Talk:Atropatene

Comment
It's name was Atropatene or Atropatgan. During centuries it has been converted to "Aazarbaaygaan" as the word aatro converted to aazar in various other combinations. By the conquest of Arabs, since they couldn't pronounce "gaf" it became Aazarbaaijan. So it seems by the arrival of Turkic tribes the name have not undergone any other changes. Please verify this by encyclopedia iranica or encyclopedia britanica or the encyclopedia of Columbia university. Also Ahmad Kasrvi has explained similar evolution.


 * I added back Wikiproject Azeri, because it covers not only Azerbaijan republic, but also Azerbaijani people, plus the territory of Azerbaijan republic was at times part of this region too. Grandmaster 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um..Atropatene never included any of the parts of the Caucasus. Where are you getting such notions from?Azerbaijani 22:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the name is etymologically ancestor of Azerbaijan, its okay. I am also adding armenia in since the kingdom bordered the armenia and there was interactions (territorial conflicts as well as trade)..--alidoostzadeh 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon
Hello. Before you can add an image, you must upload it first. Make sure its not copy righted. For now, I have undone your edits because the image you tried to put in was non-existent.Hajji Piruz 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Atropatena - Iranian Kurdistan
Please, provide verifiable reference that Atropatena was geographically extending to present-day Iranian Kurdistan. The reference about connection to Iranian Azerbaijan is added to the page. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more useful to ask "what is meant by Iranian Kurdistan"? If the aim is to illustrate the location of Atropatena by relating it to territory within present-day Iran, then I think using the actual names of Iranian regions would be the best way to do it. Meowy 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

modern language names
Please do not add modern language names (modern Persian, Azeri, Kurdish, Armenian or etc) to the intro. Obviously Old Persian/Avesta or something is fine. That is typical wikipedia rule. We cannot list the name of Atropatene in every relevant language of the region:Talysh,Tat, Persian, Kurdish, Azeri, Armenian and etc. This is senseless nationalism and I will report the next person that does it to dbachmann. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Media? or Medea?
In the 'History' section I noticed several references to 'Media'. Given that the acnient people of Persia were once known as "Medes", should this not be 'Medea'?131.81.200.92 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan
HistoryofIran, you cannot possibly expect me to agree with someone's edit just because they say "Atropatene has nothing to do with Azerbaijan - period", which is obviously a biased approach. The Mayan Empire may have nothing to do with Azerbaijan, but when it comes to Atropatene, the word nothing is inapplicable.
 * 1) Atropatene covered about a quarter of today's Azerbaijan and in fact gives its name to Azerbaijan;
 * 2) Descendants of Atropatene's indigenous tribes still populate Azerbaijan;
 * 3) After Islamisation, Atropatene was grouped with Arran into a single province of the Caliphate;
 * 4) Atropatene was not an Empire that ruled lands remotely related to the metropoly, so your reference to the Sassanid Empire is irrelevant. It was a centralised state, a third of which was located in what is now Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

'''Atropatene was not an Empire that ruled lands remotely related to the metropoly, so your reference to the Sassanid Empire is irrelevant. It was a centralised state, a third of which was located in what is now Azerbaijan.'''

Bad argument, the Sasanian Empire is just an example of many other articles in Wikipedia. And please read the rules, you don't create a talk section and then directly after revert the edit of a user without having reached an agreement with him/her. So therefor I am reverting the edit to what it was until we have reached an agreement. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit that causes controversy back to the version that existed since the article was created - this is not against the rules. Why does your controversial removal of the information has to be the version in the duration of this discussion?
 * In any case, your argument about the Sassanid Empire is not valid according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am still waiting for counter-arguments on your part. Parishan (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it did not, but nice try. Furthermore, WP:BRD means that you discuss first, before reverting. I don't see why it isn't valid - the Sasanian Empire was just an example, do you want me to write more examples then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not care for this example, or any other that you may cite. I already told you that you cannot refer to what is found in other articles to justify the content of this one, because it is against Other stuff exists. I would like for you to prove to me scientifically why a country, one-third of which used to cover modern-day Azerbaijan where the ethnic descendants of that ancient culture (the Talysh people) are still found, "has nothing to do" with the history of Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't just simply say "i don't care" just because my argument is right. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is why I did not simply say "I don't care"; I provided rationale for the adding of the template. All you have done so far is refer to another article, which is does not suffice as an argument according to WP:OSE. You are yet to tell me why the History of Azerbaijan template does not belong here. Parishan (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.. let me repeat myself in another way: Why it does not belong here? well because it is irrelevant. Plus the Atropatenean kingdom only controlled a small part of the present-day country Azerbaijan. Furthermore, I don't see why I can't use the Sasanian Empire/other articles as an example, since it fits perfectly in this situation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no need to repeat yourself, because your argument does not hold water. Atropatene controlled a "small" part of present-day Azerbaijan (not so small after all - the territory to the south of the Aras River has an area of over 13,300 square kilometres which equals to 15.5% of Azerbaijan's entire territory); well, it controlled an even smaller part of present-day Iran (three northern provinces - only 6% of Iran's territory), yet it is only the Azerbaijan tag that you disagree with. You cannot use the Sassanid Empire as an example because Wikipedia does not consider drawing examples from other articles as a valid argument, and it is truly saddening that I have to state this for the fourth time in this discussion. Atropatene occupied a large part of Azerbaijan, it gave its name to Azerbaijan and its heritage is still preserved in the culture and practices of the Talysh people in the southern part of Azerbaijan. What makes you thing it is "irrelevant"? Parishan (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, very funny. Don't act like you didn't knew what I mean't. The Atropatenean Kingdom controlled only a little pit of land of present-day Azerbaijan, compared to the major chunk of present-day northern Iran it controlled. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the map you have posted on Commons yourself, the kingdom occupied over 15% of modern-day Azerbaijan and around 6% of modern-day Iran. I repeat my question: it occupied a large part of Azerbaijan, it gave its name to Azerbaijan and its heritage is still preserved in the culture and practices of the Talysh people in the southern part of Azerbaijan. What makes you thing it is "irrelevant"? Parishan (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... that's not what i meant. The land which Atropatene ruled in Iran is much larger than it ruled in Azerbaijan, which is a little bit of land. I couldn't care less how much % of the country it ruled over, since Iran is a massive country which Azerbaijan isn't. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is larger, but not much larger, and quite significant, since Atropatene itself was not a large state. There are also other factors beside territory. Please do not be dragging this discussion, if you have no real arguments. Parishan (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh, just because you don't like my argument doesn't mean that it is not a "real argument". --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your argument violates WP:OSE. Which means it is not a real argument. And you have not come up with anything else. Parishan (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As it has been agreed that Atropatene did in fact simultaneously rule in what is now the country of Azerbaijan and Iran, it is obvious that in this respect amongst others that it is part of the history of the country of Azerbaijan and thus the template deserves to be in this article. Mugsalot (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Strabo (64/63 BC-23 AD): Cites the people of Iranian Azerbaijan (known as Media Atropatene at the time of Strabo) as Iranians and with Persian as their language [v]. The “Persian” cited by Strabo would have most likely been of the Parthian Pahlavi variety at the time. Arrian (92-c. 175 AD): The region north of the Araxes River is cited as “Albania” and south of the Araxes as “Media Atropatene”. The Hodud-ol-Alam Text (10th century AD): Cites the Araxes River as the northern limit of Azerbaijan. Ibn-Hawqal: Cites the Araxes River as the southern limit of Arran. Al-Muqaddasi (10th Century AD): Divided Persia into eight regions which include both Azerbaijan and Arran. Defines Arran as being situated between the Caspian Sea and the Araxes River. Yaqut Al-Hamavi (13th Century AD): Defines Arran and Azerbaijan as distinct territories with the Araxes River forming the boundary between them. Arran defined as north and west of the Araxes, with Azerbaijan to the south of the River. Borhan-e-Qate (Completed 1632 AD): Aras (Araxes) defined as a river flowing past Tbilisi in Georgia and forming the boundary between Arran and Azerbaijan.

As you can see, Atropatene was separated from Caucasian Albania, which has nothing to do with the modern Azerbaijan. Why dont we add the history of Azerbaijan to the Caucasian Albanian page as well? And with your statement about Atropatene covered a quarter of modern Azerbaijan, Armenia covered parts of modern Azerbaijan and Turkey, should we add History of Armenia to both Azerbaijan and Turkey? Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijan is not restricted to Caucasian Albania, also all you have proven is that Atropatene occupied territory currently possessed by Azerbaijan and is therefore part of the country's history. I don't see why the template isn't on that article either frankly. Mugsalot (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So would there be objections to adding History of Armenia to Caucasian Albania's article as well as Turkey and Azerbaijan? You guys state that because Atropatene controlled territory, which happens to be part of current Azerbaijan, than history of Azerbaijan should be added to Atropatene and like Parishan did with Caucasian Albania, even though they had nothing to do with Azerbaijan. I believe History of Armenia should be added to them as well because Armenia controlled parts of present day Azerbaijan and parts of Caucasian Albania. Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I presume that like yourself there will be others who object to having the template on these articles, however I feel that it is justified. Yes I agree the History of Armenia should be added as well. I have yet to understand how, as you have admitted, a state that occupied land a modern country occupies, does not constitute part of its history. The Kingdom of England occupied land currently part of the UK, but the language, culture and society has since changed, does that mean it is not part of the history of the UK? Mugsalot (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If we look at the Caucasian Albanians article, we can see near the end how the Azeri historians have falsified the Caucasian Albanian history. The history of Caucasian Albania has been a major topic of Azerbaijani revisionist theories, which came under criticism in Western and Russian academic and analytical circles, and were often characterized as "bizarre" and "futile." And yet Parishan adds History of Azerbaijan to the article. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ninetoyadome, what do you mean by "had nothing to do with Azerbaijan"? Atropatene occupied much of the same territory, it gave its name to Azerbaijan and its cultural heritage in Azerbaijan still survives. Parishan (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * “The name “Azerbaijan” for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one…this is the reason why the name “Azerbaijan” was selected (for Arran)…anytime when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran…”

Quote from Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.
 * This does not change the fact that Atropatene covered a large part of modern-day Azerbaijan and that Azerbaijan shares part of its heritage. Parishan (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The language of Atropatene or the location of Caucasian Albania has nothing to do with Atropatene being part of Azerbaijani history. In addition, Azerbaijan happens to possess territories to the south of the Aras River (everything to the south of Sabirabad; take a look at any map), and that territory constitutes about 15% of Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The map
The map of Atropatene is a heavily edited map added by a user, without providing documentation to back it up. I suggest it to be removed from this article.MikeEcho (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Atropatene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716100716/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/affilates/aff_ptolemies.htm to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/affilates/aff_ptolemies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
The recent edits by an editor who changes the flags seem quite odd, since Atropatene has nothing to do with modern Azerbaijani Republic. I would suggest everyone to come here and discuss the matter instead of edit-warring. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, how do you interpret that infobox parameter "Today part of"? In my opinion, it's better to remove it. Most articles about historical kingdoms and empires don't have it. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article's lead clearly states that Atropatene is mainly located in Iran, only a little part of it is in modern Azerbaijan Republic and has nothing to do with this modern country. the removal of this parameter may be a good compromise. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My point is that parameter is vague and every user can have their own interpretation of it, for instance lands vs origins. As I said, other similar articles does not have it, e.g. Kingdom of Pontus. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right about it. HistoryofIran removed it and it's fine for me. Thanks for the insight. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I will agree with this decision too, better to remove such a thing completely, so there's no future edit wars. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No reason to add "small part of Azerbaijan Republic"
The area of Atropatene which includes what is now the "Azerbaijan" Republic is so small that it's not necessary to include it, if anyone disagrees please discuss it.Migboy123 (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2019

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

Atropatene → Media Atropatene

It seems that usage of simply "Atropatene" (Adurbadagan) first appears with the advent of the Sasanians, per the sources;

This is the most interesting one:


 * 1) "After the fall of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BCE, the Iranian governor and commander Atarpat (Atropates) proclaimed his independence. From this period forward, the region would be referred to by Greek and Roman authors as Media Atropatene and at times as Media Minor. The Greek geographer Strabo wrote that Media was "divided into two parts". One part of it was called "Greater Media, of which the metropolis" was "Ecbatana, a large city containing the royal residence of the Median Empire", and the other part was Atropatian Media [present-day Iranian Azerbaijan], which got its name from the commander Atropates, who preserved this country, which was a part of Greater Media, from becoming subject to the Macedonians". - The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia, p. 70

The rest:


 * "By 148 BCE, Media and Media Atropatene had been overrun." - The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, p. 169


 * "Closely related to the above questions is the thorny issue of the reported Armenian aggression against Arsacids interests in the region of Nineveh, Arbela, and Media Atropatene, the latter of which allegedly submitted to Tigranes." - Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia, p. 320


 * "Cleopatra also looked for new allies and supposedly executed Artavasdes II of Armenia, still a hostage at the court, and sent his head to his rival, the king of Media Atropatene, also named Artavasdes, in the hopes of support from that region." - Cleopatra: A Biography, p. 141


 * "Ariobarzanes (king of Media Atropatene)" - Augustan Rome 44 BC to AD 14, p. 259


 * "During the reign of Artabanus (Ardavan) II (10-38 CE), who was from Media Atropatene (Azarbaijan) in northwestern Iran and an Arsacid through his mother, the process of Iranisation continued." - The Age of the Parthians, p. 16


 * "The elder brother, Pacorus, was given the throne of Media Atropatene (Tac., Ann., 15, 2, 1), the younger, Tiridates, that of Armenia" - The Parthian kingship, p. 125


 * "Vologases I, son of Vonones II of Media, associated the throne with his two brothers, monarchs in Armenia and Media Atropatene, and thereby conferred stability to the top of the state structure and consolidated the whole empire." - King of the Seven Climes: A History of the Ancient Iranian World (3000 BCE - 651 CE), p. 132


 * "Artabanos came to rule in Media Atropatene in circumstances which have not been clarified yet. And it was from Media Atropatene that he launched and conducted his struggle for the throne of Parthia against Vonones I." - The genealogy of Artabanos II (AD 8/9–39/40), King of Parthia, p. 92

...and more, but I guess this should be enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisted.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: this looks like a case where we have a "formal" name and an abbreviated "common" name. The first time that the place is referred to in a work, it is typically as "Media Atropatene", but subsequently it is simply "Atropatene", because that alone is sufficient to distinguish it from other places; there are other Medias, but no other Atropatenes.  this Google ngram shows that "Media Atropatene" typically makes up around 30–40 percent of all references to Atropatene—which means that the rest of the time, it is being referred to without "Media".  This seems like an argument in favour of keeping the article where it is, although I think it would be fine to open the article with "Media Atropatene, or simply Atropatene, was..." just as we do for articles about other people/places/things that have a longer formal name than that typically used to refer to them.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do mind that the term "Atropatene" is sometimes used for the Sasanian period (although its a province) as well ("whereas "Media Atropatene" i.e the kingdom is never used), so the ngram may not be the most reliable thing in this case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, but I wasn't sure one was needed until rereading this just now. Are you saying that Atropatene during the Sasanian period referred to somewhere else?  If it referred to the same place as a province rather than an independent kingdom, then the present title is still a good one, and Media Atropatene is simply one alternative used for part of its history.  You could of course have separate articles for each period, but Atropatene seems to be the more logical title for the general article—independent or not, readers are more likely to search for it under 'A' than under 'M', since Media could refer to multiple places and things, while Atropatene is clear.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So what happens to the current title? Does it remain a redirect to Media Atropatene, become a dab page, become a broad concept article? Srnec (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good question. I would suggest as a redirect to Azerbaijan (Iran). However, a dab page would work as well I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Map
Hello! I've made a better version of the current map used in the article. I'd be happy if everyone gave their feedback on it and if it would be appropriate to implement it as the new lead map. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  00:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks aight. It's a bit too early to put Tabriz there however. EDIT: Also, there's no need to have your name (the author) in the map. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain the Qyzyl Uzwan river wouldn't have had that name in that time period, seeing as it's long before the Turkic migration to Azerbaijan. Does that river have an earlier name that can be put instead, the same way the Karkheh river is called Choaspes in that map? --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your map has some issues/flaws:
 * Remove your WP username from it.
 * You have mixed ancient and modern geographical names in your map, and it disrupts the consistency of map. You should rename them. Aras => Araxes, Qyzyl Uzwan => Amardus (according to Sefīd-Rūd), Tabriz => a proper ancient name from Tabriz or remove it per HistoryofIran's comment. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasnt clear; I think Tabriz should be removed, it doesnt seem to have had any relevance during that period. It first starts to gain some significance in the Sasanian era as far as I know. I assume it was a town at best before that. And yes, Qyzyl Uzwan should be changed, ngl it took me a minute or two to find it after u guys mentioned it.
 * HistoryofIran (talk)


 * Thanks for all the feedback. I've removed Tabriz, my watermark, and have renamed river names to the old ones. I've also changed the font of seas/mountains/regions and have added Praaspa and Takht-e Soleymān to the map. I'd be happy to learn your opinion about the new changes and especially if the cities I've added are appropriate for the time of this map. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  08:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Takht-e Soleyman is an Islamic era name, before that it seems to have been known as Mount Asnavand (see Adur Gushnasp). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I've fixed it now. Any other thing I should change/add/remove? — Curious<b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 14:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a slight typo (Asnavad -> Asnavand). Also, is this supposed to be Atropatene under Seleucid suzerainty? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it now. And yes, it's Atropatene as part of Seleucids. Also, I have one question, are there any other cities in or around Atropatene of those times you know that I should add? Feel like some areas are quite empty (like around Gilan and Ecbatana). — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you could add Rhaga, Laodice and Arbela. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you for the help ! Does everyone think the map is good enough to be added now? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 20:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would put it as 'Europos-Rhagae' then (like they have done in The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE-642 CE, page 43), since no one is gonna know what Europos is, and the name itself didn't become popular, just like Arsakeia in Ray. “Strabo indicates that, following a similar pattern to Hekatompylos, Seleucus I refounded Rhaga (Ray) as an “Europos,” one of the Macedonian toponyms applied to many Seleucid foundations. The Arsacids refounded it as an “Arsakeia.” Neither name evidently stuck.” (page 71, same source). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have renamed it to "Europos (Rhagae)", as "Europos-Rhagae" makes it seem like that as a whole was name for the city. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine now. The only gripe I have is that the current map makes it look like it was a Seleucid province, while it was only a vassal state, but then again the other current picture does that as well. I support your map. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't really make Atropatene's colour different, but I have changed Armenia and Cappadocia's colours on the top-right map to a lighter colour to make it clear that they were vassal states, not provinces of Seleucids. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 09:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's still not OK. The filename and description are misleading/confusing (MedianAtropatene). They should be fixed too. Proper name should be Atropatene or Media Atropatene. Ask an admin to rename and move it. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * File has been moved to "Atropatene as a vassal of Seleucids.png". Is it alright now? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 20:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's OK in my book. Feel free to add it. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)