Talk:Peć

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Peć. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peć. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Please can we compromise? Is there any reason that the page cannot have two names? Peć / Peja? It is very confusing otherwise. A tourist just needs to know that they may see the city called by EITHER name. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyinkosovo (talkcontribs) 09:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nancyinkosovo: No, that would be against our WP:Naming conventions. See WP:PLACE#Multiple_local_names. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nancyinkosovo:@Vanjagenije: BUT WP:Naming convention and WP:PLACE#Multiple_local_names do not restrict from multiple local names. See Cities in Switzerland. The point is that the article should be informative. Using only one description is wrong because it does not reflect what people would find if they visit that place. The country is bilingual and since there is not a common description in English, we should use both names. I don't care what comes first but for the sake of accuracy, it should have both names. Amanaparts (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a COMMONNAME for this place in English, and that one is Peć. That is already proven by multiple move requests. So, dont worry about tourists, they can go to Wikitravel if they need some info. But Wikipedia have more important guidelines to follow then nonexistent tourists in Peć. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

there is no common name in english just because you say so. The tourist are just an example it is not about what YOU, I or someone else thinks, its about a bilingual city in a bilingual country. Not referring to both names is discrimination of the overwhelming majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanaparts (talkcontribs) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
So by your argument, the title Vienna is an overwhelming discrimination of the... entire Austrian nation??? Be serious... Please read Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Not the same. See Swiss bilingual cities Biel/Bienne. If there is a will there is a way. Using both names goes not against Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and would improve quality of the article and it wouldnt hurt anyone. Question is why dont you want to show both names???? WP:NPV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanaparts (talkcontribs) 22:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a method on how to apply titles for places descied at severl of the principles alredy mentioned earlier. Biel/Bienne is probably actually te commonname i English of the place, as many other Swiss towns are. Anyway, a direct question, since you picked one of the few cities in Kosovo which remained named in Serbian version, would you then have the same consistent position regarding the other towns iin Kosovo which have Albanian name? For instance, turning Gjakova into Gjakova/Đakovica? Yes or no? If you honestly say yes and actually support the renamng to billingual format, I will believe your good-faith and support you all the way on this. FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

NAME[edit]

Is it ok to change the name in simply "PEJA", it is easier to find and commonly used in english.