Talk:Hiking in Kosovo

Kosovo Low‑importance

	Hiking in Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Backpacking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BackpackingWikipedia:WikiProject BackpackingTemplate:WikiProject BackpackingBackpacking articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Names

Obviously, WP:AT doesn't mandate that we get rid of Albanian names and replace them with Serbian ones in an article about Kosovo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs)

Move discussions needed for the place names (Serbian vs. Albanian)?

Recently there has been some back-and-forth editing of this article regarding points of interest in Kosovo. For instance, the name Gjeravica is piped to Đeravica. Though I know nothing about these places, I assume that the first of these is the Serbian name and other is an Albanian name. There is also a redirect at Gjeravica which was placed under indefinite full protection by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise back in 2010. Leaving piped names in this article looks to be an invitation to future warring, so I recommend that editors open at least one move discussion. Is there a case to actually move the Đeravica article to Gjeravica? Somebody who favors the change would be the best person to propose the move, rather than an admin. The relevant guideline is WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). I'll also leave a note for Future Perfect to see if he wants to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles. We use the placenames that are most common in English language sources, which still seem to be the Serbian versions. Unless there is evidence that the Albanian version of a geographical name is now predominantly being used in English literature, we shouldn't pipe any links, not to mention page moves. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking that for a long, long time. We have agreed aticle names, and we should use them, but Bob reverts back to Albanian throughout wikipedia. And reverts with several days pause, in order to override 3RR. Sock should be reverted per wiki rules, but legitimite edits should not. Also, Đeravica is Serbian name, and it is used as COMMONNAME, per talk consensus.--WhiteWriter^speaks 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, the case of reverting to (or introducing) Albanian variants is spread over more than one article. AFAIC understand, the most sound rationale (to me) for having the Albanian variants is that sources mentioned in those articles use them. I believe this reason is actually quite false since it takes on from the position that for example Gjeravica and Đeravica might be two different places. Now, I don't advocate neither Serbo-Croatian (Serbian) nor Albanian variant, but uniformity. And of course neutrality. Which (probably making a too bold of a guess here) could also be at stake here since one of the reasons given for having an Albanian variant was "Name fixes. Obviously WP:AT doesn't mandate that we get rid of Albanian names and replace them with Serbian ones in an article about Kosovo...". Or "Source says Peja. Seems pretty reasonable for an article on Kosovo." Maybe I am really being too presumptuous by interpreting this as if topic of Kosovo somehow always mandates using Albanian variants. But if my construction about reasoning is correct, such reasons for having Albanian variants surely aren't neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Biblbroks, what a source uses is not the overriding factor on how a toponym is presented. For example, on similar pages you have only one source and this just happens to be in Albanian. By that reasoning, you can replace Austrian Vienna with Wien if the only source on a page is published in German. Alternatively there are secondary English sources which refer to the Austrian capital as Wien but as is the case with the four sources contained on this article, none qualify as WP:RS. Note also that there are a great many red links. It is indeed the case that when Albanian speakers translate into English, they retain the Albanian language names for settlements (eg. Peja) and this automatically introduces the terms into English. Note however that it doesn't end there, the practice continues for subjects beyond Kosovo. The lakeside town in Macedonian (Ohrid) will have the name Ohër, and even notable persons maintain their local form (eg. rather than Stjepan Mesić, they will publish Stjepan Mesiq). So the ultimate question is precisely that of the opening lines: do these sources warrant a move from Đeravica to Gjeravica? If so surely Stjepan Mesić can be moved to Stjepan Mesiq. But for the time being, would it not be best to stick to WP:AT until such time that the relevant pages be moved? 94.118.14.118 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about occasional sources in one specific article or the local preference for naming. Consensus has been established that those geographical names shall be used that are most common in reliable English sources in general. This practice should be reflected in the current article titles, so imo we should use the unpiped titles. De728631 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was saying. Be aware also that this ugly issue is spread over an entire list of articles. 94.118.58.75 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Çaplar, Alan (2011). Bazat e bjeshkatarisë, Blini-BK, Đakovica, ISBN 978995199306.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. I contacted the author by email; he kindly responded, referring me to the publisher, Federata bjeshkatare alpiniste e Kosovës (FBAK). The publisher did not respond. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hiking in Kosovo. 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/20110721102823/http://www.vretenca.hr/filez/bib/B-068.pdf to http://www.vretenca.hr/filez/bib/B-068.pdf

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) 21:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]