Talk:Tannu Uriankhai

message: When there is not even Tuva's own map, it is superfluous to include this map here. Temur 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think so as Tannu Uriankhai and Tuva are not the same thing and the map is vital to explain the territory dispute.--Jusjih (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The territorial dispute is not the main topic of this article and this is covered elsewhere in great length. For example it is not necessary to include whole of China's territory. If it is to place the region relative on a political map why not include Russia? Temur (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese Wikipedia has a larger article, yet I cannot expand this one, nor can I make a local map. I do not object a map to include Russia.--Jusjih (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: To be more specific, in case you object having the whole Chinese map, you may consider cropping the relevant portion of the map. As the map now shown is under GFDL, which requires share-alike and attribution, please indicate the relevant source and credit when making a cropped the map. I hope that my suggestion is useful to you.--Jusjih (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Just curious. This is said to be one of the parts of the Qing empire in which Chinese (=Han) had the least presence -- virtually no presence at all. And yet the only alternative name given in brackets is the Chinese name! Why is neither the Mongolian nor the Russian name given? Is there some kind of Chinese territorial claim at work here?
Bathrobe (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no need to remove it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: There was no need to remove it. It was perfectly reasonable to exist on the page.  Tannu Uriankhai was a part of the Qing empire.  I don't appreciate the accusation of a political motive for what is a good faith edit.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese name 

message: I recently noticed that this article has been expanded with great information.  The editorial issue I'm having with it though is that it provides much information which is out of the article's scope.  So I've created a new History of Tuva article in order to be the single article that details all of Tuvan history and copied a bunch of information from here to there.  This article should focus only upon the history and details of Tannu Uriankhai as an historical entity like the Tannu Tuva article does and not try to rehash history of the early inhabitants or history prior to the creation of Tannu Uriankhai. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After skimming through my copy of The Tuvan Manual, I'm under the impression that Tannu Uriankhai was the name of an historic province/aimag only under the Qing Dynasty.  What isn't so clear is whether this name was used during earlier Mongol rule for a province or an external designation for the Tuvan people. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is beyond scope 

message: The article gives information up to 1914, but the infobox says Tannu Uriankhai was distestablished in 1921. So what happened in those intervening 7 years? —howcheng  {chat} 05:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, this is a good question.  There's some funny overlap.  In History of Tuva you will see that "Tuva became nominally independent as the Urjanchai Republic before being brought under Russian protectorate. The Uryankhay Kray joined the Yeniseysk Governorate under Tsar Nicholas II on 17 April 1914." The years between the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of Tannu Tuva in 1921 were pretty crazy. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Tannu Tuva, which issued the stamps, is the successor state after this one. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened after 1914 

message: Hi, I am currently doing some work on History of Tuva and I am noticing that there is some very significant overlap between the articles. (To the point of some identical (or slightly forked) sections). History of Tuva is already linked from here and I will go link history of Tuva to here as soon as I finish this post, so my question is, do we want to keep the duplicate content. I can think of a few suggestions:
* Keep the content on both and let it grow independantly. See what we get.
* Keep the content on both and update them together. Save people having to go multiple places.
* Move recent history from History of Tuva here and keep that article only for the old stuff, with a note and a brief paragraph to the effect that the territory became Tannu Uriankhai under Russian protectorate.
* Move most of the historic-type content from here to History of Tuva and leave only enough to give basic context.
My preference is the third option because I feel that the content should not be duplicated and that this article needs detailed historical context more that History of Tuva needs recent history.
Anyways, any thoughts or suggestions are very welcome. I will keep updating the version on History of Tuva. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 19:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant overlap with [[History of Tuva]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion