Talk:Preveza

Albanian Name

I saw that Athenean and Alexikua reverted the article several times, I have already reverted it 2-3 but I will stop since I do not want an edit war. Let us discuss this(the same applies to the one that reverted them back)--Sarandioti (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The unwritten understanding we have in these articles (Greece-Albania) is that we only include the "other" name in the lead if there are still native speakers of the language in those towns (and it is backed up by WP:RS, of course). This is the case, in Himarra, Saranda, Igoumenitsa etc...However it is not the case in Preveza and Arta. Otherwise, we would have to include the Greek name for Vlore, Korce, Durres, and so forth. The experienced users in these articles abided by this understanding and the articles were stable before you came in. We are not going to turn eveything upside down because of one new inexperienced user. --Athenean (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing different situations Athenian. Of course no one is going to claim the addition of an ancient name who has no speakers in an area. But Arta and Preveza are modern areas, of great importance to Albanian history(principalities etc.). And yes they were inhabited by Cham Albanians. History is not about trade agreements Athenian, but about facts. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like there are no Greek speakers in some Albanian towns now, there are no Albanian speakers in Preveza and Arta. Just like there were Cham speakers in those areas, there were Greek speakers in those Vlore and Korce. You say they are of great importance to Albanian history? Guess what, so were Vlore and Durres (they were founded by Greeke, for God's sake, their name derives from the Greek name). Please be reasonable. You can't have it both ways. There are two sides here, and the only solution is compromise. There is no other way. If you push, you can expect the other side to push back. I've been on wikipedia 2 years now, and I'm telling you this as an experienced wikipedian. Just let it rest. --Athenean (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nikos Stylos

Seeing how the result of the AfD was "Delete" (and a fairly easy delete at that), I have removed Nikos Stylos from the list of notable individuals. Nothing controversial there, I hope. Athenean (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Precise"

Saying the ancient city of "Berenike" was in the "wider region" of Preveza is not precise at all, in fact, it is the exact opposite. I don't see the source saying "wider region" anywhere, it seems that this is being made up for the usual reasons. Athenean (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The source says "near the site of modern Preveza" and I paraphrased a bit without any usual reasons.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do try and be a bit more "precise" in the future. Athenean (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

actually athenean as far as i know ancient berenike is usually identified...not with absolute certainty...with mihalitsi(on) which is near nicopolis a bit north of preveza87.202.50.149 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC) also there are various theories about the name im adding them87.202.50.149 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Sulmues' pov & redundant addition. What's completely weird is that the sources used to add the 'Albanian' alternative were wrong, since the city's name in Albanian is also Preveza (as these sources claim). There is no need to invent a diferrent Albanian form. That's why we have 'name' section.Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually in Albanian there are two forms:a definite and an indefinite form, thus Prevezë and Preveza. Sulmues's edit is based on WP:NCGN. Please don't ignore the policy and cause disruption.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Suppose the one that should respect this policy is you: Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead. There is also a separate section, so an alternative (and unsourced) Albanian name in first line is nothing more than a pov game.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other alternative names, this is the only and there are two sources about it. That section is about the etymology of the name not a list of alternative, so if you want to remove it you should find another subpolicy to justify it, otherwise it would be one of the usual povs. Well, Sulmues added it with sources so his response will be interesting.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(Ignore trolling) There is a name section, according to wp:nc this belong there. Of course a name section can also contain etymologies, that's reasonable. By the way, changing the section's name [[1]] in order to launch empty pov accusations it's of the most childish actions if ever seen here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This naming nonsense needs to end, and it needs to end once and for all. I strongly advise Zjarri to read this thread [2], and read it well. The only reason a foreign name should appear in the first line of lead is if our readers are likely to encounter it in the literature, in other words if it appears with reasonable frequency in reliable sources. As far as I have searched, exactly zero English-language sources use the Albanian spelling. Even the two sources used by Sulmues to supposedly bolster his claim use "Preveza"! A few older sources use the Turkish spelling, Preveze, without the "ë", but I can't find one English language source that uses "Prevezë" (besides Hammond), which moreover already appears in the "Etymology" section. WP:LAWYER type arguments about WP:NCGN are boring and irrelevant (WP:NCGN talks about the lede in general, not just the first line). And re-naming the "Name" section to "Etymology" [3] in a desperate attempt to forestall the inevitable is not "precise", but pathetic as well as disruptive. Enough. Athenean (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The NCGN defines a names or an etymology section so why would I change it to something similar if I had any desperate motives as you define them? Sulmues added it and his response will be needed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what's his response, according to wp:nc this needs to go. It's simple, we have not a single argument that the reduntant alt. name should stay both in lead and below, typical wp:IDONTLIKEIT. Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you provide some solid arguments that contradict the two sources and mainly Hammond I don't see why it has to go.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears you didn't do your reading, or didn't get the point. By the way, WP:IDHT is very disruptive. Not a good idea. Athenean (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're also (deliberately?) misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not advocating a Pakapshem-style wholesale removal of the foreign name. The etymology of Hammond is very interesting and benefits our readers. I did not know that "Prevezë" meant "crossing place" in Albanian and that it's a possible etymology of the town's name, and I think it enriches the article. All I'm saying is that since it already appears once in the etymology section, and since it is not used by any other sources, there is no real need to have it in the very first line of the lead. Athenean (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful removals

I undid some removals that were extremely unhelpful, uncool attempts at withholding information from our readers under the false pretenses of "cpediting". This article is about the municipality of Preveza, not just the town proper. Any ruins, any events within the municipal boundaries, and even a little bit beyond, are well within the scope of the article. Also removed a source that contained no useful information (Facaros). Athenean (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points

I removed a sentence that repeated the same exact information as the paragraph immediately above. Also, since this is the English wikipedia, I removed the Albanian name of the Committee of Preveza. We typically don't include such information, because it is of little or no interest to the average English reader. After all, I don't go around adding "Αυτόνομος Δημοκρατία της Βορείου Ηπείρου" in every article where it is mentioned, do I? Athenean (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Assembly of Preveza the culmination of the activities of that committee, but it wasn't expanded so after I find some way to write it in a better way I'll add it back.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NN

Just 4 minutes after the latest edits, a blind removal was performed [[4]] with the excuse that both of them do not pass notability, although the hundreds of googlehits confirm their notability.

Such reverts can be easily considered very disruptive, especially when performed only a few minutes after the initial edits.Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Avdikos passes almost all notability points per academic. As for I. Dimopoulou isn't well known in English bibliography, although in Greek she is quite famous, I'll remove her for now.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(changed the title because of npa) Avdikos is just a professor of the University of Thessaly that doesn't grant notability and of course there aren't hundred of google hits for him(although google hits aren't a sign of notability), so Avdikos has to be removed. If he isn't removed per the academic criteria then what is required by the general guidelines will be done. Dimas also isn't notable per NN(even if a local theatre was named after him). In fact Alexikoua for the usual reasons has added other unknown people. Only Tsoumeleka and the other athelete pass the criteria so the rest will be removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you still have to check his biography, (to correct he is the president of the department). He made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity/made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions/made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

A search in googlebooks easily confirms this.

On the contrary this one, hardly reaches wp:n [[5]], since he has 0 english books hits in gbooks [[6]] (just a member of this family means nothing).Alexikoua (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems a lot of the Dinos aren't notable but have been added for the usual reasons. When I have more time, I will go through them one by one and put up for deletion those that fail WP:N. Athenean (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He passes WP:DIPLOMAT as he represented Albanian in the Treaty of London and no Avdikos is not the head of the department and even that wouldn't be a sign of notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check the numerous links on net (for example this [[7]][[8]] says he is president).Alexikoua (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the same definition all 6 of them [[9]] pass wp:diplomat too, since they represented Northern Epirus at the same Treaty (like R. Dino represented Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUCH because the present borders of Albanian were ratified in that treaty and these guys never participated in any discussions because they never were accepted in any of them as they didn't represent any authority/state i.e not WP:DIPLOMAT. That's similar to the thousands of protesters who want to enter G8 and "discuss" with the country leaders but are never accepted i.e because someone wants to be/take part in a treaty that doesn't grant him notability. Btw that source doesn't state that Avdikos is head of any department so if you don't bring a source stating that he will be removed along with Dimas and Provatas i.e edit-warring doesn't override notability(BLP) policy--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you mysteriously misinterpret every source and historical fact, rejecting even the most obvious evidence. I suggest you wp:rfc instead.Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Per BRD you should RfC because you were reverted and edit-warred to keep your version(parts of which I'll remove because of the policy)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)