Talk:Zenevisi family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Zenebishi family)

Name[edit]

Gbook hits:

  • "Zenevisi" (84)
  • "Zenebissi" (38)
  • "Zenebisi" (38)
  • "Zenebishi" (33)
  • "Zenevissi" (9)
  • "Zenebises" (8)
  • "Zenebishti" (5)
  • "Zenevises" (4)

"Zenevisi" is the most used spelling. It was used by contemporary sources. It is used by Fine Jr., F. Babinger, K. Setton, K. Hopf, etc. It is also widely used in Albanian historiography (note: English-language Albanian Academy), instead of the Albanian neologism "Zenebishi".--Zoupan 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. While I'd discourage another immediate RM, I'd suggest future attempts focus on one issue or the other: spelling or the insertion of "noble". Simpler requests are more likely to result in clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zenebishi family → Zenevisi noble family – As per common name (Zenevisi vs. Zenebissi/Zenebisi/Zenebishi) and scholarly use; see previous section. The article was originally named "Zenevisi family", under which it received DYK, until being moved (without discussion) by User:Ujkrieger (first to "Zenevisi Family" - note capitalization; secondly to "Zenebishi Family", etc). The most common spelling is "Zenevisi". Furthermore, I think noble family is appropriate (instead of just family). Zoupan 10:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Restoring the original name should be done without move discussion because the recent renaming is contested with solid arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I for one don't think the "noble" is necessary; such distinctions don't matter unless there is another family of the same name and disambiguation is needed. Constantine ✍ 12:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the orginal name is Zenebishi family,here,[zenebishi here, also the name Zenebishi is more common name : Zenebishi family 6,720 results Zenevisi family 409 results.Lindi29 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original name is Zenevisi, the Albanian neologism in Zenebishi.--Zoupan 17:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First off the word "noble" is redundant. Secondly there is no evidence to suggest that "Zenevisi family" is the common name. A google books search gets 4 results for "Zenevisi family" and 0 results on google scholar. A google books search gets 3 results for "Zenebishi family" and 1 result on google scholar. That puts it at 4 v 4. IJA (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but this search method is completely nonsensical. The "family" bit is there for clarity, it is not an integral part of the name. The search, if done for the family name alone, is pretty conclusive, as shown by Zoupan's search results above. In fact, to make this once more clear, there are 31 results for "Zenebishi" vs 89 results for "Zenevisi". Constantine ✍ 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I searched for the notable family, not all people with that name. IJA (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • all people with that name were the Zenevisi. Your search and analysis is erranous.--Zoupan 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Incorrect, not all people with that name belonged to the noble family. Also 'erranous' is an erroneous word. IJA (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common name (see above) and for procedural reasons (to undo an undiscussed move). However, as others have noted, "noble" is unnecessary. —  AjaxSmack  18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and actually i strongly do oppose this request . Per wp:commonname as already proven by the editors Lindi29 and IJA Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is proved that Zenevisi is the common name.--Zoupan 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. IJA (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zenevisi (84), Zenebishi (32). All (every single one) points to the family/clan.--Zoupan 20:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hits are no indication of common name. One book could have an entire chapter on the family therefore the name will come up many times in that one chapter alone. It is about the number of books, not number of hits. IJA (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did Gbooks list chapters instead of books? Again, an erranous analysis.--Zoupan 17:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that google books lists chapters, I was explaining why we go on the number of books not the number hits. Also 'erranous' is an erroneous word. IJA (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the number of GBooks "hits" referred to throughout this discussion all refer to individual books, not hits within each book. Constantine ✍ 16:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: This move is absolutely useless and its purpose is obviously not for the above mentioned reasons. This move is only requested to deny the actual real and most common name, which is Zenebishi. This should stop! --PjeterPeter (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, "obviously not for the above mentioned reasons". Would you care to enlighten us what exactly the real reasons are? Because from what I can see, "the actual real and most common name" is not Zenebishi, except in Albanian. Please remember (this goes to all here, actually) that, common alphabet aside, this is the English Wikipedia, so it is more relevant what usage is in English sources, rather than Albanian (or German or Italian) ones, and if eminent scholars of the medieval Balkans like Miller, Setton and Fine use a particular form, that is important. Constantine ✍ 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can provide some enlightenment : Constantine , the vast majority of the books pointing to the 'Zenevisi' variation are NON-English books . That's why the terms 'Zenevesi family' and ' The Zenebeshi family ' are the right parameters for assessing which name is the wp:commonname . First because that's the substance (aka the Title ) of this article and second because the term'family' is an English word thus eliminating any non English sources . Given that -and having been established that the actual English common name is the current one ( for more do see IJA's clarification ) - there is absolutely no reason for this request move Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Erm, no. Sorry, but IJA's logic is faulty, as I pointed out above. Fine [1], Babinger [2], Setton[3] all write in English and use the name without appending "family" in any way, so that is not an argument. Even the well-known Albanologist Elsie prefers Zenebisi, considers Zenevisi equally acceptable, and calls Zenebishti a "neologism" [4], so the argument that the one is the "actual real" name and the other is not holds no water. As for usage, it is pretty much clear cut. I fully recognize that the results for "Zenevisi" contain numerous non-English sources, but the same is even more true for "Zenebishi". I count fully four (4) English-language results for "Zenebishi", and one of them ("Low Albania (Epirus) and Cham issue") is some kind of pan-Albanian nationalist tract of (very) dubious credentials. Constantine ✍ 23:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I searched for the notable family, not all people with that name. IJA (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • There only were a handful of people with that name that are notable enough to be mentioned, and all belonged to the same family. And, as said, your method excluded most of the relevant results, e.g. from Setton, Fine et al. who wrote about family members but not necessarily the family as a whole. Constantine ✍ 09:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Like I said, I was searching for the notable family, not all people with that name. IJA (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, you searched for the exact word combination of "Zenebishi/Zenevisi family", which means that you would find only works that include this exact phrase. By definition, these results do not reflect the number of works that deal with individual family members or the family as a whole, but which do not contain "Z. family". Since the present and requested article titles are descriptive rather than proper names, as a method to determine usage, your search is simply wrong, like arguing that searching for "Habsburg family" is more correct than searching for "Habsburgs". And it does matter since you voted based on a flawed assumption. Constantine ✍ 16:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I was searching for the family as a whole, which this article is about; this is why I searched for the family in such a context. With regards to your comment about "Habsburg family" v "Habsburgs", I did also search for "Zenebishis" and "Zenevisis" but it produced no book results for both in the English language; so I previously didn't see any point mentioning this as it seemed rather redundant. IJA (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, although I would happily remove "family" or replace it with another label. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common name is Zenevisi, and not Zenebishi. Scholars use Zenevisi, and not Zenebishi.--Zoupan 20:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 07 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: 'Moved to Zenevisi family. No such user (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Zenebishi family → Zenevisi family – Unilateral move to an article name found far less in sources. DYK at original name. Compare 84 vs 33 Gbooks hits. – Zoupan 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Philg88 ♦talk 06:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page has some history of moves. I think the move makes sense am uncertain actually, but it's worthy of another RM perhaps. There already was one in 2015. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The proposed title is still more common in Google Books hits (21 vs. 6 when trying to limit to English sources; 7 hits for Zenevesi). —  AjaxSmack  01:50, 17 July 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drop for new works to expand this page with[edit]

2020 paper from Nika: [5] -- useful for access to archival info on the lives and fates of the family members; I'd maybe shy away from some of the rest. --Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duka 2002: [6] --Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zenevisi family → Zenebishi family – In line with the choice in contemporary bibliography to use native names, I propose to rename the article to Zenebishi, which better reflects the native pronunciation. Zenevisi 19 (2000-2022) vs. Zenebish(i) 55 (2000-2022) results. Maleschreiber (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Albania has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zenevisi_family&oldid=1211048856"