Talk:Khudafarin Bridges

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khodaafarin Bridges. 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/20120206215034/http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/bp_caspian/bp_caspian_en/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/xyz/BTC_English_ESIAs_Azerbaijan_Content_Baseline_Reports_BTC_ESIA_Baseli-seline_Data.pdf to http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/bp_caspian/bp_caspian_en/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/xyz/BTC_English_ESIAs_Azerbaijan_Content_Baseline_Reports_BTC_ESIA_Baseli-seline_Data.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Common name

The common English name for the bridges appear to be different from the one currently used as article title. Here's the results per WP:SET. I have included the keyword "bridge" and excluded "Wikipedia" in searches to filter out all Wikipedia and non-bridge-related results.

Google Advanced Book Search:

• "Khudafarin" 269 results (+23% from second most common result)
• "Khodaafarin" 200 results
• "Khoda Afarin" 219 results

Google Scholar:

• "Khudafarin" 21 results
• "Khodaafarin" 4 results
• "Khoda Afarin" 29 results (+38% from second most common result)

Google News:

• "Khudafarin" 1,430 results (+14200% from second most common result)
• "Khodaafarin" 10 results
• "Khoda Afarin" 6 results

All-Google Search:

• "Khudafarin" about 40,500 results (+1219% from second most common result)
• "Khodaafarin" about 2,580 results
• "Khoda Afarin" about 3,070 results

Every Google search except Google Scholar (coincidentally also the only platform where it is not possible to restrict searches to English-only results) supports the "Khudafarin" spelling. Therefore, I intend to move the article to "Khudafarin Bridges" and adding "Khoda Afarin bridges" as an alternate name in lead in three days if no one objects. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Khudafarin Bridges. I was curious why the all-Google one is so dominant compared to the others and it seems heavy on Facebook and Instagram usage which I think is interesting and is probably a better reflection of what people use than a tiny difference among scholars. Note that I came here via this canvassing allegation going on at Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I also see that this UNESCO page as a Azerbaijan proposal uses "Khudafarin bridges" located in "the Khoda Afarin County" which I find an interesting and intentional choice. I am trying to see if there was an Iranian proposal to get more useful sources. I have no idea of the language or nationalist issues behind these choices but I suspect there is some that people know but don't want to acknowledge. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Taking into the #Common name section into consideration, there is not demonstration that the proposed name is the common name. – robertsky (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Khudafarin Bridges → Khoda Afarin Bridges – Correct and more common spelling Persian. Consistent with similar articles such as Khoda Afarin County, Khoda Afarin Dam, Khoda Afarin District. 116.71.186.202 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Cremastra (u — c) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous closure
The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:RMNOMIN, I am closing this since there have been no further objections. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (u — c) 23:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Rashidpour Rezanejad (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024

Relisting comment: Since it is a contested technical request, would like to see some more comments ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Cremastra: I don't understand why you've closed this as moved. On what basis? Please see the section above, where the evidence is presented as to why it was named Khudafarin Bridges. It is by far the WP:COMMONNAME in sources. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Amakuru: I closed it as moved because based on the discussion, it did not in fact prove controversial, although it was open for more than two weeks. There was, however, support for moving, so, based on the consensus in this discussion, I moved the page. I think relisting again or closing otherwise on the basis of the findings of previous discussions might amount to a supervote.

If you think is close is problematic, I'm happy to discuss further or withdraw. Cremastra (u — c) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Cremastra:, well to be honest I do think it's somewhat problematic unfortunately. While it's understandable and I don't blame you that with an unopposed request you might think it Uncontroversial but the analysis still has to be done. You mentioned WP:RMNOMIN in your close above, but the guideline there is says "If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. I think it's clear from the section above titled "Common name" that the policy does not support the move, and I don't see anything I they subsequent RM discussion that would counter the strong argument that "Khudafarin Bridges" is the title that fits with our policies. When you close the RM it's your job to evaluate the arguments made and determine if the make sense. Anyway, in this case I would like to cast an oppose vote on the requested move discussion making these points. Is it possible for you to relist it so I can do so? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I will withdraw the close. Cremastra (u — c) 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, done. I'll relist the discussion now. Sorry for the mistake. Cremastra (u — c) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Thanks to Cremastra for the relist, and just to reiterate my points from earlier. The evidence from Golden in the section at the top of this page, as well as the usage by Unesco - [1] - suggest the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.