Talk:Vjosa

Article name

The name was Aoos and the predominant name used in scholarship is Aoos, and since antiquity. Vjose is later name.Megistias (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what should be leading in choosing the title for this article is what is most used in English, not which name was used first (which might be debatable, who knows which name the ancient Illyrians used). My guess is that both names (Aoos and Vjosë) are used in English, and that there is no clear preference, but prove me wrong. See WP:NCGN#Multiple local names and WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names for guidelines. Markussep ^Talk 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I get 1500 names with Aoos in google books, and just 500 with Vjose. Also its source is in Greece.Megistias (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I get similar results. I therefore undid the move by User:ObserverFromAbove. Athenean (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't show which name is predominantly used. In google there are 91,400 results for Aoos many of which refer to totally different subjects like the Alaska Ocean Observing System, while for Vjosë there are 196,000 results. We agree to disagree so I think we should ask for other users' opinions.--ObserverFromAbove (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Per ObserverFromAbove reasoning, I am undoing User:Athenean. Indeed Aoos in Google gives results that have nothing to do with the river. Furthermore the river is 71% in Albania and 29% only in Greece, for not talking about the quantity of water found in Albania which is significantly higher than that in Greece and also the basin of water that collects in Albania which also is significantly higher in percentage than 71-29. For all these reasons, Vjose should be the name. This is per wp:names. I recommend that we keep it that way until we reach a consensus, or we put it in RFC. --sulmues (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, river's mouth is in Albania. kedadial 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Rivers_with_multiple_names, I'll quote that if everything is equal, there should be an Albanian name, because per Wikipedia's policy, I'll quote

if everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.

--sulmues (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The arguments about the river's mouth and length and quantity of water are meaningless. The only thing that matter is frequency of usage among reliable sources. A search on Google Books for Aoos river returns 243 hits [2], and for "Aous river (an alternate spelling) 322 hits [3]. On the other hand, Google book searches for Vjosë river, Vjose river, and Vjosa river return 50 [4], 48 [5], and 71 [6], hits respectively. Thus, among reliable sources, Aoos/Aous seems far more prevalent than Vjose/Vjosa. Raw google searches are meaningless because they contain all kinds of junk (hotels, restaurants, nationalist websites). Athenean (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names kedadial 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names:If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name. The results of the Google Books search confirm that "Aoos" is the most commonly used among reliable sources. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the other two rules? kedadial 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about them? The rule I am quoting is the first one, so it takes precedence over the second one. The last rule only applies if "all else is equal", which is clearly not the case here, because "Aoos" is far more common. By the way, pretty hypocritical of you to revert me claiming that I shouldn't edit while a discussion is going on, when in fact that is exactly what you did. You made a number of controversial changes after I explained on the talkpage that Aoos is more common, completely ignoring my talkpage post. Athenean (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, I just restored it to the last stable version (before the discussion and the edit-warring began) and made some improvements to the article (irrelevant to this discussion btw). kedadial 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Love the way you just ignored the evidence in my above posts. Very smooth. Athenean (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since Athenean wants to use Google Books, rather than simply google: Even in Google Books Vjosa and its variants give more than Aoos.

Vjosa: Vjosë: 617 [7]; Vjose: 509 [8]; Vjosa: 639 [9]; Vjosës: 159 [10]; Vjoses: 159 [11]:Sum is 2083.

Aoos: Aoos gives 1582 hits ([12]), so it's an inferior number. In addition even if you look into the first page, NONE of the hits refers to the river. Case closed. --sulmues (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Sulmues has no idea what he is doing. You have to use "Aoos river" and "Vjose river", not plain Aoos and Vjose. Another thing, many of the hits for "Vjose" and "Vjosë" are duplicates. In general, "Vjosë" should not be used, because in English there are no diacritics ("ë"). Case closed indeed. Athenean (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Guess what: "Vjose river" generates 19,200 hits in Google Books ([13]) whereas "Aoos river" generates barely 1,474 ([14]). What can I say more?--sulmues (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting funnier by the minute. Newsflash: You have to use quotes, as in "Vjose river" and "Aoos river" to search for the exact phrase. Otherwise you get all the hits that contain "Vjose" and all the hits that contain "river" (19000 books that mention this mighty river? I mean, come on). But don't bother, I already did it for you above. Why do I bother with people that don't even know how to conduct a proper Google Books search? Athenean (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil everybody, and let's focus on objective arguments. If we can't get to a satisfactory result, the discussion should be announced at WP:RM. Do we agree on the following arguments?

• The river flows through Greece (about 80 km) and Albania (about 190 km)
• The source of the river is in Greece, the mouth is in Albania
• Both "Aoos" and "Vjosë" (in various forms) are used in English
• None of the names is overwhelmingly (e.g. >80%) used in English
• Existing guidelines (WP:NCGN, WP:RIVERS naming conventions) apply

Markussep ^Talk 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. Nobody is mentioning it but before consulting Google Books we have to first consult post 1993 English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta). After that we go to Google Books. --sulmues (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to change the redirect like that Sulmues diff .Megistias (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The redirect wasn't changed, was it? I suggest we leave the article as it is until we've solved this naming problem, uncontroversial changes excepted. Could you comment on my list of arguments? Markussep ^Talk 11:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to follow Markussep and WP:RIVERS to reach a consensusMegistias (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the aforementioned arguments, Aoos is the term used in specialized treatises as well. (Acta hydrochimica et hydrobiologic, 2001)Megistias (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So is Vjosë, see Annales Geophysicae (2003) 21: 345–364. Markussep ^Talk 13:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Vjose comes from the many Aoos based-variances of names. Stephanus of Byzantium is a 6th century AD writer and he mentions it as Boious (Greek: Βοϊούς). 600 years before any Albanians are mentioned in what is now north Albania let alone the southern part. Vjose is the form of the name in the modern Albanian language.Megistias (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Aoos is the most prominent name due to the historicity of the region, it was just Aoos for most of its history, and the rendition of it as Vjose is a recent one. Wikipedia:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names "If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name."Megistias (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the origin of the names, I'm not so familiar with Albanian history and etymology. The guideline you quote is valid, but I think there is disagreement about whether the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned as "Aoos". WP:NCGN#General guidelines says: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Unless the river is only mentioned in the context of classical antiquity (which isn't true), we should use the modern name for the title. Classical use is not so relevant then. Markussep ^Talk 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Vjosa name comes from Aoos, it would be like not using Danube for the Danube#Name, and using the Romanian: Dunăre, Dunărea because 28,9% of it flows through Romania.Megistias (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Dunăre appear in Encarta? Does it give more than 20% books and articles as compared to Danube? And stop saying that Albanians appeared in the 11th century (read Origin_of_the_Albanians#Written_sources_ --sulmues (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, your searches are wrong Sulmues.(also that section of Origin of the Albanians does not claim what you say....read the article)Megistias (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "Danube" is the most commonly used name in English. There is reasonable doubt that "Aoos" (or "Vjosë") is the most commonly used name in English. Etymology, or "who was first" is really irrelevant, we don't call London Londinium here, or Vienna Vindobona (except in Roman context). Markussep ^Talk 14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjosa river 5,210 hits, Aoos river 10,200Megistias (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjose cannot be used in the searches, as the Spanish name Jose is added to the results. And just "vjose river" gives merely 148 hits vjose .Megistias (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I get different results in Dutch Google: vjose river 491, vjosa river 4890, aoos river 10100, so that's 65% Aoos. Google Books: vjose river 48, vjosa river 71, aoos river 243, so that's 67% Aoos. Britannica has Vjosë in its "Albania" article, and Aóös in its "National park" article (referring to Vikos-Aoos park). Columbia doesn't mention it, Encarta has been discontinued. Markussep ^Talk 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My god, this can't be possible!!! How can someone citing "amounts of water" seriously participate in a discussion about this? This is pretty simple. Vjose or whatever is just the albanian version of the name Aoos and I think it is different enough from 'Aoos' to win itself a mention in the brackets. :) The name Aoos is simply more notable because of the very notable Vikos-Aoos national park.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google Books for Aoos river returns 243 hits [15], and for "Aous river (an alternate spelling) 322 hits [16]. On the other hand, Google book searches for Vjose river, and Vjosa river return 48 [17], and 71 [18], hits respectively. Thus, among reliable sources, Aoos/Aous seems far more prevalent than Vjose/Vjosa. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is because Aoos was used in antiquity, so google books may contain a little bit more because they are taking all the sources of books that were written in the course of 2000 years. Modern English sources have more "Vjose" than "Aoos", and that's what we should be going with per WP:NCGN#General guidelines --sulmues (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, and it's not "little bit more", it's an order of magnitude more. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We go with rivers and Aoos is the name. Someone change the redirect and lets go on with our editing.Megistias (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, please do not continue an edit war on this. --sulmues (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Data shows otherwise and we are not edit warring. Megistias (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not an argument. The case that "Aoos" is more prevalent than Vjose has been backed by Google Books searches. Sulmues has been unable to refute this, and is now left with saying "I disagree". Case closed, sorry. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative, I disagree because you are failing to convince me that those books are modern. --sulmues (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is of course and empty argument, they are modern, but even then it doesn't really matter, what really matters is that Aoos is 2-5 times more common than Vjose in the English literature. But at this point though, I don't think it's possible for me to convince you of anything, at any time, ever. Athenean (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some "modern" books that refer to the river as "Aoos" [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Actually, all 10/10 books from just the first page of hits [28] are "modern" (2nd half of 20th century and 21st century). Probably Sulmues didn't even bother looking at the Google Books search. Athenean (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep looking at all of them. I noticed that the other pages are older. --sulmues (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have. I don't think you have, though, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. For example, page 10 from the Google Book search [29]. You seem to have forgotten (or pretending to have forgotten) that the Aoos flows through Greece as well, and because lots more books have been written about Greece than Albania, that is why most books call it the Aoos. It's not a historical name. It's the actual name of the river in Greece and every single book written about Greece that mentions the river will call it Aoos and never "Vjose". Athenean (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your persistance is not a source or an argument Sulmues.Megistias (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As Markussep said ("There is reasonable doubt that "Aoos" (or "Vjosë") is the most commonly used name in English."), "Aoos" is not the predominant name used in English. So we have to follow WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names. Thank you. kedadial 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Markussep said this [30], 65-67% Aoos. Case closed, no point in discussing with people who pretend not to hear. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That shows that the 80% test doesn't pass. The books write about the river in Greece, not the one in Albania, so they are about the Greek part of the river. This article though refers to the WHOLE RIVER. I still continue to disagree with renaming it--sulmues (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First it was that Aoos is not more common than Vjose, then it was that the sources that call it Aoos are too old. Now it's this "80% test" that you have made up out of thin air. The argument about "the Greek part of the river" is a total joke. It's the same river. And twice as many sources refer that river as "Aoos" than they do as "Vjose". Athenean (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I'm a bit disappointed that Athenaean moved the article when the discussion was clearly not yet finished. But well, back to objective arguments. Note that Google results may well be distorted by the fact that more Greeks than Albanians publish in English, which is understandable given the isolation Albania has experienced until the early 1990s. A 2:1 ratio is not overwhelming IMO, but I don't think we have good definitions of "overwhelming". The Albanian part of the river is longer and more populated than the Greek part, but that not an overwhelmingly convincing argument either. My conclusion is: both names are used and valid, neither one is "bad" as a title. I see no compelling reason to move either way. Markussep ^Talk 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was disappointed too. The discussion is ongoing and I found it arrogant that Megistias and Athenean made edits before reaching a consensus in the talk page. --sulmues (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, a move war. Couldn't we just add {{POV-title}} tags instead?--Ptolion (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues restore the article. What you did was outright vandalism, you removed references and quotes diffMegistias (talk)`

@Markus: The reason I moved it is because to me, if 67% of sources use "Aoos" over "Vjose", that is sufficient grounds for a move. 67% mean twice as many sources use "Aoos" than "Vjose". In my Google Books search, I get 243 and 322 hits for Aoos/Aous and only 48/71 for Vjose/Vjosa. That is an order of magnitude more. If that is only because of Albania's isolation, that is too bad. Anyway, I am happy to discuss this with you, however, I am done discussing with Sulmues. I have no time for people who make up rules as they go along. First he argued that Aoos is not more commonly used than Vjose because he didn't know how to conduct a basic Google Books search. When I showed otherwise, he started arguing that the sources that use "Aoos" are "old". When I showed otherwise, he made up an "80% test" and nonsense about the "Greek part of the river". Clearly, there is no point in discussing with such an individual. Now, where you and I differ is in the definition of overwhelming. To me 243+322 >> 48+71, so I think this is sufficient grounds for a move. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That still does not make up the vast majority. kedadial 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"That still does not make up the vast majority" is a completely empty argument. It's not even an argument. I don't know how you define "vast majority", but it's over 80%, which is the "vast majority" as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

65 != 80 kedadial 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

243+322=565. 48+71=119. 565/(565+119)=82.6%! Athenean (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many variances of Aoos, perhaps more than 10, and Vjose itself is a variance of it. Megistias (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

earthquake

Has anyone found anything on the earthquake?Megistias (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can read French or German (or trust automatic translaters), this is interesting: French, German. It's about the ancient city Apollonia (40.7215°N 19.4729°E / 40.7215; 19.4729), that used to have a river port on the river Aoos/Vjosë, but now lies about 7 km from the river. The French article says that there was an earthquake in the 2nd century, one in 345 AD, and that the city was abandoned in the 5th century. On a little map they drew the old course of the river, but they don't say when the course was changed, might be as late as the 5th century. Markussep ^Talk 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the river port reference in already. But can't yet find a complete ref to elaborate the earthquakeMegistias (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd century AD earthquake in the area refMegistias (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That ref is about Oricum, southwest of Vlorë, not far from Apollonia and the Vjosë indeed. This earthquake might have affected the course of the river, not sure. Markussep ^Talk 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Name issue

I believe the best indication in such issues (when a common to two countries river has two different names) is the most common usage in the English language. I think a look in the google hits can solve the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, your revert to my changes is inadequate. It can be done when the article name is Aoos, but it isn't. Right now it's Vjose, and I think it should remain so, based on the discussion above.--sulmues (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But the present name is that because of Sulmues' move warring. I refused move warring and started a discussion. You accuse me for not continuing what Sulmues did? I disagree with the move, but I don't think that an edit war can solve the name issue. Is this the way according to you? To end up all of us banned? Lets discuss it calmly and we will find a solution. --Factuarius (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a series of moves that started with Megistias' move which occurred on 3/2/2010 ([31]). Then Athenean and Megistias moved again before the discussion had ended. Now Athenean is going from 67% to 82% with some sophistic math from google hits. --sulmues (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is exactly why you do not need to be taken seriously anymore. You casually dismiss evidence that proves you wrong as "sophistic math from google hits" (whatever that means). There is no "sophistic math", only evidence from Google Books.

• "Aoos river": 243 hits [32]
• "Aous river": 322 hits [33]
• "Vjose river": 48 hits [34]
• "Vjosa river": 71 hits [35]

When you do the math, that's over 80% in favor of Aoos/Aous. You tried several lines of arguments ("Not the majority", "too old", "the Greek part of the river", "80% test"), and every time you have been proven wrong. Now that you have no arguments left, you are just trolling and being disruptive. Enough. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. If you persist with the trolling and disruption I will report you. Athenean (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You have forgotten the forms

• "Viosa river": 129 hits [36],
• "Viose river": 48 hits [37]

which bring your Aoos percentage at 65%. --sulmues (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when are percentages an argument in Wikipedia? And still, sulmues, they are against you!! Now, you should bring some good arguments and evidence to back your case, or we shouldn't waste time and space in this any more. Vjose or whatever is not interesting, geographically, historically, or even linguistically.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We agreed above with Markussep that 80% is warranted for a redirect. The interest to the name might shift during a period of time that is much shorter than a lifetime and we should follow Wiki policies for redirects. --sulmues (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"We agreed"? As far as I can tell, you are only agreeing with yourself. Can you show me where Markussep agreed to your made-up "80% test"? Athenean (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aoos is more prominent, due to the park in Greek, scholarship, history and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

80% was my suggestion, apparently Sulmues agrees with it. There is no percentage defined above which a name is clearly the most commonly used one, this just seems a clear cutoff to me. My problem with this discussion is that it's leading nowhere as long as it's Greeks vs. Albanians. I don't think any of us are native English speakers, am I right? Markussep ^Talk 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll declare neutral. The 65% advance of "Aoos" in Google books is substantial but not quite strong enough for me to force the issue. The fact that "Aoos"/"-us" will strongly predominate in one important topic domain, discussions of classic antiquity, adds some weight to that side. On the other hand, there's the "longer part" rule of the naming guideline, which clearly favours the Albanian name. To my mind, that's pretty much equal weights. Throw some wiki-dice and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I threw the wiki-dice but equilibrated in the cavity floor. Until someone else will be more lucky or Fut will give us a better solution should we move it into "Vjosë-Aoos"?--Factuarius (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name to Vjosa?

"Vjosa" has 368.000 Google results, "Aoos" has 58.000 results and "Aoös" only 7.500 results. The name Vjosa has about 6 times more usages than the Greek name Aoos. In addition, Vjosa has has a length in Albanian of two times its length in Greece. The Google Scholar arguments above are fabricated because most books naming the river as Aoos are Greek authors writing in English. Concretely, 13 of the top 20 results are Greek authors and this is not an objective metric of what people call the river in English. As such, most arguments are in favor of the name Vjosa (most used in English (Google) and the version called in the country it occurs the longest).

Hey Sulmues, socks of indef blocked users don't get participate in naming disputes on wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj

Shaban Demiraj , this fella is not RS, with his Pelasgians and so on. The name is definetely ancient Greek with no doubt.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the reference that you just deleted includes that Elsie says exactly saying the same. Are you gonna boot Elsie from RS too? --sulmues (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Elsi is not a specialized linguist on Illyrian languages, ancient Greek or in ancient History. He writes about Albanians, most on Folklore and some recent history.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then tough luck, because Demiraj is the best Illyrist in the world right now. Has been studying it since 1955. --sulmues (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The best "Illyrist"? According to who? You? You've been told he's not an RS, drop it. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell me who is a best Illyrist than Demiraj. I'm all ears. --sulmues (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues please, dont add aboutnames again, you did it twice diff, diff. Demiraj is just a negligible with no value or worth.Megistias (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

aboutnames is a reliable source for baby first names, what's wrong with it? --sulmues (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, you have been editing for a long time. You should already know.Its a commercial website. Megistias (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? What are they selling? --sulmues (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They are selling nothing, therefore it is not a commercial website, but a quite reliable database of baby names. Added back. --sulmues (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Added two more sources to show that it is a common female name in Albania. --sulmues (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy guys. Demiraj is as credible and RS as the fellow Greek sources in here. If we would like to put him out, than lets put all Albanian and all Greek sources out and try to find other sources. What makes Demiraj an unreliable source? As far as I know he is well-respected in linguistics. (and generally I have a really bad idea about balkanian historians and lingusts).Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'll strike out all the Greek sources if Demiraj is removed. --sulmues (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous suggestion. Anybody who dabbles with the Pelasgian theory of Albanian descent is a clown and not RS. That is NOT a reason to remove the Greek sources, which will be treated as disruption and dealt with accordingly. Athenean (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Demiraj writing on Pelasgians, but if he has written on them, that doesn't mean he is unreliable source. Are the Pelasgians some sort of tabu, so that once that a scholar writes on them, he becomes unreliable? In addition, Shaban Demiraj has been the President of the Academy of Sciences of Albania for four years, he can't be that foolish. --sulmues (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that says more about the Albanian Academy of Sciences than it does about Demiraj. Athenean (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am re-entering this for Athenean! Actually, I think this says more about you and your POV. You keep editing Albania related articles and try to make Albanian sources unreliable while stressing your 'Greek' scholars as trustful. THIS IS A FACT but I see you don't like facts so you keep removing or editing them! We won't tolerate any greekefication of albanian related articles by you! This is not trolling, but a message for you to keep your hands off the albanian articles because of your POV. And please do not remove this comment! If you have something to say on this regard (you editing so many Albanian articles) just talk below where you can explain your position freely. thank you! Piasoft (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Your comment was and is trolling and I was actually doing you a favor by retracting it. It only makes you look aggressive and bad. But hey, if you don't care about how you come across, don't let me stop you. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't readd Demiraj, similar claims, or aboutames again Sulmues.Megistias (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj is, among other things, the author of the "Albanian" chapter in The Indo-European Languages, ed. Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paolo Ramat, Routledge 1997, a top-quality reference work on Indo-European linguistics. This means he is definitely a respected scholar in the field. Megistias, stop talking about things you do not understand. Megistias and Athenean, your remarks about this guy border on the defamatory and might get you blocked for BLP violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have contributed to regular publications, but in this book he does not fail to go into Pelasgians and the such.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do recall we had a similar case with an Albanian historian born in France (in the Pelasgians article, when Dodona user was still editing), that had written normal material on other issues, but when he go to an issue similar at hand, he reverted to a familiar pattern.Megistias (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj doubles in Pelasgians & Etruscans. Epiri, pellazg·et, etrusk·et dhe shqiptar·et, 2008 by Shaban Demiraj

• Epirus, Pelgasgians, Etruscans & Shqiptars?!Megistias (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not for you to judge; you are not among the wikipedians who could have anything to say in a discussion about what is or isn't a reliable linguistic source. As to the matter at hand, Demiraj actually doesn't seem to be saying anything particularly exotic. He just reports that Krahe (the leading authority on ancient river names in older scholarship) classified the name as of Illyrian origin (that would be in Hans Krahe, Die alten balkanillyrischen geographischen Namen: auf Grund von Autoren und Inschriften, Heidelberg: Winter, 1925, which I can check next week); and he then reports other scholars discussing whether the transmission from the ancient name to the present Albanian went directly or via intermediate transmissiont through Slavic, judging that it didn't. Not a revolutionary claim, but I can't assess its details without the full context. Unfortunately, the Demiraj book is given only in very short excerpts in Google books search and I have no access to the print book through my library system. Anybody got the full context? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He seems to just point out that its not Slavic or effected by, that it was Aoos/us in the antiquity and that Vjosa came from Vivosa with some Roman influnece due to colonization.Also that Slavic forms are Vajusa and Vojusa (157 page). Megistias (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Kushtrim123 is aggresively reverting [38]. I don't see Demiraj mentioning the mentioning that the name is Illyrian, nor do I see any references to Elsie. This is just mindless revert-warring. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I added what its stated regarding the name. See the linked refMegistias (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The first ref points to a passage where it says "the ancient Ἀώος survives in the form Vojusa". This is preceded by another sentence that says "The relationship between these two names is not clear". Which two names does that sentence refer to? – the only other thing I can read in the link is the following sentence: "It is possible that the Greeks have denominated it by the proper name Ἀίας, with which the river name /Ἀίαντος/ is identical in declension." – I'll be damned if I know what this is supposed to mean. Without more context, there's no way I could assess what the author wants to say here. – Also, why was the reference to Krahe removed; has nobody yet found out what Demiraj's own conclusion/position regarding that hypothesis is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He does not endorse Krahe, just mentions him, he is more interested in debunking any Slavic influence on the Vjose name (dedicating several pages on this) and thus pointing out that Albanians came before the Slavs. The rest of that part goes on "includes this river name among the Illyrian geographical names. According to this scholar, the following forms are evidenced: (nominative) Aous by Plinius and Livius,". In 153 page, before the Aias part he writes "In a footnote Krahe points out: "The relationship between these two names is not clear. ...". In 154 he gives a list of the variant names in the middle ages to the 19th century, from 1305 to 1888.Megistias (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks so far. (BTW, I assume you too are reading this on Google books. Does anybody know why some of us can see more of the text than others?) – Can I still ask, what "two names" is that sentence referring to? Aoos and Aias? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You can try to "" the text you want to see in the search, and add part of the text found on the page. You can in this way see more of the text and by adding proper words, see most of the page. The two names refers to something that Krahe says at 153, i think its the name change to Vojusa but i can't see it clearly. Its Krahe so you should be able to find it in Krahe's 1925, Die Alten balkaniIllyrischen geographischenMegistias (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Basin section

[39] this will help for some info on the basin. --sulmues (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Entered the map as per rivers policies. --sulmues (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map doesnt fit in the article yet, we 'll do something about that in the futureMegistias (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It fit just fine. It is the map of the basin. Why did you get it out? --sulmues (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought the map of the river's basin back. --sulmues (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"definite form"

I notice Factuarius was also revert-warring recently over the sentence "Vjosa is the definite form in Albanian". This is absurd. How could a brief note explaining a morphological alternation between the two Albanian name forms constitute "POV pushing" [40]? Does Factuarius even understand what "definite form" means? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the policy of Wikipedia in regards to stating all the declination forms of a word when the name of the place stems from case rich languages such as Greek, Albanian, or German. A word is declined in indefinite or definite forms in Albanian, so you have potentially 10 forms (5 cases each). In official Albanain only the indefinite form of the nominative case is used for place names in a dictionary (and aside is stated the definite form), but I noticed that the Greek editors tend to give all forms, and I did the same. Could someone please clarify as to what forms are we supposed to write on an article? --sulmues (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is Factuarius' reverts actually had nothing to do with it. Maybe he thought "X is the definite form in Albanian" was a botched-up way of saying "its name is definitely X in Albanian"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fut never ending terrorizing me, now is in my mind. My mistake. --Factuarius (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Hey what are you doing Kushtrim? diff. Please restore it.Megistias (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just deleted a source for the Kalivac project that did not exist any longer - not only the link, but the entire website was not reachable. Further, I corrected the sentence that the 90 MW Kalivac power plant was generating electricity. I passed by recently and found the construction work still stalled, and local engineers told me that since many years, there is no construction progress. The construction group, though, pretends it, see . No other sources could be found that tell why construction is stopped since so long. -Bjorn, June 6th, 2012

References

Name

Still waiting replies for my proposition of 17/3 about the name. If we have a consensus I am going to move it tomorrow. --Factuarius (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean moving it to a bilingual name, I oppose. See Talk:Soča for a similar case. Markussep ^Talk 16:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From your previous post about the Google hits you suggest Aoos or am I wrong? --Factuarius (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On 4 March I wrote "My conclusion is: both names are used and valid, neither one is "bad" as a title. I see no compelling reason to move either way.", and I still feel that way. Markussep ^Talk 16:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2015

Aoös → Vjosë – Most common names based on Google books results: Overall Vjosë is more commonly used in reference to the River as the third and fourth results include hits for the Aoos national park, meaning the hits for 'Aoos' are exaggerated by this. Ujkrieger (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Aoös River" >> 9 Results, Google Books (English only)has away
• "Vjosë River" >> 56 Results, Google Books (English only)
• "Aoös" >> 731 Results, Google Books (English only) (Includes hits for the 'Vikos-Aoos National Park')
• "Vjosë" >> 698 Results, Google Books (English only)

Ujkrieger (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vjosa is the internationally recognized name. Given that this river is in Albania, it has to be called like it is called over there. Otherwise it would be like calling Istanbul Constantinople, just because it used to be an old version of its name. (Edvin (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

• Oppose Google Books shows "Aoos" to be at least 5 times more common than the Albanian name [41]. Google Book search above is incompetently conducted, perhaps intentionally so. For example, "Aoos river" gets 999 hits [42] (none of them to national park), whereas "Vjose river" only gets 263 hits [43]. Something fishy is going on. That the Greek name is far more common is not surprising since 1) The river features prominently in antiquity (e.g. Battle of the Aous), 2) it is the main feature of a well-known Greek national park (Vikos-Aoos National Park), 3) Greece is a more visited country, and the Greek language far better known around the world than Albanian language. Athenean (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support. First off how was this article's name changed to Aoos in the first place? I was going through the history editing part of this article and it occurred without consensus last year. Considering that there was a whole discussion and no consensus on changing it (note the whole discussion above about a previous move proposal) to Aoos and in light of that how is it that such a change occurred [[44]] without consensus? I ask administrators to have a look at what has occurred. In a similar article on a mountain Maja Ksulje e Priftit the Albanian name was changed without consensus in 2010 [45]. An experienced editor changed it back [[46]] in 2014 and wrote the reason for undoing that move as "Bobrayner moved page Šerupa to Maja Ksulje e Priftit over redirect: Dubious undiscussed move. Try getting a consensus through WP:RM first". No consensus first of all was done to get it to be changed to Aoos and the article has not been called that for to long. Hence regarding the policy on requested moves it says about non consensual article title changes in the section "Undiscussed moves: Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move." Considering that this page has controversies and the previous move was done without even a discussion, i call on administrators to consider this matter according to policy > [47].Resnjari (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When doing a Google Ngram, the results give a decline regarding usage of Aoos: [48], while Vjosa is substantially high [[49]]. So it depends on what one uses to determine If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.. Those results favour Vjosa. Nonetheless, administrators need to take into account that the name change done last year from Vjosa to Aoos was done without consensus or even a discussion. All of the policy must be taken into account.Resnjari (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I also did a google scholar search of the terms and different results appear. Regarding the term Aoos, spelt Aoös with diacritics as the current article has, only 26 results [50]. As Aoös river only 11 results [51]. Spelt as Aoos river without diacritics 19, 900 results [52]. After going through page by page, the search engine picked hybrid terms from course written as Aoos/Vjosa river and Vjosa/Aoos river [53], [54], [55] while also picking up the word river without the word Aoos next to it [56]. And after page it is this generic pickup of the word river that dominates the results from page 27 onwards with very sparse mention of Aoos, if at all [57]. Instead sources that have the word river cite rivers in Mississippi etc etc [58], [59] etc. Regarding the form Vjosa, on its own it returns 757 results [60]. While in the form Vjosa river, scholar returns 436 results [61]. With diacritics the from Vjosë river returns 75 results [62] while when spelt as Vjose river without diacritics returns 19, 300 results [63] and are problematic just like the Aoos one that returned a similar number. I light of such problematic data administrators need take this into account as the policy on Naming conventions (geographic names) WP:WIAN states that:

"Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage, we are interested in hits which are in English, represent English usage, mean the place in question, and are not duplicates of each other or of Wikipedia. Search engine results can fail on all of these. Google may give unreliable estimates at the onset of a search; it is often preferable to restrict the competing searches to less than 1000 hits, and examine the number of hits on the final page. Google does not return more than 1,000 actual results; hit counts above this are estimates which cannot readily be examined, and are imperfect evidence of actual usage. Adding additional search terms may reduce the number of hits to this range, but adds additional random variance."

Also the policy does cite that:

"Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include:

   *major English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia);
   *widely used atlases (examples: The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, the Oxford Atlas of the World);
   *gazetteers (examples: Cambridge World Gazetteer, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America);
   *databases such as the Geographic Names Information System;
   *maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.
   *Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names, such as the United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below), the Geographical Names Board of Canada, etc.
   *For modern country names, The World Factbook maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated.
   *For spelling of place names, a good reference is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.

English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. However, major global sources are generally reliable, such as major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London) or wire services (examples: Reuters, Associated Press). Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution."

I cite this from the policy as the article title was for one unilaterally changed without even an attempted discussion at least to show good faith (and due in part to some editors who use to keep an eye out on this article no longer being active) and that already there has been previous discussion (see above which was quite contested) about a change of name and no consensus was reached. As the policy does say that google results are to be treated with caution, these other sources of which are used in English publications which also are authoritative would need to be considered.Resnjari (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When undertaking the decision for this article, apart from google search to be treated with caution as they give varying and problematic results awareness needs to also be towards bias as outlined in Wikipedia guidelines: WP:WORLDVIEW. Saying that one language is more commonly known than another around the world (however that is defined)and that should be the basis alongside how many tourists a country gets overall as opposed say to the specific area should also be taken with caution. For instance regarding languages like Greek and its being known, that may be so to editors on Wikipedia from the European and Anglophone countries, but that cannot be substantiated that that reality is so in other parts of the world, say in Africa, Asia, the Middle East etc. Thus WP:BIAS needs to also be taken into account too.Resnjari (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

-T*U analysis of Google searches is inline with Wikipedia policy that's states that google searches need to be taken with caution. The following two names spelled with or without diacritics gives off multiple and varying results as even shown by that editor. Also having both names in a Google Ngram diagram takes in sources that use both names and so on giving different results to ones that are separate. Any of these can be interpreted as being "truth" or "misleading" depending on ones take on the matter. Having them separately shows different results. One can use this or that to advance the argument that this name dominates over the other. As google searches are problematic (as stated in the policy and shown by various editors) Wikipedia has established guidelines that in such circumstances authoritative sources in English should also be taken into consideration when that occurs, as per the policy regarding geographical names. Moreover the unilateral change undertaken last year was done without a discussion nor consensus, and keeping the title Aoos would be contravening Wikipedia rules and legitimizing behavior not done in good faith. Its up to the administrators though whether the policy is upheld or not.Resnjari (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: English Googlehits are in favor of Aoos by a ratio of 5v1: as stated in point #1 in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming: If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Using Google hits requires some care to get relevant countings. To avoid Wikipedia hits it is recommended to use the search string arguments -wikipedia and -llc (the latter refers to books printed directly from Wikipedia). Furthermore, if one wants to search for a string like "river Vjosa", it is necessary to put the string between quotation marks, like "river Vjosa". If they are omitted, the search will find hits that contain the two words, but not necessarily in connection. Then there is the problem of different versions of the names (Aoos, Aoös, Aous and Vjosa, Vjosë, Vjose), which can be solved by using the Boolean operator OR. Also, the phrase could be either "river X" or "X river", giving additional arguments. In a case like this, it is best to search for sites that use either Aoos/Aoös/Aous or Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose, ignoring sites that use both names. That can be achieved using arguments like -Vjosa, -Aous etc. The whole search string for Vjosa will then be

"Vjosa river" OR "Vjosë river" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "river Vjosë" OR "river Vjose" -wikipedia -llc -Aoös -Aoos -Aous

for Aoös

"Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc -Vjosa -Vjosë -Vjose

Finally, the count given by Google on the first result page is not correct. To find the correct number of hits, it is necessary to go to the last result page.

Results in Google:

Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose 369 hits

Aoös/Aoos/Aous 374 hits

Results in Google Books:

Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose 119 hits

Aoös/Aoos/Aous 306 hits

Results in Google Scholar:

Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose 209 hits

Aoös/Aoos/Aous 186 hits

Then a comment to the nGrams of Resnjari. To describe it as "a decline regarding usage of Aoos, while Vjosa is substantially high" is rather misleading. When you show both in the same diagram, the picture is a bit different. Aoos has been dominant and is still in the lead.

To sum up: Google search even, Google Scholar slight advantage Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose, Google Books and nGram clear advantage Aoös/Aoos/Aous. My conclusion: A not very strong, but still clear Oppose. --T*U (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but you should count these as well:

Viosa river Google Books - 208

Voyusa river Google Books - 91

Viusa river Google Books - 1

Viyusa river Google Books - 1

Viyosa river Google Books - 1

As you can see there is variation in the Albanian name as well. The math changes. Mondiad (talk)

Two fallacies (as I have explained in some detail above):

1) You are showing the first page of the search result, not the last. The numbers would then be 71 hits for "Viosa river" and 42 hits for "Voyusa river".

2) The hits you find in your search are not unique, but includes lots of pages that are already counted, since they contain more than one version of the name. The correct search would then go like this:

"Vjosa river" OR "Vjosë river" OR "Vjose river" OR "Voyusa river" OR "Viosa river" OR "Viusa river" OR "Viyusa river" OR "Viyosa river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "river Vjosë" OR "river Vjose" OR "river Voyusa" OR "river Viosa" OR "river Viusa" OR "river Viyusa" OR "river Viyosa" -wikipedia -llc -Aoös -Aoos -Aous gives 188 hits.

That is still far behind 306 hits for Aoos/Aoös/Aous (and I have not counted "Aius" or "Avos"), so the math does not change. Please avoid using "raw" searches, since they do not give relevant results. --T*U (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per excellent analysis by TU-nor. Dr. K. 16:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Editor Ujkrieger who initiated this RM did not follow wikipedia rules for GBS to present only last page with wikipedia and llc deducted. They did the same thing a couple of days ago, at Talk:Balšić noble family. This kind of false GBS analysis, gives false advantage Vjose (56 instead of 12). Honest approach and correct analysis of TU-nor gives advantage to current title. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support per excellent analysis by Ujkriger, Vjose has more google hit. Internationel00 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Internationel00 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Support - Vjose/Voyusa/Vjosa/Viosa/Viusa/Viyusa/Viyosa has more Google Books hits than what is presented above by TU-nor, though I must admit did a good job. I listed above more than 300 Google Books on variants of the Albanian name. Mondiad (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mondiad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Strongly Oppose Per excellent analysis by TU-nor - plus I feel the necessity to clarify something: The user above claim that the river Aoos is an Albanian river, and he is wrong. People should not forget that Aoos begins in Greece, with its water sources being Pindus, in Greece, and thus, Aoos is a transnational river, and was known internationally by the name Aoos for 2.000 years, long before the Albanian name for it came. I storngly believe that we stick with its historical and international name which was and still is Aoos. --SilentResident (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The name was changed after 1914, actually in the 30s. Same time when Vodena was changed to Edessa, Margellic became Margariti, Yeni Vardar became Gianitsa and so on. I can continue for miles here. The Greek authorities pushed and succeeded in removing all Slavic/Albanian/Turkish/Vlach toponyms and placing ancient ones or new Greek ones where possible. There are articles in Wikipedia with lists of onomastic changes in post-WWI Greece.

And if Aoos or Aous starts in Greece, most of it lays in Albania, which by the way, hasn't changed any toponyms at all. Mondiad (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make, but the name of the river in Greek has always been Aoos. It was never changed. And yes, it does actually start in Greece. So there's no "if". Athenean (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they told you at school. And my point is that you can't pretend that the "Greek" name is older whilst Greeks didn't use that name at all until 1930s. And do you mind telling what Aoos mean in Greek? Mondiad (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this article @Mondiad:, it was moved from its name Vjosa to Aoos last year without discussion nor consensus. A name change should NOT have been initiated by Ujkreiger, but for it to have been taken to the Administrators to have been looked at. Most of these editors here who have voted to keep a move undertaken in bad faith have once not said that what occurred last year was at the very least problematic. Not once ! I have found this most interesting considering that undertaking such a unilateral move on a article that has already had multiple discussions already about name changes, that such a thing would at the very least not have occurred in 2014 before a change occured. Had a Albanian editor done this we would not have heard the end of it and that editor would be hauled over to arbitration with the same lot of editors trying to get that person either sanctioned or banned. I learned with this article that rules by these editors are only employed when it suits their interests. Moreover after a couple of days of this article's name change process being active, a whole host of editors of whom do not edit this article just appeared as if out of no where and to place their vote, and hence "consensus" is being achieved in wanting to keep a sneaky underhanded title move of last year. The administrators are more than likely to keep this Aoos title for now even though the name change was done through bad faith means and problematic google results making the case for its maintenance. For me this process has been to draw out these editors and to see the dynamics, their views and actions as they have done down below. This article is good for Albanian editors to look at as to know what editors they may encounter on a certain article, how to undertake themselves in measured way and this has been my primary aim. News has reached me regarding certain matters and i thank these editors in engaging with me regarding their comments down below. It has been most illuminating. They have been of invaluable assistance without even knowing it. I thank all non-Albanian editors involved. As for Albanian editors, as numbers a very low (and always have been) this should be taken as a template for newbees. Otherwise it takes too long to explain what to be aware of as i have tried many times with few taking heed of such matters. As for Resnjari (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Two accounts (Mondiad, User:Internationel00) showed up here after Resnjari sent them this [[64]][[65]] in their native language. Appears to be a case of disruptive wp:CANVASSing.Alexikoua (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating left and right in every talk page that Resnjari sent me and some others. Who sent you by the way. How is it possible that whenever Athenean is involved in any discussion, you are too, with a likelihood of 100% ? Mondiad (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment:If you have any allegations you want to make please take them to the appropriate forums. Opinions based on conjecture or hunches are just that. Yes messages were sent to those two editors of which you cite. Yes they were sent to them in Albanian. Yes it was in regards to the article on Permet for them to have a look at any spelling and grammar issues and my Albanian (and one can see even on their page is horrible. I live in the diaspora after all. I can speak and read, but cannot not write) not the best. As it was for Albanian Wikiepdia, i sent the message in Albanian and i have received messages in English on Albanian wikipedia which other editors have complained that they cannot understand. Its on my Albanian talk page. Tough luck to them. Anyway I waited and no reply was received from those editors and then went and did the edits myself, though more is needed [[66]],[[67]]. You claim that it was in relation to Vjosa and Aoos. Without basis, just appearances why in my massage have i not cited those two words, but Permet instead. But wait you say, they came to this page. That proves what, that they can see my contributions page like you can. After bad grammer like that one will check what was that editor on about anyway (i though it was clear, but i looks like it was not sadly) -in hindsight i should stick to english. I have done it with other editors to see what's up. My contributions page is full of edits to the Vjosa page. Like you, i do check other editors pages once in a while when sometimes something appears of interest to me to have a further look. Are you somehow inferring that i was canvassing when no mention of Vjosa or Aoos was cited. If you have any further issues take them in the appropriate forums. Otherwise opinions such as "appears to be" are to kept private in the confines of ones person. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

wp:Canvass should also be mentioned here, since the participants have voted here. You also need to respect WP:SPEAKENGLISH. By the way you communicate with the specific editors in English very well apart from this "tiny" exception. No wonder both users removed this "trace" of canvassing immediately. Unfortunately for you the history log can't be deleted.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, so when people on my Albanian talkpage from English Wikipedia come and write things in English, i should say to speak Albanian. ok will apply the same principles.Resnjari (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Resnjari, this is the appropriate forum. I've made a note below, so the closing admin is aware of your dirty tactics. Athenean (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol ! All in the eye of the beholder and interpretation. Look you can defend a article whose name was in a sneaky manner changed without consensus and discussion in the first place. One can refer to that as "dirty tactics". Or that other editors who support the status quo of this article title (done without discussion and so on) and who barely if at all come to edit this article all "of a sudden" have interest in the matter. The accusation can fall the other way too regarding WP:FALSECON. That there are few Albanian editors on Wikipedia is true and the portal is inactive and why the sneaky article change last year went unnoticed. The administrators can take that on board too if they wish or not. Its most likely that the article will probably for the time being stay as "Aoos" as Ujkreiger should not have brought this on this early but by placing this on the portal and so on. Its like with other editors wanting to make name title changes to Kosovar pages bring the matter to early, knowing that it will almost always be one editor with one view and plenty with an opposing view.Resnjari (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment SilentResident, the river starts in Albania not in Greece it comes from the Adriatic sea and then in from Albania and out to Greece, and the thing is Greece only have like 15-20 procent of the river.Internationel00 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious, Internationel00? Are you basically claiming that the river Aoos starts out at the Adriatic sea(!), climbs the land(!), and is pouring into the mountains of Pindus in Greece(!)? Omg... You don't have any clues of how the Earth's gravity works at all, do you? If you don't know about rivers in general, and especially about Aoos, then, I am afraid that your vote should be considered invalid by the moderators... --SilentResident (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Vardar river starts in Macedonia and empties out in Greece. Most of the Vardar river in in Macedonia, just like the Vjosa is. Three quarters of the river is in one state Albania and is named Vjosa there, not Aoos. Anyway its also similar with the article name on Wikipedia about it being Vardar not Axios, though some Greek editors have "argued" for it to be changed. The arctile's name was Vjosa until last year and was changed without even this process being initiated. Anyway as for "Speak English". Lol ! Then i should not get article requests on my Albanian talkpage in English from people in English Wikipedia. Please write them down in Albanian. Thankyou.Resnjari (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing for !votes by User:Resnjari

The closing admin should be aware that User:Resnjari went canvassing for !votes by fellow Albanian users [68] [69] [70]. He did so in a roundabout way, avoiding direct mention of the river, but he mentions instead the town through which it flows. Google translate gives a fairly good idea of how he tried to do this [71]. When I ask Resnjari to translate exactly what he wrote on their talkpages [72], he fudges and doges [73] and avoids answering directly. Within minutes of Resnjari posting on the talkpages of these users, the two that are still active (Mondiad and Internationel00) appeared here out of nowhere to cast their !vote almost simultaneously [74] [75]. Athenean (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit in the Albanian wiki is more explicit when viewed in Google translate. --T*U (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you got something to say, take it to arbitration. Editors in here are arguing for the status quo that was brought about a sneaky name change that occurred last year without discussion or consultation and went against the policy in the first place. Its up to the administrators to do as they wish. Nonetheless, this is not the end of the matter, but the beginning setting the groundwork for future Albanian editors. This will just be added on the Albanian portal for the things to do list. It took over 6 years for the Souliots article to be addressed and so be it with this one. As for your "roundabout" please take it to the usual complaints board. We can talk it out over there in front of many administrators. Looking forward to it. Looking forward to also bringing up the matter of how this article whose name was changed last year without consultation and a change name process and how keeping that sneaky change was argued for knowing full well that there were previous controversial discussions about the name.Resnjari (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So when caught canvassing red-handed, your response is not to apologize and say "My bad, won't do it again", but basically to come out guns blazing, threatening and taunting others to report you. As for that "setting the groundwork for future Albanian editors", it sounds very WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, no? Athenean (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologize for what when i have done nothing wrong. Moreover i have not threatened anyone and also i do not use violence. I want to make that very clear to everyone here i do not use violence. So do not put words in my mouth. If anyone thinks i broke the rules, go and make a complaint and it will be dealt with in arbitration. Otherwise allegations of "i think" or "it appears" are hollow. As for "Red handed" Lol ! Anyway, I did send a message to the editor cited in the above example on Albanian wikipedia as i have collaborated with him on many Cham related articles on Albanian Wikipedia (mainly grammar, though linking of articles also and some sentence structures) to look at the Vjosa page. He did or did not and that's all as i have yet to hear from him sadly. I also said for it to be removed and have with other messages too. I am not going to have my clutter with no relevance all over the place and i have said this to other editors on Wikipedia many times in the past. I have deleted much from my talk page and other editors have done the same on theirs, as i notice with yours very recently. That editor may have had a look and that is it. I have sought advice on matters from him in the past as to what to do considering his experience. It a shame that nothing came of it this time. This Vjosa issue is complicated and i feel there is much more regarding the case that needs outlining. More experienced Albanians can give me advice if there still are ones out there. Hard to come by them though considering they have been absent for so long or are not one like the rest of the above regulars. Anyway do i see that editor having done anything here due to my messaging him? Please name that editor in here if that is the case? If that editor cannot be named its once again your view. I did not in that message say for him to vote or to partake in any activity here as is very clear since google translate is used. Glad to know that editors are taking the time to learn Albanian. A sea change must be happening. Well i speak, read and write Serbian and Macedonian and can read Greek and string a few sentences in talking. Anyway i do look forward to more of your "redhanded" remarks. As for setting the ground, its going to go on the Albanian portal, like many other articles there on the to do list. This in depth conversation here is my preferance at the moment. The next Albanian editors of the future that will engage with this article will be aware of how to go about unlike Ujkreiger and why the Albania portal needs to be active. Battleground, why battleground? Its an article that needs addressing and of concern and its title is one of those. You are now going to tell people what they can or cannot do? If they initiate a name change it their choice. Last time i checked you where not an administrator.Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Learning different languages is, indeed, a good idea. So I am sure that you will contribute to our illumination by giving a complete and exact translation of this edit. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why indeed. Should have asked that in the first place. I have always thought it important to learn languages like Serbian and Greek as it comes in handy. A trend might start of others wanting to learn Albanian. Shume mire. (make sure to google translate that too). What i wrote was: "Check the Permet page thoroughly by doing a overview of everything. I need views about grammar matters in relation to the page. Analyze it properly". Like i said i don't write in standard Albanian, but in my dialect. I did not have the privilege of going to Albanian school as i am in the diaspora. If you have any doubts to the sincerity of my translation, since my southern dialect is very similar to Arvanitika, i am sure some Arvanites can assist. Anything else i may assist you with ?Resnjari (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that I should try to get the money back from the bookstore in Tirana where I bought my fjalor. It seems to indicate that the last sentence means something like "Hide the letter after reading", but it has to be the book that is wrong. --T*U (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. While i wrote "check the letters in full". Like i said i wrote in my dialect. I am intrigued here on the interpretation you are placing. My advice to you would be that you need to buy a dictionary which deals with the Prespa dialect. Or find someone who knows a little Arvanitika, they may assist. Who knows some of these editors may speak it. Si jeni, a dini Arberisht? (more for you to check with your "Tirana dictionary"). So how would your dictionary from Tirana put it, or even you yourself ? You have knowledge of Albanian, i take ? Resnjari (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No Arvanites in my country, I'm afraid, so I will have to try to make do with my dictionary and Google translate. --T*U (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's ok. Your fjalor however does not cover dialects. Enver believed in Standardized Albanian. Much is omitted. And google translate has been proven many a time to be faulty, just like the results above have shown. But its good your learning Standard Albanian from a dictionary. Its the way i am learning standard Albanian too. II use a Oxford dictionary though, cover some dialect stuff as well. I like to stick to quality dictionaries without the Enverian communist edits.Resnjari (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What he wrote in sq.wiki is even more clear. He is basically telling those he canvassed to remove the canvassing note, as clumsy and obvious an attempt at covering his tracks as there could be. Athenean (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

To the above editor, sorry, but i did not cover my tracks. I did say Vjosa to that editor (and am saying that to you as well) and moreover i did not ask that editor to partake in activities here as is very clear. I needed advice from a experienced editor and someone who knows Wikipedia really well. Canvassing is when you ask that person to actually partake in the debate of a article and influence it. That editor of whom i sent that message with the explicit Vjosa message has not done anything here. Reality speaks for itself, not speculation.Resnjari (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. You told that editor to come participate at the vote here, which is WP:CANVAS. And then you told him to delete your message to him, which is just plain funny, since like a diamond, a diff is forever. There is no point in denying what you did, no one believes you anymore. Your attempts at evasion and disinformation only serve to diminish your already diminished credibility even further. Athenean (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The google translated version says absolutely nothing about that editor coming here to make a contribution. Again it is your interpretation coming from your side of which you wish to keep a article whose name was changed unilaterally by a editor without discussion or even initiating such a process as is done now. Done not in good faith. Moreover I am not here to convince you of anything. My words speak for themselves as do the Albanian ones. You so very much want there to have been in those words something that said, please come to this page and make edits. Yet there was none and as my message when as some have placed it through google translate shows nothing of the sort. All Balkan editors are subject to their opinions and those are yours. I can seek advice from more experienced Albanian editors and you are not my keeper.Resnjari (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true. Nor does filibustering. There had better not be a repeat of this "seeking advice from more experienced Albanian editors" with next request page move, or there will be consequences. I am only willing to let it slide this time on the grounds of inexperience on your part. And please learn to indent your comments properly. Next time you "seek advice from more experienced Albanian editors", you may want to ask them about that. Athenean (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears someone attempts to canvass in a really childish way. Not to mention excessive wp:gaming the system attempts. As I see, advice on how to evade spi is also available [[76]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If there are views in here that i have done something wrong, please take me to the arbitration committee in so this issue can be addressed in front of the administrators in the appropriate manner. Allegations of "it appears" based on personal opinions are that. This goes for all editors here. Please refrain from language such as "childish" as that may be taken as offensive. Wikipedia guidelines does states that name calling is to be refrained from WP:CIVIL. Thank youResnjari (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)