobite King of the faithful Catholic part of Britain. I am well aware of the English history and of the regime-like oppressions on Catholics after 1688, it is not conducive to the image of the country to remind the readers thereof. Bogorm (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose As we go by the most common name in English Akhalgori is clearly the most common name in English. Revisit the issue in future if it can be demonstrated that Leningor becomes more common. The most pressing concern is ensuring NPOV by presenting both South Ossetian and Georgian POV equally. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Strongly suggest that everyone read naming conventions, and also WP:NOT. Much (not all) of the discussion above, including (but not only) the proposal itself, is promotion. It may come as a shock to realise that Wikipedia is not interested in taking sides however worthy, in fact we're very interested in not taking sides. And when in doubt we tend to leave things as they are, while we seek consensus. So to move an article on the basis of discussions such as the above would not be very good at all. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Akhalgori is the most common. Geagea (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose What are the odds that the new occupiers, whoever they turn out to be next month, will impose their own post-Communist name before English-speaking sources adapt to the present change? Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per naming conventions, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. There is a clear POV push here. Justin talk 11:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Akhalgori is clearly the more common usage in the English language, as required by the naming conventions. Pfainuk talk 11:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikiproject Banners
Can we stop trying to re-order wikiproject banners to suit a POV? They are the same 'level' of wikiproject both with small membership numbers (20 for Georgia and 13 for Ossetia last I looked), so lets keep them in alphabetical order. Narson (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know the alphabetical order is the official policy of arranging the Project affiliations. What is this claim of yours founded on? This would very easily suit NATO POV, since Kosovo is before Serbia and Georgia before South Ossetia alphabetically, therefore I insist on not imposing such rules unilaterally! Bogorm (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a claim that it was policy. There isn't, as far as I can tell, any policy on banners. So your question is why did I revert? Because your edit was to further a POV and is thus unacceptable. Please consider branching out from a single area of interest. Narson (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider all towns in Kosovo and Metochia) where the banner of Kosovo project preceeds the Serbia project - therefore either in both cases controversial states before the internatinally recognised or the opposite, no double standards are to be put up with. Bogorm (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As pointed out above the name Pristina is the English language equivalent and that is used on the English wikipedia. K comes before S in the alphabet.  There is no double standard.  Justin talk 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There would not be d. s., provided that you show one single source obliging us to stick to alphabetical order! User:Narson until now has failed to do so. Until then the double standard is as clear-cut as blattant! Bogorm (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you wish to change it? To satisfy a POV orientation perhaps?  If you want a policy reference, how about WP:POINT and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point.  Or are you arguing that isn't what you're doing, your only motivation is to improve wikipedia and not to promote or espouse a particular viewpoint?  In my experience, when someone comes here screaming and ranting about bias, it is purely to skew the article to their biased viewpoint.
 * Wikipedia is all about consensus and you won't generate a consensus if you start by assuming bad faith in contravention of WP:AGF(another policy reference for you). If you want to change it, you have to convince people by the strength of your argument.  Justin talk 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "disrupting the encyclopedia" - this mendacious accusation goes too far - I have only switched the project affiliations, not erased any of them. Seek the POV-ing in your staunch reluctance to unify the appearance of the talk page with the banners on Kosovo towns' talk pages - blatant incontestable, presumptuous DOUBLE STANDARD! For the last time: my proposal is: either new state over the old (as in Kosovo towns but thanks to POV impositions not here) or old state over new (thanks to POV impositions here) !!! Bogorm (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I assume is that you assiduously distort and misrepresent mine edit, since I have not deleted anything, but switched! This is called defamation. Bogorm (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"therefore either in both cases controversial states before the internatinally recognised or the opposite" - no, false conclusion. We neither have nor need a rule to place "controversial states" (whatever that means) first or second. The absence of a rule on alphabetisation certainly doesn't imply such a rule. The only convention is that there's no need to make pointless edits, and swapping the order of banners certainly counts as pointless. There's no "double standards" because these banners and their order provide neither a standard nor a statement. This is one edit away from deserved inclusion at WP:LAME. Knepflerle (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, die letzte Andeutung ist allzu anmaßend: werden Sie bestreiten, daß in allen Artikeln über Kosovo-Städte Projekt Kosovo über Projekt Serbien ist und hier umgekehrt? Was ich will, ist schlichtweg einen Einklang zwischen den beiden Fällen! Daß Sie einen solchen bekämpfen, ist überaus bedauernswert. Bogorm (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the banners here to "match" in some completely arbitrarily determined sense those of some other place. It just doesn't matter.  Knepflerle (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Information source on Leningor after war
This source has some detailed information on the situation in Leningor after the 2008 which may be used to expand the article. --Russavia Dialogue 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)