Talk:Gulripshi

Name

Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article's name must be Gulripshi, see Google Book Ngram viewer. --g. balaxaZe✰ 11:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pointless reverts

Some users here (@The Drover's Wife:,@Chipmunkdavis:) think that they are the only right side and remove every change what is in connection with Georgia. My last edits modified previous user's work and make article more acceptable for both sides, why we must show only Abkhazia map, when for most of the world this settlement located not only in Abkhazia but in Georgia as well (so bigger map of Georgia is preferable). Next, they are removing native name in Georgian - Why?. Next about de facto, de jure issue, previously this was discussed in wikipedia and we agreed that it will be good if we have one standard for conflict regions and we accepted (*Sovereign Country* (*conflict region*) formulation), why another user's de facto/de jure is preferable than discussed one? And also Abkhazia is not even a de facto country, it is under active military control of Russia, controlling army, land, government, and Abkhazia's budget is formed from Russian money by 73 percent (!) it's definitely not a country or even more - independent one. And remember these are not just my views but facts that I read and can provide.--g. balaxaZe★ 10:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you're trying to play out nationalist battles on a random town and it's not the place. Regardless of your position on the status of Abkhazia, no one disputes that Gulripshi is geographically in Abkhazia, so the map of Abkhazia makes no claim either way - whereas the map of Georgia takes a clear opinion on the matter of its status.

You may well have personally decided that you should refer to conflict regions in a way that suits the Georgian nationalist perspective, but unless that was actually incorporated into Wikipedia guidelines somewhere, that is irrelevant to this article.

You know full well that "definitely not a country" is a matter of opinion, and Wikipedia has a whole bunch of articles on the status of Abkhazia where you can fight that question away to your little heart's content. It doesn't change the actual fact that it's completely irrelevant to this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What you call nationalistic, for nationalists there is no another Abkhazia except Autonomous, but I recognize that this is conflict region and very sensitive. And no, your preferred map of Abkhazia is not neutral in this case, there must but its location in Georgia as well but because of article is to small we can't put here both maps that's why bigger map that includes both parts is better. We say that it is also in Georgia but no one will know where it is on the map of Georgia.

And explain what you mean in Georgian nationalist perspective because I have no idea what you dream in this. I can say that you are supporting Abkhazian nationalist perspective when can't see formulations the capital of the republic' as inappropriate and removing them only after my words.--g. balaxaZe★ 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what you (@The Drover's Wife:,@Chipmunkdavis:) would say if Russia would invade part of your country or your yard, if you are anarchists and have no country of your own? Would you call yourself nationalistic or egoistic if you claim back in all instances what was taken off by violence?--ენარჯილისი (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The footnote in the article clearly and neutrally explains the dispute over the status of Abkhazia, insofar as it is relevant. I removed the "capital of the republic" bit because it's not unreasonable to see that as taking a stance and taking that out removes any reasonable argument that the article is slanted either way. The same cannot be said for any of your edits here.

I can see that you have a lot of emotions about this issue, but none of this is relevant to the town of Gulripshi. The issue of the current status of Abkhazia is complex and not easily summarised, and it is perfectly easy to have an article about Gulripshi that stays out of conflicting nationalist arguments - which the article, in its current perspective, does. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see that you also have a lot of emotions in favour of Russia and against the interests of the country that founded wikipedia, the USA... --ენარჯილისი (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Just an interest in prying competing nationalist sides apart and keeping articles on my watchlist neutral, which here, if people are being reasonable, is very easily done. I stay out of the articles where the status issues actually do need to be fleshed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife let's have cooperation in friendly manner, I just want you to agree with me that we should add Georgian name გულრიფში in infobox after Abkhazian one (for hundreds of thousands people this is native name), and we should remove another map below because it is not really good-looking (small article) and repeats first map or we can replace it by bigger Georgian map.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the Georgian name after the infobox - that seems like a completely reasonable argument. The map in the article demonstrates where it is in Abkhazia, and the Abkhazia article demonstrates Abkhazia's geographical relationship to Georgia. Most Wikipedia articles on towns have maps of the state, province or region, not of the entire country - regardless of what you think the status of Abkhazia is or should be, it's still the relevant map. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze, can you point me to the discussion on "(*Sovereign Country* (*conflict region*) formulation)"? I can't remember one off the top of my head. I'm aware of a convention for Northern Cypriot locations to list Northern Cyprus and Cyprus, but I am also unsure if that came from a discussion.

The second map I actually prefer to the first as it shows more detail more clearly without losing any information. I'd be in favour of that replacing the current infobox one.

Regarding the native names, is there any census information regarding languages spoken? Data prior to ethnic cleansing and other shifts upon the fall of the Soviet Union would be useful too. CMD (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Here is data about population before ethnic cleansing of Georgians (in Russian) ► [1], Georgians were 46% (239 872) of the region's population (the biggest).--g. balaxaZe★ 11:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• This is data about Gulripshi were 38,4 % of population were Georgians and 4,1% Abkhazians. ► ru:Гулрыпш#Население --g. balaxaZe★ 11:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis:; @The Drover's Wife: we should choose which map we prefer, I strongly oppose putting here two similar maps of Abkhazia and none of Georgia. --g. balaxaZe★ 12:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for this to include a map within Georgia except to state an opinion about its status. My town, like the vast majority of other towns on Wikipedia, has a map within its state (or province or region), rather than the country. There is absolutely no reason to do otherwise here - even if you believe Abkhazia is part of Georgia, the map of Abkhazia is still the relevant map. I have no particular opinion about which map within Abkhazia: I feel like the one you kept is a bit nicer than the one Chipmunkdavis prefers but am not bothered either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which is your country but in case of big countries agree it is inappropriate to put all map (because difference between real location and location on the map can vary several kilometers), but Georgia is not very big and you can find that most Georgian cities here are on bigger map. @Chipmunkdavis: now it is your turn to choose. I am against of having two similar maps. We should remove one of them or I will add Georgian map as it is in case of most other cities (See Batumi, Kutaisi, Ozurgeti and etc.).--g. balaxaZe★ 13:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the inclusion of the second map is helpful to the reader because it shows the Gulprishi district more clearly. I don't see a strong upside or downside to it either staying as a separate image or replacing the infobox image, but treating them as political point-scoring items as you want to is not a useful criteria. CMD (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

One moment, if we do not adding Georgian map because users can find it on the article of Abkhazia then they can find Gulripshi district in respective article. You must agree that this article is not about district. Regarding to map of Georgia see Batumi, Kutaisi, Ozurgeti and etc.--g. balaxaZe★ 13:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The arguments for smaller divisions are much stronger as it allows for viewers to better localise the area, something expanding to larger areas does not do. CMD (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I made it so that both maps are displayed, to stop all your pointless edit warring. Serafart (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm new here, so not familiar with the edit war. Can the infobox map be sorted out similar to how it is in Sukhumi with radio buttons to show two scales? It looks like the infobox might even support three levels. The second map combines with the climate table to create a large white space that serves to make readers think there is nothing more, so finding more to write about the town, and overlaying the maps would both help. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The template supports as many levels as you want, in other cases, the edit war is people just reverting the map to their POV. I made it both Abkhazia and Georgia, but that was also reverted. Serafart (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User Chipmunkdavis' bent

Several users wrote their view about maps in the article and most of them agreed that this big white area in the article isn't good. That's why user User:Serafart made some improvements in a infobox. User:Serafart, User:ScottDavis, User:The Drover's Wife, and I, think that this white area isn't good and maps that are in the infobox are better than the one Chipmunkdavis prefers (File:Gulripš.svg). He doesn't listen to us and just pushes his will (his arguments were: 1)smaller divisions are much stronger as it allows for viewers to better localise the area 2)the map has unique content). Due to his arguments I made much more localized map (based on another used map in other wikis) File:Gulripshi on Gulripshi District map.svg but now he tries to find new nonsense arguments (as for me) to push again the map. I prefer to remove it at all because we don't have enough space here, if readers want district they can find links.--g. balaxaZe★ 16:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "it's a nice idea, but the map doesn't even show the whole district, and the other subdivisions are less clear." Are these the "new nonsense arguments" that you refer to? If so, could you explain why they're nonsense, and how your map change is an improvement? As for space, this article is a basic stub. Removing content due to its stubbiness seems to run contrary to the ideal of article development. Does the map detract in other ways? CMD (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Can one of the Gulripshi District maps be made into a location map, then added as a third (first) scale to the infobox? That would reduce the white space unless the reader deliberately clicks the "all" button. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Serafart (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be useful, as perhaps would something similar to the US maps, such as File:Miami-Dade County Florida Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Miami Highlighted.svg. I still reckon the original map would be a lossless replacement for the current Abkhazia locator map, as I stated in the above section. CMD (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Added Gulripshi pushpin, making # of maps go up to 3. Serafart (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)