Talk:Khalkhin Gol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khalkhin Gol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Asia: Mongols Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mongols (assessed as Low-importance).

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Khalkhin Gol 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mongols Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title[edit]

Changed the title to "Khalkhyn River", then thought better of it and changed it back. Vidor 04:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Wizardman 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalkhyn Gol → Khalkhyn gol — More consistent with Mongolian capitalization. Yaan (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose English normally capitalizes things, and this is the English Wikipedia. The battle article claims that in English the river is actually Khalkha River. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per WP:UE move to Khalkha River TrueColour (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (again)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halh River → Khalkhyn Gol – In 2009, User:Jaan proposed a move of the article "Khalkhyn Gol" into "Khalkhyn gol", citing Mongolian capitalisation rules. This was voted down based on English capitalisation rules; the outcome was that it should remain as "Khalkhyn Gol". Ignoring the 2009 discussion, User:MongolWiki first moved the article to "Khalkha River" in August 2011 with the motivation that "it suits". A few days later, in September User:MongolWiki moved the article a second time, this time to "Halh River" with motivation "MNS 5217:2003 Standard of Mongolia", again ignoring the 2009 consensus. I propose a return of the 2009 consensus article title, i.e. "Khalkhyn Gol". English Wikipedia is supposed to use English names whenever possible, and "Khalkhyn Gol" and "Khalkhin Gol" are the only names I've ever seen in English outside Wikipedia. Besides, this seems to fit WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, I've mostly read about the river in texts about Japanese history mentioning the battles of Khalkhin Gol, and it is possible that a different name might be used in other texts about the river. In any case, I feel that this topic needs to be discussed since I don't think that it's correct to move a page to something if a previous move discussion has resulted in the article having some other title. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian). WP:COMMONNAME seems relevant, "MNS 5217:2003 Standard of Mongolia" clearly isn't. -Latebird (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note User talk:MongolWiki#Naming conventions concerning "MNS 5217:2003". Apparently, it has received some criticism elsewhere. FYI, I posted a notice on the talk page belonging to everyone who either participated in the previous renaming discussion (3 people), or who has moved this article in the past (3 people excluding the people in the former discussion), since these people may have an opinion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.