Talk:Pristina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Prishtina population

Section copied from Talk:Prishtina.

According to http://www.world-gazetteer.com/fr/fr_yu.htm the population of Prishtina has grown by nearly 50,000 since 1991. So if the person who keeps adding the "40,000 Serbs have left Prishtina" claim would like to present a trustworthy source, to back up this claim please do so. G-Man 21:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/417632.stm

A spokesman said there were now fewer than 2,000 Serbs left in and around the capital, Pristina, out of a pre-war population of some 40,000.

That was in August of 1999, by now there is about a 100 Serbs left in Pristina. -- Igor 19:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

According to http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=156&document_ID=78 Many have used this figure as a reference. The UNMIK Municipal Report 2002, for example, refers to Pristina as "the biggest municipality with a population of over 500,000." A recent book on Kosovo municipalities by the director of the National Archive, Jusuf Osmani, states: "In this modern city live over 500,000 inhabitants of different ethnic background." A Geography Book widely used in secondary schools notes that "according to some measures Pristina has 600,000 inhabitants". A report on urban management and planning in Kosovo municipalities by the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning in 2002 commented that "large-scale population migration took place after the war, with the main stream of migration heading for Pristina, increasing the number from 210,040 inhabitants before the war to 545,477 after the war."

It is clear that the idea of Pristina as a large and rapidly growing city has widespread appeal, both for Kosovo institutions and the international mission.

It is wrong, however, to assert that a more accurate estimate of the current population cannot be established. In fact, the authors of the 2020 Strategy had access to more accurate numbers. They had met with the Directorate of Civil Protection and Emergency – the one municipal body to have engaged in a serious population estimate. Surprisingly, however, these figures do not appear in the Strategy.

In 2003, the Directorate of Civil Protection and Emergency conducted an assessment of the inhabitants of each of the 36 sub-municipal units of Pristina municipality. Teams went from house to house completing 'family cards', recording basic information on each household member. A total of 28,275 households and 161,749 inhabitants were identified through that exercise. The Directorate believed it had covered some 70-80 percent of all households, yielding an estimated population of about 231,070 inhabitants.

The figures given by the Directorate are not the only administrative data that can be used to estimate the urban population. In 2004, there were 34,634 households connected to the Pristina water supply. Using the Directorate of Emergency's figure of 5.7 members per average household, this suggests that 197,000 people are connected to water in the city. Allowing for a certain percentage of illegal connections, this would yield an urban population of somewhat above 200,000.

The voter registry and school enrolments point to the same reality. In the 2004 election, there were 139,587 voters registered in Pristina municipality.

Finally, there is the figure of 3,617 primary school students in each year level in Pristina municipality. Multiplying this by 18 yields the number of 65,112 inhabitants under the age of 18. Combined with voters, this would be around 205,000 people in the municipality. To this, one would need to add those who are living in Pristina but not registered as voters, including university students, civil servants posted in the capital and foreigners.

---

To Nikola Smolenski, I do not see how "Everywhere" translates to a Serbian government website, and even it says that the number is a total. It does not say that they are all Serbs. You can be sure that at least some Albanians were displaced too. I would imagine some are still "displaced" inside Serbian prisons or mass graves, but that is my viewpoint. If you have to add something that is disputed by the other side, at least note it for the record. Dori 02:38 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To Nikola Smolenski, I do not see how "Everywhere" translates to a Serbian government website, and even it says that the number

That is just the first source I've found. --Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

is a total. It does not say that they are all Serbs. You can be sure that at

No it doesn't:

"There are also additional 20,000 internally displaced individuals from Kosovo and Metohia, who moved from multiethnic environments to almost mono-ethnic enclaves."

"It is important to note that the number of registered IDPs (Tab. 1) includes only the individuals who have applied personally for registration, and it has been estimated that there are nearly 50,000 IDPs (Tab. 2) living in Serbia and Montenegro, who have not been officially registered (Figures 1, 2, 3)."

And I don't say that they are all Serbs: "more then 95555 [1] Serbs and other non-Albanians" --Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

least some Albanians were displaced too. I would imagine some are still "displaced" inside Serbian prisons or mass graves, but that is my viewpoint.

That is possible. If you have some information about that, add it to mine. --Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you have to add something that is disputed by the other side, at least note it for the record. Dori 02:38 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what other side is disputing so I can't note it. If the other side does know it can note it itself. Nikola 05:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ethnic proportions

This article seems to have an all encompassing obsession with the exact ethnic make up of the city. The only possible reason for which as far as I can see is to forward a particular POV political agenda.

I personally fail to see the relevance of the exact proportion of Serbs to Albanians in 1931. I have not seen any other articles about cities on the wikipedia which list dermographic changes of particular ethnic groups over decades, why, because it is irrelevant, this is why I removed it earlier.I dont see any need for it to be here G-Man 22:50, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well most articles state that a certain city passed from one group to another, I can always start a new article on the demographic changes in Pristina but then this particular article would look bare. -- Igor 21:17, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No other cities on Wikipedia had such drastic demographic changes as Pristina, and that is why you haven't seen such data in their articles. Of course, in future this article will be expanded with history, geography, sightings and other things about Pristina that other city articles have, and demographic data will not be the largest part of it. But there is no reason for data removal until that happens. Nikola 10:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Truth

It is clear that this a a Pro-Serbian propaganda piece. It is absolutely false information and clearly only concentrates on false statements poinyting to a serbian claim to Kosovo. As the whole world is now aware, Serbia's government, particulary since 1981, was deceitful, misleading, falsifying and created for themselves a pseudohistory. It is embarassing to write such an article on what you call an encyclopedia. Albanians are the true inhabitants of Kosovo, and always have been the majority. The lies of Serbias ill-nationalistic brainwashing regime have ended. The government of Serbia has bothered all of the balkans. It started with disputes in hungary, a war in Croatia and a massacre in Bosnia and Kosovo. The only true history that exists is the one that Serbia was the insulting factor. Now, that is a fact that can be proven, not the lies you write about. Please, grow up! Tecah your children the true history, so that the Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian and other nationalities dont have the same problem as this past ill-generation. Let people live in peace for once. It starts by telling the truth and stopping the lies once and for all. Kosovo is Albanian, and until that is understood, you will never progress ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.80.68 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 October 2003 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that above paragraph - I suppose it was written a long time ago, but I just feel the need to write something! - is talking a load of sh*t. I mean, "Serbia's government, particulary since 1981, was deceitful, misleading, falsifying and created for themselves a pseudohistory". Who says that? The Western media? That same media doesn't want to dwell too much on Milosevic's Trial, even though, at the beginning, it was referred to as the "trial of the century"!! I wonder why...

(I mean, "trial of century" and neither the BBC or CNN has established for instance programmes devoted to Hague proceedings! You shouldn't call certain trials "trials of the century", unless you're thinking of regularly covering them, now should you?)

The "lies of Serbia's ill-nationalistic brainwashing regime have ended"? When did they even start? 1989, perhaps? Here we go again...!

Grow up? Always look at yourself first before you cast such judgments on other people. And the guy who wrote all that rubbish above my response should study more about Kosmet's history, unless of course, he's decided to support the side that was given loads of support from the Western media (now, have they always been honest?). Or perhaps, he has always held that opinion: "Albanians are the true inhabitants of Kosovo, and always have been the majority (Note: That is NOT true that they have always been the majority)...Kosovo is Albanian (Note: matter of opinion)".

Oh, and people can live in peace. Preferrably without so-called liberation armies forcing them to support their side.

Alan. --81.79.116.16 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've expanded and largely rewritten the article to give more information on Pristina's 20th century history and to put it in the overall context of Kosovo's history, including the 1999 war, which was unaccountably poorly covered in the article. -- ChrisO 17:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About this page

Sorry, but I don't think this is the real description of Pristina, especially the historical part.
Please check all your datas and correct them. I think that all what is written in there is wrong.
Whoever wrote this - I wish you could add some more things - like how was Kosovo before the war - and after war, but using only the truth. Albanians were always the majority - not only in Prishtina but everywhere except Brezovica - I don't see how someone could come up with numbers easily without checking the history - the true history. Please think and please write the truth...because this is not the truth.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

Manipulations with history

First of all, I don't really like the fact that in the introduction to this page you have classified the Serbs as "the Slavic invadors" (when you were talking about how the city was founded). If you knew ANYthing about the history of the Balkans you wouldn't classify the Serbian people as savages/invadors- simply because, in the year 630. Heraclius (Eastern Roman Emperor) has reached an agreement with Serbs and Croats, an agreement by which those peoples were INVITED to settle the Balkans. In return, they were asked to defend the northern borders of the Empire against the varvarians.
Second thing... you mentioned the Slavic invadors that have pushed the local population, Illyrians, towards the south. First of all, there are no material evidences whatsoever for such a claim, and another thing...even though many Albanians like to connect themselves with the Illyrians, most of the scientists would disagree or at least stay neutral about that matter, due to the lack of any kind of evidence that could tell the opposite, the Illyrian- Albanian "truth". There are no linguistical nor cultural connections between the ancient Illyrians and the Albanians. Illyrians have lived in the western Balkans area (mostly coastal parts) and they have been asimilated during the time by all the surrounding nations, not exclusively Albanians. There are theories that the Albanians have moved in the late middle ages from the Caucausus region (which would be more likely, considering the languistical similarities).
Thirdly, Kosovo was the heart of the Serbian Kingdom and Empire, core of the Serbian nation. After the Serbian Empire collapsed due to clashes with the emerging Ottoman Empire, and especially since the beginning of the 15th century, Serbs have started to migrate towards the north, especially during the Two Great Migrations from Kosovo into Austria (Vojvodina, Croatia, Hungary). That is when the Albanians (who became Muslims under Turkish influence) started to settle in Kosovo and Metohija together with the Turkish Muslims, eventually forming a big part of the population. However, the Muslims didn't become a majority until the 20th century. See Demografic history of Kosovo, as well as Serbia, De Administrando Imperio- the document that tells about the Serbian/ Croatian arrival to the Balkans, as well as Albanian language and Balkan linguistic union.
Please try to be more objective in the future and stick to the truth- the one that has evidential support, not the anti- Serbian (pro-Albanian) one. Unless of course, there are evidences that show the opposite which I higly doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.86.63 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

Deleted for bad language, off-topic-ing and ridiculous claims (Serbs have never had anything to do with the Caucasus region) 89.216.129.253 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference Book

Why don't you refer to the NOEL MALCOLM'S "Kosovo a short history". Probably the best history book written (by a brittish, not albanian nor serbian) on Kosovo ever. Eniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.135.254 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the location of Malcolm's citizenship doesn't change the fact that "Kosovo - a short history" is so one sided in its source material as to practically be a compendium of Albanian political propaganda. Perhaps someone more widely read can suggest a thorough (and multi-language, since most of the authoritative sources have never been translated) bibliography covering both sides of the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.5.189 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Internationally, Noel Malcolm's book is well respected. Predictably, people close to the issues he discusses feel he misrepresents them. For great justice. 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Priština or Prishtina?

The name of the article is "Priština" so surely the spelling of the city's name throughout the article should reflect this. There has been lots on anonymous reverts to the Albanian spelling recently with no explanation. I prefer Priština as this is the spelling that is the most used in the English language. If users insist on Prishtina then surely the article should be renamed. -- Phildav76 21:02, 24 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Priština is not the name used in english, but it is "Pristina". If you prefer the "Priština" name, that is your problem. I will revert the name as many time as it takes, if somebody puts the curls to the "s" letter. Greetings, ilir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilir pz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pristina" is the usual spelling in the English language media, but it is pronounced with the "s" as a "sh", therefore the š should be used as this is the convention on Wikipedia. Niš is used and not Nish for example -- Phildav76 10:12, 10 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Nis is a Serbian city, Phildav. Of course that is the official spelling. None from the installed International Administration in Kosovo uses the "š" when referring to Kosova's capital name. Are you saying that US president should be called "Buš" instead? :))) since that is the Wikipedia convention???. ...regards, ilir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilir pz (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But my argument is that the article name is Priština and other than the Albanian spellings of the name at the beginning, the article name should be used throughout to be consistant. Also your recent additions to the article are far from being NPOV. -- Phildav76 15:11, 10 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I am not to blame that the main name of the article is wrong. It does not mean that the rest of the article should follow a mistake someone made a long time ago. As of my additions being NPOV, I at least base them on a 25 year experience (read: having lived in that place) whereas most of people who add info in this site live in suburbs of Belgrade, or elsewhere in Europe and think they know how things really work down there. Let alone those who go too far to cite their destructive and ill Academy of Science who had plans to exterminate the whole non-serbian population in Kosovo. If there is no agreement to remove the "hat" over the name of the capital city, I will keep reverting it, to fit to the english way of pronouncing it, which is composed of letter "s" and "h", examples: "Bush", "bush", "rush", "blush" :))) Ilir pz 11:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that if there is enough support for moving the article then it could be done. I have spoken English (note capital letter - proper noun) for more than 25 years. I believe the article name was changed from Pristina to Priština relatively recently - 28 June 2005. All the place names in Kosovo are known by their Serbian names and spellings in English. That might change in the coming years, who knows, but I don't see any evidence of it changing in the past 7 years. Other users will revert nonsense like the Roma oppression of Albanians - it is plainly not neutral. Bush is a word that is native to English while Priština isn't and therefore is not comparable. Belgrade/Beograd is the only Serbian city that is known by a different name in English. -- Phildav76 18:43, 11 Mar 2006 (UTC)

There will be given enough support to whomever cares to look at that. As of having changed the name recently, I am very curious to know why that was decided so recently?! You seem to be also sensitive because of a single "E" (which was by no means done on purpose) not being upper-case, and argue with me about the "sh"(**t) issue. The international administration installed in Kosova uses both names when referring to a location in Kosova, and that is what my point is. IF you like Serbian names, that is your problem, not at all mine. "Priština" is not native to the more than 90% of the population that lives in Kosova, as a result it is not acceptable to any of us. Seems like we agree on many points. Regards, Ilir pz 19:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ilir. I understand your frustration at what you perceive as mis-spelling of place names that you are familiar with, but the authoring of wikipedia content should be conducted with courtesy and good sense. The point at issue here has a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), note particularly: "Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s)". The procedure for proposing a new naming convention is outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions

I know you have issue with Đakovica, Uroševac, Račak, Šar mountain and no doubt others, the problem is, if you change just the article content, you create an inconsistency with the article title, and may also break existing links, as you did with Sharr mountain. Any changes to be made need to be systematic and comprehensive.

As a start, looking at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Resolving disputed names within articles, the Google method (in English, -wikipedia) returns 1,990,000 1,680,000 and 347,000 for Priština, Pristina and Prishtina respectively (5,160,000 4,510,000 and 555,000 for plain searches), so the current situation does appear to reflect the popular usage. I am not saying that we must retain the status quo, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Europe states In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used, but we should find a way to reach a consensus.

Nigosh 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nigosh, thanks for taking the time to explain. I recently heard the article title has been changed in march 2005. We could change it back, for the anniversary of such a change. So it is not holly title, and then can be consistent to the rest. As far as reflecting the popular usage is concerned, I must tell you your numbers are wrong: searching "Priština" gives you more hits because it includes all "Pristina" hits, and some "Prishtina" hits, in Google. Check for yourself. I understand that consensus should be reached.I agree though that status quo is not sustainable. Consistency means to keep the article in English, not add characters which have no meaning to that language. Those who want to write down in their own alphabets have the sites in their languages. As far as other cities names are concerned, that sounds horrible, especially to Recak or Gjakova people who have suffered so much from many people who use those characters. I am sure all this will be fixed once Kosova de jure becomes independent. This process has already started, to correct the naming convenctions which was imposed during a century (or more) of terror. Regards, Ilir pz 09:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So... to move things on... how about identifying place names at issue, and listing them for discussion at Talk:List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro, with a note to the geographic names group. This creates a locus for discussion and comment on this community of place names, and should allow those with concerns in to the discussion. We can then seek to reach consensus on proposed spellings in public discussion; suggest the proposals on the relevant talk pages, and after a suitable period (a week or two), make the agreed changes across the whole name space (main articles, links, redirects, disambigs etc.).

Also, we cannot ignore the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is an attempt to work out a simple and acceptable policy for geographic names in Central and Eastern Europe

Nigosh 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nigosh, I respect your attitude towards regulations, and conventions, but you seem to blindly think they should be obeyed. Everything changes, and especially conventions. One should try to find a fair solution in between. I think that we are not the ones to decide about such conventions. Kosova has its democratically elected representatives, and there are responsibles that have already started to address the issue. Until Kosovo becomes independent (de jure, and indications show that this is very soon to happen), we can just play games here. I suggest we apply a double-naming system, where only English alphabet can be used. So for example "Prishtina/Pristina" when referring to the city name, etc. If not, I am afraid reverting the name will be the thing I will do every day after my morning coffee. Ilir pz 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The name must be PRISHTINA. Serbian spelling is irrational.--Getoar (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This city is Serbian, so why it shouldn't be in Serbian? Would you like to have the article about London rename to the Albanian name of London, because there's an Albanian minority? --Zik2 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Double naming throughout the article text is outright silly, which was the main reason for my edit. We can debate over which version should be used, but there is most certainly no need to repeat all (or some) of them every time you reference the city. In fact, it was not even consistently done - the place was called "Pristina/Prishtina" in some cases, and just "Prishtina" in others.

Now, as for the reason why I edited it to be "Priština" in all cases instead - as pointed out numerous times already, this is the title of the article. If you believe it is not a valid one and should be changed, then make an appropriate request, and if it is successful, we shall edit the article to conform to the new spelling. Either way, please keep in mind that consistency is important here. Also note that the latest Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) proposal specifically mentiones this as a proper way to handle such situations:

Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s).

Granted, this is not an accepted convention yet, but it is the best we have at the moment. If those who object to applying that convention have a good reason to do so, please specify it.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out that we should not be interested in what the "official" name of the city is at the moment (be it Serbian, Albanian, or the one the UN administration uses). This should be left as a last resort. What we should try to find out is the single widely accepted English name in modern context for the city. I'm afraid Google is not of much help here, as going through the first few pages of search results for "Priština" actually gave me fewest links with that exact spelling, and a rough tie between "Prishtina" and "Pristina" otherwise. Can people living in English-speaking countries tell what spelling is most often used in media?

int19h 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is stupied. The Eurpoen card for souch thinks (for citys and municipaity) is saying thate the municipality hase right to chois her name. And the mustly municipality in Kosovo are in albanien L. according to the EU Card for municipalty and the English L for the naming of the citys the municipality name must be Prishtina --Hipi Zhdripi 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, Wikipedia does not conform to UN or other rules for naming of geographical locations - it has its own. Or rather, they are being developed - let me link you once again to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Now, this proposal is not a policy yet, but it is the closest thing we have to that on the subject matter, so, for the sake of preventing a revert war, I would suggest that we stick to it for now (it can be easier to agree upon a set of rules defined by a third party). And, among other things, the proposal states: "The title: The single widely accepted English name in modern context (swaEn) is to be used when possible" - which makes sense since it is the general rule for naming other Wikipedia articles as well. If you disagree with this in principle, then you should probably join the discussion of the aforementioned proposal, and present your arguments there. If you believe that it is fine as is, but rather object only to applying it to this specific article (but why?), we could do the same thing that was done on other such occasions and simply vote for the name, then stick to whatever result we get, at least until the naming convention proposal becomes the official Wikipedia policy. int19h 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As if the existing heap of names for the city is not enough, the latest (anonymous) edit added the Turkish name to the list at the beginning of the article. Is there any good reason for it? It was occupied by the Ottoman Empire, true, but so was e.g. Sofia, and the article for it has no Turkish name. int19h 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

REGULATION NO. 2000/45

Hier is the document:[1]

 See : REGULATION NO. 2000/45 on 11 August 2000. Is saying:

.... Referring to the European Charter on Local Self-
Government, and in particular to Article 3 which
denotes the right and the ability of local
authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate
and manage a substantial share of public affairs
under their own responsibility and in the interests
of the local population,
Taking into account the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols
thereto, the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages, the Council of Europe’s
Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women,
Hereby promulgates the following:...

Chapter 2
The Municipal Assembly and its
Committees
Section 10

Prishtinë/Priština 51
Podujevë/Podujevo 1
Prizren/Prizren 41
Suharekë/Suva Reka 1
Gjakovë/Đakovica 1
Pejë/Peć 1
Mitrovicë/Mitrovice/a 1
Gjilan/Gnjilane/Gnjilane 41
Ferizaj/Urosevac/Uroševac 1
Malishevë/Mališevo 1
Gllogovc/Glogovac 1
Lipjan/Lipljane/Lipljan/Lipljan 31
Rahovec/Orahovac 1
Deçan/Dečani 1
Istog/Istok 1
Klinë /Kline/a 1
Skenderaj/Srbica 31
Vushtrri/ Vučitrn 31
Kaçanik/Kačanik 31
Kamenicë/Kamenica 1
Viti/Vitina 1
Fushë Kosovë/K. Polje 21
Obiliq/Obilić 1
Shtime/Stimlje/Štimlje 1
Dragash/Dragaš 21
Leposaviq/Leposavić 7
Zubin Potok/Z. Potok 7
Zveçan/Zvečan 17
Novobërdë/Novo Brdo 17
Shtërpcë/Štrpce 17

Bernard Kouchner
Special Representative of the
Secretary General

From this document you can see thate the first name must be the albanian version.--172.183.192.46 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article name must be in albanian version. This document is not in serbian or albanian L, bu tin english and this is the English Wikipedia. In Kosovo city table is not written "Welcomen to" Đakovica but :

Mirë se vini Prishtinë Priština

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.183.192.46 (talk · contribs)- 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

After the independence, Albanian is the first language ahead of Serbian. Everything should start in Albanian, where possible, Serbian should be included in parantheses. Because it is not appropriate to do it in a article name, Priština can only be linked in ridirection as it is now. Simple as that. Bardhylius (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this (messages on my personal talkpage from a wikipedia user). At least we have proof that Pri˘stina with the diacritic should go out of use. Prishtina though would reflect English pronunciation better than Pristina and would remain compliant with the official use.

== Pristina / Prishtina / Priština ==

Please do not move pages if there is no discussion, let alone consensus, to do so. We may discuss, but overtly bold moves tend to only cause edit-warring. Thanks. —Kurykh 08:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) before further responding to the issue. Thanks. —Kurykh 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Common in English, not Albanian. This is the English Wikipedia. In English, "Pristina" is used, admittedly for reasons unknown. What people in Pristina/Prishtina use is irrelevant for article titles, only in article intro. —Kurykh 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You still seem confused. I keep talking about common English usage, and you give me official government usage. The former takes precedence on the English Wikipedia. —Kurykh 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

About Iran, I say that incidents regarding Iran before the name change should use the name Persia, and everything after, Iran. Whether Wikipedia usage reflects that I do not know, as I am not into Iranian/Persian topics. But perhaps someone more fitting and appropriate is the Danzig/Gdansk naming convention that is now pretty much the binding precedent on Wikipedia. —Kurykh 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, newspapers do not dictate common usage. However, I agree with your main premise: when common usage shifts in favor of Prishtina, we will then change it to reflect that. Until then, Pristina holds. —Kurykh 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or when it will shift, as I am neither Albanian nor Serbian (I'm actually Chinese). But when common English usage does indeed shift decisively to Prishtina, then you can count on my support for the change. —Kurykh 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous to use the Serbian spelling as the primary alternative. And look at that Danzig/Gdansk issue. The Polish spelling is the principal one on Wikipedia and so should be Prishtina, the Albanian spelling, when it comes to our case.--Getoar (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers, who usually support Albanians, use violently created name "Prishtina". In fact, this city was Serbian the whole history and Serbians established it. The only correct form is "Priština", but I think the lobby of Albanians and their flunkies on Wikipedia will not permit this rightful Serbian name. It remains me Germans, who wanted to have all cities in Bohemia and Moravia in German. Some cities had traditional German names (like Most, Ústí nad Labem or Prague), but many hadn't, so Germans invented new names, like "Tabor" instead of "Tábor". --Zik2 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stadium

Anyone have information on the city stadium. When was it built, who was the architect etc? What was the cause of the fire. --Drdan 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The stadium was ulild at 1974. After the Prishtina futbool klub was at the first Leage of Yugoslavia the peopel of Kosovo has supported with monye to build a new Stadium. During the Great Demostratition on March 04, 1981 of the Studens and Minators in wich was killed more that 200 peopel this stadion it full of the cetnik milic wich came uniform from Hercegovina, Montenegro and Serbia with helicopters in Stadium. After they have landit, they have startit to terrorizet the cityzens. During the last war the Stadium it was iussed for landing he Helikopters. The military propagand has pushit the desinformation that in this Stadium the sebian military are holding the albanians. See Rudolf Sharping interwiev. Ther was military peopel but not civiliens. And NATO was a fried to bomb the Stadium.

But the Stadium in the memory of the cityzens is a place in wich younger peopel from Kosova, after each game was played from FC Prishtina they have demonstratit agains regime. In Prishtina this Stadium is not only a Stadium but a meateng plce for the younger Kosovars during the interval 1981-1992. With other words "This Stadium is a symbol of the younger protest" in Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.104.90 (talk · contribs)- 00:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

transelet

I was in Prishtina for holidays and I finde out that this culter places are viset from the tourist (NATO, Un and the US prominents stars who go there for the US solders). Kofi Anan has vieset this pleases too. Im askend sombody who know well english to put thi in artikel unter the secsion Prishtians cultur.

Ndër objektet turistike dhe kulturore më të vizituara në Konunen e Prishtinës janë:

* Monumenti „Skënderbeu“

Ky monument i përkushtruar heroit kombëtarë Gjergj Kastriot-Skenderbeut gjendet në qendrën administrative të qytetit dhe është ndërtuar pas luftës së fundit. Banorët e shumtë që jetojnë në diasporë e viztojnë këtë objektë dhe vendasit që me një ceremoni e kanë përcjellur sjelljen e statujës së Skenderbeut dhe hyrjen e trupave të NATOS e konsiderojnë si ardhje të lirisë.

* Teatri Kombëtar

Teatri kombëtar gjendet përballë monumetit "Skendebeu" dhe i argëtonë Prishtinalit me shfaqjet e shpeshtuara pas luftës. Është themeluar pas luftës II botërore nga pasarthësit e familjeve të artistëve që luanin shfaqja edhe para sulltanit të perandoris Osmane.

* Parku Nacional „Gërmia“

Është vendi në të cilin Prishtanisit e kalojnë kohen e lirë kryesisht gjatë ditëve të ngrohta. Ky parkë është i paisur me liqenin dhe restorante e pushimore të ndryshme rreth tij. Pas shpalljes së shtet rrethimit për të parën herë (1981) në Ksovës ishte qender e ushtarakve të APJ-së dhe hyrja në këtë parkishte e ndaluar pë qytetarët. Të vetmit persona civil që mund të hynin aty nga viti 1985-1999 ishin qeveritarët e Serbisë. Tani ky parkë është shëndrruar në vend takim të të gjithë të rinjëve Kosovarë në stinen e verës. Të cilët shpesë organizjnë mbrëmje së bashku me punëtorët e UNMIKU-t.

* Biblioteka Kombëtare Universitare e Kosovës

Vetë objekti i kësaj Biblioteke ka një histori të veten që paraqet rrethanat politike e shoqërore kosovare të viteve të gjysmës së dytë të shekullit të kaluar. Objekti nga pamja e jashtëme është i ndërtuar me disa kupe të cilat në kohrat e kaluara për vendasit simbolizonin "Plisin" simbol i veshjes kombëtare. Përndryshe në këtë objekt ruhen libra të ndryshëm të cilët qytetarët kanë mundësi të i lexjnë brenda objektit. Gjatë luftës pjesa më e madhe e librave është djegur dhe invetari i Biblotekës është dëmtuar nga forcat paramilitare të Milosheviqit.

* Muzeu i Kosovës

Në muzeu e Kosovës janë disa çfaqje të përhershme dhe për çdo muaj organizohen çfaqje me tema të reja që zgjasin një muaj. Çfaqje e përhershme janë ato të historis së Prishtinë, Luftës nacional Çlirimtare dhe të Epopesë së UÇK-së.

* Galeria e Arteve

Galeria e arteve në Prishtinë është një dër galerit me hapsiren më të madhe në këtë pjesë të Ballkanit. Prezentimin e veprave në këtë galeri e bëjnë pjestar të nacionaliteteve të ndryshme dhe nga pjesë Kosovës dhe të vendeve përreth saj.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Film City

Who cann tell my samthing more abot the pace in Prishtina caled "Film City", bevor the war it was the are for Movie-Studios caled "Kosovafilm--Hipi Zhdripi 05:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bashkësia Lokale Qendra (Administrativ part of the Kosovo govermant and UNMIK )

Bashkësia Lokale Dardania the most populedet with over 120 000

Bashkësia Lokale Ulpiana

Bashkësia Lokale Dragodani

Bashkësia Lokale Bregu i Diellit

Bashkësia Lokale Gërmia

Bashkësia Lokale Film City (administrativ part of the represents office from US,UK,EU, USA-Aid ..)

Bashkësia Lokale Hani i Diellit

Bashkësia Lokale Tophania

Bashkësia Lokale Lakrishtja

Bashkësia Lokale Spitali

Bashkësia Lokale Velania

Bashkësia Lokale Xhamia e Llapit (albanians whitch hase comme here places in border with Serbia and Nish during the War 1912 and bedor that)

Bashkësia Lokale Muhaxherit (albanians whitch hase comme here from Toplica, Serbia 1912)

Bashkësia Lokale Dëshmorët e Liris

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.104.90 (talk · contribs)- 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Demography figures

HRE, reading the figures you added it seems as if no Albanians lived back then in 15th century, in Prishtina. I clarified that part a bit. Convertion by force from Christian to Muslim is a well known fact that Albanians went through. Christian could have still been some Albanian families which did not convert(and still are Catholic). Hope you agree with my clarification. Ilir pz 09:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those "Slavic i. e. Serbian" turned out to be simple original research. With your agreeing, I would like to remove both and just leave Christian and Moslem instead. Is it OK? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with my formulation? Leaving Christian and Moslem makes it unclear about the nationalities. The truth IS that some Albanians back then were converted to Muslim, but some of them remained Christian, and including them would not be harmful I suppose? but ok as of now I remove the nationality, until we agree further. Ilir pz 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I want to leave it the way census stated - did census note nationalites? It didn't. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Metohija part

HRE, I will let you correct where "metohija" part should placed correctly. "Autonomous province of Kosovo" was the official name until abolished by Milosevic. I think only after WW1 for some time was the Metohija part imposed. I will wait for some time for you to change that to the then official naming where appropriate. Ilir pz 09:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I read the Constitution of SFRJ - check it out, by the way. Also, I specified "Viyalet of KosovA" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Methohija" merely out of historical reasons. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read any Constitution of SFRJ. :) "Viyalet of Kosova" is used so, because Ottomans(and still turks now) called it with an A in the end.Ilir pz 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Prishtina during the Great Demonstrations

Earlig Demostrations

• Student Movmend 1968 (agains the anexion from Serbian)
• Student Movmend 1974 (full Autonomy and part of Yogoslavia)

Great Demonstrations startit on march 1981

• Student Movmend 1981
• Workers Movmend 1981
• Srudent Movmend 1983-1985
• Minators Movmend 1983-1985
• Student Movmend 1998-1992 (Republika e Kosovës)
• Sindikat Movmend 1998-1992(Republika e Kosovës)
• Akademy Movmend 1998-1992 (Republika e Kosovës)
• UÇK Movmend after 1992 Kosovo tody

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.104.90 (talk · contribs)- 00:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem?

The Guardian is quoted....unless you consider it a biased newspaper then leave it. C-c-c-c 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of the article, and some parts

In order to preserve the neutrality in the article, I suggest we rename (and replace) in all parts of the article, include the main title, with the naming used mostly in English, and used by the UN Interim Administration [2] in Kosovo, which is PRISTINA, not the Serbian version Priština neither the Albanian version Prishtina. The naming used by locals can be used in the first line, for illustration, but the rest should be according to the naming in English. For illustration see the case of Gothenburg which is not instead called Götheborg like locals call it, or Copenhagen is not named København like Danes call it. The way other nations call the city should also preserved, and used accordingly, not according to personal opinions of particular users who do not know that for sure, but are POV pushing. Regards, ilir_pz 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind on this just yet, but: the policy of Wikipedia is to use the most commonly used name in English. However, I remember we also had a discussion on whether to use diacritics if that's the only difference between the local name and the English one. Can somebody remember where that discussion was held and what was the outcome? The other problem is that Priština (Serbian) is still usually used when either of the local names are used, but I imagine that as soon as (if, if you will) Kosovo become independent, Prishtina will start taking over as the international name of the city. So, can we try to determine which name is most commonly used in English? CIA has contradictory information (how ironic). The map says Priština, while the text uses Pristina. BBC uses Pristina exclusively. Let's give it some thought and try to come up with a good and permanent solution. --dcabrilo 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Dcabrilo, we notice contradicting namings given by different sources. That is why I suggested we use the naming used by the UN admin in Kosovo. When Kosovo becomes independent, of course the whole namings of the locations will be revised, but I was suggesting this change as a temporary one, until that changes. ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We had this problem also in other Kosova-city-articles. The problem is that many users do think that the Serbian name is automatically the international name, which is not true. There are two official names for the city: Prishtina and Priština, and both could be used in the article. Using just one of them is not NPOW. Maybe we could use them 50:50. But I don’t think that will solve the problem.

I guess Pristina would be a compromise.

Or we could avoid using the names by writing instead of the name just the ciy or town. That was the compromise we made in Peja-article .--Mig11 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the compromise in the article of Peja, Mig11. I still see that the main article is called according to the Serbian naming. ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was made just how to use the name throughout the text, by simple avoiding it. By naming of the main article itself was until now no compromise found. It is jet named with the Serbian name.--Mig11 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy on the naming of articles, there are merely a few factors which should normally be taken into account, one of them being the "self-identification" factor. How does the entity in question describe itself - this is also the basis for listing Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, or Western Sahara and Transnistria as independent states, despite the fact that no one recognizes them as such. --Telex 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So what is your proposal, Telex? The city should be named as Prishtina as it is how the entity in question describes itself? Correct me if I am wrong. ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a policy on the naming of the articles! int19h 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming it into Pristina would be a compromise. And as I said above, in the article itself we could use the Serbian and the Albanian names 50:50 or just try to avoid using them by writing the city, the town, ...--Mig11 10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, Mig11. Do we have to discuss this elsewhere, for renaming the article, or do we carry on voting for some days here? ilir_pz 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting with the vote. It is meant to be a last-resort measure used only when editors involved are clearly unable to find consensus, not a normal decision making process. Let's see if we can decide upon something together first. If, once all arguments are exhausted, we have not reached consensus yet, then a poll it will have to be... int19h 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the latest Google breakdown:

• Pristina: 3 910 000 hits
• Priština: 728 000 hits
• Prishtina: 694 000 hits

Note that I specifically excluded other spellings in each search so as to get the real picture. Based on this, Pristina is a clear leader. Therefore, I am posting a request to move the article to Pristina on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Once some administrator does it, spelling in the article will also be changed to Pristina throughout for the sake of consistency. Any objections? int19h 06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Limiting this to English pages is even more striking; this removes half of the uses for Pristina or Prishtina, but reduces Priština to 34 400 hits. This is not yet the English name. Septentrionalis 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, most naming is Priština itself. I agree that this name is not POV, but it resembles the main usage in English language - for instance, the CIA Factbook, Britannica, etc... all use the Serbian version of the name. Although this will probably change if/when Kosovo becomes a Country independent from Serbia, I support the name Pristina. However, I find strange that some people can't wait. ;) For instance, it was written that Montenegro is an independent country 1 minute after the referendum. :D When AFAIC, weeks after it, SCG still didn't dissolve (properly). This sounds to me like hyper-pushing. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I like updating myself. No need to wait, it is better to be consistent with the current status. It is a process.ilir_pz 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HolyRomanEmperor. If the articles relating to the cities of Kosovo are moved to a NPOV name then perhaps they should use the language of the majority population in the city or municipality (I believe 4 have a Serbian majority). I see the primary name of the article on the other cities or municipalities are inconsistent. Uroševac/Ferizai (or Ferizaj - the article has it two different ways and doesn't really say why) is in Albanian while Obiliq/Obilić is in Serbian. Ultimately the issue is that none of these places has an English name like Belgrade does, and choosing Priština or Prishtinë is POV and Prishtina is phonetic to how it is pronouced in English, but rarely is it written like this. None of the solutions are perfect or will please everyone. -- Phil76 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to be clear about this again. We should not use majority name, we should use the English name. We do have a naming guideline, here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). It says:
If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) says:
if the version with diacriticals is fairly well spread in English: below some criteria for "fairly well spread in English" are given: these are not "absolute" criteria, but give the direction if you're trying to find a practical way on how to approach this
As two mostly common used name in English are Pristina and Priština (in that order), and as Priština is way behind in the second place, that is, š is usually not used by English sources, I also move to move the article to Pristina. The same way it's Belgrade, not Beograd. Also, Pristina is a widely used term in English, as the city is very prominent, especially in the last couple of decades.
Finally, how to do this: there is no need to vote for us. However, a guideline is to use move template, although I don't see any objection on this so far and we should be able to avoid it all together. Let's give it a day and then act upon this. --dcabrilo 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dcabrilo, the "English" names used today to refer to the cities/villages of Kosovo are not in English, but are merely Serbian names, without diacritics. Using the names in the way the majority of the population in the particular location uses is the most fair solution. But for the sake of keeping consistent with the current naming used by the UN admin in Kosovo, a temporary solution would be to use no diacritics when referring to the name of the city, as that makes the naming Serbian, automatically, and thus is not NPOV. I say temporary, because this is going to change once the status of Kosovo will be determined, and the process of unfair Serbianization of names of locations in Kosovo will be reversed. Just as the status, the names of locations will have to be acceptable to the (majority of) people in Kosovo. But as the names in Albanian are quite different in some cases, I also suggest that within the text the double naming of the location to be used. That would make the article even more NPOV. Looking fwd to settling this. ilir_pz 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, Ilir, Wikipedia is not a place for pushing truth, righteousness or NPOV things. It's to be a simple encyclopedia. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia should reflect the truth. Correct me if I am wrong. ilir_pz 11:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. In this case, it means that we should follow verifiable English usage. Septentrionalis 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, simply put, it so happened that "English" names are derived from Serbian. This does not mean that they are not English - they are, as long as English-speaking world uses them consistently, which it does. Furthermore, we do not need a "most fair" solution - this is a sure way to kill any hope of ever finding consensus. We need an NPOV solution, and preferrably one that would be backed by existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At the moment, they clearly state that names preferred in English language are to be used for titles of the articles. "Pristina" seems to be such a name in this case. If/when Kosovo becomes independent, and English sources start to use the Albanian name for it extensively, we can switch (note that this does not mean that we switch immediately upon independence - see Talk:Kiev for a precedent and explanation of why not). Double naming is extremely ugly and outright silly - there's no need to repeat two names throughout the article, giving both in the introduction or/and explaining the difference in a separate dedicated section is enough to convey the message.

By the way, what does anything of this has to with "truth"? We are discussing what the article should be named, noone is proposing to remove other spellings from the text of the article itself. This is purely a consistence/convenience/policy conformance issue, there's no "truth" here, but rather options, with some being better than the other - and our task is to decide which are. int19h 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The correkt name is like in table of the city:

Mirë se vini Prishtinë Priština

File:BeogradiPrishtina.JPG

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.208.200.142 (talk · contribs)- 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed the correct name of the city in Albanian. However, this article is in the English Wikipedia, and should have the title preferred by speakers of English. int19h 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, can't you guys wait a few months? Kosovo is still part of Serbia, and as such, all the cities must be in Serbian, regardless of the majority population. Hungarians are the majority in the city of Subotica in Serbia, but it's not called Szabadka (Hungarian for Subotica) but rather the Serbian name - Subotica. No nationalism on Wikipedia, please. --serbiana - talk 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note

Discussion of the move request is at the top of the page. Please leave this note at the bottom until a decision is reached on the move. Septentrionalis 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Requested move

Priština → Pristina – Use most popular English name for the article as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. See the Google search breakdown on the article talk page. Suggested name has the additional benefit of being the most neutral one (neither distinctly Serbian nor Albanian), hopefully preventing further revert wars. int19h 06:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, for reasons stated above int19h 06:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I think that places whose local name is virtually equal to the English equivalent except for letter variations that do not exist in the English language, should keep their local name exactly as it is in Wikipedia articles for it's a more perfectionist and educative way to display them (as in "Besançon", not "Besancon"; "Lübeck" not "Lubeck"; "São Paulo" not "Sao Paulo", etc.). However, considering that Pristina has more than one local name, I accept your argument about having a more neutral English form, and therefore I shall not oppose the article to be moved to "Pristina".--Húsönd 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. It would set up a bad precedent and a reason for edit wars in an already heated subject. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Per Húsönd & Asterion. Besides, both NGS and Britannica use "Priština". Evv 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Húsönd and Evv. Additionally, I suspect that the majority of results on Google are as a result of English users not having easy access to the "š" character. Being English, and therefore a native English speaker, it's far more desireable to use the correct spelling of a name if there is not localised version. Therefore it should be Munich and not München, but Priština and not Pristina. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Priština is not (yet) English usage; we should move when (and if) this changes. The google results are (when limited to English) overwhelming; see also my comments below. Belgrade is a good example; so is Moscow. Septentrionalis 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant support for lack of a better compromise solution. Note that this is basically a political issue, not a pro/against diacritic one (and I'm a strong pro-diacritic); there are two native spellings of the city (Priština and Prishtina), and adopting either (currently, Serbian one) is not NPOV. The suggested "Pristina" is indeed a "vulgar anglicization" of Serbian spelling, but alternatives are also bad. Note that a similar issue exists with other Kosovo toponyms with diacritics and/or affricates: Dečani, Peć, Uroševac. Duja 08:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose names with diacritics are allowed on Wikipedia. The English name is based on the local version, just without it. Gryffindor 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the version with the diacritic is also used in other reputabile sources [3] [4] [5] --Lowg 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support for NPOV. FairHair 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, the use of the 's' without diacritic seems to be mainly caused by the fact that it until recentely was not very easy to use diacritics online, as it is also used by albanian sites [6]. Other than that, I almost feel sad there is so much fuss about such a small issue. -Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as stated above - mainly that Pristina is the Serbian version minus the diacritic. Phildav76 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for obvious reasons: Priština is in Serbia, in Serbian it is spelled Priština; and since the article on Timişoara in Romania is not Timisoara in Wikipedia, Priština must remain Priština and NOT Pristina on Wikipedia. --serbiana - talk 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  If the sole name of the city in question currently in use were Priština (as it is in case of Timişoara) it would not be an issue. As it stands though, if we opt for using the local name as is, rather than the anglicized version, then one might as well ask why we choose "Priština" and not e.g. "Prishtinë". "Because it's more popular in English" does not really hold water, since "Pristina" seemingly satisfies that criterion even better. -- int19h 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  What about the city of Subotica on the far North of Serbia? The majority population is Hungarian, and in Hungarian, the name of the town is Szabadka, but still, it's called Subotica everywhere in the world. This is just a case of Albanians not wanting their town to be called the Serbian name, unlike the Hungarians in Subotica, who frankly don't care. Locally, it doesn't matter, Priština is in Serbia, therefore we use the Serbian name. --serbiana - talk 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  Let's reiterate. Subotica is a city in Serbia, and administered by Serbia. It only has one official local name. Priština is a city in Kosovo, which is a province of Serbia, but which is administered by the UN, not Serbia. The UN, to my knowledge, considers both Serbian and Albanian names equally valid, but also uses "Pristina" in its documents. That's how we end up with several different, but nonetheless valid, local names for the city, complicating the issue. -- int19h 07:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It's totally different than Belgrade's and Moscow's situation, where the entire name of the city is different in another language. This is one diacritic. --Krytan 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Serbiana. Priština is in Serbia, why use the English name? If Priština becomes a part of England, or if the city becomes so well known in the Western world as Pristina or w.e., THEN we can talk about changing the name. Priština is Priština. --KOCOBO 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Because this is the English Wikipedia, not the Serbian one, therefore we use English names here as per the official policy. Whether Priština is an acceptable English spelling or not is a different question. It makes more sense to use the "if the city becomes so well known in the Western world as Pristina" criterion, which is why I've made the Google test to see which spelling is currently more popular, and you can see the results in the section below. -- int19h 06:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Google search results copied here for convenience:

• Pristina: 3 910 000 hits
• Priština: 728 000 hits
• Prishtina: 694 000 hits

int19h 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Google does not discriminate diacritics. Hence first result would also contain Priština mentions. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it does not, unless special measures are taken. If you look carefully at the search strings above, you will see that the one for "Pristina" is in fact "+Pristina -Priština -Prishtina", thus explicitly telling Google to not twiddle with diacritics in an undesired way. Indeed, if you click on the search link and scroll through the result pages randomly, you will not notice a single reference to "Priština". So the search results above are valid in that regard. int19h 09:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my carelessness. It's good to learn something new. Thanks and regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As Robwingfield pointed out in his vote, the results on Google may reflect more the fact of English users not having easy access to the "š" character than actual preference of "Pristina" over "Priština". Not to mention simple lazyness and carelessness...

That's why in all these cases involving odd characters and dubious spellings I consider better to check paper sources (books, maps, magazines) and only specific internet sites (like Britannica) than to trust in Google's numbers. (For National Geographic's use of "Priština" see their maps and the February 2000 issue). Regards. :-) Evv 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with paper sources is that they tend to be conservative and do not show the latest trends. As for English users not using "š" because it is not available to them - I would expect it to be the case on the forums, blogs and such, but not on more professionally-made websites. It's pretty hard to filter the former out though, so any suggestions would be welcome. At any rate, it's hardly clear-cut - some might not be using "š" because they don't know how to type it, but this doesn't mean that many others are not using it because they believe it to be the right spelling. BBC uses "Pristina" for example, and so does the UN, so there is certainly precedent. -- int19h 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree on every point you mention, Int19h; hence the "weakness" of my oppose. (By the way, I like the conservative nature of paper sources :-) Encyclopedias should be at the tail -and not at the head- of the latest trends). Regards. Evv 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), and it certainly makes an interesting read in context of this discussion. A few citations:

Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. This means in reliable English sources, such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, or articles in major English-language newspapers.

As mentioned above, Britannica and National Geographic use "š". BBC does not. Perhaps some more research is needed into this to clarify whether there is any specific trend in common usage, because:

If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Wikipedia guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles.

Thoughts? -- int19h 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just a proposed guideline, written by a group of wikipedians who tried to find a solution to the eternal diacritic problem, but AFAICT it failed to reach WP:CONSENSUS; as such, its weight is about zilch, for the good or the bad of it. Like I said, I'm a rather heavy pro-diacritic; the issue of this proposed move, though, is not in pro- vs. contra- diacritic, but rather a political issue of neutral naming of a contested piece of territory. While the existing policy of "use diacritics if that's the only thing the common English name is different from original" is applicable to Priština on the surface, the problem is that Albanian editors perceive it as Serbian spelling (which it, um, is). Duja 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, there's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), which (under the "Europe" subsection) says:

In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used.

Though that opens yet another can of worms in an attempt to determine the 'current' local name of the city. If we take the official English version, it would be "Pristina" (as used by the interim UN administration in official documents). I would expect that locals themselves, of which Albanians are a majority, naturally mostly use "Prishtinë".

What more, this also touches another issue - if article name is left at either the distinctly Serbian or the distinctly Albanian version, one could assume that, in accordance to the naming convention cited above, Wikipedia makes a claim that the spelling used is indeed the "current local name of the city"... -- int19h 11:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This last particular guideline, In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used, is mainly for "obscure" locations, as our city may have been before 1999. But for the last 6 years our city has been constantly referred to in all languages, including English. Some English speakers have adopted the Serbian name "Priština" while others use "Pristina", either "anglicizing" or simplifying it (exactly the same happened in my native Spanish, in which both forms also coexist for the very same reasons).

Both options are valid. Which one should we choose here ? I see three possibilities:

1. Follow the NGS and use the Serbian name "Priština", which I find, in the words of Húsönd, a more perfectionist and educative way to display it. This form is used in de:, fr:, it:, es:, sv:, none of whose alphabets include the "š".
2. Follow the BBC and use an "anglicized" or simplified "Pristina".
3. Follow the UN and use a neutral, very diplomatic "Pristina". In my view, this would deny "a more perfectionist and educative form" to over a billion English-speaking readers from the whole world in order to avoid hurting the sensibilities of 7 million Albanian-speakers. The UN is forced to do so, but we aren't.

I believe that this last point was what Asterion had in mind when he commented his "weak oppose" vote saying: It would set up a bad precedent and a reason for edit wars. In any case, that is my personal view: I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia become a carefully worded diplomatic text on the lines of a UN document, in which clarity is sacrificed to respect everyone's sensibilities.

In the future, for either political or cultural reasons, the English language could eventually drop the Serbian name "Priština" and fully embrace the simplified "Pristina", or even adopt the Albanian "Prishtina". Not long ago, we all spoke about "Peking". But untill that happens, Wikipedia should reflect the current usage, and not spearhead a new trend. Regards. :-) Evv 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that we should first and foremost choose the spelling most widely used in English ("current usage"), and not for political reasons. The point, though, is that it seems to me that "Pristina" is used at least as much as "Priština" by English speakers (even if you assume that many people are simply lazy to type that "š" - otherwise it's seen much more often, as evidenced by the Google test), and that's where other matters might enter into consideration. -- int19h 04:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to kindly ask the editors to refrain from changing the spelling of the city name in the article until the move request has been closed (should happen today). Once that is done (so there is a clear consensus on what the spelling should be), the spelling should be changed throughout the article to that of the title of the article - whichever one it'll be - for the sake of consistency. Until then, it only provokes silly revert wars. -- int19h 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Evv 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After WP:MR

Ok, it seems the spelling throughout the article is now fixed to conform to the title of the article. As it went, turned out that whoever did the recent Priština→Pristina move, didn't even bother to check if that invalidated any links; e.g. then-absent Category:Pristina and Pristina District, and a double redirect on University of Pristina. Just a reminder to be more careful. Meanwhile I'm going to create redirects for all articles with "Priština" in the name for all possible spellings, since that's what we do for Priština itself.

By the way, note that, as it stands, it is the University of Prishtina, and not University of Priština, at least currently, though that is (surprise surprise) disputed. Anyway, I think it's best to have the links correspond directly to titles of the articles they link to where possible, so I used the "Prishtina" spelling in this article as well. -- int19h 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Renaming within the article

Although it may seem unpalatable to some, consensus has now been reached as to the article name. Please therefore could people refrain from editing the article content to use a name other than the article name. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached. Tonycdp 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Look at the section immediately above this one. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp, while I agree with your point, and no consensus has indeed been reached, at least the poll made it clear that, whatever spelling could be a compromise that all editors could agree upon, "Pristina" is definitely not it. So we'll have to seek another solution here.

Furthermore, as it is, the title of the article remains at Priština as per result of the poll on my move request. Whichever it is, spelling throughout the article should conform to spelling in the title for the sake of consistency. If you believe the spelling is incorrect (as I do), it should be changed in the title, and then the rest of the article can be made to conform to it as well. Things being what they are, you cannot just move the page without going through the WP:RM procedure, and even then only if the move is not deemed controversial (I assumed that to be the case when I made my RM, having gotten that assumption from reading the talk page). The poll clearly showed that opinions still differ strongly on the issue, so we need to talk it out and find a solution acceptable to most before doing any further name spelling changes. Once consensus has been reached (and it involves a different spelling), then another WP:RM should be made and spelling changed. I agree with Robwingfield that repeatedly changing it now without consideration for opinions of other editors is disruptive. -- int19h 05:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the article -- folks, please stop edit warring and discuss. As edit history (as well as discussion) suggests that Tonycdp is the more culpable party in this matter, I've chosen to protect the Wrong Version as far as he's concerned. It is, however, not an endorsement of that version. Talk this through and try to persuade each other. --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've tried to do - see above and User talk:Tonycdp / User talk:Robwingfield. My position is this... the above WP:RM has established by consensus that the article should be named Priština. Therefore, the article content should reflect the article name. Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No consensus was ever reached, but if we're going to play it by the rules then we play it by the rules, right. Pristina is the correct English spelling and is used extensively by Neutral secondary sources. Now whether it is due to people not being able to type "š" is speculation and amounts to "Original Research". Thank you. Tonycdp 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinion on poll

As someone who is not involved in these discussions, I have some hesitations in drawing any conclusions from the poll above. I count 5 support votes, 9 oppose votes and 2 neutral votes. That means that 56% of the voters is against moving the page and 31% is in favor. That is not a very convincing outcome and one should be very reluctant in using this poll for proclaiming consensus on the issue. In my opinion, the closing editor should have called it no consensus, but with the addition do not move at this time, since a small majority is in favor of not moving. The issue, however, does not appear to be settled and although revert-warring is not a good idea, further discussions will be necessary (including trying to attract the attention of more uninvolved editors in order to obtain more independent opinions). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As an extension to this comment, I suggest people to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which explains the difficulty in reaching consensus using polls, but also includes this sentence: the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. That said, I think a controversial subject like this one will never reach a true consensus, so instead one should be looking for compromise solutions. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm going to leave the discussion on this one, as I have no interest in Serbian affairs, and I'm an "independent opinion" myself. All I was trying to do was implement the results of the above poll, but I'll leave this to someone with more time/inclination. Robwingfield ^(talk) 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, your contributions are dearly appreciated. Tonycdp 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

naming of towns in Kosmet

At the moment, Kosovo is still a part of Serbia, as we all know. Serbia's official language is Serbian, if i am not mistaken. Therefore, any naming of places should be done in Serbian. Yes, Albanians do have the majority of the population in the Kosovo region, and? so what? It doesn't change a thing. If the town or city or what ever is in Serbia, it follows a Serbian name, if it is in Albania it follows an Albanian name. Please, if i am wrong, let me know. thanks/hvala/falemnderit :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JU580 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a long discussion on that (as you can see above and on the talk pages). The problem is that, while Kosovo is de jure a part of Serbia, it has different laws (by virtue of being under UN juristiction). If I'm not mistaken, its official languages are at the moment both Serbian and Albanian.

Not that it matters any, since Wikipedia uses the names most commonly used in English, not official names in any of the local languages. -- int19h 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:JU580: Sorry to disappoint you, but not just Serbian language is the official one in Kosova today but also the Albanian language. This must be very shocking for you! People, with your kind of POV brought the land of Serbia there where it is now - nowhere. Maybe you missed something, but if you didn’t, but just don’t want to realise it: Kosova is under the UN administration. Of course it is also somehow still “part of Serbia in the paper”. But Albanians “also had all the human rights in the paper” in Milosevic-era, if you understand what I mean! We don’t need here another nationalistic POV. If you have a realistic and acceptable solution, please bring it here. And “kosmet” is a well known nationalistic term used also in Milosevic era!

To -- int19h:Hi! I was for a couple of months unable to bring my contributions in en:wiki so I also missed the discussion and the voting about changing the articles name. As I can see, there is actually no consensus reached. Best regards--Mig11 13:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss

I would like to invite everyone interested to the discussion about the correct article name for the Priština International Airport; in particular, the people who have participated in the recent WP:RM poll over there. -- int19h 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Municipality

Could someone find me a map of the Prishtina municipality with the settlements in the municipality? --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can noone help with this? Where are all the users from Kosovo when something constructive needs to be done? --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The city's emblem

Apparently the city has no coat of arms, but an emblem. To avoid confusing readers, I boldly created Template:Infobox City Kosovo2, a copy of Template:Infobox City Kosovo in every other aspect. It's my first venture into templates, and would welcome any better solution for the issue (maybe modifying the original Template:Infobox City Kosovo to show either coat of arms or city emblem, if that is possible ?). I'm leaving this comment in Template talk:Infobox City Kosovo also. - Best regards, Evv 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing to the original template, and I suggest hat someone adds a note about the "emblem" and its history to the article. Creating superfluous templates is not a good thing. Andy Mabbett 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Prishtinali

Fellow editors,

I have a problem with the paragraph below. It is too complicated and slightly taken out of context by the virtue of political correctness.

The inhabitants of this city are called Prishtinali or Prishtinas in Albanian and Prištinci (Приштинци) or Prištinjani (Приштињани) in Serbian.

I would like to make a contribution here, if I am allowed:

The correct term to describe an inhabitant of Pristina in albanian is Prishtinas, whereas the serbian forms are also correct in their respective language.

The problem I have is that, they are no more than grammatically correct adjectives in local languages. What one fails to realize is that most people in Prishtina call themselves "Prishtinali" in Albanian and "Pristinlije" in Serbian. Although in recent decades serbs have opted to call themselves Pristevci (which is also gramatically incorrect because the city is not called Pristevo), so Pristinci in serbian is correct.

Both terms originate from Turkish "Pristinali" (Pristina was an Ottoman town for 500 years). And people who have been born and grown-up in the City use the Albanized and Serbianized versions of this Turkish term. Similarly, the inhabitants of Sarajevo are not called Sarajevcani or Sarajevci which would be grammatically correct in Serbian/Bosnian, but they use the Serbianized turkish term "Sarajlije" from Turkish: "Sarajli".

Now bearing in mind that Pristina has over 600,000 inhabitants who call themselves "Prishtinali" and it has had a continuous Ottoman, then Albanian character in the last 200 years at least, it is only fair that this paragraph is changed. I propose the following

The inhabitants of this city call themselves Prishtinali. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.251.167 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't speak either language, so I trust you on what forms are actually used :-) However, for clarity, I find it better to indicate the language used in each case. And I would also prefer to keep the Serbian form/s (whatever it is), for four reasons:

1). The Serbian inhabitants were/are not just a local minority, but the main linguistic group of the country this city is currently part of (and has been since the early 20th century).

2). Serbian is one of the official languages of Kosovo.

3). It's interesting to know the Serbian gentilic, and this information doesn't require much space, but just adding five words to the sentence.

4). Keeping both languages would help avoid more reverts than you can imagine :-)

If you have a source (see WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:RS) for both forms deriving from the Turkish "Pristinali" (written with ş, I guess), I would love to have this detail mentioned in the article.

What I would find really interesting is to know what gentilic is used in English by foreign workers & peacekeepers. Do you know that ? Best regards, Evv 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Please refrain from moving this article without previous discussion. Also refer to past threads above. Thanks, --Asterion^talk 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Language

A couple of weeks ago, there were some news on the Turkish newspapers about Turkish becoming one of the official languages of Pristina. Can anyone confirm this? If this is correct, then this article should add Turkish as an official language next to Albanian and Serbian. Wikiturk 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

Should the name "Prishtinë" be put in brackets "()" after the name Priština?--Bindicapriqi (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

no. Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Who agrees that the article should be named like this Priština(Prishtinë) or like this Prishtinë(Priština) --Bindicapriqi (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article name does not get changed. This was already decided. --Bolonium (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "survey" on Wikipedia. We're not telemarketers. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to be changed. The article name will not get changed. Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several reason why I believe the name should be changed to Prishtinë or Prishtina, the Albanian version. First, the primary language is the Republic of Kosovo is Albanian, as Albanians make up over 90% of the total population. For a comparison, take other countries, such as Macedonia, where there are at least 30% Albanians residing, and the primary language there is Macedonian. Given that Kosovo is entirely Albanian (minus 5% Serbs, or so...), the primary language should be Albanian. And in Albanian we say Prishtina! The second reason I believe the name should be changed to Prishtina is Kosovo's history. Kosovo has always been Albanian, despite serbian claims. And since old times, Albanians have used names from the Albanian language. I would advise Wikipedia to change the name of Prishtina and of all the other cities and districts to the Albanian language, the largest, the primary, and the official language of the Republic of Kosovo. DataOpen (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We name geographic articles according to our own general naming conventions and the specific ones on geographic names and using English.

The main criterion upon which those conventions are based is that of common English usage. Thus, for the specific issue of naming an article, the nationality & language of the local population, or how a place is, was or will be called in Albanian, Serbian, French or Chinese have no significance whatsoever.

The name will be changed to Prishtina or Prishtinë only if one of those forms is adopted as common English usage. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As it has been agreed in the Wikipedia page for Kosovo, the name of the cities should be primarily in Albanian.DataOpen (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely NOT what has been agreed upon on the page you're referring to! Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Data Open - No such thing has been agreed. Abc30 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no such agreement. And my guess is that there will not be, because it would be contrary to our current naming conventions. - Ev (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See these English language sources for proof that the only spelling in common English usage is PRISTINA with no diacritic: [7] [8]
Google News search 'Pristina' - 5284 hits
Google News search 'Prishtina' - 51 hits
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc30 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

how many hits are there for "Priština ? Probably less so the name should be Pristina--Cradel 12:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you search Priština it comes up with about 5100 hits, but almost all of these hits are actually Pristina with no diacritic. Abc30 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly , thats why I think the article should be renamed --Cradel 13:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

tweaked search, to tell google not to meddle with the results gives the following approximate numbers:

Pristina 5600 hits

Priština 90 hits

Prishtina 50 hits

clearly favoring Pristina Alexanderpas (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm exercising administrator prerogatives to close this discussion for now, as it's an issue that needs to be resolved not only for Pristina but for all Kosovo placenames. This is essentially a naming conflict issue and is therefore covered by the naming conflict guidelines that I authored several years ago. We need to establish a common approach for all Kosovo placenames, consistent with the naming conflict guidelines and neutral point of view policy. I'm currently working on a style guideline covering this issue. It will be similar to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) (which I also created). I'll post it in a few days. Could editors please wait until then so that the naming issue can be discussed in one place - that way we can have a consistent approach that complies with policy, without having to go through this discussion for every individual placename in Kosovo. We don't need to make any changes to names immediately; Pristina and other localities in Kosovo have the same names now as they did last week, so there is no immediate rush. Thank you for your cooperation! -- ChrisO (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I realise a survey has already taken place. But this was before Kosovo self-declared independence. A lot of the arguments used before were that 'Pristina is in Serbia so we should use the Serbian name'. Some may now feel differently about this.

This article needs to be moved to Pristina (with no H or diacritic) for the following reasons:

1. This spelling is the most commonly used spelling in English, as any internet news search will prove. [9] [10]
2. Wikipedia policy states that articles should be named using the English alphabet. The character š is not part of the English alphabet. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)
3. Wikipedia policy is that "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." So the name in English that we should use is Pristina. My first point proves that this is the most commonly recognised spelling. We can include the other spellings as transliterations on the first line.
4. The spelling Pristina is neither Albanian nor Serbian, so this will reduce edit wars.
5. Using the argument "if Pristina was in England or America then we would use the English spelling" is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. We do not call Germany 'Deutschland'. This is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA.

Please Support or Oppose Abc30 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as the proposer. Abc30 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This is the most common name in english and this is the english wikipedia not the serbian one --Cradel 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Change To Prishtina - after reading the comments I realize that pristina derives from the serbian word , and since now kosovo is independent from serbia and albanian is the primary language is albanian so it should be Prishtina --Cradel 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment:: The proposal omits important context. Up until yesterday (and again since just now) Wikipedia:Naming conventions reqires a Latin alphabet, not an English alphabet. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed issues explicitly discusses the use of diacritics. A previous poll found no consensus, but a majority in favor of using them where appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Counter-comment Fair enough, but surely where a common spelling that does not use diacritics is available, and this spelling is actually more common in English language media, then we should use this non-diacritic spelling. Abc30 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  I've not made any comment on the concrete issue at hand - honestly, this is something I don't care about in this instance (or even most instances), but I know I can get worked up about the general principles. Many of these debates are driven by an unholy mixture of Anglo-centric stupidity and pointless nationalism, so I'd rather stay out of the poll itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  This is a very important point Stephan makes. Point 2 of the move rationale is completely incorrect and should be struck out. The policy has been misinterpreted - what is important is what the most common spelling in English-language texts is. Nothing else matters, including arguments based on ill-defined notions of "neutrality" or "Englishness". Sometimes English commonly uses letters outside what is called "the English alphabet" above, hence articles at Besançon, Tübingen, Edvard Beneš... Focus on providing good, solid evidence of usage. Two examples from news websites does not convincing evidence make - you can find pretty much any spelling of anything you like in the Guardian/Grauniad for example! Knepflerle (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - 1.this is the english wikipedia not the serbian nor the albanian one ,2.the term Pristina isnt albanian nor serbian and therefor is the most neutral --Leitz 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Take a look at University of Prishtina. In the first paragraph, you will read the Latin name of the university: "Universitas Studiorum Prishtiniensis". Latin is one of the oldest languages, and it uses an 'H' in the ALBANIAN name of Prishtina (because it is an Albanian name).--Arber (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Latin name is totally irrelevant here. What matters is the spelling that English speaking people and organisations use today. As I have already demonstrated (see CNN and BBC links), this is Pristina, no H. Abc30 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are voting for keeping the serbian name?--Cradel 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am voting to get rid of the diacritic... that's what this is about. Abc30 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant Arber is --Cradel 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, no he is saying we should move it to Prishtina (the albanian name) which is even worse and has no usage in English media. Abc30 (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Which is even worse?!", Well, for one, it's got no diacritic. Second, it's easier to spell and pronounce than more than 50% of the world's capitals. I don't really see your point :) - you keep committing logical fallacies...--Arber (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is even worse because it has even less usage in everyday English. Abc30 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of Prishtina, and oppose Pristina or other versions. This is a survey; people are allowed to vote for whatever option, I guess!--Arber (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should change your comment from "Oppose" to : "Change to Prishtina --Cradel 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support, not of terribly high importance, but makes sense, would equally have made sense before the Kosovo declaration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Taking the five points raised at the start: 1). Even news websites are vulnerable to the available characters on a contributor's keyboard (and also to the fact that in some fonts and displays particular characters don't display well; whilst the technical team will know how to handle this, the content producers often don't and generally ere on the side of caution). I think sourcing media style guides, preferably ones that explicitly address the point rather than leaving it to their silence, rather than online stories is a better way to say assertively what is and isn't particular media usage. 2). As mentioned it's the Latin alphabet, not the English alphabet. Besides a lot of words, especially proper nouns, that have originated in other languages and been imported into English do still use their original language's diacritics - e.g. Zürich. 3). Again when diacritics are involved both forms are usually just as recognisable as each other in English. 4). I don't think we should allow the original source of a name to influence the location of the Wikipedia article - it's a route to artificial consensus. 5). I agree, but this isn't a factor I feel should be an issue in these decisions one way or the other. (Additional reasoning) Diacritics vs non-diacritics is always going to be an awkward issue but I think we should err on the side of diacritics as the more accurate form of spelling rather than perpetuate common mispellings, especially ones that are hard to avoid because of the limitations of the keyboard (much as we'd like to imagine otherwise, most people do not dive on Character Map and convoluted key combinations all the time). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Its not just the diacritic but the term Pristina is niether albanian nor serbian so its more neutral --Leitz 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not really - "Pristina" is the Serbian name written without the diacritic. If you gave people the only options of "Priština" and "Prishtina" they would be more likely to go for the former. I just don't agree with the idea of basing article names on a "more neutral" location as it just encourages all kinds of awkard POV forks and artificial constructs as the solution to disputes. It should come down to common usage modified by correct spelling. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Change To Prishtina The usage and adoption of terms in English is affected by different factors, mainly historic and geographic. It is the typical, simple case of an exonym. Check out its definition: "...they may be cognate words which have diverged in pronunciation or orthography, or they may be fully or partially translated from the native language." "Pristina" in English derives from the serb "Priština", disregarding the pronunciation of "š" ("SH") and turning it into a simple "s". My idea is, since the English can pronounce "SH" (Prishtina), it is more than acceptable to be used as such. Besides, Kosovo is independent now, which makes the Albanian community a majority. As such, knowing the fact that there are two official languages (Albanian and Serbian), Albanian language is used ahead of Serbian, paving the way for the name "Prishtina" to be used instead of "Priština" (in Serbian). In short: Pristina derives from Priština. Because it is Serbian and there is an Albanian majority, Prishtina should be used. However, the name "Priština" can remain in the redirection list, as the other official names. Bardhylius (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you change your comment to : "Change to Prishtina--Cradel 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose absolutely not! Yes, this is the English Wikipedia, and yes, we name our pages in English, but only if there is an official English equivalent to the name. For example, Belgrade is shown as such (not as Beograd) just about everywhere - National Geographic Maps and the like - because that's the official English name. Priština (or Prishtina now with Kosovo's independence) doesn't have an official English translation. See Šibenik, Čačak, Teslić - all cities that do not have an English equivalent. 67.41.182.153 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, I support changing the article name to Prishtina. 67.41.182.153 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if the city were in an English-speaking country, wouldn't it be spelled "Prishtina" as that's how it's pronounced? 67.41.182.153 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. I agree with Timrollpickering, and I find "Priština" (with diactitics) a more perfectionist and educative way to display the name. After all, it's the form used by Britannica's article and the National Geographic Magazine. - Ev (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated above by Abc30 and in the previous one by int19h Alexanderpas (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC) edit: Alexanderpas (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

tweaked search, to tell google not to meddle with the results gives the following approximate numbers:

Google Search

Pristina 2 600 000 hits - english only 1 100 000 hits

Priština 2 000 000 hits - english only 80 000 hits

Prishtina 1 000 000 hits - english only 507 000 hits

Google News

Pristina 5600 hits

Priština 90 hits

Prishtina 50 hits

clearly favoring Pristina Alexanderpas (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to check with Google Scholar, but found that there is an enormous number of false positives because many biological species have "Pristina" in their name: Pristina silvicola, Pristina terrena, Pristina longiseta, ..., which completely dominate the search. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

I completely disagree with these methods. The impression of others (i.e. "outsiders") based on Google searches should not be THE :decisive factor on what to call something. As I said above, this is a matter of exonyms. The reason why English names of places :differs from original is mainly because it suits the language phonetically speaking. I don't see a reason why the English alphabet :and its pronunciation should be disrespected by omitting the "SH" when it is clearly pronounced by any Englishman (oh, here it :is!). This leaves us again at the crossroads of "Prishtina" (Albanian) and Priština (Serbian). The choice is logical, Prishtina. Bardhylius (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming policy is summarized as "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." What is "logical" is irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a way to find out the real name. But I think, as I said above, a misinterpretation has happened here. Exonyms are such, misinterpretations. The English have taken Priština for granted but turned š ("SH") into simple s. This makes the true source of the English word Serbian. It is the same as choosing Priština, which is wrong because Serbian language is secondary to the Albanian majority. What worries me the most about the discussion is that Prishtina is perfectly pronounced by the English but it is still object to further discussions. I mean I can understand Kosovo with an "o" in the end (opposed to the original Kosova in Albanian) because of the pronunciation, that even I as an Albanian have problems of saying it in the English context, but Prishtina is perfectly acceptable in terms of phonetics. Or the case of Belgrade (originally Beograd), I can undestand this too. It's hard to pronounce, the exonym is logical. The "Google searches" show a slight difference in usage, but above all I think that Wikipedia should be a projection of what is logical and authentic, not a result of what people like to call things. I'm sure very little know about Kosovo and because they could search for it as Serbia doesn't mean we have to name Kosovo's article name Serbia. Article names are what they are, for everything else there's redirect. Bardhylius (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the current official naming policy essentially boils down to "use what (most) people (i.e. English speakers) like to call things", not what is logical or authentic. This boils down to the old "Verifiability, not truth". It also makes sense. If Priština was ok a week ago, it still is ok today. The usage of English did not change overnight. Political changes may be fast, but language evolves slowly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes have happened. You can not remain ignorant to these changes. The new state interprets itself in its own way, you can't say it will remain the same for you. Montenegro, do you still call them Serbia and Montenegro? I think that the naming policy suggests that as long as the original, authentic name is easily and clearly prunounced and easy to use/remember, then you should go with it. And oh, I see your comment "Priština was ok a week ago..." very POV. Please refrain from what is sensitive talk, Wikipedia refers to what is "official" not personal opinions. Bardhylius (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the names. I can see valid arguments on all sides (Pristina - seems to be the most frequent spelling online, and used frequently offline, but is misleading on the pronunciation, Priština - used fairly frequently, especially in more reliable sources, recognizable, and not (or less) misleading about the pronunciation, Prishtina - closest to the locally used spelling, correct pronunciation, but very rarely used in English so far). But some arguments - those used on actual usage by English speakers - are compatible with Wikipedia naming policy, and some, especially those based on political and nationalistic reasoning, are completely irrelevant for our discussion. Whatever the new state does (and I'm not aware about an official statement on how the name should be written in English texts), it will at best change the practical usage of English slowly - and that usage is our primary reference. Yes, I still call Serbia and Montenegro Serbia and Montenegro when I refer to the historical entity. I'm not using it as a proper noun to refer to any current state, as it is not the name of any current state. But the city still is the same, regardless of the term we use. I don't know which naming policy you read, but the one I read says "if there is an established English name, use it". And please do not misquote me. Read what I wrote: a conditional sentence. I've made no assertion that the condition is true, and again, I have no particularly strong opinion on the issue. And no, Wikipedia couldn't care less about what is "official", it cares about reliable sources. Official statements are fine as sources about "official" opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this shorter and clearer. There are two options: either you use Pristina, becuase you want to remain neutral and at the same time ignorant to the truth, or you will use Prishtina the Albanian version. There is absolutely no possible chance of using Priština as long as there is massive Albanian majority and Kosovo is independent from Serbia. Now, another problem with Pristina is that you have to face interpreting the name of the capital alone or doing so with all the cities of Kosovo. If you choose to interpret Pristina alone, you leave the other cities behind. If you choose to interpret other cities in English too, you have spawned yourself a massive taks. But clearly you don't understand why there is a difference between the "original" name and the English version. I suggest you look up into this more, it'll be easier for you to get the whole idea. Bardhylius (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Opppose per the reasons given above. Either Prishtina or Priština, certainly not Pristina. —Nightstallion 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which one then ?--Cradel 09:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Prishtina. —Nightstallion 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should change your comment to :"Change to Prishtina" , anyway you spelled oppose with three Ps :)--Cradel 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Change to Prishtina - Usage of Pristina was a result of the official Serbian spelling with the diacritic. Actually, those who have knowledge of Prishtina and know how the name is pronounced, they prefer Prishtina. And I am talking about English speakers here. The gap between Pristina and Prishtina on internet usage does not seem to be enormous; Pristina was favored because one is supposed to use the official name (until now Serbian). However, now Albanian is the first official language of Kosova and I believe English should rather comply with Albanian than Serbian. In Albanian I spell it Texas and not Tejas. Prishtina as a town does not have great historical significance to the English speakers as to have its own English name, such as the case with Germany.--Getoar (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be Prishtinë? kwami (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Prishtinë is just another form of Prishtina--Cradel 09:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I prefer NPOV Priština/Prishtinë --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment POV forks never solve anything in a naming conflict. We shouldn't manufacture a name - that's Original Research. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The legal status of the government of Kosovo and the language the country officially uses are not factors that should determine the Wikipedia article location. This is not about whether the city's name is Serbian or Albanian in origin, it is about what name is most commonly used for the city in English. For what it's worth, which is very little, the Kosovo government website doesn't use just "Prishtina" in its English language text. (We'll have to wait a bit to see what their embassies and tourist board use for English language material; ditto official texts in the English language.) But if even the government of Kosovo are not trying to change the name the city is known by in English, who are we to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote an alternative name for political reasons? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The government of Kosovo website does use "Prishtina" [11], and so does the official tourism site [12]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The prevalent international version should be adopted. Despite the fact that Albanians might disagree, Pristina is how the city is known internationally. Equally, the serbian version Priština is outdated and controversial considering that over 500 000 people who live in the city are Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech999 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet of some sort. This was his first edit. --Prevalis (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support Google statistics above are a weak argument, but they do support Pristina. The BBC's use of is more persuasive. Here, above all, we should not rely on official usage; who are we to decide who are the officials here, when the Security Council disagrees on the point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -I'd like to make a point if I am allowed to do so. About 3 years ago when I argued that this article is renamed to Pristina. Most wikipedians argued that the official serbian spelling Priština was the correct one because thats how the country spellt it. Don't you all think it is hypocritical to now not allow the newly independent Kosovo to spell its capital the way it wishes??
  I suggested Pristina then and I still suggest it now, but I had to make a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech999 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Coment I didn't participate in said discussion, but the official spelling by the country in question is a minor matter (and, as has been pointed out by several people, there's no evidence yet that the government of Kosovo have made any statement about what the city's name is in English - i.e. what they'll use in diplomatic relations, tourist boards and so forth), only really of interest as a form of "tie-breaker" when it becomes darn near impossible to determine which of two versions is the one "most commonly used in English" and correct. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - for 3 reasons:

1. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, according to the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The Serbian language name for the city is Priština.

2. Priština is not only how the city is called in Serbian, but is also the correct transliteration of the name of the city into English.

3. Changing it to "Pristina" would be wrong, simply because not even the Albanian minority in Serbia (most of them concentrated in Kosovo) uses that term.

--GOD OF JUSTICE 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Pristina means absolutely nothing. There is a widespread erroneous belief that if certain languages do not contain letters with certain diacritics, then it is not a legal character. The diacritic is known as a caron, and was deployed purposely for the Roman alphabet. It does not belong to non-Latinic scripts; so a language primarily written in the Latin alphabet may incorporate letters with their alien diacritics when addressing a relevant word; what is generally not acceptable is the insertion of a non-Latinic character (eg. Runic þ), even though Wikipedia does do with with Icelanders; you won't find it in newspapers or Icelandic passports (replacement: th). If one were to observe more carefully some of the English language press, he or she may find that diacritics are infact, very often used. I admit that the editors are just "showing off", but some characters are commonplace. South Slavic diacritics have been used, though inconsistently, in the Guardian and the Independent. Furthermore, with regards to other articles which may be mentioned in tabloids: Niš (Nis), Milošević (Milosevic), Koštunica (Kostunica), and Đukanović (Djukanovic): if we should remove the diacritic on the Kosovan city, we should also remove it on the aforementioned articles; as for those not so well known to the English press: Paraćin, Kolašin, Oliver Dulić, Šabac, why not delete these articles for not being notable? The biggest reason people leave aside diacritics is that they are impractical (hard or impossible to obtain), or the editor just "can't be bothered". But they are not "incorrect" in outside languages unless that language has developed its own exonym (eg. Belgrade, not Beograd). So as not to sound Pan-Serbian, I wish to assert my position that although I oppose a move to Pristina, I do not oppose a move to the Albanian Prishtina. I accept the circumstances. I believe it should be Prishtina or Priština. Evlekis (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  
• IF THE CONSTITUTION OF KOSOVO WRITTEN BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO SPELLS IT AS "PRISTINA", THEN WE SHOULD SPELL IT LIKE THAT TOOKosovo's Constitution Please read Chapter 1 Article 13Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage Evidence

I think this argument should turn on the questions of English usage. This standard promises to be verifiable, rather than resting claims of nationalism, Truth, etc. which are generally inherently POV. I invite people to compile citations for their favorite flavor. The citations should be for English language sources only. Erudy (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First, narrowed google results

• -Pristina Kosovo Priština -Prishtina -site:wikipedia.org 33,300 (english only)
• Pristina Kosovo -Priština -Prishtina -site:wikipedia.org 122,000 (english only)
• -Pristina Kosovo -Priština Prishtina -site:wikipedia.org 23,900 (english only)

Pristina

• US State Department
• British Foreign Office
• Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs (English)
• Russian Foreign Ministry (English)
• United Nations Press release
• Letter from Secretary General to Security Council
• Legal Document from the International Tribunal in the Hague
• Time (1999)
• USA Today
• CBC
• New York Times
• ITAR-TASS (Primary Russian News Agency), English service
• Moscow Times
• Interantional Crisis Group
• Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina"

Priština

• Library of Congress
• Britannica
• Encarta

Prishtina

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kosovo not Serbia

Please specify on the infobox that Pristina is in Kosovo not Serbia , Thank you--Cradel 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to establish clear temporary guidelines in the Kosovo WikiProject first, and then modify all articles accordingly. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That says : Mention kosovo (and just kosovo) in the infobox , while here serbia (and not kosovo) is mentioned--Cradel 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask to update other cities--Cradel 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are just my first ideas to start the discussion, not yet the established guidelines. Once some sort of general agreement emerges, I'll help to enforce it on every article. - Ev (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is self proclaimed country. It will never be member of the UN. Officaly, by resolution 1244, it is still part of Republic of Serbia. Until Kosovo becomes UN member, it CAN NOT be an independent state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.98.200 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:CRYSTAL. It is also a perfect example of why we should not concern ourselves with the Serbian name (nor the Albanian name). This is not our business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

protect

please protect tis article, to prevent vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.119.44 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest semi-protection because unregisterd users are causing a lot of problems , also for other kosovo cities--Cradel 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. - Ev (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

illegal?

The first paragraph says that Kosovo is illegal. This doesn't seem right. Thoughts? 76.117.64.185 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

In the English language, the spelling is always or almost always "Pristina", and yet someone has changed the first sentence to suggest that "Prishtina" is the spelling. It should be changed back to read: "Pristina, known in Albanian as 'Prishtina'". Otherwise, why doesn't our article on The Hague say "Den Haag, also called the Hague"? Surely English-language spellings should be primary in English Wikipedia. 86.165.211.143 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo-related naming conventions and guidelines

We were promised this would be finished soon. I still don't see any conclusions on the conventions and the guidelines. I'm afraid the Albanian users will start changing the articles in what is the language of the majority. Please hurry up with this problem, we need to find a consensus for the names. Otherwise it may be too late. We will start changing them. Bardhylius (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

and certainly it will be reverted and the users notified if it is not agreed by others. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Prishtina not Priština

The use of Serbian Priština is biased therefore is and will be disputed allover the Wikipedia. The name in English derives from the old Yugoslav maps and naming which were made under the Serbian occupation of the Kosovar Albanians. Since they did not have the "š" sign it became Pristina. The original should be Prishtina because even the English will pronounce it with the sound "sh" as it is pronounced. (KenKendobs (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

English is not alway phonetic so that's an irrelevant consideration. The fact is that this city's name is normally spelt Priština or Pristina due to the poor use of diacritics. Of course this is The Wrong Version etc... Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All naming is Serbian it HAS TO BE CHANGED - NO Priština but Prishtina or Pristina. Kendobs (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to be Prishtina according to the naming rules of Wikipedia. It should be changed also. Jawohl (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Which rules? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rouls about the respecting a Law - perhaps?--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We hawe the LAW (#REGULATION NO. 2000/45) and take a book about the rouls of english languge and then you are going to see thate in english languge the name of this city is Prishtina. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Upss!!! Pehaps, I´m saying only perhaps: I don´t know to writte in english and to speek, but I diden t sayit thate I don´t know the rouls of english languge. But, this is not your problem, your problem it is only to desinformat the peopel. This can see everboody, from yur quesqen.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki link

{{editprotected}} While this page is protected, please add th:พริชตีนา to the page. Thanks ! --125.25.230.141 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not re-add the Thai interwiki when cleaning up the article two days ago because I had seen a bot removing th:พริชตีนา before. Sorry. - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref. check on etymology of name

The following text was recently added to the article by User:98.209.184.114:

The city's name is believed to have come from the Serbian word пришт, meaning ulcer or tumor, referring to its "boiling."<ref>Adrian Room, ''Cassell Dictionary of Proper Names'', p. 433.</ref>

Which, I don't know, sounds maybe a bit, uh, dubious to me.
But I don't have access to the source cited as a reference, so I can't check that out for myself...
Can anyone else check it, or otherwise either confirm or deny that "belief"?
(And even if that is how "пришт" translates from the Serbian -- is that really where the name "Priština" comes from, or is it more likely to have been derived from, say, classical Latin pristinus: "former, previous, ancient, old"?)
Just curious (no offense, User:98.209.184.114!),
—Wikiscient— 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounded dubious because 98.209.184.114 had left out a significant detail: Adrian Room states that the city is named after a local river, and then gives the river's probable etymology, which is the one mentioned above :-) I checked it in both:

• Adrian Room: Placenames of the World, Second Edition, McFarland, 2006, page 304. ISBN 0-7864-2248-3
• Adrian Room: Placenames of the World, McFarland, 2003, page 292. ISBN 0-7864-1814-1

I have restored the sourced (and now corrected) etymology. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that th best etymology till now is Eric Hamp's one, published in Recherches Albanologique 2, 1985, 57-8, where he point out that Pri-zren and Pri-shtinë (< *stein-a: collective 'stones') teach us that are formed from *prit- from *IE pr.t- (=eng. ford) that linguistically speaking could be only Albanian, due to *pr.t- > Alb. pri-t-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akonushevci (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The authoritative etymology is now Marko Snoj's, who demonstrates both the formal (phonological, morphonological) and semantic changes in accord with Slavic toponyms, of which this is a typical example: see article text for details. Marek4 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo and Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINCE 2 YEARS, ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA WITH NOT RESPECTING THE UN LAW, IS HELPING IN DESTABILSATION OF THE BALKAN REGION. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The iuse of the city name in this form is ilegal for the Kosovo Law, UN-Law and Europen Card for citys.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

None of this has any relevance for Wikpedia. We follow predominant usage in reliable English language sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See #REGULATION NO. 2000/45, I have putit here before two years. No body from, you dident fell resposiblity to respect the rouls of Law. You have maked here some imagenare rouls. This imagenery rouls are desinformations for the peopel of Serbia. And this is destabilisation situation in Balkan (Serbia and Kosovo). Somebody is going to acuse about desinformations witch you are producing here. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are iusing not relevant english souces. And this souces, are production of the peopel witch make propagander agains the UN-law--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don´t think thate Wikipedia wount to be acused for maken propagander and be see like destibilations factor.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If the difference between š and sh has a "destabilizing" influence, the region is in trouble beyond anything we can do. Go organize a barbecue and invite some people from the "other" side - make new friends, don't insist on old animosities. #REGULATION NO. 2000/45 does not mention Wikipedia, and even if it did, we don't fall under its jurisdiction. A name is something used to identify an object, so we can talk about it. In order to be useful, the association between name and object needs to be shared between communication partners. That's why we use the version that is most frequently used in reliable English language sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For naming rules read the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles). Jawohl (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good by Serbia and English Wikipedia

How I see, after two years, english wikipedia dident have taket the livel of a encklopedy, but it is more deeply gone as a instrumet in the hands of primitiv and pro-serbian propagander peopel.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the albanians witch wount to work in this project, at first you must talk with sys and a group of administrators to call there respolsebility and then start to work in this project. Other ways, let this project to be a primitiv intrument in primitiv hands. Don´t loose the time with serbian-propagander´s.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pristina is being changed into Prishtina

According to the Wikipedia naming rules on articles related to Kosovo, Prishtina and all the other places will be changed based on these rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles). Jawohl (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." It's under current discussion. Don't jump the gun, but rather wait for consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a preview of the consensus, I support. the MoS wasn't written by a single member, it is proposed for a good reason. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG DISAGREE Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

KOSOVO'S CONSTITUTION SPELLS "PRISTINA" AS SO

We should spell Pristina the same way the Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as that makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a final copy of the constitution Kosovo's Constitution FINAL COPY. This too spells the city as Pristina. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The constitution has been approved by the EU and according to news it will be adopted tomorrow in Kosovo parliament. It's a done deal. There will be no further changes. Therefore you can not disagree with the spelling. Now we must update the articles accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

centralized discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). dab (𒁳) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on the Prishtina/Pristina/Priština naming dispute

A Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština regarding the disagreement over the naming of Kosovo's capital city. Although I would like to remind everyone that RfCs are not votes, all constructive discussion and comments are welcome at that page. Happy‑melon 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to indicate pronounciation

Since the variant concealing the true pronounciation has been chosen to lodge this article under, we need especially now lucid ways to indicate to even the most casual reader how the city name is pronounced. An IPA notation is needed at the very least, and in addition, preferrably one of those little .ogg recordings with a speaker icon in clear voice. Native speakers, we need a legible, reasonably loud recording, uploaded to Commmons. --Mareklug ^talk 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a proper IPA notation would be most welcomed :-) In any case, the current lead still mentions the forms Priština and Prishtina, helping to clarify the pronounciation from the very start. It also includes a "Prishtina.ogg" . - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved , as it was burried inside the Albanian names listing. Yet, it describes the pronounciation in English (i.e., for all 3 English spellings), so I moved it up to follow the English names. It also describes the Serbian and Albanian variants, but that's tangential. We still need a legible, reasonably loud and noiseless recording. This one is mediocre, low in volume and noisy. A well-recorded clear female voice would be optimal, sonically. --Mareklug ^talk 03:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is still at Priština, while the article has been moved to Pristina

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pri%C5%A1tina&action=edit&section=54 I clicked on it from Pristina discussion tab. --Mareklug ^talk 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, although not with the best of edit summaries: it should have linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština#Conclusion. My bad. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't mean to stir up past disagreements but can someone explain to me why the article has been moved to PRISTINA minus the diacritic? I totally oppose it one way or another but can anyone simply explain how the decision was reached and who supported it? I've been absent for a while and I have missed quite a few things. Evlekis (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple explanation: in March and early April the issue of what form to use (Priština, Prishtina or Pristina) was being discussed simultaneously -and rather disruptively- in different article talk pages, over and over again. Under those circumstances, User:Happy-melon organized a centralized discussion, which lasted from 9 April to 3 May, date in which Happy-melon gauged consensus and moved the article to Pristina.

For what it's worth, I also prefer to use the form Priština, although I don't feel strongly about it. In any case, I beg everyone to drop this issue for the time being. Express your opinion if you want, but please don't ask for the page to be moved again, at the very least for the next six months. /crossing fingers/

Keep in mind also that the 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names states clearly that "[t]he same name as in the [main article's] title should be used consistently throughout the article [in all articles using the name in question]."

In other words: currently, the title of this article is Pristina, thus the form Pristina should be used consistently in all other articles mentioning the city. — The ideas behind this guideline is to aim for some consistency throughout Wikipedia, and to centralize naming discussions in one talk page instead of having to repeat the same discussion ad nauseam in every individual article. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal outlook is 100% neutral. I'm happy with Priština because it is the Serbian name, but if it is not widely acceptable, I am equally happy with Prishtina, because it is the Albanian version. How it is at present is neither here nor there, but the issue runs somewhat deeper. This nonsense is slowly spreading to all other articles which have diacritics, and all based on the stupid and ignorant notion that "diacritics are not part of English". If it were true that the diacritics were alien to English, then the pro-Serbian party still wins in this situation; the spelling of Pristina is given their way with a small compromise. That same compromise has encompassed Nikola Zigic, Jelena Jankovic and now others. To explain, if such characteristics were "alien" to Roman alphabet languages, 1) Jan Hus wouldn't have created the haček, he'd have stuck to digraphs, trigraphs etc. 2) Gaj would not have adopted these habits for his stylised writing system, and 3) Serbian and Macedonian would not be using the system for transliteration of Cyrillic (such as with passport entries). The dumb Wikipedia policy now means that effectively, all its titles will be free of diacritic marks: either because the marvelous media's negligence has ruled it un-English or because the marvelous media haven't yet discovered the subject, in which case, it is not notable to the English speaking world and must therefore be deleted as an article. How else does one foresee the continued existence of diacritics on Wikipedia? I'm just a bit annoyed because I didn't realise that this debate was taking place; as such, I failed to provide any input. Shame. Evlekis (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With the issue here being the use of diacritics in general, and not Prisšhtina in particular, I replied on Evlekis talk page. - Regards, Ev (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia and so it should go by all English spellings. English contains 26 letters and no additional markers like the one on the "s". BBC and ITN use "Pristina" so that is how it must stay. Autobush (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Moves and Editing against consensus and the manual of style

I recently had to bring these edits and moves to the attention of the Admins Noticeboard. For transparency here it is:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Boze_Pravde_moving_pages_against_what_I_thought_was_Wikipedia_Consensus

Beam 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosova to Republic of Kosovo

The Republic of Kosova, as the Wikilink shows was from 99-00.

The Republic of Kosovo is what is in dispute with Serbia now.

{{editprotected}}

Change Republic of Kosova to Republic of Kosovo in the lead.

Thanks. Beam 13:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

N You must establish consensus for potentially controversial edits before making an {{editprotected}} request.  Sandstein  14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It's not controversial, it's already consensus. Please actually look at the Wiki Link. On Wikipedia "Republic of Kosova" refers to the 99-00 entity. See the Kosovo article, the Republic of Kosova article and see the Republic of Kosovo redirect. The current status of all of these terms has been built on months of consensus building conversation on various talk pages and manuals of style. Someone edited against consensus on this page to have it say "Kosova." See the Kosovo talk page archives for where that is discussed and consensus reached if need be, but I think with some clicking on wiki links it's obvious. Thank you. Beam 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

N It seems that there is or was something called the Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) and something called the Republic of Kosovo. Editing in this area is always contentious. You must establish consensus for any edits that are not clearly uncontroversial here, in this thread, before making the {{editprotected}} request. The edit you request is not clearly uncontroversial, and it is declined.  Sandstein  15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Beam that "Republic of Kosova" is incorrect here, and "Republic of Kosovo" is correct. "Republic of Kosova" refers to an earlier (1990's) attempt at secession from the former Yugoslavia; the current entity (which recently declared independence in Kosovo) is known in English as the "Republic of Kosovo".

{{editprotected}}

• {{editprotected}} - I was told it's ok if a different admin with knowledge of Kosovo related articles and consensus makes the change, by Sandstein. Beam 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I have contacted such an editor, he'll check it out soon, I'm sure. Beam 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, even if admins don't accept that the above change is uncontroversial, there's another needed change here that is a cut-and-dried matter of proper English usage. The following phrase in the lead — "disputed amongst Republic of Kosova and Republic of Serbia" — is not correct, grammatical English. When only two entities are involved, don't use "amongst" (or "among"); use "between". And "Republic" needs to be "the Republic" in both places. Thus, this phrase should be changed to "disputed between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia" (or, if you don't accept that a case has been made for the Kosova->Kosovo change, "disputed between the Republic of Kosova and the Republic of Serbia"). Richwales (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the suggested change. Article protection is to prevent edit-wars, not as an excuse to get bureaucratic on editor's asses. If there is an objection to the change, we'll still be able to revert it pending consensus. It's a wiki still. --dab (𒁳) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no way the edit in question is controversial, and I've marked it as minor. Republic of Kosova clearly pointed to the wrong article, the intended article being Republic of Kosovo. dab (𒁳) 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

unprotection

looking into this case, I also think article protection isn't properly justified. Protection seems to be due to childish revert-warring over Priština vs. Pristina. We cannot let this trifle hold the article hostage. This article is on article probation, which means that any editor making a revert without consensus may be blocked immediately. It says so right at the top of the talkpage. I am willing to unprotect the article and clamp down with a short block on any editor doing further revert-warring instead. We have established Pristina as the common English language form in lengthy debates at Talk:Kosovo and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština. Of course all spellings can be discussed in this article, but any summary change of spelling throughout the article body is disruptive. This would seem to concern users Bolonium (talk · contribs) and Bože pravde (talk · contribs) in particular. We should not full-protect an article because two editors do not respect WP:CONSENSUS, least of all at an article already on arbcom probation. Opinions? --dab (𒁳) 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinned cities

Many articles on cities and towns include cities with which it is twinned. Is Pristina twinned with any cities, if so this should be included Ijanderson (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Name spelling & usage

I know that this has been discussed and the matter is dead. I wish to raise a secondary issue however. It is now standard to refer to Pristina without the additional /h/ or with the diacritic above the /s/. However, there is a policy on historical accuracy and therefore, may I suggest that the city be referred to accordingly on external articles as and how need be. References to Pristina should begin from the February 2008 declaraion of independence; prior to that, it should be how the city was known at the pronominal time. This would make Pristina (in its present form) by far the most common, but it will directly affect people's birthplaces. I am currently involved in another dispute concerning the articles of Armend Dallku and Mehmet Dragusha. However, we see that the birthplace is spelt one way with Dragusha and another with Dallku. Historical names take precedence, which is why we refer to Titograd (Podgorica 1946-92), Skoplje (Skopje 1912-43) and others similar. I take it that there will be no opposition to this? Evlekis (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose (and frankly I don't quite understand your proposal). Podgorica and Titograd are different names, Pristina and Priština are the same, one of them being in English and another not in English. It has always been standard to refer to Pristina as Pristina, no matter after 2008 or before. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Skopje and Skoplje are not different names, but they were examples. It is not true that /Pristina/ is English, it is just a compromise which was reached here so as to remain neutral amid a tense environment. My proposal was that it should be all right to use the diacritic for anything prior to 2008 just as diacritics are still being used for Račak and Uroševac, both in Kosovo. I am simply trying to achieve a corpus in maintaining historical accuracy. Nemanja Vidić has his birthplace listed as Titovo Užice. I am not drawing attention to the diacritic, its removal is not even the topic of debate, but the initial /Titovo/ is, as that was its name when he was born, but is not now. I feel that the same should apply to Pristina. If /Pristina/ really is the English and not just Serbian minus diacritic then that is a recent development. Evlekis (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a compromise, Wikipedia abides by its own policies and shouldn't care about compromises, the name is used precisely because it has been established as the English name, believe it or not. Račak and Uroševac are irrelevant, they do not have any common name in English at all, that's why the local names are used there. Furthermore, what happened in 2008? To the name of the city most certainly nothing. Any assumptions about 2008 would be intrinsically linked to a POV. Danzig was indeed once renamed to Gdansk, Titovgrad to Podgorica, Leningrad to Saint Petersburg and Viipuri to Vyborg, but to the best of my knowledge Pristina has never been renamed. Colchicum (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Those names listed above have at some stage changed. Danzig/Gdansk are exonyms of common descent; Leningrad/St.Petersburg are not. If anything 2008-related is POV, then it is not my POV which is being reflected. To my knowledge, English sources use the Serbian name for Kosovar related subjects just about everywhere. Now I am not trying to reignite past rows, but I will assert one thing which I stated in a previous discussion regarding diacritics used for tennis players: /Pristina/ is not an English exonym. It is simply the Serbian name minus the diacritic. The question of whether to include diacritics depends on the source. As you know, some do, and some do not. However, I'll bet my house that nobody will find an article of split usage (ie. references to Vojislav Šešelj, Boris Tadić, Milo Đukanović, Filip Vujanović, Vuk Drašković, every one of whom has featured heavily in English language media; in additions to towns such as Niš, Preševo, Bihać, Nikšić, Omiš, Portorož, all given as in local form, but /Pristina/ in the same article). It will never be found. Either a report will print "Thaçi arrived back in Priština"; "Thaci arrived back in Pristina", or very possibly if pro-Albanian "Thaçi arrived back in Prishtina" but never one outside Wikipedia which would use the combination of "Thaçi arrived back in Pristina". The usage is neither here nor there. I might also add that this is not what I was originally discussing. But only when one can find me examples of the latter (split usage) can we start to discuss whether /Pristina/ is English. Evlekis (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My point (grounded in Wikipedia policies) is that as long as there is a consensus that Pristina (or anything else) is the English name of the city known as Priština/Prishtina in other languages, that name should be used consistently regardless of the year in question, because the city has never been renamed. It has always been Prishtina in Albanian and Priština in Serbian. Colchicum (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The city name will be /Pristina/ regardless of Serbian/Albanian or even English for that matter usage. If this is not a name change then it would not be appropriate for me to add diacritics where /Pristina/ is given, but vice-versa. I will need to remove it from places where it is included. As long as everyone is happy. Evlekis (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I see at least three different point being raised here. The first two are general issues that should be discussed in a centralized manner (in either our naming conventions or our Manual of Style), while the third, the use of Pristina/Priština/Prishtina/other, does belongs here.

1. The question of when a name can be considered to be "English" (meaning "part of the English language itself"), or just a non-English name that happen to be used in English-language publications & communication in general. At what moment can we assert that a previously non-English name has become English, has been incorporated into, adopted by the English language ? Can we do that at all ?

   There are no clear answers; it is a matter of opinion. That is the reason why our naming conventions stay clear of this problem altogether, using the criterion of usage in English-language publications (irrespective of "Englishness") instead of "Englishness" itself.

   Briefly: we do not really care about whether a specific name is "English" or not. We focus on whether a name is commonly used in English-language publications or not.

   The same applies to diacritics: whether Thaci and Pristina is "more English" than Thaçi and Priština is a matter of opinion. Both are valid editorial options. Wikipedia editors have so far failed to reach an agreement on a clear standard approach, and we're left deciding the issue on a case-by-case basis.

2. Evlekis makes a fair point about what can be regarded as stylistic inconsistencies resulting from this approach. We currently have Thaçi and Pristina, while not long ago we had Thaci and Priština. :-) However, once again, this is a matter of opinion: where some see internal inconsistency others can see coherence with an English language that is far from consistent itself.
3. To use Priština in a pre-2008 context and Pristina afterwards is not a new idea: User:Mareklug had proposed to use Priština and Prishtina respectively. However, in this issue the general criterion of our naming conventions applies: we restrict ourselves to reflect the usage commonly found in English-language publications. If those publications commonly use Priština or Pris(h)tina depending on context, so should we. If they don't, we don't either. — As far as I'm aware, our sources don't do this distinction.

   Therefore, as Colchicum mentions above, the name used in this article (currently, Pristina) should be used consistently across Wikipedia, be it for 1920, 1975, 2005 or 2009.

Best, Ev (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally concur with Ev, but I would like to make a more fundamental point that is often overlooked in these discussions. "Pristina" is the common English rendering of "Priština". Until the computer age began making a wider array of fonts available, the average native English-speaking writer employed a typewriter that simply did not make diacriticals and other symbols available as an option. That said, I’ve seen no indication of a trend – outside of Wikipedia – for native English writers to use them. Accordingly, WP:UE would tend to argue for their not being used. A common compromise, though, is to not use diacriticals for the article name, but permit their use within the article themselves. IMHO, there’s nothing wrong with WP readers being exposed to the native usage – that’s educational – but where searching is involved, it’s best to not use them. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Somebody more familiar with infoboxes should change the current infobox to the standard one being used in Municipalities of Kosovo articles.--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 07:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Pristina

Museum of Pristina was the consulate of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Not an ottoman run administration. Austro-Hungary had its battalion on the back of this museum. The article regaring this is misleading and inaccurate.

A recent research done by the American University students can explain this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-lBC5dZy8c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.127.76 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Serbian province NOT a Republic!

How dare you to write an article that ot is capital of the Republic of Kosovo??? Says who? That illegal separation is recognized NOT by 2/3 of the UN member states, 5 of 27 EU members don't recognize it as well as UN. Be objective! Write down that it is the largest city of Serbian southern province and then put [1] and explonation you want. Once more, if just 78 of 193 states recognize it, is it valid? Is there some Kosovo flag in front of UN? NO. So? Be fair!79.175.120.60 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)