Talk:Ochamchire

Look what they write themselves
here - Alaexis 12:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: rename into 'Ochamchira'
The general consensus seems to be to employ the Russian name for settlements throughout Abkhazia. Is there any reason to deviate from this in this instance? (e.g. Human Right Watch also uses Ochamchira: http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia953.pdf ) sephia karta  15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consult Help:Moving a page. Thanks, --KoberTalk 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're going to have to be more explicit than that. What do you mean? sephia karta  17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean that moving the page to a new title should be in accordance to the Wikipedia policy. You should request a move and have a poll on this talk page. See also Requested moves. --KoberTalk 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is ridiculous! I quote: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry." I proposed this on the talk page here and got no response from you or anyone else. And now after half a year you move the page back without justification. If anyone, it is you who fails to seek consensus before undertaking action.  sephia karta  17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Page moves do not always show up on the watchlist and I did not notice when you did it last time. You did that without achieving any consensus in spite of my request half a year ago. See Requested moves section on controversial moves. --KoberTalk 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting the chronology of events. First I posted on the talk page. I didn't get any response there, thus I had no reason to believe that the move would be controversial. Especially since all I proposed was changing a POV name into a NPOV name. I then went ahead and moved the page, which you undid, still without giving any reasons against, so I re-moved the page. You argue that page moves don't always show up on the watchlist, which is fair enough, but then it is strange that while you didn't care to respond to my proposal on the talk page for 1 week, you undid my move within 4 hours.  sephia karta  09:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Moving the page to a controversial title
Is a page move request and an associated discussion required before moving page to a new controversial title?

The article is about a town in Abkhazia, a breakaway region of Georgia. The original name of the article was Ochamchire. User:sephia_karta moved it to a new title based on a Russian spelling (Ochamchira) on September 29 2007. I reverted sephia_karta's edit asking him/her to seek a consensus first. Unfortunately, my request was ignored and sephia_karta went ahead with moving the article to a new, controversial title again. However, as moving a watched page does not show up on the watchlist and the article has actually never been edited since then, sephia_karta's action passed unnoticed. On March 18 2008, I moved the page back to its original name and again asked sephia to follow Requested moves policy on controversial moves. Unfortunately, (s)he repeatedly refuses to do that and has thrice reverted my edit within 10 minutes. Sephia argues that the Ochamchira version is preferred by the United Nations sources and thus it is a suitable name for the article. My point is that, according to the Naming conventions, the page should be at Ochamchire since this is a more frequently used form. See, for example, the Google Search results:
 * Ochamchire -wikipedia - 6,780 hits
 * Ochamchira -wikipedia - 6,680 hits
 * Ochamchire - 92 from Google Books
 * Ochamchira - 88 from Google Books.

Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses Ochamchire.

Thanks in advance for your help. --KoberTalk 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ochamchire - 41 from Google Scholar
 * Ochamchira - 123 from Google Scholar. Alæxis¿question? 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with Kober -- g. balaxaZe  ✰  21:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
What User:kober fails to note is that one week before I moved the page, I proposed this on the talk page here. I got no response from him or anyone else and thus had no reason to believe the move would be controversial. Especially since the original title, Ochamchire, reflects the Georgian spelling of the town, and Ochamchira the more neutral Russian spelling, which is used by international authors and institutions writing about the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict [list to follow]. sephia karta 09:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of sources that appear to prefer Ochamchira over Ochamchire: sephia karta 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) sephia karta 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC) sephia karta 00:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) sephia karta 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * United Nations
 * International Crisis Group
 * Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) (4 vs. 1)
 * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (66 vs. 30)
 * Medecins sans Frontieres
 * Georgi M. Derluguian - Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the Caucasus (on the map which is not accessible via Google Books)
 * New York Times (2 vs. 0) (admittedly the 2 only hits are from 1993)
 * Thomas de Waal
 * European Union: 5 vs. 1 on Europa search + European Commission's Delegation to Georgia and Armenia
 * Human Rights Watch [www.igloo.org/libraryservices/download-nocache/Library/subjects/peacesec/armscont/conventi/landmine/abkhazia]


 * The claim that "UN prefers Ochamchira" is not correct. The UN documents don't universally use a Russian form. Here's a list of UN outlets that use Ochamchire:


 * United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia
 * United Nations Development Programme
 * Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs/ReliefWeb


 * Also:


 * International Campaign to Ban Landmines

+many scholarly sources accessible through Google Books. --KoberTalk 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The links you cite are news stories by individual UN agencies, not official reports. Also the ReliefWeb  link uses Ochamchire 3 times vs. Ochamchira 2 times. If you take a look at the report that is being linked to at the bottom of the page you will find that it only uses Ochamchira, not Ochamchire. Given that in official reports Ochamchira is used over Ochamchire, I would say that the UN does prefer Ochamchira. sephia karta  15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah "you would say", its all your deductions right? well not good enough. Its the official name (i guess the name official and legal does not ring a bell for you). Not all sources provided by Kober is from news agencies. Go to Google Books and type Ochamchire. But we should pay attention to what is official geographical name. And also nobody in UN "prefers" Ochamchira over Ochamchire. I know you prefer that, but this web site in not designed for separatist agenda/propaganda promotion or something that you or your POV prefer. Iberieli (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Separatist agenda? Please! That Ochamchire is the official name is Georgian POV, and anyway, official or legal names are irrelevant because Wikipedia uses names most common in English, and as I show, that is Ochamchira. sephia karta  17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have shown is that some official UN reports use Ochamchira. On the other hand, based on popular search engine results, I've already demonstrated that Ochamchire is more common. I fail to understand why the Russian spelling is NPOV, and the Georgian is POV when the latter is more commonly used throughout the Internet and published press.--KoberTalk 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very marginally more common and is in fact less common in scholarly articles. Besides, Ochamchira must also be an official name since Abkhaz is official both Aut. Rep. of Abkhazia. Alæxis¿question? 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alæxis, Ochamchire is still more commonly used whether marginally or not. Please note that this is an English Wikipedia; neither an Abkhaz, nor a Russian one. The status of Abkhaz language is absolutely irrelevant here. And I find your recent move amid the ongoing discussion disruptive and provocative. Such behavior does not leave much room for a consensus solution.
 * P.S. I think I placed the tag correctly but the link still does not appear here. --KoberTalk 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:GOOGLEHITS. An analysis of the Ochamchire hits indicates that many of them come from the .ge domain and from Georgian propaganda sites like abkhazia.com. Also, it's a bit misleading to say that Britannica uses Ochamchire. Britannica doesn't have an article on Ochamchira. The link you provided is an article about the Mingrelian language. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the list of sources I provided above does not include what you call "Georgian propaganda sites". An analysis of the Ochamchira hits also indicates that many of them come from the .ru domain and from Russian propaganda and tourist sites. Your argument about Britannica is also weak. The fact that this encyclopedia does not have an article on Ochamchire does not mean that we should ignore other entries mentioning the town. --KoberTalk 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ochamchire -*.ge 540 hits compared to Ochamchira -*.ge 6,120 hits Ochamchire -*.ru 6,410 hits compared to Ochamchira -*.ru 6,470 hits

Hence Ochamchire is primarily from Georgian based websites and Russian based websites were not a factor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don’t know how you got those results, but more refined searching through .ge websites yields only 714 hits for «Ochamchire». Hence Georgian based websites are not a factor and there are no valid reasons as to why Ochamchire, more common throughout the English-language web, should not be the article’s title.--KoberTalk 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 714 out of 6780 hits is not a factor? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, are we going to ignore all 6066 sources? I just wonder why the initiators of this edit war is avoiding the discussion. They seem to be completely satisifed that this combination left the POV title.--KoberTalk 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? As I've already said proposed variant gets just a little bit more google hits and actually much less google scholar hits. Some international organisations use one term and some use the other. Imho presented evidence isn't strong enough to justify the renaming of the article. Let's wait for outside opinion.
 * ps. Personally I don't think that a move protection is needed here. Alæxis¿question? 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I've not proposed anything. It was sephia who proposed moving the page to a new title and did it without any further discussion. And you both engaged in edit warring, ignoring the Wikipedia guide on controversial moves. The proposed variant is Ochamchira and, yes, presented evidence isn't strong enough to justify the renaming of the article. --KoberTalk 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sephia proposed the suggestion to move and waited a month for responses then made the move. You came here many months later and started move warring. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd better check the page history and my explanation above before posting your meaningless accusations.--KoberTalk 19:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh Puleese! It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see above that Sephia posted his proposal to move it September then look at the history and see that the move was done in October. If you wanted to move it back you should have discussed it in talk first but instead you went straight to reverting. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see my explanation above. Having lost all arguments, you are diverting the discussion from its subject. --KoberTalk 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with RFChist has not yet been fixed. I see no point in continuing this discussion until a neutral and cooperative editor gets involved.--KoberTalk 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words "I've said my peice now I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and hum until someone comes here who agrees with me". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep your interpretations to yourself. I'm not going to be locked in yet another senseless war with the recalcitrant POV users. --KoberTalk 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No I won't keep to myself. If you accuse others of starting an edit war when the edit war was mostly your responsibility, you will be called upon it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you will have to keep them to your buddies. As you have already said you have not even voiced your opinion about the subject, but, true to your tradition, you are still waging a relentless war on this talk page and tutoring me how to behave. I don’t think you are the right person to deliver lectures on wiki etiquette. KoberTalk 07:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, if you falsely accuse others of edit warring when you are mostly responsible, you will be refuted. Deal with it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was away over Easter, sorry for 'avoiding' discussion. I'm sorry Kober, but you are the one who initiated the edit war. You may have good reasons for having missed the page's move half a year ago, but the fact of the matter is that the page's location was stable for more than half a year, so you can't just belatedly 'undo' that citing controversy that wasn't there in the first place. There was no controversy half a year ago because not a single reason against the page being at Ochamchira was provided then.
 * I asked you to seek consensus first on Sept. 29 2007, but you ignored me. --KoberTalk 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked you before and I'll ask you again now: I proposed the move on the talk page and waited for responses. In what way did I not first search consensus? And regardless of this, the page was stable for over half a year, so you should have sought consensus before moving it now. sephia karta  17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, as for your present argument that Ochamchire is more common: I argue that what the main international media and international scientific sources do is much more relevant than a raw google count.
 * It is not a "raw google count". I've listed the main international media and international scientific sources which use Ochamchire. --KoberTalk 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't list any scientific sources that use Ochamchire. You linked to Google books searches that reveal marginally more hits for Ochamchire. I gave you two scientific authors who write about the caucasus plus the United Nations, the European Union, the International Crisis Group, Medecins Sans Frontiers and a list of international media. You only pointed to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. sephia karta 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus I don't understand why you make such a big fuzz of using the Russian name Ochamchira. I think that by using Russian names we are able to stear a nice middle course in between using Georgian and Abkhaz names. Sometimes the Russian name matches better with the Georgian one (Gali, Kodori, Inguri), sometimes with the Abkhaz name (Pitsunda, Ochamchira) and often it's somewhere in between (Sukhumi). sephia karta 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. That's why nobody seems to be opposed to the names like Pitsunda (not an Abkhaz name, FYI) and Inguri (not a Georgian name, FYI). But in the Ochamchire case, the Georgian form remains more commonly used whether you like it or not. --KoberTalk 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, Ochamchira is the prevalent version. sephia karta 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. You could not prove it. You are just pushing your POV.(PaC (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Look at the long list of international sources up there. That's proof. sephia karta  16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I see is you pulling out only the sources that suit you. What I also see is a direct comparison provided by Kober showing prevalent use of Ochamchire. You, for some reason, fail to notice it. Looks like POV pushing to me. (PaC (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I checked major media, international organisations and international authors writing about the Caucasus. Had I found sources that prefer Ochamchire over Ochamchira, I would have mentioned them also, but alas, I didn't come across any. I only left out sources where I couldn't find any examples of their naming the place (e.g. BBC, Economist, International Herald Tribune, Washington Post). If I really only picked sources selectively, then go ahead, give me your list of international sources that use Ochamchire over Ochamchira. (That is, something a bit more detailed, relevant and explicit than a raw Google count.) sephia karta  13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are so sure about your arguments why not follow the proper guidelines for moving the page (Requesting potentially controversial moves)? (PaC (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm not the one proposing a move here, Kober wants to change the article's name to Ochamchire. sephia karta  20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was already named Ochamchire for more than a year, until you sneaked in a new name without proper procedure. (PaC (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Ah yes, naughty me and my sneaking. Fact is that you are discussing events from over half a year ago, the page has since been stable and now Kober wants to move the page. That is the proposal under discussion now and that is why I posted the list of sources supporting the page staying where it is, at Ochamchira. If anyone had asked for it in September, I would have compiled the list back then already. Alas, no one did. sephia karta 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fact is, my dear Sephia, that Kober's revert is the very next edit on this page after your move (save one minor edit). So you can't really hide behind a "half a year ago" clause. You can trace the history of this move just by going to your first moving event and continuously clicking on "Newer edit →" links. It looks like this: you decided to move it, Kober reverts right away: , you stubbornly move it again: , and the FIRST REAL EDIT after that (save one minor edit) is Kober reverting it again asking you to follow the wikipedia guidelines . And yet you conclude: "it's too late now, you follow the guidelines". It's preposterous! Anybody can see that you violated the wiki-policies about page moving, yet you continue to deny it! (PaC (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * So you manage to show that for half a year, the page has been remarkably stable. Exactly how does this now give Kober the right to undo my move from over half a year ago? sephia karta 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it just shows the obscurity of the article. The fact that nobody but Kober was really interested in it does not give you the right to sneak in the change you want in violation of wiki-policies and then, after it got noticed start screaming "too late, you can't change it now". Consider this, if you steal my wallet and I only notice it in half a year does not give you the right to keep my wallet, does it now? You would still have to return the wallet to me and probably go to jail for the crime you did. (PaC (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Well, actually, after a certain time I could keep the wallet, see Statute of limitations, so your comparison does not work the way you want it to. And actually, that is the way it works on Wikipedia. Of course Kober can try to get the title changed again, but he will first have to find consensus for it. sephia karta  16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. So at least you admit that you violated wiki-policies. We have some progress. Now, if you can find some rules about Statute of limitations on violation of wiki-policies i withdraw my objections. Otherwise we go back to Ochamchire and you try to do it properly. Agreed? (PaC (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Please don't insult your own intelligence, I admit no such thing. I did not violate any guidelines, let alone policies. You don't want to admit to this, ok, I just want to save you the pointless arguing, because what I say is a fact. The page's location is locked, and unless we reach consensus to move it to Ochamchire, it's not going anywhere. sephia karta 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now this is your best argument: "what I say is a fact"? What happened to a "statute of limitation" argument? You are flip-flopping again. (PaC (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Read what I wrote. My reference to the statute of limitation was in response to the stealing-a-wallet-comparison which you had to drag in. You don't have to take my word for the fact that there needs to be consensus to change the page's location, the page's location is locked, see for yourself. sephia karta  16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry. It will get unlocked eventually. The title will get changed to its original stable version, and you will get a chance to request the move you want so much, but this time you can do it properly.(See: Requesting potentially controversial moves.)(PaC (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
 * See the admin's comment who protected the article's location. The title will not change without consensus. sephia karta 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex's and Poco's arguments are as usually badly disguised POV. By Alaexis' own words "the renaming is not justified", yet he decides to support the renaming made by Sephia. Surprise, surprise. And, of course, Poco is not bothered at all by the fact that Sephia moved the page without any discussion, even after being reverted by Kober in September. Can you show me any discussion on this topic, Poco? Alex? Agree with Kober about the need for truly NPOV editors getting involved. So what is the problem with RFChist?(PaC (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi PaC! Nice of you to show up as expected. How the heck have my arguments been "badly disguised POV" when I haven't even taken a position on the renaming? The matter is strictly about wiki-etiquette. Sephia was extremely patient and waited for responses to his move and got no responses so he quite reasonably went ahead and made the move. If Kober wants it moved back he should use WP:DR. It is somewhat refreshing to see him try to post a WP:RFC eventhough the RFC seems a bit disengenuous when it's followed up by edit warring. I will take a look at it and see why it's not showing up on the list when I get a chance and if no one else has taken a look at it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You just illustrated my point. Your personal grudge against Kober automatically predetermines which side of the argument you will pop up. So, yes, you accusing Kober of not following wiki-etiquette as opposed to Sephia is a "badly disguised POV". Sephia failed to initiate the discussion and muster any support for the move. Since he knew that there is an opposition to the move as indicated by Kober's revert in September it leaved the burden of proving his case on him. I do not see this as "extremely patient" at all. I do not see anybody agreeing with him back then, do you? It is clear to me that it was Sephia's move that sparked the edit war, despite Kober's request to seek consensus first. But of course, in your book, everything Kober does is wrong isn't it, Poco?(PaC (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Oh, yeah, accuse him of sock-puppetry again, Poco, it's been awhile.(PaC (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
 * OK, if anyone understood what Papa Carlo was talking about in the above two posts, please translate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad Poco. Just read it one sentence at a time. Let me help you out: the posts essentially have two main points: 1) You have a personal grudge against Kober as been proven time and time again, so everything you wrote here is POV and should be ignored. 2) It was Sephia who started the edit war, by ignoring Kober's request to seek consensus. Is that clearer? Don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions. (PaC (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I could've answered something to this but you can just as well re-read what was already written above. What I want to say, though, is that saying that someone's arguments are 'as usually badly disguised POV' or that everything someone writes here should be ignored amounts to personal attacks imho.
 * I've added this request to RFChist manually since continuing this discussion without an outside opinion seems pointless. Alæxis¿question? 07:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could be more patient here, and we could have avoided this heated debate. I requested RfC but still you and Poco decided to play the same game. Yet another attempt on my part to cool down the situation was met with your ally’s provocative post. Before accusing PaC of personal attacks, let me remind you a long history of Poco’s attacks against PaC and myself. Lastly, there’s not point in manually adding something to the template. Bot normally reverts them.--KoberTalk 07:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My post was simply calling a spade a spade. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...without actually knowing what a spade is. --KoberTalk 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the page without discussion? Have a look at that post by me up here on the talk page! The page was stable for half a year and now Kober moved the page without discussion. sephia karta 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? You just posted a question there, nothing else. May be you call this a discussion, I don't. Bottom line - you failed to muster any support for the move. The page being stable is not an argument - it was stable before your move too.(PaC (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Sephia is not responsible for forcing people to respond to his post. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. sephia karta  10:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, don't call it a discussion then. Sneaking in a controversial change, is what it was. (PaC (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Sneaking?! You're right that there was no discussion, I never claimed there was, because it takes at least two for a discussion. I proposed to rename the page, if no one cares to comment on that then that's their responsibility and they can't later complain if I go ahead with the move. sephia karta  16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, so we agree - you made a controversial move without a discussion. Now that this is settled we can move it back and you can request a move properly if you still want it.(PaC (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
 * The point is that Sephia did all the due diligence necessary by posting his suggestion to talk and Kober never responded in talk until 6 months later and even then, he responded with a very cryptic post and started edit warring. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I responded on the same day he moved the page and seven days after he posted what he calls a move request. Sephia knew perfectly well that the move would be controversial as there was an attempt by another user to implement similar changes just two weeks or so before Sephia's unilateral decision. Don't try to disrupt a rfc, ok? Your intervention always brings the discussion to a deadlock. --KoberTalk 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone reverted my renaming of the article the most logical thing is to propose it at the talk asking everyone to share their opinions about it. If no one responded I'd be bold and assume that everyone who is interested agrees with my proposal. I'd move the page then, of course. So Sephia's actions seem logical to me and fully in accordance with Wikipedia's rules spirit and letter.
 * ps. The article is viewed about 200 times a month. I'd like to note that no one of more than a thousand visitors complained about the article's name in the last six months. Alæxis¿question? 07:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please! Who cares about the title of such an obscure article? I don't think that those who viewed it are very much familiar with Ochamchire/Ochamchira issue. --KoberTalk 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex, that is such a poor argument! You can see that nobody complained about its previous name for even longer periods of time. So what?(PaC (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
 * All you said was that I should have sought consensus, which I had clearly done by proposing the move on the talk page. You never until these past days provided any substantive arguments against the page being at Ochamchira. Lacking these, there was no controversy. sephia karta 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyways... we seem to at least come to agreement that Sephia made this change without any discussion, knowing fully well it was a controversial move. Here's how wikipedia suggests to approach controversial moves: described in Requesting potentially controversial moves. I do not believe he followed these suggestions. Given this and the fact that we are not going anywhere with this discussion it seems reasonable then to agree to revert the name to a previous one, after which Sephia can attempt to request the move following all the proper procedures. What do you think?(PaC (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Wikilawyer much PaC? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, you are doing it again, obstructing any attempts at compromise and disrupting a normal dialogue through your provocative posts.--KoberTalk 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is your and Kobers opinion, but to presume that I agree to this statement is preposterous in the light of what I argued above, which you seem not to be listening to:
 * I did not consider it a controversial move, since no one voiced any substantive objections to the move, and because I considered it a move from a POV to a NPOV title.
 * I invited discussion by proposing the renaming on the talk page. Like I said, I received no substantive objections, so no, there was no discussion, but I did all that could be requested of me. Note that even when Kober reverted my move, he did not care to give any substantive arguments against the renaming.
 * What happened half a year ago is no longer relevant, since the page has been stable for over half a year. Kober now wants to move the page back, and that is the proposal up for discusion.


 * Anyway, we definitely need outside, neutral input. sephia karta 13:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just our opinion, it's what any NPOV reader will conclude after reading your: "You're right that there was no discussion". First you admit that there was no discussion, and then turn around and say that it is just my and Kober's opinion. Funny.
 * So what we have is the following:
 * There were no discussion.
 * You failed to follow wikipedia recommendations as described in Requesting potentially controversial moves.
 * Can somebody argue with this? Judging from Poco's caustic remark he can't. Alex? Sephia? (PaC (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Ok, let's see, do I agree with this? I indeed agree that there was no discussion, but somehow you seem to suggest that this is my fault. That it is my fault that no one put forward substantive arguments against my suggestion thereby turning it into a discussion. Is it that difficult to see why I find this preposterous?
 * + I did not fail to follow Wikipedia recommendations since there was no controversy (no discussion, remember?). sephia karta 18:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are just grasping at straws. The controversy was there when your first move got reverted by Kober. (PaC (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
 * So let me get this straight: you blame me for the fact that when I moved the page, I did not take into account the controversy that would emerge when Kober later reverted my move. Wow. Well, sorry for not being able to look into the future. sephia karta 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Future?! I am not sure what you are talking about. Let me remind you that Kober reverted your move right away in September. Moreover the issue was already raised before . Therefore the controversy already existed and you knew it, yet you moved it again in October. No need to pretend otherwise. (PaC (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Let me recapitulate what seems to be your argument, namely that in September I moved the page in the face of somehow unadressed controversy. What controversy, I ask. Kober's revert, you answer. Notice how Kober's revert takes place only after I move the article and how I can therefore not possibly take it into account at the time of moving? sephia karta  01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Wikilawyering. Papa Carlo is playing Johnnie Cochran to Kober's O. J. Simpson.:D Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how else to explain it to you without insulting your intelligence. You made a move, right? Suppose you did not think it was a controversial move despite this issue being previously raised . OK, suppose so. Now pay attention. Kober reverts your move inviting you to seek consensus. Right? At this point it should be clear that your move is controversial even to you. OK? Now, most important point, concentrate. After a couple of weeks you AGAIN MOVE THE PAGE, knowing fully well that the move was controversial. Thaat's when you went wrong. See? It was your October move that failed to follow wikipedia recommendations as described in Requesting potentially controversial moves. Do you understand now? (PaC (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * So you agree that it was ok for me to move the page the first time around? Then in that light, Kober's revert made no sense. All I did was undo his unjustified revert. Please explain to me, how when the issue was so controversial, I received no substantive objections to my proposal. sephia karta 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha. Nice try. Let me explain it to you again. No, even your first move was controversial. I was just pretending to believe you that you did not know that it was controversial. But just because you claim that you didn't know that you can't cross the street when the red is flashing does not excuse you, does it now? Kober's revert was fully justified in that respect. Moreover it explicitly showed you that the controversy existed and your next move was a clear violation of wiki-policies and you know it. (PaC (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
 * So why was my first move not ok? There was consensus on the talk page by default since mine was the only comment. sephia karta 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus was only in your head, if any. This issue already was discussed and the change was reverted before by Kober. You knew it was potentially controversial. And as I told you many times before even if you pretend that you thought that it was not controversial, the immediate revert from Kober should have told you that indeed it was. After that you should have followed wikipedia recommendations as described in Requesting potentially controversial moves. How long are you going to pretend that you don't understand this? (PaC (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
 * That's nonsense, there was no previous move which Kober reverted, there was only someone who changed the name within the article, unannounced. That Kober reverted this is a no-brainer, of course the name in the article should match the article's title. But when I proposed on the talk page to move the article, Kober didn't object. There was consensus on the talk page, by default because there was no dissenting opinion. So I was completely in my right to move the page the first time. Kober's revert told me that he disagreed, but the only reason he gave was that I should seek consensus first, which was a nonsensical argument since I had invited consensus on the talk page. Not only this, he didn't give a single substantive reason why the page should be at Ochamchire. He didn't provide a valid reason for the move, so I was completely in my right to move the page a second time. Kober then didn't do anything more about it, he could have chosen to further explain himself but he didn't. He himself claims that he missed my revert of his revert, that is of course entirely his responsibility. sephia karta 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I had invited consensus"??? What does that mean? Consensus is either reached or not. You never reached it. "Consensus by default" is also your own invention. You knew he was still opposed to it, you just described it yourself. Bottom line: there are rules how to do controversial moves: Requesting potentially controversial moves, and you did not follow them. Nobody can deny that, even you. End of story.(PaC (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

(unindent)Sephia, it's pointless. Kober and Papa Carlo are going to continue to nit pick to try to show that you didn't seek consensus when you actually did. That is because they don't want the name to have an 'a' instead of an 'e' at the end regardless of how everyone else feels about it. You did absolutely nothing wrong, you proposed your change for a very reasonable amount of time and when there was nobody opposing, you made your change. Any reasonable person reading any of this would be able to figure this out. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, Poco, I do not see Kober participating in this ridiculous conversation. Once you derailed any chance of constructive discussion he quit. The only reason I even argue with Sephia, is to see how far he (and you) will go, denying the obvious: he was caught red-handed violating rules for making a potentially controversial move. And yet he keeps coming up with all sorts of excuses, one more ridiculous than another (he even dragged in "statute of limitation"). And when he is backed in the corner guess who shows up consoling him: "you did absolutely nothing wrong"? A notorious personal-grudge-holder-against-Kober, anti-Georgian, pro-Russian POV-pusher Pocopoco, of course. And look at him pretending to be an impartial observer. Such a sham.
 * What do you mean: "there was nobody opposing", Poco? Are you blind? Do you not see Kober's revert? How else do you explain it if not as opposition? You think he was just kidding?
 * Let me ask you two specific questions:
 * Was the move made by Sephia potentially controversial?
 * Did he follow wiki-rules as described in Requesting potentially controversial moves?
 * Can you answer these questions without POV pushing?(PaC (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
 * First, are you sure that WP:RM is a rule (or, rather, policy) and not a guideline? This is not clear from the WP:RM page.
 * But let's suppose it's a policy. Here's what we read there:

In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages.
 * I think that there has been no breach of rules of Wikipedia here. Alæxis¿question? 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Alex. Not surprisingly, you did not answer my questions at all. The quote that you presented here does not apply to potentially controversial moves. It applies to requesting moves in general, as you can see. For controversial moves they have a special section. Let me list it again, since it looks like you three POV-pushers still did not read it: Requesting potentially controversial moves. Now, can you honestly say that Sephia followed these guidelines? (PaC (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Please re-read that page. These words refer to controversial (=the value of a move may be under dispute) moves. Sephia acted per recommendations given at WP:RM - "discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page". Alæxis¿question? 12:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha. Alex, under your interpretation nobody needs to follow Requesting potentially controversial moves policies at all. What do you think is the point of these policies then?.... But even pretending for a moment that you are right, read what it says: "discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus". Well, even Sephia admits there was no discussion (His own words: "You're right that there was no discussion, I never claimed there was.."). So, even if you want to cling to the clause you keep quoting, it is not valid, since no discussion actually took place. (PaC (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC))


 * PaC, are you blind? Where are the substantive arguments against the move? sephia karta  16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mm,... What? Sephia, it looks like you completely lost it. Sorry. Did you see me arguing against the move at all? So far, all I am saying is that you broke the wiki-etiquette, and refuse to admit it.(PaC (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Without arguments against the move, there can be no controversy. sephia karta  12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

PaC, to answer your questions above: 1) No, I would not have thought that it would have been controversial but then again, I don't think like a nationalist either. 2) Yes, Sephia did follow the rules, he would have been clear to even make the change in the most controversial topics. See some of the arbcom decisions on how to make changes on controversial topics, as I've mentioned before, Sephia more than fullfilled his due dilligence. No, I wasn't trying to console Sephia as you sarcastically put it, I was telling him that it is a waste of his time trying to explain all of this to you because you will just continue to nit pick. Even if someone discussed the change with Sephia in talk and came to an agreement on making the change you would have probably said that it wasn't enough of a discussion, there probably would have been no way to satisfy you. That is why discussion this with you is a waste of everyones time. That is why I am not wasting any more of my time. If you want to initiate dispute resolution or some sort of mediation I'll be happy to participate otherwise I will leave you with the last word. Have a nice day. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight. If you do not show up here for a week I can declare that I've got a "consensus by default" and move the page just like Sephia did, right? OK then. And then, if somebody asks me if I thought the move was controversial, I'll make an innocent face, just like you did, and say "no, of course not, only a nationalist can think that". Got it(PaC (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC))
 * If no one commented on your proposal for a week, yes, you could go ahead with the move. If someone then came and said "wow wow wow, I wasn't here for a week so I didn't see this but I disagree with the move for these, these and these reasons", and reverted the move, then that would be ok, and the discussion could still take place. In that case the revert of the second user would be justified. Kober did not give any reasons against the move, and he didn't give any indication of having missed my proposal, therefore his revert was not justified. sephia karta  12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still quite new to writing wiki articles, and don't know the wikipedia policy on the following idea, but... why not just relocate it to a page called 'Ochamchira/Ochamchire' and then have both Ochamchira and Ochamchire redirect there? It seems both versions of the name have their firm supporters and both can have arguments made for their predominance in English-language materials. I just think this might save everyone a lot of time in the end... Westpole (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules require each article to have a certain definitive name. I'm not sure why it is so, maybe to avoid having lots of articles with slashes in their names. Alæxis¿question? 09:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Title of the article
Hello, On 16 September 2015, at the request of the Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations, the map of Georgia was updated on the website of the Geospatial Information Section of the United Nations. The English language orthography of several cities on Georgia's Black Sea coast has been changed in accordance with the established norms of Georgian toponyms: სოხუმი/Sokhumi, ბიჭვინთა/Bichvinta, ახალი ათონი/Akhali Atoni, გულრიფში/Gulripshi and ოჩამჩირე/Ochamchire. [] [] According to this regulations, made by the Uited Nations, please, change the title of the article into Ochamchire and use this form in any other articles of Wikipedia. Also note, that according to this official UN map of Georgia, the primary name of Abkhazia part of Georgia is Abkhazeti. Thank you!Abkhazian1 (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Two supports to one oppose, and with the plain Google hits exceeding, and ngram neck and neck, reasoning is valid enough. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ochamchira → Ochamchire – It was long discussion about this issue, but it's clear that in English speaking world name Ochamchire is more common, even simple Google search shows that Ochamchire (with 270,000 results) is much more preferable than Russian influenced Ochamchira (112,000 results). So this request is in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME. -- g. balaxaZe   ★  21:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)  --Relisted.  Steel1943  (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not supported by NGRAM which has these names pretty much a dead heat.  --Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike Cline it depends what you read on NGRAM, if you count by year, than you should change article's name every 10 years from 1970s but if you count all data from 1940s you see that Ochamchire is more used and + Google Search. Google search shows 2016 data NGRAM shows till 2008. Ochamchire definitely is more common and longer in use, as well as internationally recognized. -- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User please explain your action of relisting before discussion or my answer. --  g. balaxaZe   ★  18:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * RMs maybe be relisted anytime they are in backlog and an editor deems further discussion is warranted. Remember RMs are not competitions. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Ochamchire is clearly the more common name in English. Also, I don't think GoogleBooks is necessarily a good indication of present-day usage. Due to copyright restrictions and other issues, GoogleBooks tends to be slanted towards older publications.--Damianmx (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2016 (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.

Fyi, I've asked for the review of the move. Alæxis¿question? 12:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)