Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Stepanakert

Category:Stepanakert

Khankendi is a city in Azerbaijan and since 2023 it is under Azerbaijani control. Its previous name was Stepanakert but in 1991 it was renamed and today its official and since 2023 de facto name in place is Khankendi. Even in recent reliable sources this city is mentioned first of all as "Khankendi" but "Stepanakert" is mentioned only as a name "known to Armenians" or "known in Armenia"[1][2]. Even the recent report of The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights uses the name of Khankendi throughout the report, only once in the beginning mentioning that the city is "referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians"[3]. For that reason all categories containing the name of this city in their names should be with "Khankendi". And categories with "Stepanakert" should be redirected to the categories with "Khankendi". Interfase (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose rename until other projects catchup per my comments in the ANU complaint. Categories mainly exist to help people find and sort files. There's zero evidence that either one would be made easier by renaming the category right now and plenty that it confuse people. We don't rename categories the second a place has changed it's name just because a European commissioner refers to it by the new name. Regardless, there's no reason we can't wait until other projects change the name before changing it on our end. Otherwise what's the rush besides POV editing or an unwillingness to deal with on Wikipedia's end first? There's no reason they wouldn't adopt the new name if it's as widely used and accepted as OP is claiming. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  The city was not renamed to Khankendi yesterday. It was renamed in 1991 and since that the new name is widely used enough in English-language sources beyond Azerbaijan[4]. We do not rush to rename the category but we are already late in renaming. Interfase (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Your needlessly repeating yourself. Why not ask the various Wikipedia projects to change it on their end if the new name is so widely used? Or are you just going to keep bringing up the same talking points over and over that no one is disputing? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that our decision should depends on the decision of other projects. Some projects, for example Russian Wikipedia, have already renamed the article about the city to Khankendi (based on the discussion by the way). Interfase (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Then why cite how the Russian language Wikipedia has it? Look, I don't think our decision should depend on the decision of other projects either but this does serve as the main image repository for Wikipedia and the majority of Wikipedia projects haven't changed the name yet. So it's not nothing. So again for like the fifth time, why not ask the various Wikipedia projects to change it on their end if the name is that widely used and accepted? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead by example. Maybe if we will change the name here other projects will fix the problem on their own projects as well. Or shall we wait till all other projects change it? Of course not. You can ask various Wikipedia projects to change it. I am not interested on all of these projects. I think that finally all of them change it. But we cannot wait till the last one will do it. Commons can do it now without any command from elsewhere. Interfase (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment BTW, I brought it up on the English Wikipedia article. I think we should at least wait and see what they have to say about it until there's a definitive decision here. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to run around how other projects currently have it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Place names should be changed without problem when the place doesn't change: St. Petersburg to Petrograd to Leningrad to St. Petersburg, or Swaziland to eSwatini. But when through military force, one population ends up removed and a new population installed along with a new name, they're not really the same place, and renaming the old categories instead of making new ones feels like erasing history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I made the argument in a similar CfD recently that we can't necessarily rename categories every time somewhere is taken by force from an outside party or there's something like a minor border excursion that leads to a name change because it's just not a sustainable way to do things. I think the same would apply here. Although it's been a while since the name was changed, but then it's also out in the middle of nowhere in a fairly unstable region where someone from the other side could easily take it back. I don't think changing the name of the category in situations like that is necessarily the best option. Especially in this case since there's clearly no will for it on the side of other projects. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Proposal: Keep the old ones and make new categories for Khankendi from 2023 onwards. Add good descriptions, showing their connection, and put See alsos in both categories. JopkeB (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The main thing is keeping the old category until we're sure it's not going to just be changed back at some point in the near future. Although we could probably still keep it beyond that as a historically useful category for the old administrative area anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"somewhere is taken by force from an outside party..." - Khankendi was not "taken by force from an outside party". Actually it was more that 30 years occupied by outside party (in fact army of so called "Artsakh" was consisted of the servicemen of Republic of Armenia). In 2023 Azerbaijan restored his control over his international recognized territory including Khankendi. I think that we need apply here the same approach like we are doing with St. Petersburg or Eswatini. No any outside party renamed the city of Khankendi. It is the city in Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized (even officially by Armenia[5]) borders. And Azerbaijan not just renamed the city in 1991. It restored historical original name that was till 1923. So, there is no any "erasing history", there is "restoring history". Interfase (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No offense, but the historical information is mostly dross in cases like this anyway. We aren't Wikipedia and this isn't a dispute about what facts should go in a Wikipedia article. The only thing that matters here is Commons:Categories#Structures "If you have more than two pictures: create a new Category, named after the structure. For example Category:Rheinbrücke Emmerich. Use the common name." The historical background information has absolutely nothing to do with that. This isn't a debate about who did what, when, or who was in the wrong. We're simply here to figure out and use the common name. That's it. Period. End of story. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That is what I am talking about. Today the common name of the city is Khankendi. And the main category should be with this name on title. We can rename the category or can keep separate category "Stepanakert" in category "History of Khankendi" (like Category:Königsberg), but the main category should be "Khankendi" to prevent misinformation. Interfase (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't support making "Stepanakert" as a sub-category of "History of Khankendi." Really, the usefulness of "History of Khankendi" seems rather spurious to begin with but that's a separate issue. I fail to see how this category is "misinformation" though. Even you wouldn't deny that there was a place called "Stepanakert" at one point even if it was renamed. Not to be rude, but comments like that are one of the reasons I'm hesitant to rename the category though. As it seems like you have ulterior motives here other then making it easier for people find and organize files related to the area. Just an FYI, but we aren't here to support, promote, or push a particular side of something or nationalist agenda on users. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any "ulterior motives". My position is transparent and clear. Readers should know that there is no any "Stepanakert" today in Azerbaijan, like no any Königsberg today in Russia. That is what I am calling misinformation: showing that there is city of Stepanakert in Azerbaijan, which is not true. It will be easy for people find and organize files related to the area when it was called Steanakert, if we have redirect files from Stepanakert to Khankendi or categories related to Stepanakert are in the category about the history of Khankendi. Not to be rude, but if we have list of the categories in the Category:Cities in Azerbaijan and one of this category has old name, this is misinformation, because category "Cities in Azerbaijan" is not about the history, it is about the real situation. Interfase (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't have "readers." Again, this isn't Wikipedia. Regardless, calling the current name "misinformation" insinuates that categories are meant to be "informational" to begin with. That's not their purpose though. Categories aren't for storing data or facts. At the end of the day the name of a category doesn't matter much outside of helping people find and organize images. That's all they exist for. If your so concerned about informing people or dealing with "misinformation" then edit Wikipedia. The category being "misinformation" isn't a valid reason to change it though regardless of if it actually is or not.

That's one of the reasons I told you this isn't a debate about historical facts or politics. Your clearly not getting the point though and I'm pretty tired of this back and forth. So here's what I'm going to do. I'll leave this alone for a week or two more and then I'll probably change it based on whatever the consensus is that point. All your doing is talking in circles though and there's nothing more to discuss about it at this point anyway. So I'd appreciate it if you stop beating the clearly dead horse by leaving it here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not agree with your position. But anyway I agree that we both clearly explained our points. Let's wait other opinions. Interfase (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name is "Stepanakert". This is confirmed by a Google Trends seach of the two terms over the past 5 years. See here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • As per my comment above, the common name for the old place may have been Stepanakert, but the new place is Khankendi. This is more like Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, and it's inaccurate not to represent that change for new files relatively promptly. We should have categories with the current name for the current place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    It's only current because the population was expelled / was forced to leave in fear of their lives. It is a gross distortion of facts to say that it is "..like Rhodesia to Zimbabwe"; the people of Zimbabwe decided to make that change themselves - it was not imposed by colonists or conquerors. It would be more accurate to say that the nearest equivalent is the Nazi renaming to the Polish city of Wroclaw to "Breslau." Should the actions of conquerors trump the wishes of the city population? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    • You're talking about a city under Azerbaijani control since 1923, and internationally recognized as being part of Azerbaijan since the fall of the Soviet Union. (I note the w:Stepanakert#Demographics expulsion of four thousand Azerbaijanis from the city was almost complete by 2005.) The Nazis didn't rename the Polish city of Wrocław to Breslau; Breslau became part of Prussia in 1742, and had been using the name Breslau since around 1250. In some ways, it's more like when the Allies displaced all the Germans from Wrocław after WWII.

      Yeah, it's ugly. But it's way more complex than you suggest, and the reality is that it's going to continue to be Khankendi.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

      • We should follow Wiki's lead in this regard. Retain the common name used by the people (before they were expelled / ran in fear of their lives, that is). Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
        • So, should we use the common name used by the people before they were expelled from Breslau? Or the Azerbaijani who were expelled from Khankendi? You're simplifying it what seems to be a long history of multiple groups in the area with intolerance for each other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Update Pending the outcome of this discussion, I have restored all categories that used the name "Khankendi" to the status quo ante bellum - "Stepanakert". Prior to this discussion, @Golden and Interfase: had surreptitiously changed them, presumably in the hope that the facts on the ground would determine the shape of the peace. That's just not nice; not in Ukraine and not in Commons. Let this discussion decide whether "Stepanakert" is the common name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  ̊̊̊Golden has done that to countless Armenian village names across the region. It needs to all be reverted and then an actual discussion should take place. RaffiKojian (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose The natives call it Stepanakert, as do most references to the city, and the most recent democratically elected government. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi call it Khankendi. Most resent references use Khankendi as well. The only legal government call it Khankendi as well. Interfase (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Current population (more than 3 thousand people[6]) and local students of Karabakh University (more that 1 thousand people[7]) also call it Khankendi. So Khankendi is the common name for local people as well. Interfase (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  There were no "Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi" since the dissolution of the USSR. Today, the only "Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi" are those who were born in the city following the expulsion of the native Armenian population. All other Azeris in Stepanakert are those from other parts of Az.Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nine years before their expulsion in 1988, over 4,000 Azerbaijanis lived in what was then known as Stepanakert. Not sure what your definition of "native" is, but Azerbaijanis aren't aliens that suddenly appeared in the region. — Golden ^talk 11:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ask Interfase what he means by ""Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi". "1988, over 4,000 Azerbaijanis lived in what was then known as Stepanakert.": so even in USSR times it was known as Stepanakert. Thanks for confirming that. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Native Azerbaijanis are Azerbaijanis who were born in this town and were faced with real ethnic cleansing in 1988. They are still alive and call their homeland Khankendi today. Hope it is clear now. Interfase (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment These two editors are actively removing or altering category names of Armenian origin. Even if the Armenian name of a city sounds similar to its Azerbaijani counterpart, they replace the English letters with Turkish Latin script so that the city is perceived as Azerbaijani (for example, Category:Tagavard became Category:Tağaverd). I fear that all of this is being done either out of deep hatred for Armenians and everything Armenian or as part of a sponsored mass action (or both). Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Azerbaijani government officially renamed this town in Azerbaijan to Khankendi, not "these two editors". Interfase (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment As far as I can see at Category:Cities in Azerbaijan we usually (except for Category:Baku) use the Azerbaijani city name version instead of the english version. Therefore in my opinion the question here in this Cfd should rather be whether to use Category:Stepanakert or Category:Xankəndi as parent category, just for systematic reasons. Khankendi should only be a redirect to the preferred version out of those two (i.e. to the result of this Cfd). Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  That suggestion rather misses the point; it is only in recent times that Stepanakert could be described as an Azerbaijanian city. The inhabitants thereof would never have self-described as "Azerbaijanian". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for not being clear enough! I'm only talking about the the language version az (Xankəndi) instead of en (Khankendi) to be used for naming the category tree if decision should be made not use Stepanakert any more. My comment for this second-level decision is based on what I can see at Category:Cities in Azerbaijan (except for Baku only az-spelling, no en) and is only due to systematic reasons. It's not a contribution or even a vote to the first-level question being discussed here. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)