Talk:Cinema of Kosovo
|WikiProject Kosovo||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
The original author of the article has requested that consensus be reached on certain aspects of the article regarding my edits. This space can be to resolve any issues. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the names of the cities should be like : Pristina, Mitrovicë, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Prizren, Gjakovë, and Pejë because this is how they are called in English too. Here are the links of some foreign websites that mentioned these cities : http://www.europan-europe.eu/en/session/europan-12/site/gjilan ,http://www.collinsmaps.com/maps/Kosovo/Mitrovice/P410633.00.aspx (Kosovska Mitrovica as an alternative name), http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Tourism-g3581761-Gjakove-Vacations.html, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448273/Peje .
Two things. First, historical accuracy is the policy. If we are writing about a town that was known as Ferizovik (Turkish) for a time pertaining to the Ottoman Empire, then that is what we use. This is because secondly, English follows local usage - and English remains consistent with most of the Serbian names because they came to light during the 1998-99 Kosovo war when the region was within FRY.
Regardless, if it is modern usage that concerns editors, then the practice is to follow WP:AT. So, in Serbian we have Priština, and in Albanian, Pristhina. The article title is neither, it is Pristina. So you need to follow the article title, if it is Ferizaj, then fine. If it is Gnjilane, again fine. It's that simple. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- If I can make the other two users aware of one thing. You will not achieve "consensus" here for this particular venture. We are governed by existing policy. If you believe Gjilan trumps Gnjilane on modern usage then you need to propose a page move and await replies. Otherwise we are inserting information not known to the English speaker. This is not the article to launch such a radical amendment. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A note on names
Why I am doing this I don't know considering this has been discussed many times. Here is a Google update ensuring we get English results.
- Gjakova in Kosovo. 10,000+ results
- Gjakovë in Kosovo. 6,000+ results (the preferred version by proposing team comes bottom)
- Đakovica in Kosovo. 37,000+ results
It’s not how many results does each name has but its about which is official. I have not seen Uroševac, Đakovica, and Peć being used in English. Since this article is in English and Kosovo is a multiethnic country where 93% of the population is Albanian there is no reason names to be written in serbian.
AS 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not about how many results each name has? Are you sure you follow how Wikipedia works or how the English language functions? The names you produce are only official within the framework of publications in Albanian, and Kosovo's status is subject to controversy anyhow. Regardless of this, if you really believe those Albanians names should suffice then you need to get them changed everywhere, not just on this article. And the place to start is the actual articles themselves. Try your luck at having Uroševac moved to Ferizaj, or having Ferizaj as the headword on the article. If you can't push this measure through then you have no basis for reporting the towns by their Albanian titles on this one article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
While the page is protected, some editors may like to voice their opinions on why they insist on settlement names which are not consistent with their presentation on other articles, do not conform to article titles, and are less commonly used in English. If these issues can be addressed then we may have a consensus for the article. For any invalid reasoning (eg. "this is how the mjaority of the town write it") regarding English, I believe arbitrators will be satisfied that the wider consensus of observing the three categories listed in this post shall influence the name by which items are reported. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- No matter how many times you repeat it, WP:AT is not relevant here, because (a) it's an article title policy, and (b) it obviously doesn't favour Serbian names over Albanian. bobrayner (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
AT not relevant? You need to explain why it is not relevant and what trumps it. Otherswise we go around inserting Beograd, Warszawa, Den Haag and Wien simply because the source used does this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)