Central Asia Project‑class

Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

• Archive material is available here:

July 2006 - September 2006, October 2006 - August 2007

Hello! I saw the article for the Anthem of the Kazakh SSR, and it needs translation to russian OR english. Could someone do that? Thanks. --vonusovef ^(wha?) 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody had nominated this article as a WP:Good article and I put on hold tag on it. Can you please help us with it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that this is the article you're talking about: Al-Farabi? If so, what do you need help with? -- Hux 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I see you already outlined what needs to be done on the talk page. :) -- Hux 09:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper name for citizens of Uzbekistan? Are they Uzbek or Uzbekistani? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProveIt (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbek generally refers to a member of that ethnic group, but can often be a suitable adjective when talking about Uzbekistan in general. Terms such as "Uzbekistani" or "Kazakhstani" are usually used when discussing specific issues of citizenship and/or identity that affect all citizens of that country, regardless of their ethnicity. That’s just my take on it, other opinions may differ. Otebig 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to comment on this ongoing discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Otebig said, the correct term when speaking about the citizens of Uzbekistan is Uzbekistani, the term Uzbek refers to an ethnic group and includes citizens of other countries where Uzbeks live. The distinction dates back to the Soviet period when citizenship and ethnicity where two clearly defined concepts, both of which were indicated in the passport. This remains true today in Central Asia, however the distinction is progressively being lost, in particular when people speak or write in English... Sebastian Stride 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason when an article is labeled "Category class" with our project template, Template:WikiProject Central Asia, it is automatically added to Category:Unassessed Central Asia-related articles. Is there template coder in the house who can make them assessable? Aelfthrytha 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should it do instead? --Latebird 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should put them into their own "Category class articles" category (this category also needs creation) instead of into unassessed. Aelfthrytha 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example where this happens? Or what are the possible values that indicate "category class"? --Latebird 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across templates in the past where assessing as "class=category" comes up on the template as a category on the Talk page of the article, but doesn't get recognised by the code that puts things into assessment categories. However "class=cat" does work both ways. I don't know if this applies to this template. FlagSteward 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Central Asian cuisine is currently a stub that just lists the cuisines of individual countries - I'm sure that it could be built up into a good overview of general trends in the eating habits across the region. It's the sort of thing that's quite hard for an outsider to do, but probably quite easy for a 'local' - anyone fancy it? FlagSteward 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to announce that over the next few months, students from Barcelona University and Washington University (Saint Louis) will be improving and adding articles, which concern the History of Central Asia. For practical purposes we will be opening a new project page: WikiProject History and Archaeology of Central Asia, which will then either continue or merge with the existing Project Central Asia. I hope this is OK with everyone. Sebastian Stride 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! But I'd like to see it either as part of this project or a subproject of this one. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. I will include it as a subproject (if I sucessfully learn how to use the wiki tools!) Sebastian Stride 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help with wiki stuff, feel free to hit me up. I don't know how to do everything, of course, but when I don't I can find those who know. And I'd love to see this as a subproject or working group of our project because I think when we get too diffused, we lose strength and focus. Aelfthrytha 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he created Wikipedia:WikiProject History and Archaeology of Central Asia. (SEWilco 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please try to coordinate with this project page as there are already so many pages on the history of the region that need attention. Creating multiple pages on the same subject only complicates things.cs (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what happened with this subproject? It looks like nothing has occurred with it? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, both the project and the teacher (Sebastian Stride) have been dormant since November. Otebig (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would people be interested in some kind of collaboration/improvement drive? There are a lot of important articles out there which are currently just start or stub class. Some examples include: Islam in Central Asia, Music of Central Asia, Civil war in Tajikistan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Central Asian studies, Ablai Khan, Greater Khorasan, and Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Beyond those, I'm sure each of us know a few articles that we'd love to see grow. Could we do a collaboration once a month (or once a week)? What do people think? Otebig (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would love to make a lot of the geography stubs grow, but I don't have any idea where to pursue information. Aelfthrytha (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we have a running problem standardizing adjectives for country nationals (Kazakh vs. Kazakhstani, etc.). This isn't good because: lack of clarity and conflicting / confusing category names. Is there any standard on wiki for this? Do people want to adopt a standard? If so, what procedure should we follow in doing that? Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a standard had formed, judging from some of the previous discussions (such as here and here). My understanding is that the -stani adjective is used for someone from that country (but not necessarily from the titular group), while people from certain ethnic groups are called by the name (Kazakh, Uzbek). For example, Toktar Aubakirov is in two categories, among others: Kazakh cosmonauts and Kazakhstani people. He is both a Kazakh and a Kazakhstani. I believe most categories and articles have been renamed to reflect this standard. This only applies to the five former Soviet republics, though. The Afghanistan article has had a long debate over the appropriate adjectives for that country (see here). Is there an example of a standardizing problem somewhere? Otebig (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the difference between adjectives expressing ethnicity and nationality.Doc Rock (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkmenistan contains Category:Turkmen people and all the nationality-occupation categories are for Turkmen xxx (except Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople). Ditto for Category:Kyrgyzstan. Category:Tajikistan is more uniform, but there are still categories in Category:Tajikistani people that use Tajik (Category:Tajik composers, Category:Tajik musicians). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelfthrytha (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tajik categories are now fixed, Turkmen ones remain a problem. Aelfthrytha (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, someone created several country specific work groups, which have mostly been dormant since then. Because there's a small but persistent number of editors interested in Mongolia, which tend to discuss general topics on each other's user talk pages, I've decided to try to bring the /Mongolia work group to an actual life. I'll invite the most obvious candidates individually, but any other interested parties are welcome to join us or at least put the page on their watchlist. --Latebird (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was any of the actual participants here consulted before User:John Carter unilaterally turned all of the work groups into self contained WikiProjects? As far as I can tell, at least the editors interested in Mongolia have no intention of operating a full blown WikiProject. We were very happy that we didn't have to deal with all the administrative overhead. Am I the only one who feels rather disturbed by such an change being installed over everybodies heads? --Latebird (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia does form a valid category to do research upon. Read any of the Turfan texts and try to cling to vocabulary from one language family! The same is true of history and to some degree of contemporary politics. Thus it is highly suitable to have a coordination platform for these matters, a project Central Asia. And as for the workgroup Mongolia, we're not that much people as to suitably constitute a project. Therefore the recent changes don't look suitable to me. G Purevdorj 22:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no one was really consulted when the projects were created by the same person either. They were initially created to provide separate assessment statistics tables for each country, which can be done with the existing Central Asia project banner, as seen below. The reason for changing the names was, basically, because the future is extremely hard to determine what projects will be created in the future, also very often without any degree of consultation. We have already previously found that projects proliferate uncontrollably. There is in my eyes an unfortunate probability that someone, possibly in response to a major news development, will create a new project for a specific area of one or more of these countries. In such cases, these "daughter" projects tend to list their "parent" project's name, and it gets confusing when one subproject says another subproject is its parent. The only change was in the name of the groups. Please note that all the subprojects of WikiProject Australia also use the name "WikiProject" even though none of them have separate banners. The renaming is simply that. It is unfortunate that the person who started this thread knows as little about wikipedia in general as he apparently does, and that he is choosing to act so obviously on the basis of that ignorance. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make some reasonable points, John, but your last sentence was needlessly antagonistic. Latebird may simply have a different opinion about how best to structure things here. Just because it is (apparently) different from the way things are currently done does not immediately mean that it's drawn from ignorance. - Hux (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, the whole point of the Mongolia work group was having a centralized page for discussing content, instead of discussing on individual user pages, or on the Naming conventions page. Actually, I don't really care about calling it a project or not, just as long as someone else does the rating and maintenance stuff.

In the case of Mongolia, there may be another issue in that a Mongolian work group should (IMO) ideally deal with both Inner and Outer Mongolia, and then putting up a banner in articles dealing with places in Inner Mongolia might be feel strange to some people. Yaan (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about these workgroups (where can I find out more info?), but I am feeling rather offended that no one is discussing such major changes here on this talk page. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just poking my nose around more while learning about workgroups, from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals: "Creating a project: If your project gains support from 5-10 active Wikipedians, it could probably benefit from the organisation boost of having a proper page. Remove it from this list and follow the instructions for creating new projects. If you want to start a page before you have 5-10 active Wikipedians, consider setting up the page on a subpage of your user page until it is active, while leaving the posting here with a link to the user page. " Was also having thoughts regarding the mass-setup of WikiProjects or workgroups based upon modern country names. I'm not clear on the intent but it seems more like a categorization scheme overloading Mediawiki's current categorization features. Went looking for a WikiProject Hungary and found Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board instead. Also found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Europe/Hungary_task_force, which hasn't been used by the actual interested participants (from the notice board) in like 2 months. Noting this, I can figure that while it is true that the Mongolia workgroup folks run the risk of someone else creating a WikiProject Mongolia, people self-organize how they wish and the center of "all the action" depends upon the folks who participate. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a proposed variant form of the project banner. It can be seen at User:John Carter/Sandbox2. The results of its use can be seen on that page's talk page. As can be seen, the categories for it's use have already been set up. If the members of this project wish to use the new changed banner, all that would be required would be either cutting and pasting it in place of the extant banner or moving the page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the shortened text at the top I'm not seeing what the difference is between this and the existing banner. Maybe you could explain? -- Hux (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen on the talk page, it allows for separate assessment for several of the Central Asia project's related projects, most of which don't currently have assessment data. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. In that case I say let's use it. :) - Hux (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This form of project banner has worked great so far in the Africa WikiProject. Admittedly, the Africa WP has a few more sub-projects than WPCA, but still.... It's a good way of coordinating peoples interest within both the parent and the child wikiproject. --Mukk 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project banner got reverted back to the original one (not by me). I added usage notes to the page because they appeared to be missing and I think the majority of people here may not know what options there are. Now, what is wanted in the project banner? The one User:John Carter had made included a bunch of new assessment classes and portal options. Do the assessment guys here want to use those new classes or keep the ones currently in use? (Like FL, Cat, Dab, Template, etc.) Do we want portal options? There also seems to be some semi-useless options like needs-infobox or merge. Can we remove those? I think some of these things can be done without. The proposed banner from User:John Carter added in options for the related wikiprojects. Do we want those? My interest is in adding some project banner tagging for the Tuva task force to include a category or ratings specific to the task force. Do the Mongolia work group guys want something too? Check out the categories the current pb also adds articles to and discuss if they are appropriate. For example, the attention option adds articles to a non-existent category, but there is a single article already a member of that category. Please, everyone take a look at the usage notes I added and provide some input on what we think we need or not. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who assessed at least five hundred articles, I prefer the reverted (old) version. The added options don't relate to assessment, but rather to specific omissions. They do make the template more complicated, which makes my assessment process more difficult. The options I do like (and use) are: small, nested, class, and importance. I also do not prefer the links to the related wikiprojects because although I don't plan to interfere with them, I do not think they are useful. Also, I'm not sure about adding tagging for Tuva or Mongolia. In my experience with stub-sorting and categorizing, adding templates tends to result in a pile up of templates. The templates become a never ending end rather than a means to an end, and don't really help articles develop (which I would even say about assessment in general). Aelfthrytha (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a deletion request covering the following pages, because they are not actually used by anyone:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kazakhstan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kazakhstan/Articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkmenistan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Uzbekistan

--Latebird (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extant policy of WP:OWN. The members of this project seem to have a view that they can violate that policy. As such, I believe that there is more than sufficient basis for proposing this project for deletion. Can anyone give me any good reason why it shouldn't be? John Carter (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's sit tight on this until the MfD is over so as not to have two fronts in this battle. :) --12 Noon ^2¢ 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter: Your post doesn't make sense to me. In the first place, "the members of this project"? Which members? In the second place (and more importantly), how does violation of WP:OWN justify the deletion of the entire project? That's seems rather absurd. -- Hux (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any project which violates any policy, on the basis of the violation of that policy, can be and is a candidate for deletion, as no page in project space, particularly including a WikiProject, can justify existing to violate policy. In the case of a project, the project is in effect saying that one of its functions is to violate policy, and that is grounds for deletion. Trust me, it's been done before, although I can't find any particular examples right now. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, any project which violates any policy, on the basis of the violation of that policy, can be and is a candidate for deletion" - I don't understand this rationale. If I understand you correctly, if an editor personally attacks another editor on the talk page of a project, for example, the entire project becomes a candidate for deletion. Ditto if an editor uses a unfree image for the project's icon in clear violation of copyright law. Ditto if an editor acts in a manner that suggests they believe they own the project (i.e. your assertion in this particular case). In such situations, the obvious thing to do, imo, is to correct the problem, not to delete the whole project. The latter option is like launching a nuclear missile at a suicide bomber in order to stop him from detonating his bomb. -- Hux (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be missing a lot of what is going on because no one is discussing stuff on this talk page here. Instead they are just making major unilateral changes on pages I don't watch and then expect everyone else to go along with them. Seems like poor form to me. Please do not delete this WikiProject. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, one editor, User:Latebird, on the basis of his statement that he didn't want the Mongolia group to have to create templates, objected to work I was doing to create separate assessments for the various comparatively new extant subprojects which I created, including the Mongolia one. His concern is frankly an irrational one, because the assessments are done by bot anyway. He then subsequently proposed the various non-Mongolian "subprojects" for deletion, as mentioned above, because, basically, he doesn't like them. As such, that user has, based on his own, well, dare I say laziness?, seemed to declare that his opinions are more important than policy, and has seemed to use this project as a vehicle for the violation of that policy. And, yes, if a project can be demonstrated to be a means of violating policy, than the means of violating policy can be considered for deletion. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equally I see basically one editor, User:John Carter, also making unilateral changes without discussion and then you suggest that this WikiProject should be deleted. And to those actions of yours, I object. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the subpages, their categories, etc., certainly qualifies under WP:BOLD. And I personally object to the willful misstatement above. I did not suggest that it "should" be deleted. I indicated that I believed it could be proposed for deletion, which it could be, and asked for reasons why it should not be. The two are not even remotely equivalent. I sincerely hope that such possibly willful misrepresentations of the statements of others cease. However, I am more than willing to acknowledge that I have behaved inappropriately in this matter. Any parties interested in seeing me consider removing myself as an admin should see the comments I have posted on the top of my user page and specifically the link provided at the word "here" there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're busy throwing around Wikipedia policy links, perhaps a review of WP:BURO, WP:IAR, and WP:CON is also in order. I'm not really interested in passing judgment on the issue between Latebird and John Carter. I just have a belief that proper discussion with major stakeholders on major changes helps avoid all sorts of conflict, regardless of any policy like WP:OWN. Almost certainly being bold is a good thing on a small scale, but it can also get one into conflict quickly if it isn't balanced with consensus-building discussion. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If asking someone to cooperate with other people instead of acting unilaterally amounts to "ownership" of a complete project, then I'll plead guilty as charged without hesitation. If accusations of violating policy bear weight even when no specific infractions are demonstrated, then I'm happy to be a violator. If unused WikiProjects, or WikiProjects only used by one person and a bot, make sense, then I'm glad to be senseless. And if disagreeing with someone makes me clueless and inexperienced, well, learning new stuff and making new experiences has always been one of my favourite passtimes.

As to the other misrepresentations of my statements and intentions, most of those are just too ridiculous to refute them all individually. Unfortunately some people, especially in the failed MfD, actually seem to have bought into one or the other, pity for them. But to those who approached the raised questions with even the smallest amount of common sense, whether they agreed with me or not, thanks for trying to keep Wikipedia sane. --Latebird (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So....what's the status of this currently? Aelfthrytha (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing going on. Just lots of posturing and wikilawyering. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If John Carter has no issue with things as they currently stand then it looks like the matter is closed. - Hux (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see if there is interest here in creating a new workgroup for Tuva-related articles. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I've created a test page for this at User:Sborsody/Tuva_task_force. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page now to Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Tuva task force. There are three of us now. Ideally a minimum of five people would be good to have. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Latebird has engaged in several unilateral decisions involving #REDIRECTS, setting up disambig pages that do not follow Wikipedia:Disambiguation on issues that he does not fully understand, from my point of view. In my opinion, he fails to understand that Uvs Nuur Basin is the larger area than Uvs Nuur (lake). He feels the watershed (the basin) is a subset of the lake. In reality, the basin is a well known endorheic basin. Further Ubsunur Hollow, not the same as the basin, is an area of important archaeological sites, and is not the same as the lake or the basin, although they are all in the same area. He continues to combine all articles into one. This would be fine if he allowed the original articles to remain for further growth, and set up a main pages with sub pages, if that is his desire. However, I am against the wiping out of the original articles, as well as the mixing up of information that is distinct into one article at his discretion only. This results in reducing of importance of such subjects as archaeological findings and geologically interesting information to one or two sentence items. Mattisse 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pot started to boil over when I reverted two unilateral changes by Mattisse (trying to rename Uvs Nuur into "Uvs Nuur Basin" [1] with a very unhelpful editor note of "added word", and then trying to remove all information about that basin from Wikipedia [2]). Before my revert of his second edit, which I considered to come dangerously close to making a point if not worse, I tried to initiate a discussion on his talk page. I thought we were coming to an agreement that it makes sense to split the two topics again, which had been merged quite a while ago (by User:Ghirlandajo [3][4] on my suggestion). Apparently Mattisse saw a different debate going on, because he began to throw increasingly severe accusations at me, some of which I still don't fully understand (purportedly, I "merged many articles he wrote", details unspecified).

In any case, the two (three?) topics were split again (creating Uvs Nuur Basin and Ubsunur Hollow), and someone else also created Uvs Nuur (disambiguation) (mistakenly attributed to me by Mattisse). A discussion between several participants about lake, basin, hollow, depression, possibly some other geographical features and several protected sites in the area is still taking place, primarily on Talk:Uvs Nuur. It's kind of confusing, and I still don't quite understand in all cases which is which and how they differ from each other. Because of that I've only contributed one minor formal edit to the actual reorg myself.

Why Mattisse thinks that geographical features could be "subsets" of each other, I have no idea. Why he assumes I would think something similar (just the other way) is beyond me. And do I really "continue to combine all articles into one"? You be the judge.

But to hopefully still get something productive out of all this, I'd like to second Mattisses invitation that other people look at those articles and related discussions and try to make sense of what is going on there. --Latebird (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have an idea where that "continue to combine all articles into one" bit might have come from. As it happens, when Mattisse split the articles again, he at first just recreated the situation before the merge, when they were entirely redundant. Yet another (so far uninvolved) editor noticed the content duplication and added merge suggestion tags. Once he noticed the ongoing discussion, he of course immediately removed them again. But in the mean time, Mattisse had already spotted the tags, and apparently attributed them to me without checking the facts first. Folks, please be a little bit more careful before throwing accusations at other people, ok? --Latebird (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Latebird! Mattisse 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could one or both of you point me to an approximate date / edit to look to on the histories of these pages? I'm looking at them now, and there are a lot of recent edits, so it's hard to get a handle on the chronology here. Also, if I delay replying, please poke me on my usertalk, because real life is making demands lately. Aelfthrytha (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user has since appologized here for making incorrect assumptions, so it's kind of a moot point now. --Latebird (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology is retracted as User:Latebird continues to disrupt. He is insisting on literal translation of Russian words (no one seems to agree with each other on the translations -- I guess this is more important than writing an article) so nothing is happening except arguing. He is obstructionist and does not discuss content. I hate to desert articles that I originated and spent a lot of time on, but perhaps this project prefers Russian language speakers to work on articles and is not welcoming of others. I have written lots of articles on Russian areas with no troubles. Hope he goes away as no good article will result from his tactics. Mattisse 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over the talk page for History of Central Asia and noticed a few comments about the map. Hux said that, "the main problem with the map is that it's very misleading as-is: it implies that the Soviet definition comprised Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and that the "common modern definition" comprises only Kazakhstan (and also that the UNESCO definition doesn't comprise any of those states)."

For the "common modern definition", I had the same thought as well. I've made this version of the map, which might not be quite so confusing. Would people be okay with changing this map for the current one? Or, could someone else make a better map? Otebig (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I like your addition to the map. However, I think different colors or darker / bigger border lines might work better. As it is, it conveys the information, but it doesn't visually pop out -- the red disappears a bit on the southern boundary. Alas, I'm no mapmaker. Would it be beneficial find us a map specialist who might be better at these visual elements? Aelfthrytha (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Otebig: I think your version is a lot better than the current one and makes the different interpretations of "Central Asia" much clearer. I agree, though, that the border lines could be clearer. May I suggest making them 2px wide and also antialiased? - Hux (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the outline wider. As for the antialiasing, I have no idea how to do that, but I'm sure someone else can (or, as Aelfthrytha said, we could find a true map specialist). Otebig (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the maps on the pages that have one. Again, if anyone else can improve upon it, please do. Otebig (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article on the current energy crisis in Central Asia, 2008 Central Asia energy crisis, which seems to be increasing in international media. Please contribute if you can. Rigadoun (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, that looks more like an item for Wikinews at the moment. --Latebird (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to get help with this? Or is it true that a non Russian speaking person cannot work on these articles, as fluently in Russian is required? If that is true, please let me know and I will stop trying to work on these articles. Regards, Mattisse 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]