Talk:Malisheva

The Name

If sombody have UN acceptit evidence that the name of the city is not Malishevë but is Mališevo, then this articel must be unter the name: Malishevë and the page named "Mališevo" must be redirect. My evidence you kann see in UNMIK oficiale page. Plase dont talk withaot UN acceptit evidence. --Hipi Zhdripi 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It can be very much disputed as to how relevant your request is. Given the special circumstances in the Kosovo conflict, different metrics for the determination of the proper name should be used. The vast majority of the Kosovan population identifies as Albanian. According to this page 99.8% of inhabitants of this town identify as Albanians and themselves use the Albanian version of the name. Showing the Serbian name first, in my view, only tries to enforce the legitimacy of Serbian rule over Kosovo. Historically it was a Serbian-speaking country and the use of the Serbian version first might have been warranted. (Although, personally, I think in an town of one ethnic majority, that name should come first.) It is not my intent to start a political discussion, but I firmly believe showing the Serbian name of the town first only serves political purposes. As such, the appropriate name of the town is the one its inhabitants use. Does Wikipedia serve the people or legal documents? Opinions are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diell95 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo

The user of the city names in English Language (newer version from the UN liable pilari in Kosovo for such think )

1. http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html

The original page of the Law (1. in albanian L., 2.Serbian L.)

---

1. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
2. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf

The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presented in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for albanian language.

RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43
UNMIK/REG/2000/43
27 korrik 2000
Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave
-------------------------------------------
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm,
Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të 
Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara,
Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të
Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK)
mbi autorizimin e Administratës së 
Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut 
mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë,
Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes 
së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë,
Shpall sa vijon:
Neni 1
Numri dhe emrat e komunave
Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje. 
Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’ 
të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare 
dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e 
atyre komuniteteve.
Neni 2
Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave
Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale. 
Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 3
Zbatimi
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative 
në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 4
Ligji i zbatueshëm
Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të. 
Neni 5
Hyrja në fuqi
Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000.
Bernard Kouchner
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm

The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language.

UREDBA BR. 2000/43
UNMIK/URED/2000/43
27. jul 2000. godine
O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara,
Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih
nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine,
Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene
administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i
dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe
UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na
Kosovu, <u>(hier is oficele user)</u>
U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa
op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu,
Ovim objavquje slede}e:
Clan 1
BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA
1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli '''A''' u dodatku ovoj
Uredbi.
1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje
nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i
jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde
se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica.
Clan 2
PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA
Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim
katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u
Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi.
Clan 3
PRIMENA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno
uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe.
Clan 4
ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI
Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna
sa wom.
Clan 5
STUPAWE NA SNAGU
Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine.
Bernar Ku{ner
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara

tabel of contens >A<

TABELA ‘A’ (alb) RASPORED A (ser.)
Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb)
Albanski Srpski
01 Deçan \Decani
02 Gjakovë \Djakovica
03 Gllogovc \Glogovac
04 Gjilan \Gnilane
05 Dragash \Dragas
06 Istog \Istok
07 Kaçanik \Kacanik
08 Klinë\ Klina
09 Fushë Kosovë\ Kosovo Polje
10 Kamenicë \Kamenica
11 Mitrovicë \Kosovska Mitrovica
12 Leposaviq \Leposavic
13 Lipjan \Lipqan
14 Novobërdë \Novo Brdo
15 Obiliq \Obilic
16 Rahovec\ Orahovac
17 Pejë\ Pec
18 Podujevë\ Podujevo
19 Prishtinë \Pristina
20 Prizren \Prizren
21 Skenderaj\ Srbica
22 Shtime\ Stimqe
23 Shtërpcë\ Strpce
24 Suharekë\ Suva Reka
25 Ferizaj \Urosevac
26 Viti \Vitina
27 Vushtrri\ Vucitrn
28 Zubin Potok \Zubin Potok
29 Zveçan\ Zvecan
30 Malishevë\ Malisevo

If sambody have a argument Im waitting. In another cases you are going to interpret the dokumets (you are out of UN Law) and you dont have argumet, you dont work for Wikipedia but are destroing the Wikipedia image. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. You can have a problem with "Haage". This tabel is speeken better then I.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mališevo Massacre

I re-added the sources and sentences about the Mališevo Massacre. It was vandlized some time ago by someone that doesn't want to show that war crimes were committed on all sides in the war. Whoever did it, please don't do it again. I added the category War crimes because Mališevo Massacre is one of the redirects--Thomas.macmillan 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo and Wikipedia

Before two years, I have presented the argument. In thate time it was clear, thate, Serbia with or without Kosovo, is going to be part of Europe Card for citys names. And Europ Card for citys names (komuna) is adopted from Kosovar Govermend. My dier friends in English Wikipedia, you are maken not a litel problem, but with all information, you are changen the oficial names of the citys in Kosovo.

You have taket the Serbial Law or some imagenedet rouls, als more importen thane UN Law. English Wikipedia is not working/existing under the Serbian Law, but under UN Law. Don´t be wondering if somebody is acusing the English Wikipedia for anti-UN propaganda and "spaming" desinformation to the internet iusers.

The mandat of UN in Kosovo is hight livel thane Serbian Law - witch since the UNMIK is in Kosovo, dont exist anymore for Kosovo.

1. You are working agains the Kosovo Law
2. You are working agains the Europen Card for city names
3. You are working agains the UNMIK - Law
4. You are working agains the UN - Law

The LAW of Kosovo, Eropen, UNMIK and UN, thate I have presented here before two years nobady diden respect.

Becose of this I acuse you for desinformations and working aganis this LAWS, and with you works here you are helping to destabisate the sitution in Balkan. DON SAY THAT YOUR HANDS ARE CLEAR, DONT BE PART OF PROPAGANDA WITCH MOTIVAT THE PRIMITIV PEOPEL, PLEASE REPECT THE UN - LAW

THE SYS. AND ADMINISTRATORS OF ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA HAVE RESPOSIBLITI TO STOP MAKEN WIKIPEDIA AS PART OF PROPAGANDA WITCH MOTIVATE PRIMITIV PEOPEL.

SINCE 2 YEARS, ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA WITH NOT RESPECTING THE UN LAW, IS HELPING IN DESTABILSATION OF THE BALKAN REGION. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2015

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: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Mališevo → Malisheve – WP:COMMONNAME Resnjari (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mališevo-->Malisheve- official name Name of the city in English is Malisheve. Also majority of the population calls it Malisheve and not Mališevo. Google searches for Malisheve and mališevo produce a similar account of results. Mališevo is only the official name in Serbian language whereas Malisheve is the official name in English language and albania language.GBS shows that word 'mališevo' appeared more times in 166 than word Malisheve' did in 175 books; how ever 'malisheve' appeared in more books (175) Than 'mališevo' (166) Therefore proving that 'malisheve' is the common name because it appeared in more books then 'mališevo'. The fact that 'malisheve' appeared in more books the 'mališevo' show that 'malisheve' is more widely news. Also as shown below 'malisheve' get more hits then 'mališevo' in google scholar and it was used more journals. 'Malisheve' was used in (622) Whereas 'mališevo' was used in (148) 'Malisheve' is the most WP:COMMONNAME in the English language and it is the official name in the English language. Admin reviewing this please take into account the WP:CANVASSING on wikiproject:serbia(shown below) and please take into account That severals of those opposed are Serbs/ native speakers of the Serbian language; therefore are likely opposed to this WP:RM due to personal interest.Internationel00 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Internationel00—Confirmed sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kadribistrica

Oppose. Those results are misleading. In both Google Books and Google Scholar searches, the nominator searched for "Malisheva" instead of "Malisheve" (the proposed title). That gives many false positive results because of the large number of Russian women with the last name Malisheva. Google Ngram viewer clearly shows that Mališevo is more common than Malisheve [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

U can't use ngram from 1980 to 2008 it doesn't make any sense. Of course it shows mališevo that's what the town was known in Yugoslavia and after Serbia until it became a own state in 2008, why don't you make Google ngram from 2008 and forward and se what will happens? And the thing is that there are no Serbs in mališevo as you can see in the articel. So I don't know why this articel have a Serbian name. There are 65,000 Albanians in mališevo and no Serbs.Internationel00 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)—Confirmed sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kadribistrica

Google Ngram Viewer is limited to 2008, so you can't search for books written after 2008. The article does not have Serbian title, it has English title as per WP:COMMONNAME. It is clear that Mališevo (or Malisevo, for sources that do not use diacritics) is the most common English name. Google Books search returns 171 results for "Mliševo" and 73 results for "Malisheve". Google News Search similarly returns 42 results for "Mališevo" and 10 results for "Malisheve". Your search results are wrong because you searched for "Malisheva" instead of "Malisheve". Whether there are Serbs in Mališevo or not is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia uses the name that is most commonly used in sources, no matter if there are Serbs in the town or not. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Support. However, the proposal should not be for Malisheve but Malishevë, like in article on Korçë. The term using the Albanian schwa letter ë returns in a google search over 339,000 [2] results for the town in Kosovo. In Albanian, the name Malishevë pertains to a locality and its municipality in Kosovo and the subsequent examination of the pages that come up in the google search allude to this when contents are analysed. In contrast to the form Mališevo which in a google search returns only 68,100 results [3] and also the form Malisevo, the s without diacritics with once again 68,100 [4] results. Malishevë is clearly the most common name in use for the town and its municipality. Also regarding when one does a Google Ngram search, the form Malisevo without diacritics shows little use until the 1990s with a sharp spike during the Kosovo crisis years of 1999 and then a sharp decline [5]. It must also be noted that a Google Ngram search does not take into account the Serbian š[6] or the Albanian ë[7] and as such nominal results would need to taken with caution, as it omits common spellings of the place which mainly contain these letters used in publications that are not Serbian or Albanian.Resnjari (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Faulty Google search hits review.--Zoupan 02:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - For several reasons:

• 1). Flawed google books search.
• 2). Google books favours Mališevo/Malisevo over Malisheve/Malishevë/Malisheva, both historically and since Kosovo's independence.
• 3). The nominator has nicked my argument from a previous RM and just changed the place names, the majority of the nominator's argument isn't relevant to this particular RM.
• 4). The correct Albanian version of the name is Malishevë not Malisheve. Missing out/ omitting diacritics in place names is just plain lazy, regardless if they're Albanian or Serbo-Croatian diacritics (with the exception of Pristina).
• 5). The nominator canvassed me (check my talk page for further details) and then mentions canvassing in their argument for some bizarre reason (see number 3 as to why the nominator most likely did that).
• 6). If it was the common name, don't you think I would have done an RM already?

All in all, there is no evidence to suggest that "Malisheve" is the common name for the place in the English language. Regards IJA (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting Comment: Notifying a WikiProject of a requested move is not CANVASSING, however failure to notify ALL relevant projects as was done here does stink a little. I've notified the Kosovo Project of this RM which should have been done at the beginning. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Mike Cline: And that is why you notified just one WikiProject? (Wikiproject Serbia is not notified at all). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Serbia Wikipedia:WikiProject_Serbia was notified via Article Alerts on Nov 1, 2015. See project front page. I didn't think a second notice was necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: You are right. Sorry, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - As user IJA said, this request is wrong on several levels, and user who started it is yet another sockpuppet. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The nominator is now blocked as a sockpuppet of blocked user. I think this RM can now be closed, as it was started in violation of the block. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm probably recused from closing this, but I would suggest it should be closed – there is clearly no consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

References

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Mališevo. 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/20060526083521/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15FC893C-D83C-426B-B599-D8A673DDD215.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15FC893C-D83C-426B-B599-D8A673DDD215.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2020

Mališevo → Malisheva – This move is requested in coordination with WP:Common Name and WP:Place#Multiple_local_names.

Background: Since Kosovo has two official languages (Albanian and Serbian) every place in Kosovo has an Albanian and a Serbian name. We have no official name and no name where both languages are commonly included like Biel/Bienne. Based on the policies presented above we have to choose either the Albanian or the Serbian name based on common usage in English sources. Until now we have the Serbian version which should be changed. Some search engine results:

Google Books Ngram Viewer 2008-2019:

• [8] Here we can see that Malisheva was always more used than Mališevo. After 2016 we can also see that Malisheva even took over Malisevo without the "š".

Google search analysis:

• [9] 445,000 results for Malisheva +Kosovo -Wikipedia
• [10] 50,500 results for Malisevo +Kosovo -Wikipedia
• [11] 200,000 results Mališevo +Kosovo -Wikipedia

Google scholar 2015-2019:

• [12] 73 results for Malisheva Kosovo
• [13] 21 results for Malisevo Kosovo
• [14] 21 results for Mališevo Kosovo

Conclusion: The search engine results clearly show us that Malisheva is the common English name.

Some side facts:

• The population of Kosovo is of 92 % Albanian and 4 % Serbian ethnicity.
• The municipality of Malisheva (according to the census of 2011) [15] has a poulation of 54,631 of which 54,501 (99,8 %) decleared themselves as Albanians and literally not a single person decleared himself a Serb. Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. As I explained many times, the number of "results" in Google search is always wrong unless you scroll to the last page of the results. Only then you can see the actual number of hits. So, there are 78 hits for "Malisheva" Kosovo -wikipedia, 93 hits for "Malisevo" Kosovo -wikipedia and 8 hits for "Mališevo" Kosovo -wikipedia. This shows that Mališevo/Malisevo is more common in English sources then Malisheva. Also, as I explained above in the previous move succession, the Google Books Ngram is misleading becaouse of the inclusion of the Russian/Ukrainian female last name "Malisheva". Ukrainian Wikipedia, for expample has five people with that last name (see uk:Малишева). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: It is undoubtedly that the Albanian version (definite or indefinite) took over. You responded with Ngram beeing misleading because of an Ukrainian name even though the Ukrainian names you linked are like complete nonames in English media. What shows more that Ngram is not misleading but clearly talks about the city in Kosovo is the peak in 1999 (Kosovo War when Malishevë was an UÇK stronghold and a big topic) and the constant decrease of usage after 2008 (decleration of independence of Kosovo) after which nobody would use the Serbian version. The romanization of Малишева would even be Mališeva and not Malisheva. So no misleading Ngram result.Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It's actually not per WP:Common Name and a random search results are not as important as you might think. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: well according to WP:Place#Multiple_local_names. random search results are important. Also the presented links were definitely not random and a big part of what we should take as an source.Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support we should use the prevalent name in academia. Malishevë (the indefinite variant of Malisheva has a query result of 74 on Google Scholar [16]. That as a total gives a 147 to 42 result, more than a 3/1 ration between the proposed and the current version. Also, as in other toponyms in Kosovo like Gjakova, wikipedia should move on with the times. This place is not called Mališevo in most of the recently (last 10-15 years) published papers. The simple google search for Malishevë gives 108 total results, so that ends any point of support for Mališevo on the basis of google search. @Crazydude1912: as the results indicate, Malishevë is the top result - so maybe you should start a new move discussion with that as the proposed change.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: Hello there, i will have a look on this.Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the article will be moved then because really there is no reason for this to remain under Mališevo. Nobody uses it locally and very few use it internationally. You should also search for the most used name in big publishers like Springer (9 for Malishevë, 0 for Mališevo, Malisheva, Kosovo)--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose "Malisevo Kosovo -wikipedia" [17] and "Malisheve Kosovo -wikipedia" [18] return about 200 hits each on Google Books. Since the names occur roughly equally in frequency, status quo stays, there is no overwhelming case to move the page. The name is also clearly Serbian in origin, and that carries weight too. Khirurg (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Misleading search results. Spelling the name without the umlauts makes no sense. The search results You made show a big use until 1999. Do some recent searches from 2015 to 2019 for example in which the Serbian name has no chance at all or come back when You got better arguments.Crazydude1912 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Like Vanjagenije said, the serach results are influeced by the last name Malisheva. Also, in this interpretation, the results of bilingual and Cyrillic names are ignored. The population of Kosovo is of 92 % Albanian and 4 % Serbian ethnicity. - It is wrong to cite this as an argument, especially because the current demographic picture is the result of the ethnic cleansing campaign.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: I clearly showed that the search results are absolutely not influenced by the Ukrainian name because the Ukrainian name would be spelled romanized as Mališeva and not Malisheva. If You think the Ukrainian name does have an affect, than You should be able to prove it. If not it's just a statement without weight. The linked persons by Vanjagenije are all nonames in English media and non of them have WP articles in other languages beside Ukrainian or Russian. You simply just ignored my response for Vanjagenije and all the presented facts in support of my proposition so far. Crazydude1912 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: As for your comment because the Ukrainian name would be spelled romanized as Mališeva and not Malisheva, here are just a few counterexamples: T.A. Malisheva, Julia Malisheva, Kristina Malisheva, Olga Malisheva, Nara Malisheva. Need more? --T*U (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition: All three books from 2019 in the nGram/Google Books search are false positives: "Mrs. Malisheva", "N.A. Malisheva", "D.P. Malisheva". --T*U (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Great work @TU-nor: for presenting some individual examples. Now show me please how the key moments of Malisheva (Ngram) (1999,2008) stand in connection with the Ukrainian name Malisheva and why the usage heavily increased/decreased in those periods. Also the Ukrainian argument clearly doesen't work for simple google results since we filtered them out and the Albanian version is clearly more used. Crazydude1912 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: (By the way, your ping did not work. It only works if you save the correct ping at the same time as your signature. If you make a correction to the ping, you will have to re-sign the message.

I am not quite sure I understand what you ask me to show you, but I can expand on my findings: I have checked all 23 books containing "Malisheva" published from 2008 to 2019. Of these 23, fourteen hits are various persons named Malisheva, one hit is about the Malisheva mine in Ural and eight are about the Kosovo town. Those eight books are published in 2009, 2010 (2x), 2011 (2x), 2014, 2015, 2016. In the same period there are nine hits for "Mališevo" including the diacritic: 2008 (2x), 2009, 2010 (2x), 2011, 2013, 2014 (2x). I have also found seven hits for "Malishevë" and sixteen for "Malisevo" without the diacritic, plus five for "Malishevo". Some of them will of course use more than one name, as in "Malishevë/Mališevo". Make whatever you want of it. My point was that the nGram search you made is valueless. --T*U (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thank You for Your contributions so far. You have put Your nickname on pupose for me to fail to ping it ;) I was just going through the Google Books results and saw that Malisheva is at least mentioned nine times. There are probably more books but Google simply doesn't allow me to have a look into the books. Comparing to Mališevo i have to admit that there is no clear result. Clear is that most books reffer to the war in 1999 a time when Mališevo was mainly used by official authorities. If we look at more present books (2015-2020) the results are quite clear. Four results for Malisheva, five results for Malishevë, three for Malisevo and not a single one for Mališevo. The further we move away from the time when Kosovo was a part of Serbia the Albanian version seems to takes over as we can see here.Crazydude1912 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: I wonder how you can get zero results for Mališevo. I will give my results with links, only English-language books published after 1 Jan 2015. Quote marks make sure that the search goes for the exact spelling. I have also noticed that some books use the forms "Malisheve" and "Malishevo", so I will include those, too.

• "Malisheva" 6 results, of which 3 are false positives, so in reality 3 results
• "Malishevë" 5 results
• "Malisheve" 5 results

One book shows up in two of the searches, so there are 12 unique hits.

• "Mališevo" 5 results
• "Malisevo" 3 results
• "Malishevo" 4 results

No overlap here, so there are 12 unique hits.

These searches are not foolproof. I have found books including "Mališevo" and books including "Malisevo" that does not show up in the searches, and there will probably be examples going the other way. But there is certainly no clear tendency towards the Albanian names even after 2015. --T*U (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I still don't get it why there were no results shown for Mališevo in my latest search. Probably screwed something up. What I'm more curious of is that in your search results for "Malishevo" there was a hit for a book named "The Moravian Night: A Story" which refers to a settlement named Malisheva that was earlier known as Malishevo. The book mentioned "Malisheva" in the same sentence. So basically this book should be a hit if we search for "Malisheva" However this didn't happen.Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: Yes, that is exactly what I predicted just above. I found "Mališevo" mentioned in this book (see here) and in this book (see here) without showing up in the Mališevo search, and I found "Malisevo" beside "Malisheve" in both of the CIA editions without showing up in that search. As I said, these searches are not foolproof. But they show that your argument based on nGram/Google Books is useless, don't you think? --T*U (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Shouldn't we treat "Malisevo" also as an overlap since it's the same author, the same topic and the same copy and pasted part in all three published books? I'm not denying Your question.Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: By all means, just as we could do with the two CIA editions in this search.. It does not change the conclusion. --T*U (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: There is still a lot of value that we can give these Google Books result. Looking through the hits i noticed that there are eight books which use both the Albanian and the Serbian version. We can use this information to have a a look and a direct comparison of how both names are treated in English sources/books. Seven books use the Albanian version as the dominant/first one. One book uses the Serbian one.

• One book here
• Two books here
• Three books here
• One book here (which says that the town was called Malishevo now Malisheva.)

Respectively the fourth book from

• here

uses The Serbian Version as the dominant version.Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: Your 7–1 count is a gross misrepresentation of the search results. Firstly, four of the seven were already counted only in the "Malisheva"/"Malishevë"/"Malisheve" numbers and not in the "Mališevo"/"Malishevo"/"Malisevo" numbers (Bradt, IBP, CIA1 and CIA2). Furthermore, in this book, the village is shown on two maps. On page 234 are used the names Malisheve and Maisevo(!), on page 201 it is Mališevo only. How that can be construed as "Albanian dominant version" is a mystery. Also, being placed in left or right column in one single mention (like here) or before or after a slash can hardly be an argument for "dominant version". Then we are deep into WP:OR.

The bottom line stands: Google Books does not show any tendency towards the Albanian name even after 2015. --T*U (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor:I was actually just looking for how the two versions if mentioned together are treated by English books and was comparing the usage of the two versions only if used under the same circumstances. It has nothing to do with where they were already counted and where not. Doesn't it make You curious that the Albanian version is beside one book always used first. Please lets not act as if dominant is a complete wrong term for this case. There are probably better words that we could use but this was the term i thought in the first place. I'm not sure why You consider me as false interpretating the results. If English books tend to use the Albanian version first and the Serbian version second than we should also do it. What do You think about that? Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I explained the misreprentatition for five of the seven "Albanian dominant versions". And, no thanks, I will not go deeper into WP:OR now. I have said my piece. --T*U (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support- as per Crazydude1912's valid points.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Looking on the opinions given so far I can't see any counter arguments against the fact that in the 2011 census 99,8 % of the municipality's population refferd themselve as Albanians and literally not a single person decleared himself a Serb. It seems to be incredible that we still use a name for a city that is not preferred by anyone in the whole municipality, and is somehow an insult for 99,8 % of the local population and authorities. Looking on several RM's for this kind of topics done so far this was one of the more important points recognized by administrators and other neutral editors who gave this point a big value if there was no common English name for this place.Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom, clearly more sources use Albanian, the country itself uses Albanian, and Kosovo is now generally recognized.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Side comment about figures in major academic publishing houses:
  • Springer (9 - Malishevë, 2 Malisheva, Kosovo, 0 - Mališevo,
  • Wiley (4 - Malisheva, Kosovo, 2 Malishevë, 0 - Mališevo--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: Another flawed search: Of the 9 hits here, 6 are different chapters from the same book by the same author (Cocozzelli) and 2 others the same for another author (Drançolli). That means 3 unique hits. You also conveniently have ignored

• Malishevo 5 hits, of which 3 in English
• Malisevo 9 hits, of which 4 in English, with two hits in same book, leaving 3 unique hits

To be fair, we also should include "Malisheve":

• Malisheve 1 hit that is not already covered in the "Malishevë" search

This gives us

• Malisheva/Malishevë/Malisheve: 2+3+1=6 unique hits in English
• Mališevo/Malishevo/Malisevo: 0+3+3=6 unique hits in English

As an aside, the Springer search does not find any hits for Mališevo even if that form is present in at least one of the books in the "Malisevo" search. This may be because of the "š" not being implemented in the search engine. It does not really matter, though, since the "Malisevo" search also finds these versions, just like the "Malisheve" search also finds Malishevë. The conclusion is still sound. --T*U (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Malisevo parts are also from sources that mostly use Malisheva/evë - but mention Malisevo as a reference point too. And they also include chapters from the same book, so there are less Malisevo results.

• Side comment about results in journalism:
  • BalkanInsight/BIRN the largest regional agency: Malishevë/Malisheva/Malisheve: 48, Malisevo/Mališevo 30 (the search bar is a frame, so I can't link it, use the website: https://balkaninsight.com/ ) --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: You say about my Malisevo/Springer search that the Malisevo parts are also from sources that mostly use Malisheva/evë. There are only two books that turn up in both sets of searches, Pavković and Cocozzelli. In Pavković the name only shows up on a map (page 186), showing both names Mališevo and Malishevë (in that order). Cocozzelli&Chung uses consistently "Malishevë/Malisevo" throughout the book, except in Chapter 4, where they start the chapter by introducing "Skenderaj/Srbica" and "Malishevë/Malisevo" as the two villages to be discussed in the chapter, followed by a note: "Skenderaj and Malishevë are the Albanian spellings. Srbica and Malisevo are the Serbian spellings. For the sake of convenience, and because these were the names in common use among locals and expatriots while I was conducting my research, I use the Albanian spellings. See the Introduction for a more complete discussion of the use of Serbian and Albanian place names." I have hardly seen a more explicit explanation from authors about not giving priority to one spelling. This is certainly more than mention Malisevo as a reference point.

You also say that they also include chapters from the same book, so there are less Malisevo results. This is false, since I had already subtracted the single double hit (Cocozzelli): 9 hits, of which 4 in English, with two hits in same book, leaving 3 unique hits.

The Springer search results are still standing at 6-6, or 6-53⁄4 if you insist. --T*U (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per points of Crazydude and MS Alltan (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning towards oppose. I have been a bit hung-up in details about Google searches, so I have more or less forgotten to give my !vote. Actually, I do not care very much about whether the article is called one or the other. Both names of the village are valid, and as long as the other name versions are properly redirected, people will find it. I am, however, fed up with improper use of flawed Google searches, and especially with their interpretation, but I am sorry to say that in my quest for "clean" searches, I have contributed to making the issue even more focussed on Google. As this RfC has been presented, I am not convinced that there has been any real change towards use of the Albanian name of the village, so for the time being I will oppose the change. --T*U (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: See the change towards the use of the Albanian version on Google Scholar

1999-2014

85 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo

109 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo

109 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo

2015-today

81 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo

21 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo

21 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Google serch results have little merit, the current name is stable, common and well-known.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per great points raised by Vanjagenije and WEBDuB, I honestly do not see that the article would get better with the proposed change. --Ранко Николић (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per reasons pointed out by Crazydude. N.Hoxha (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sadko. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The evidence presented by Vanjagenije proves that the current title is WP:COMMONAME.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Further comparison

If we check on Google news which includes only recently happening events, we get this results in English news:

30 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo of which 3 hits use double names. Malisheva/Malisevo was used twice and Malisheva/Malishevo once.

0 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo but six English hits for Malisevo.

6 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo of which 3 hits use the double name Malisheva/Malisevo (notice the Albanian version first) Crazydude1912 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I see the Anti-Kosovo Brigade (TM) is out in full force. Closer, do not be deceived by numbers, but arguments. Red Slash 03:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Kosovo Brigade" is WP:ASPERSIONS and not an argument. --Griboski (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support A city in Kosovo. We must respect an official name. Mikola22 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Since online results are "equal", then the offical name should be the name of the article. Not all people who come to search the settlement on Wikipedia will do online research on other websites before. Hence in this case the offical name has priority. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the official name? The town is located in the disputed territory, while Albanian and Serbian languages ​​are official in both the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. The United Nations administration usually uses bilingual names.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

UNMIK hasn't been around since 2008. The reality on the ground as it is and is recognized by almost all of the English-speaking is that of Malishevë/Malisheva (official site of the municipality), regardless of whether someone from Serbia accepts Kosovo's independece or not - if you want to engage with the municipal authorities in this town, you will be referring to Malishevë/Malisheva. Wikipedia needs to reflect the reality on the ground.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB, we are not here to settle how the UN organizations call it. The disputed territory is a country, and has its official names. The town is a small one, and those few English speakers who would take the time to search it on Wikipedia are no doubt mostly either its citizens who live or work abroad or tourists. Its citizens abroad are clearly almost all Albanians, so they use the Albanian name Malisheva. Tourists who want to visit Kosovo and seek to get information and guide on Kosovo, will need to find it in line with the names used by the country that controls the territory and local people, not by a country that lost control over the town decades ago. Facts on the ground and daily reality shape how ordinary people, Wikipedia's moat loyal readers, search around. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a debate on the Kosovo disputed status, nor is Wikipedia a tourist promotion. I just answered the argument about the official name. That disputed territory (country, if you wsh) has official names in two languages. The UN is one of the most relevant international organizations and it has been in Kosovo for a long time. Their administration are neutral on this issue. Also, the demographic picture is the result of ethnic cleansing, it is not polite to cite “reality on the ground” as an argument. --WEBDuB (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: Even if we refer to how UNMIK calls this town we can see that they always use the Albanian name first [19].

(In Malisheva, police were present in health house and police headquarters.) Information from 19 Oct 1998, at that time "Primary country Serbia"[20] Mikola22 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

( 1999 5 March: Elife Istref Gashi (3) suffered a heart attack due to the noise of the flat flight plane over Vërmica (Malisheva)). Information from Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms - PHDN [21] Mikola22 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(The police questioned Fetah Rudi, who was in a wheelchair after being wounded in an ambush near Malisheva) Information from Serbian journalist(Author: Jelena L. Petković 30. 04. 2018.)[22] Mikola22 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB This settlement which now is a town was once a small village. In probably the first Yugoslav census to properly include the village, it was was 99.2% Albanian and had around 640 inhabitants[23]. So, when you casually put forward the idea "that the demographic picture is the result of ethnic cleansing" you are being extremely disruptive because you are perpetuating a myth that doesn't belong in the 21st century. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support The GB and the similar do not bring a clear conclusion. Someone in the "real world" ie not based on online search will be more likely to search the place by its official name, Malisheva. Sadsadas (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as Vanjagenije explained, also not per WP:Common Name. Peervalaa (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately is every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. As a matter of fact, only two editors (Ortizesp and Red Slash) that have participated in this discussion so far, are not Balkan-focused. More input from non-Balkan editors would be welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - as per arguments made above. Krelana (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by @Crazydude1912. – Βατο (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: As Vanjagenije correctly noticed: the nominator is using google search engine in a completely wrong way to support his POV.Alexikoua (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No, CD1912's results from Google Scholar were very clear about current use and how Malisheva is the dominant form in bibliography.

2015-today

81 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo

21 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo

21 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Google Books clarification As i already mentioned the town is known as an UÇK stronghold in the 90s by its Serbian name, used until 1999 and shortly after the war. Just like the city of Volgograd is in bibliography known as Stalingrad. If we look at the Google Books results this Volgograd/Stalingrad situation seems to be more or less the case here. Most of the sources which use the Serbian version refer to the time when it was known officially by the Serbian name (98,99,00). I tried to get a result from the books released from 2015-today, counted all hits known so far which refer to the town (no Ukrainian name), are not biased in any form and are refering to the current situation of the town and not the one from the 90s. This is the result i get:

10 hits for the Albanian version 1 23 45678 9 and 10 which is basically addressing the subject of the debate we're holding here stating earlier called Malishevo, but meanwhile, under the reorganisation, Malisheva.

7 hits for the Serbian version 12 and the hits that were not recognised as hits by Google Books pointed out by TU-nor 34 also from 56 7 notice always used second after the Albanian version.

This is the best we can get out of Google Books. Crazydude1912 (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding 8 (in your listings only included in Albanian list), 9, 10. Apart from that, your criteria for counting / not counting hits based on the theme of the books is your opinion and WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your 9 and 10 are from 2001 and written by Serbian authors who call the country Kosovo and Metohija. Per WP:Common Name Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations which i excluded here, since random hits on google books atleast in this case show nothing. You can make whatever You want out of this.Crazydude1912 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, a new WP:OR criterion: Serbian authors... of course have to be removed. Good grief! --T*U (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not just Serbian authors who call the country "Kosovo and Metohija" but also Albanian authors like for example in this book here were removed to provide a neutral result. You can accuse me of WP:OR. But look for instance at the last RM on the Peja/Pec article in 2019 which was not moved because of potential biases from authors even though the hits were clearly on the Albanian side. That's actually what i tried to exclude here. Lets leave it to an administrator whether or not the analysis i have presented can be taken into account. Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WEBDuB. I don't think it makes sense to repeat the same thing anymore. @Maleschreiber: Before disputing ethnic cleansing, please read this section. Thank you. Again, I think the arguments presented are weak. --Aca (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aca: Maleschreiber was quite clear about non existing ethnic cleansing campaigns in Malisheva. In probably the first Yugoslav census to properly include the village, it was was 99.2% Albanian and had around 640 inhabitants[24]. Crazydude1912 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note Sorry to say this, but as one can see from their editing history, Aca rarely edits enwiki. They come from srwiki out of the blue once in a while to support with "votes" or reverts user Sadko. If one removes all Balkan-focused editors, the move is supported by everyone else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  And the same work also for certain editors from sq wiki who from time to time invite offwiki other albanian editors in order to use wikipedia as their political propaganda tool. Therefor this attempts of changing commonname of articles into albanian ones with attempts to present those as english. Not going to pass this time... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note Most admins and bureaucrats from sr.wiki follow up WikiProject Serbia here and requested moves are fully listed there. Now - you know. What we have above is yet another tactic which has the goal to sway or influence closing admin with the idea that the voting and arguments given from people who are opposed are somehow "corrupt" and that they mean less. That is just another form of blunt discrimination and manipulation in order to achieve the wanted result, without little care for the general behaviour and civility, which also includes making blind accusations about other senior editors and the nature of their editing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The move is also supported if the closing admin only removes from the end picture all accounts with few edits apart from !votes in 2020. It's revealing of the situation that so many accounts with the same consecutive !votes in the same discussions/AfD have appeared in the last days. It highlights a greater need: in future discussions, strict admin oversight will be needed to prevent such disruption. The same problem of canvassing from sr wiki has been noted by an admin at an AfD I started a few days ago [25], so this might help the closing admin get a clearer picture of the widespread vote stacking across wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case, the admins should equally deal with canvassing and the violation of policies and by other groups of editors. Many are focused only on nationalist and anti-Serbian WP:POVPUSH and WP:CFORK. Moreover, I've experienced personal insults, disclosure of private information and long-term abuse, so no one reacted despite the reporting. Some things are obviously pretentiously ignored. That is why I beg everyone to stop creating such an atmosphere of tension and division. Also, we should not open a large number of similar RfCs and RMs at short intervals. Especially if there is an unresolved one with a heated atmosphere.---WEBDuB (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the way how traveling circus work in order to use wikipedia as propaganda tool. Create confusion and chaos and therefor, something may change from proper common name while a lot is happening. Everything is tempered here... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins should deal with every single violation of policy - that much we can agree.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on T*U's analysis of Google results which shows how unreliable they can be and as one of the few editors here without a vested interest in one side or the other. In the absence of demonstrable data that supports Malisheva being more widely used than Mališevo, I would prefer the status quo remain. --Griboski (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• As of 21:52, 24 August 2020, this discussion has been relisted. I ran the search on google scholar with Boolean operators for all variants of the two proposed names in a post-2000 setting. I checked for any false Malishevë, Gjilan results - there weren't any as is expected for a small village compared to a town/municipality. I included "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" in order to include results which use the variant "Kosova" (they are excluded in a search of only + "Kosovo"). A + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" search removes any irrelevant Malisheva/Malisev name results and I rechecked it manually. On google scholar, the correct results are printed on the first page so it has increased reliability compared to google books. The results:

"Malisheva" OR "Malishevë" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 380

"Mališevo" OR "Malisevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 177

A "Malisheva-only" or "Mališevo-only" search results in:

"Malisheva" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 215

"Mališevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 81 --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, Maleschreiber, Resnjari, Ortizesp, Alltan, N.Hoxha, Red Slash, Mikola22, Ktrimi991, Sadsadas, Krelana and Βατο. The key point for me is international recognition. For example, the city of Girne in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has an entirely Turkish-speaking population, but the main title header of its English Wikipedia entry still retains the city's Anglicized Greek name, Kyrenia, because the Turkish occupation has not been internationally recognized. On the other hand, Albanian-speaking Kosovo's independence has been recognized by 101 UN members, including the entire English-speaking world (List of states with limited recognition), thus it is counterintuitive for English Wikipedia to continue using the former name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support These discussions really create headaches. I do not understand why all this debate, despite the fact that at the end of the day is better. In any country of Europe a similar change would not have been discussed at all because there is no evidence that the name of the city has anything to do with Serbo-Croatian or if it is WP:COMMONNAME in English, while history shows that the city was always with an overwhelming Albanian majority and as such is presumed to use the name used by the locals. This most likely happened in the time of Yugoslavia where local names were probably taken and adapted to the official language of the federation than adopted by English... this is happening now that Kosovo is an independent state, although not recognized by all states, where have adapted the names in its official language, resulting in English adopting it as well. In my opinion in this cases it is better to use the WP:OFFICIALNAMES of the municipality because anyone (except maybe only Serbs) who will read this article will probably use the name in the local language, maybe because someone from that area told him, maybe because he has read in a tourist brochure etc etc. Surely if this city in the future will ever appear in a famous newspaper for a local event with a global impact, the newspaper would, without doubt, be referred to it by its local name. No one will ask for it in Serbo-Croatian because there is no reason to do so..Bes-ARTTalk 20:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Vanjagenije and WEBduB comments. Google hits are tempered and questionable, and therefor not valid. Griboski alsi have great comment. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody cited raw google hits, your comment is unsubstantiated. I cited use of the two terms in bibliography (google scholar). Note to the closing admin: this account with very little activity in English wikipedia logged in and basically made the same exact comment in three different discussions (within 4 minutes) without any regard for actual policies[26] and the arguments which were presented. Wikipedia is not a democracy and !vote comments which blatantly disregard how bibliography perceives use of terms are discouraged.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice not to lie and mislead. I opened account in 2013, unlike most of support editors, including you. Many users cited google hits, from books and search, all of those are google hits. The question of sources are more important then number of hits, as most of the books mentioned are published by either RoK or in Albanian language. So please, stop with false misrepresentation of users whose comments fail your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As User:Vanjagenije explained, this request is incorrect and i can say, tempered with. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Wikipedia. It is obvious that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors again, as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by WP:ARBMAC. Therefor this coordinated list of renaming of established article name with attempt to rename them to Albanian language, that should be presented as new "commonname". And this is happening on at least 4 articles at the moment. Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)