Talk:Tabriz

Historical Section Concerns

Reading over this page, I felt like having so much information bunched together in one section was overwhelming. There's also an opportunity for improvement since the period of time between Arab conquest and Revolution is so extensive.MarceloFelCav (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement

Just a note to help us all to keep the focus on this article. Well done all the contributors for contributing so much detail. Problems though - the article should not contain lists of names of companies and details of the qualityetc. of the hotels. This is not a directory and not a place for free advertisements either. It is spam and liable to be deleted by anyone who finds it, so whoever keeps restoring it, please stop. Many of the sections in the second half of the article are composed purely of lists of facilities and places of various kinds. These should be in the form of informative text and conversion into good quality English is the next priority. THe photos are lovely but galleries of pictures are not recommended by WP policy (can't remember which one)so most of them belong in the linked articles.--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All WP editors who contribute to editing Tabriz page please use this talk page. As AssegaiAli said in forgoing remark, second half of the article is only the names of places and etc. And I have noticed some of the images are excess, fore example pictures of Abressan St. and Shahrake Roshdieh are not really necessary. In my opinion, the monument and landmark part of the article is very nice and attractive; but it has only one dearth: Image of El Guli. Please again; use this page to outline a comprehensive plan for improving Tabriz page.

Thanks and YAŞASIN! --Yasha Azar (talk) May 18, 2009

I agree; and the text on the Eurovision Song Contest is not relevant to the town and seems to give the impression of raising conflicts on this article. It is unnecessary and I have removed it.--79.78.167.136 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Babakexorramdin, are you editing Wikipedia or protecting Iran's territorial integrity? The rules say that this place is for contributing to encyclopedia, not for resolving political issues. Atabəy (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for this reason (contributing to wikipedia in a neutral way) I revert your edits and other people who pursue a political agenda.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for the stated reason of "protecting Iran's territorial integrity", you're reverting my addition of ISO-recognized Latin spelling of Azerbaijani language? Isn't claiming to protect territorial integrity a political agenda in itself? Atabəy (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the section on the Eurovision Song contest which is both irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Pournick seems to be continually reinserting it despite lots of others disagreeing--94.196.118.6 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of anncient cities of Azerbajan at North and South

Establishment of Ancient cities of Azerbaijan (Northern otr Southern)was not different than establishment of any ancient cities and civilization between south regions of Black Sea and Persian Golf. All the ancient civilations and establishment of the ancient cities were either by sea shores or river shores, not in elavations. In Azerbaijan at North the ancient city establishments started by Caspian Sea shores, Kura river shores, North shores of Araz river and between these two rivers. While in Southern Azerbaijan the southern Shore of Araz was montainous around Ardabil,so there is less possiblities of establishment of ancient civilization around that area. However, the loction between two revirs of Aji Chai and Ghori Chai should be a location of an ancient civilization where modern Tabriz is located. Recent discovery in Blue mosque confirms a history of civilization about 3000 years ago. In this regard, Eastern,South-Eastern and Western Shores of Urmia sea(lake) was another possiblity for establishment of ancient civilzation. The land is very fertile. There are evidences of ancient temples of Fire worshipers around South-Eastern region of Urmia sea(lake)confirming a history of ancient civilizatin in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.65 (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Box

Please this image Do not remove the box, because of another image is better and more appropriate. If the problem is to tell the coffee substitute another image. Thanks. --Elmju (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of the article

Duplicated information and photos

  • There are many stuffs that repeated more than one time (for example photo of the Ark, Saat ...). Some of them are inserted both inside the article and in photo gallery but using just one of them gives enough information. Inserting so many photos that are showing the same thing gives no new information. Plus for each photo which is inserting inside the text we should give enough description inside the article. Just putting numerous photos doesn't make sense.


Non-related materials

  • Presidential election 2009: There is a phrase about ongoing political issues (presidential election 2009 protests). The protest has its own article and as far as I know Tabriz was not involved in the protests that much. So putting a general phrase about Iranians protest against election results without mentioning Tabriz role on the protests is meaningless.
  • There are few photos and materials about other cites and towns of east Azerbaijan province. Some of them are far from Tabriz for example Zonooz is a part of Marand..... They have their own articles and they could be briefly described in East Azerbaijan province not Tabriz.


References

  • They should be citation should be directly refer to the original reference not another article in Wikipedia. For example see reference for sister city Istanbul. It is referred to Istanbul article but there is no citation about this matter in Istanbul page.


Spelling

  • The spell of Center is correct not centre (at least it is not common)!
  • meters is correct not "metres"
  • in English Azerbaijan is correct one not Azarbaijan. The spelling is different than Farsi.
  • neighborhoods is the correct one (not neighborhoods).


I have tried to modify these items but someone is deleting everything. Hope he read this lines!

--Microinjection (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan ?

Microinjection said "in English Azerbaijan is correct one not Azarbaijan. The spelling is different than Farsi." .
Despite the name in English , the name of the province - and not the republic - is a proper name , and the English name vs the official name should not be mentioned here: Same about Noushahr that we don't translate it as "New town" or Foolad shahr that we don't use Iron city ....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some how you are right, but in that case we have to use Azarbaijan-e-sharqi not East Azarbaijan. We are translating second part while transferring the other part directly from Farsi. So still I think if we are about using East rather than Sharqi it is better to using Azerbaijan. --Microinjection (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with microinjection, the things Aborz fallah said about ironcity etc is somethings totally different.

Here we r making the" ENGLISH" page of these places and we should use the word which "ENGLISH PEOPLE" use not translation of persian pronunciation! Pournick (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not thought about that ! But have to admit that is a good point . Anyway , if you search for the word "East Azarbaijan" in Wikipedia , you will find numerous links , and if you are going to change it all , that will be a lengthy work . Until then , maybe it's better not to change it only in this article , and change it in all of the other articles that use the word . Thanks--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is neither logical to translate all of a proper name to English (East Azerbaijan) nor a part of it (East Azarbaijan) . But overall , that is routine to chose the dominant name in other articles in relevant pages .I mean perhaps the "Azarbaijan-e Gharbi" and "Azarbaijan-e Sharghi" are the best alternatives , without translation of any part to English , but due to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), The "West and East Azarbaijan" are the Widely accepted names, and if we want to change it in articles , at least we have to change all the pages and all the templates and all the redirects that use that ( I mean Azarbaijan-e Gharbi & Sharghi) . Until reaching a consensus , the best thing possible is to use the current dominant name : West Azarbaijan, East Azarbaijan.

Please note the following Google Tests :

  1. 40,500 for "West Azarbaijan" .
  2. 35,400 for "West Azerbaijan".
  3. 45,700 for "East Azarbaijan".
  4. 34,200 for "East Azerbaijan".
    --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is good a point to transferring whole of the word to English but there will be further problems. If you notice to Google tests you will find that the use of those Farsi words is very limited in comparison of current situation (a couple of hundredes for Azarbaijan-e Sharghi). So still I think that the best way is to keep using Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan with English word of West and East.
About Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan: since the word of Azerbaijan is already a most common word used for the region (72,600,000 for Azerbaijan versus 738,000 for Azarbaijan) for someone who is not familiar with the region it will be bewildering to using another word. So may be we have to start changing the words in our articles.
--Microinjection (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of Azerbaijan versus Azarbaijan in Google test is misleading , because the whole of the "West Azarbaijan" or "East Azarbaijan" is one combined proper name .By disintegrating the name to it's components , and examining every part apart , the result will have pitfalls.One of the biases to be aware of in Google testing is using a combined name without "double quote" marks.I think in the articles that points to the West and East provinces ,we may use Azarbaijan and in the articles that talks about the whole region , north and south of Aras river , we may use the word Azerbaijan(as the test results shows).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
East Azerbaijan or West Azerbaijan is a combination of a verb and its adjective (like east wall and so on, of course here it is used for special place). So from this point of view it seems that using both of East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan is fair.--Microinjection (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verb-adjective relationship is only in Persian , and not in English .That is a proper name in English . Set aside that the name itself in Persian , is now a proper one ! As East Azarbaijan is not the eastern part of Iranian Azarbaijan , and that's the central part indeed ( Ardabil is the Eastern part!). Is it correct to change the name of the article "Oberliga" , to Superior league , just because in German language that is a verb-adjective name ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although they (East+Azerbaijan) are used as a proper name but the whole word was like verb+adjective also. Well actually the East and West are English translations for the Farsi adjectives. So they have to be used as adjective as it is utilized in English grammar. It is like West Germany or East Germany. About Ardabil we cannot do anything here (I'm sure that you are not about changing the names as West, Central and East Azerbaijan provinces ;) ).--Microinjection (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out-dented) why many occurrences of "Azarbaijan" in wikipedia have been replaced with/moved to "Azerbaijan"? (See East Azarbaijan province and similar pages/templates) I do not understand why the google test above has been ignored. These changes must be done based on WP:CONS. For example the occurrence of "Eest Azarbaijan" is more than "East Azerbaijan" and it does not matter that "Azerbaijan" occurs more than "Azarbaijan" because they are unrelated to the combined words like "East Azarbaijan", and it would be original research to relate these things. Also for the example please see the searches

  1. "East Azarbaijan province" (around 69,800)
  2. "East Azerbaijan province" (around 7,990)

Therefore there is a strict violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names):"1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." if we do not move back the articles to their original titles. Xashaiar (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to translate the structure of every proper name, then why don't you (Microinjection)translate the proper name Azerbaijan itself ? That means "(the land )protected by the (Holy) Fire" . Then the proper name "Azarbaijan e Sharqhi" would be best in the articles as "East of the land protected by fire " !!!
Overall, the most dominant English name have to be used in the article , and the dominancy can be proved by Google testing the word in double quote marks. As you mentioned West and East Germany , what do you think about Belarus? Why not White Rus?

Do you think we need a third party opinion ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean translating whole of the structure, but there is a very similar case, this is exactly the same as East Germany. Azerbaijan is a common verb in English referring to the region and we are translating East. So it seems that East Azerbaijan is the proper name. There is another issue: language for the region is Azerbaijani not Farsi so if you think that transferring the name may be it is better to transferring Azerbaijani name (Sharqi Azerbaijan). --Microinjection (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity with the East Germany can only be assessed via examining the popularity in the net(Google Testing).The element that makes Belarus (not translating ) and East Germany (translating ) different is familiarity of them among ordinary English language people .In this case , theoretically a province of Iran is by far more unknown than a western European country ;and the examination supports that theory(Google Test).So I think it is better to write West and East Azarbaijan for the provinces, and Azerbaijan for the region .That will also prevent confusion in understanding west parts of the republic as West Azarbaijan.
About your point of language in that region , I think that is not relevant because the administrative divisions are not a local entity and it would be impossible to choose the name in local language in the English Wiki :Isn't that would be ridiculous to use the Spanish names of southern USA states in English Wikipedia?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About southern states of United States it is really a different story (we may discuss on it later on but for right now lets to talk about Azerbaijan). Using two different words for the region and states name is more bewildering. So when you are saying for someone Azerbaijan region he would think that you are talking of Azerbaijan republic not about this two Iranian states.--Microinjection (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not satisfied , I think it's better to ask for a third opinion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not satisfied yet and may be it is better to having a third party (a neutral one ;)). Also I cannot update the conversation for few weeks. As you said it is better to receiving another opinion.--Microinjection (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to participate in conversation actively, I think returning back to the names East & West Azarbaijan is a reasonable move at least until you or other persons who think that is wrong , get more involved . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have changed the articles when at very early conversation you accepted that East Azerbaijan is the correct word, afterward when I started to change another conversation started. By the way for right now, we have to wait a third party's point as well.--Microinjection (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a classic tile of Iranian literature , Molana has a tile about three friends that had conflicts in spending their money and their problem was only because of different understanding of language , (انگور و اوزوم و عنب); anyway , as it is evident from the opening of this section , I was talking about Azarbaijan e Sharghi , and not East Azerbaijan . Third party opinion is a good idea , but please keep in touch (in talk page of this article)for representing your point of views . Thank you very much --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the process , but I did my best in asking for a third opinion here .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also as you mentioned "West Azerbaijan" does not necessarily points to "West Azarbaijan province", for example look at the exact search of English pages with "West Azerbaijan" but probably not talking about Iran the number is "2,670" that lowers significantly your estimate "35,400". In any case searches show "West Azarbaijan" is more common than "West Azerbaijan" and there is the exact phrase "West Azarbaijan province". This analysis is true for East Azarbaijan too. Xashaiar (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that for the local populace the correct word would probably be Azerbaijan mainly because the cause for confusion over A and E is as a result of attempting to display the letter (and sound) Ə in the English alphabet. I apologise as I do not know the corresponding letter in Persian (Arabic) script. I could be wrong if the naming is based purely on the Farsi pronounciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.235.132 (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with microinjection, the things Aborz fallah said about ironcity etc is somethings totally different.

Here we r making the" ENGLISH" page of these places and we should use the word which "ENGLISH PEOPLE" use not translation of persian pronunciation! Pournick (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Opinion

Hello! I noticed that this article had been listed as requesting a neutral third opinion at WP:3O. I can see that all editors are very interested in contributing postively to this encyclopedia. I will continue to review this matter with the goal of offering an opinion in the next couple of days. It would help if the involved editors could make a brief (less than a paragraph) summary of what version they believe to be correct, and why (with sources) they believe it to be so. Thanks! —Matheuler 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your contribution.East Azarbaijan is an Iranian province.Due to the fact that the country north of this province is spelled as Azerbaijan in English usage , our debate is to use the local Iranian name of East Azarbaijan or it's alternative East Azerbaijan in this article(and perhaps in all of the templates and pages that use this name ).Google tests for finding dominant English name are given in the above section.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution.
The discussion is about English name of a province in Iran; which I believe East Azerbaijan is the correct word. The point about the other word (which I think it is used incorrectly, the East Azarbaijan) is that first term of the word, East, translated from Farsi to English. But the second term, Azerbaijan, is transferred from Farsi to English (Azarbaijan). I believe that we have to use Azerbaijan word which is widely used in English for calling the region. So I suggest using East Azerbaijan word for the province name.--Microinjection (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those responses are very clear. I can certainly see that both sides have a valid viewpoint. I would like input regarding the following: (1) What is the generally accepted practice in independent secondary sources (e.g. english language newspapers and academic journals) (2) What is the practice followed on other (perhaps more visible) Wikipedia articles (I will check some, but you likely have more experience in this area). —Matheuler 00:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there isn't any official translation or an English newspaper in this matter (at least I haven't seen yet). But inside dictionary or maps normally Azerbaijan is used to calling this region (I mean for both of Republic of Azerbaijan + Iranian Azerbaijan provinces). However inside net various verbs is used for the proviences (East Azerbaijan: http://iguide.travel/East_Azerbaijan_%28Iran%29 Western Azarbayejan: http://www.salinesystems.org/content/2/1/9 East Azarbayjan: http://www.iranchamber.com/provinces/08_east_azarbaijan/08_east_azarbaijan.php or Azarbayjan-e-Sharqi in google map and so on).--Microinjection (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've never heard that there is a uniform transliteration system in use for Farsi. Could someone point me to evidence of such a thing? john k (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may use Google translate (choose Persian). However it doesn't work properly yet.--Microinjection (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is google translate a standard and uniform transliteration system? What I was saying is, I'm not sure I understand why "Azarbaijan" rather than "Azerbaijan" is supposed to be the correct transliteration. john k (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan is a common word which is used widely to calling the region in English (most of dictionaries and encyclopedias have used the word). The Azerbaijani word for the province is Sharqi-Azerbaijan; the Farsi name is Azerbaijan-e-Sharghi; Currently East Azarbaijan is used in the article. I'm offering change the name to East Azerbaijan since already the first term is translated from Farsi to English and it is used as an adjective so we have to use English word for the second term also (Azerbaijan).--Microinjection (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how "Azarbaijan" vs. "Azerbaijan" is an issue of translation. They look to me as though they are both alternative transliterations of the same word. Unlike with Mandarin, there is no single agreed upon transliteration of Perso-Arabic script, so far as I'm aware. In Azerbaijan, the Latin alphabet is used, and spells the name as such. I'm just wondering why we should ever use "Azarbaijan." john k (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all again for these insightful comments. Following my review of the facts, I must conclude that the proper term for this article is Azerbaijan. The term Azerbaijan is used in the Wikipedia articles on Iran and many associated Iranian articles. Even if the wordings were seen to be of equal merit (such as color and colour), for the sake of consistency we should go with the more used Azerbaijan. —Matheuler 02:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon about my delay in responding .About the transliteration of Perso-Arabic to English , the word آذربایجان in Persian , has the Diacritic Fatḥa, that makes it Azarbaijan in English transliteration .In Matheuler's search in Wikipedia , keep in mind that a recent movement in changing the pages that use the word Azarbaijan is in progress ( as an example , [1], [2],[3] and [4]) that may have effect the whole outcome and your judgment (all from 5 to 11 September ).
And to add , in using the name that is more similar to Azeri dialect , than to Persian ,in English ; there is concerns about neutrality (NPOV).By using a name that makes Republic of Azerbaijan same as province of Azarbaijan , there can be doubts about the legitimacy of artificial borders .Although the name Azerbaijan in historical sense was never been applied to the north region of Aras river until recently (1918).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participation everybody. About Alborz comment; just please notice that the original article for the province was East Azerbaijan at very beginning and it has been changed afterward. About the conflict that you have mentioned, between Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian provinces, you have notice that Azerbaijan is used for whole of these lands (Iranian provinces and Republic of Azerbaijan). As you know from historical point of view both of the republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian provinces were part of the same land. It is like North Korea and South Korea; It is not convenient to calling with different names two parts of a same land.--Microinjection (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the independent part is "Azerbaijan" and the Iranian part is "Azarbaijan" is to create an arbitrary distinction where there is no real difference - the two areas have the same name, because, until the eighteenth century or so, they were the same region. john k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The north part's name has been Arran and Shirvan .The South region of Aras has been the Azarbaijan (See History of the name Azerbaijan).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alborz; What do you mean? Do you mean we have to change the name of Republic of Azerbaijan? By the way if as an assumption we accept the idea that Northern part is Aran and have to called Aran then there will be no conflict (as you said before) to calling Iranian provinces "East Azerbaijan" or "West Azerbaijan" and it is the editors of Republic of Azerbaijan (Aran) should worry about the permeable conflict. But I think that many people think that the Azerbaijan never called Aran and it is just a claim to separating the Azerbaijanis (just lets to not entering another conflict in this page which is belong originally to anther issue). Thank you!--Microinjection (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't mean to change the Azerbaijan Republic's name ! But I say giving weight to one name that unify the provinces and the republic , may cause conflict .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And again , As an Iranian Azeri , that is of my concern to separate my my own part(Iranian) from foreign part (if it is under the Wikipedian roles and if it is the dominant name in English).It is not the same as North Korea and South Korea , but rather like Alsace and Lorraine(See Treaty of Turkmenchay and Treaty of Gulistan) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that English usage does not distinguish between the Iranian part and the ex-Soviet part in the way you want it to. English calls them both "Azerbaijan." As I understand it, Persian also calls them both by the same name. You are creating a distinction where none exists, which is OR. To get to the Alsace-Lorraine comparison you point to, the issue is as if we were talking about 1910, and insisted on calling the French part of Lorraine "Lorraine" and the German part "Lothringen," in spite of the fact that in French both parts are called Lorraine, and in German both parts are called Lothringen, and English has always used "Lorraine" for the whole region. Except that at least "Lothringen" is an actual distinct German name for Lorraine. "Azarbaijan" appears to simply be an alternative romanization. john k (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be OR to follow the argument: since "the most common transliteration for the name of Republic of Azerbaijan uses Azerbaijan" and since its name is taken from Persian Azarbaijan, hence for example the article of "West Azarbaijan province" should be named "West Azerbaijan province"? I would note the guideline WP:Naming conventions (geographic names):"1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." and the fact (checked above using google) that 1. "West Azarbaijan province" is the dominant "exact term" (in fact the number of "West Azerbaijan province" is so low that can be ignored), 2. Even the shorter term "West Azarbaijan" comes more popular than "West Azerbaijan". 3. Note that the question is not about the "non existing article" on "Azerbaijan (not the republic)". Since the exact terms/title we need are in fact the most common names, I think we should use them. Reasoning like "Azerbaijan" is more common than "Azarbaijan" is even wrong if we analyse it: The google test show that "Azerbaijan" is more common than "Azarbaijan", but how many of them talk about the provinces and not about the language? how many of them talk about "Azerbaijani culture" and not about the provinces? how many of them talk about the language... so even that reasoning seems to be a misinterpretation of "google tests" and the criterion "more common". Xashaiar (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alborz; always I'm trying to avoid affecting my personal affair from what I'm writing in an article of Wikipedia (I'm sure that you are doing the same). As John said in Farsi or even in Azerbaijani language which is used in Iranian Azerbaijan Provinces, there is a unique word to calling both regions (Republic of Azerbaijan + the provinces). Beside this I remember that you said before that if we are about calling the region we have to use Azerbaijan.--Microinjection (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About transliteration: There are several standards (including ALA-LC romanization and the Iranica scheme) for transliterating Perso-Arabic script to Latin, and in almost all of them "-َ" is transliterated as a (so "آذَربایجان" can be transliterated as Āzarbāijān or Āzarbāyjān). In Latin Azeri alphabet, this "-َ" is shown by ә and when they use standard Latin alphabet, they use e to approximate it (though this hides the difference between distinct Azeri vowels ә and e). Also in the Turkish alphabet, they show that vowel (or in fact, a vowel closely related to it) with e. So the difference in Azerbaijan and Azarbaijan is mostly related to the difference in the transliteration traditions for Perso-Arabic scripts and for Turkish and Azeri. Alefbe (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microinjection; I said we have to use Azerbaijan for the whole region because that is the most common English usage and we have to admit that as Wikipedian guidelines says . But in the case of East and West Azarbaijan provinces , the most common English usage is with a.In Wikipedian guidelines , I did not find anything about preference of analogy factor to commonness factor:I mean because an analogy exists between name of Republic and province , we may not neglect the written guideline . If we put more weight on relation between ethnic regions(out of Wiki-guidelines) and less on official names(under Wiki-guidelines), that is OR.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alborz; The discussion is going to become a very long one. The reason that we asked the third party's opinion was to accept their opinion and to avoid more discussion. Of course they have seen whole of our discussion and they have considered Wikipedia's rules in their decision. Thank you again.--Microinjection (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prolongation of debate is not necessarily a negative factor .I don't think we are in a hurry .In third party's opinion , I was absent when Matheuler was in discussion plus the last sentence he wrote was this one :"The term Azerbaijan is used in the Wikipedia articles on Iran and many associated Iranian articles".Indeed , most of the articles that he was pointing to , have been changed very recently and they can't be considered a base for that judgment;one of the reasons that made me to open this discussion was that widespread change itself ! After showing that bias in gathering basic information in my message , I didn't get any response .I will sure accept the opinion that is from a neutral and logical point , but at least I have to know the logic behind the result and I may resolve my questions and difficulties.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alborz; from my side elongation of a dynamic discussion is not a matter at all, just our situation is look like this: you have provided whole of your proofs and I have done the same. Based on the proofs a third party has given his opinion. So it seems that it is time to closing the discussion. Well, of course third party made his decision based on our discussions and the proofs that we have provided for him (based on a neutral judgment). May be better way to understanding more on the logic behind the decision is to asking him to provide more detailed information directly.--Microinjection (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia , Third opinion is for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, we can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is valid only if other editors like Xashaiar and Alefbe also agree , and if I get reassured about representing all of my proofs.As an example , in searching for "East Azerbaijan" in Wikipedian articles just before the time of Matheuler search , one editor (guess who?!) have changed 30 out of 118 articles in a way that original "East Azarbaijan" has been changed to "East Azerbaijan" ! Do you think these changes - just in time of on going dispute - makes a good base for a research ? Still if the third party (Matheuler) , says the changes where not important in his opinion , I will accept his judgment, and there will only remain other editors that may change their opinion or may not change it ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alborz; As you may notice the articles are changed after very first discussion when you clearly said that we have to change the word (as it means there to Azerbaijan)in whole of the articles. I mean this phrases "Well, I have not thought about that ! But have to admit that is a good point .....Until then , maybe it's better not to change it only in this article , and change it in all of the other articles that use the word....". After your message that you wanna to have more discussion there should be no other change except additions, I think. For right now according to whole of the proofs and opinions I think that it is very clear that which opinion is the correct one. By the way you may ask the Matheuler again for a another opinion again (I think you may request on his talk page as well as here). It is ok for me. But before asking him there is a question: will you accept his opinion, or not there are further conditions??? Thank you again.--Microinjection (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said :"For right now according to whole of the proofs and opinions I think that it is very clear that which opinion is the correct one."
I think if it was so clear, then there would be no such a debate :but it is not clear ! The real thing that matters is not the article itself but answering all questions that there is, and answering every person with a question is more important than compromising about a mere word by two person (You and Me).Say I will accept the outcome ; then what would be the answer of other questioners?
In previous debates that was alike this one , the most important factor that was considered tobe decisive was the Google testing , why this time that is not valid ?(Please see the debate that was I participating in it):according to that, due to Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns: "The three key principles are..."
Criterion East Azarbaijan East Azerbaijan
1. Most commonly used name in English 1 0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 0 0
Total 2 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.
--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least I think it is very clear in the mind of very fresh readers like third party (as he explained: "Those responses are very clear."). And I'm sure that if you look with a neutral opinion without prejudice, you can reach to the same result. But as I said before if you are insisting on your own response you can ask Matheuler to more detailed answer. It seems that he is not checking this pace anymore so you may write on his own talk page directly also. --Microinjection (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not reach that result . And the logic still stands up . Anyway , last time when you wrote in Matheuler,he asked you not to disturb him in his talk page , and that was the reason that I did not write to him , but anyway now when I decide to write him , it appears that he has no interest in Wikipedia anymore and deleted his page .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way the discussion is still remain open! I don't have any new idea in this matter. I think that more discussion in this issue is useless and it is just wasting of time. --Microinjection (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alborz; I found another comparison way. You may try Google book search which is showing the use of the word inside the books and scientific materials. Here is the results: East Azerbaijan = 630, vs East Azarbaijan=356.--Microinjection (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same as the user whom you reverted? (diff)? Xashaiar (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Kenney said :But the point is that English usage does not distinguish between the Iranian part and the ex-Soviet part in the way you want it to.The tests shows English does use them in different forms , but maybe you are right if you say "...English does not INTENTIONALLY distinguish between the Iranian part and the ex-Soviet part ....".That means unintentionally that deference exists , as it is evident in the above researches.It does exists perhaps because when an English language person encounters the with the province, he or she hears a voice and uses a form , and when he or she gets in touch from Russian side ,hears or see e voice and uses e form.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation in like Darvoz and Darwaz. Both are the same name and both are pronounced almost the same way in Afghanistan and Tajikstan, but for spelling, the transliteration traditions are different. Alefbe (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the each of naming proposals between East Azerbaijan or East Azarbaijan by beginning a new line in this section with *'''East Azerbaijan''' or *'''East Azarbaijan''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • East Azarbaijan ; Since it is most commonly used name in English(for province) and it is current undisputed official name of entity.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • East Azerbaijan if I was looking this area up on Wikipedia this is what I would type. Impatial observation by --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any reason for the systematic spelling change in all pages (from East Azarbaijan to East Azerbaijan). I think this type of spelling war is just disruptive. Alefbe (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well whole of the discussion was about changing Azarbaijan to Azerbaijan.--Microinjection (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informal result

The survey didn't have many participants , but I accept the opinion of "Alchemist Jack" as the Neutral Opinion.It appears that native English language persons consider analogy between the country's name (Azerbaijan) and the province important , then perhaps the Azerbaijan is more correct.I can't represent the other participant's opinions (Xashaiar and Alefbe) , and consider my opinion as the result of Third opinion which is informal and if we are going to change the name in all of the other articles , I think it's better to talk to all involved editors first. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal English, Ark & Azerbaijan

First, as I noticed, Tabriz page has many informal English words, e.g. "by the way", "till", etc. Please remember that it is a formal text and please avoid using these kind of words. Second, we should devote a separate part for PURPOSELY GRADUAL destruction of "Ark of Tabriz" by the government by means of construction project of "Mosal'la" just next to it. However, I mentioned this roughly in the "Monument and Landmark" section. Third, I think "West Azerbaijan" is better that "West Azarbaijan". Because Azerbaijan is one territory and was divided during a war. Therefore, when you use Azarbaijan (e.g. East Azarbaijan) you distinguish between parts of one land, although there are located in different countries. For instance, Ireland is spelled identically both in Ireland Republic and in the United Kingdom, in spit of this fact that some part of it is located in Britain territory.--Yasha Azar (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The historical name of the parts north of the Aras river has not been Azerbaijan ( or Azarbaijan ) .In time of Russian occupation the name was Arran and Shirvan ; but the common English name seems tobe Azerbaijan rather than Azarbaijan . I agree about the Tabriz citadel ( Ark ) needing a section --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarwi-Tarwakisa

says The Cambridge History of Iran, Tarwi-Tarwakisa, now Tabriz :http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=kMLKgzj5afMC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Tarwakisa&source=bl&ots=FZ26brdRC4&sig=ifI4AjONcWu9AozjKEHkUlOfaBo&hl=tr&ei=iQyFS6WdN8SOjAfti8SJAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Tarwakisa&f=false

(& I heard Tarwakisa before...) = Tebriz (in Turkish) Böri (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed parts

Recently I have noted that some names have been removed from the well known people's list. For example Mohammad Taqi Khan Raf'at Tabrizi, Naser Merqati, Yadollah Maftun Amini. I would like to know who has deleted these names and why. قيصري (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is removing Ahad Hoseini from this page. The editor who has deleted this person's name from "Tabriz" should be a person who knows almost nothing about Tabriz. Ahad Hoseini is a globally well known sculptor and painter whose works are in international art museums. Any responsible person could have a short surfing on the Internet and could find plenty of data about him. I suggest to the chief editor of this page to roll back all the changes made by that editor. قيصري (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added two of the above. Yadollah Maftun Amini did not live in Tabriz.This isn't List of people from Tabriz which is not very good at all, too easy to use it for self-publicity or just misunderstanding that it is not really a list of people from Tabriz. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tebriz

in Turkish. Böri (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabriz profile.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tabriz profile.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tabriz profile.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borj Bolour.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Borj Bolour.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Borj Bolour.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sample of Tabrizi traditional foods"

I didn't realize Fanta was Tabriz's traditional drink. lol --BorgQueen (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coke and the presented yugurt are not part of the traditional food in Tabriz. --F4fluids (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Nationalistic bias of the article

Unfortunately, the article has a general tendency to emphasize on the political agenda that "Azerbaijan is an inseparable part of Iran". As a result, the information has been delicately twisted to conform with a particular political belief. In my opinion, the article should be refined with the goal of providing honest and unbiased information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdossamad Talebpour (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicts Itself

The article apparently contradicts itself. Is Tabriz the 4th or 5th most populous city in Iran? 93.143.30.140 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I corrected the contradicting part.--F4fluids (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Tabriz

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City of the firsts

Due to its location as a western gateway of Iran, many modern developments have been adopted first in this city, leading to its moniker as a "city of firsts".[1] These include:

  • Iran's first printing house was founded in Tabriz (1811).
  • Iran's first modern school was founded in Tabriz by Hassan Roshdieh (1888).
  • The first Iranian special school for deaf children was founded in Tabriz by Jabbar Baghcheban (1924).
  • The first Iranian special school for blind students was founded in Tabriz by a German mission (1926).
  • The first Iranian kindergarten was founded in Tabriz by Jabbar Baghcheban (1923).
  • Iran's first modern-style municipal government was set up in Tabriz.
  • Tabriz Chamber of Commerce was the first of its kind founded in Iran (1906).
  • The first public libraries in modern Iran were founded in Tabriz.
  • Iran's first cinema was founded in Tabriz (1900), while the first cinema in Tehran was founded by a Tabrizi (1921).
  • Tabriz was the first city in Iran to install a telephone system (about 1900).

References

  1. ^ For a complete list of Firsts in Tabriz see: سرداري‌نيا، صمد. "تبريز شهر اولين‌ها"، تبريز: كانون فرهنگ و هنر آذربايجان، 1381

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tabriz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722015300/http://www.sci.org.ir/content/userfiles/_sci_en/sci_en/sel/year85/f2/CS_02_8.HTM to http://www.sci.org.ir/content/userfiles/_sci_en/sci_en/sel/year85/f2/CS_02_8.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sister city

The general policy of the City of Vienna is not to sign any twin or sister city agreements with other cities. Instead Vienna has only cooperation agreements in which specific cooperation areas are defined. Moreover these agreements are limited in time, and presently there is no such agreement with the city of Tabriz (there has been, yes, but not now). See [5]. So it is incorrect to claim Tabriz is twinned with Vienna. Sapphorain (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tabriz. 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:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1083841
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8905181027
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1366716
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://irna.ir/News/80085018/%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B2-%D9%88-%D9%85%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%81-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Tabriz. 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/20160307235101/http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/3.asp to http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/3.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308051509/http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/2.asp to http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/2.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307235057/http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/14.asp to http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/14.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308000229/http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/29.asp to http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/29.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307222529/http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/32.asp to http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/32.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308001018/http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/42.asp to http://www.chbmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/azs/TABRIZ/42.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113181849/http://www.moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&ID=89c9e790-17d4-43ea-84b0-ba83d14d050f&LayoutID=dd8faff4-f71b-4c65-9aef-a1b6d0160be3&CategoryID=832a711b-95fe-4505-8aa3-38f5e17309c9 to http://www.moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&ID=89c9e790-17d4-43ea-84b0-ba83d14d050f&LayoutID=dd8faff4-f71b-4c65-9aef-a1b6d0160be3&CategoryID=832a711b-95fe-4505-8aa3-38f5e17309c9
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217094620/http://www.ea-uast.ac.ir/ to http://www.ea-uast.ac.ir/
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202125717/http://www.roshdiyeh.ir/ to http://www.roshdiyeh.ir/
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015212920/http://azs.srbiau.ac.ir/ to http://azs.srbiau.ac.ir/
  • Added archive https://archive.is/20120707090057/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-24/news/31391440_1_saeed-jalili-ali-akbar-salehi-iranian-envoys to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-24/news/31391440_1_saeed-jalili-ali-akbar-salehi-iranian-envoys
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1083841
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8905181027
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1366716
  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://irna.ir/News/80085018/%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B2-%D9%88-%D9%85%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%81-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120003147/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/08/378060/tabriz-konya-to-ink-sister-city-accord to http://presstv.ir/Detail/2014/09/08/378060/Tabriz-Konya-to-ink-sister-city-accord

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is modern Tabriz really divided into 10 districts?

We list 20. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tabriz. 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/20130725203451/http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=F&no=258263&S=GW to http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=F&no=258263&S=GW
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120194533/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377424/Safavid-dynasty to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377424/Safavid-dynasty
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130326014735/http://www3.irna.ir/ to http://www5.irna.ir/

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File nominated for deletion on commons

file=c:File:Colonel pesian.JPG|patten=No source indicated subpage=

Message déposé automatiquement par un robot le 06:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

Languages other than Persian

See this. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Districts sections a mess

Tabriz only has 10 municipal districts, numbered 1-10.official site[6] It seems to have had 22 earlier in this decade.[7] Doug Weller talk 10:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

name of tabriz in azerbaijani script?

WHy there is need to be azerbaijani script in an iranian province which the official language of the country is Persian?while there are both same script and thing.Simsala111 (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags in "Firsts" in Iran

This article is currently on the Front Page as part of Today's Featured Picture, and as a general principle orange tags should be resolved before posting there. "Firsts" in Iran is tagged with orange tag {{more citations needed}} and the yellow tag {{tone}}. However, it seems that the orange tag has already been resolved; all points in the list are referenced. If there's no objection to removing the {{more citations needed}} tag, then I or someone else can go ahead and do it. The yellow tag may stay; some of the grammar is odd.130.233.213.141 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After nearly two weeks and no objections, I have removed the orange tag in this section.130.233.213.141 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

typo - needs correction

"the city was captured for Russia in 182 by General Prince Eristov, who marched into the city with 3,000 soldiers"

This is obviously meant to say "in 182X". I tried to uncover "X" by reviewing the history of Tabriz article, but found nothing supporting in that page. I need to move on to something else, and wanted to flag the found issue. Cheers. Scootz555 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tabriz&oldid=1215734098"