Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles

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

Kosovan[edit]

The draft looks very well thought out, well done.

I am not quite convinced we should use "Kosovan" for "Kosovar", since the latter is clearly much more widely used. I am not sure just how much "Kosovar" implies Albanian ethnicity, maybe we should cite some third party sources on that question. Also, I am not sure it is a good idea in this case to use national flag as a symbol for languages: Albania and Serbia symbolize "Republic of Albania" and "Republic of Serbia", not "ethnic Albanian" and "ethnic Serbian", respectively. The situation is also asymmetric, since the Serbian side claims Kosovo as part of the Republic of Serbia, while the Albanian side does not claim it as part of the Republic of Albania, and it is unwise to suggest the Republic of Albania is an official party to this dispute. --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You're right about "Kosovar" being more widely used, but I found that it has been used very inconsistently, often as a synonym for Albanians (it comes from an Albanian declension). I was influenced by the decision of a number of newspapers to adopt "Kosovan" as a less ambiguous term. See e.g. the UK Guardian's style guide. As for the flags, good point - I'll change that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, we could recommend using "Kosovan", pointing to the Guardian guideline. I don't think that this suffices to actively deprecate "Kosovar" though. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not OK! Is this supposed to be an Orwellian kind of "new speech"? According to dictionary.com and the Oxford dictionary, Kosovar is the correct demonym for Kosovo. --Tubesship (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anglicised"[edit]

I'm not quite sure whether the statement that "common English equivalents" should count only where the English forms have "undergone significant modifications to spelling (e.g. "Belgrade" for Beograd" meets current consensus. It seems to me that it is a rather far-reaching re-interpretation of the rules of WP:USEENGLISH. My understanding has always been that "common English equivalent" refers to whatever form is predominantly used in English, be it identically borrowed from the source language or not. For instance, it was determined that Shatt al-Arab, despite not being "Anglicised" in spelling, in fact is the common English term, and this was (rightly) the deciding argument in moving the article there. Fut.Perf. 07:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, your application of "self-identifying" according to the most local identifiers would entail we'd have to move, for instance, all Northern Cyprus localities to their Turkish names. Are you prepared for the uproar? Fut.Perf. 07:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, your guideline itself seems to contradict this stated rationale, because it (rightly) opts for "Kosovo" on the grounds that it's the established English term, despite local self-identifying usage.
Also, I'd be careful about the wording that local names for inanimate features should be dependent on usage in their "linguistic area". Linguistic areas are fleeting, can overlap, and often lack official status. The wording seems to imply that we should name geographical features following the usage in whatever local minority language is predominant. So, are we going to rename eastern Anatolian placenames to their Kurdish forms?
On the whole, I'm afraid the emphasis in your presentation (if perhaps not the results) look like a step in the wrong direction: away from taking international usage of the English speech community as a standard (WP:USEENGLISH), towards taking the will of local political entities as a standard. This is counterproductive, since in the present case the whole conflict is about what are the relevant and legitimate local political entities in the first place. Thus, tying ourselves to such criteria only brings us further down into these intractable POV dilemmas, when it ought to be leading us out of them. Fut.Perf. 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think you might be right about geographical entities; looking again at WP:NCON#Proper nouns, it does state that "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." In the case of Shatt al-Arab, there's no English equivalent (e.g. "Arab River") so we're left with a choice between the Latinised transliterations of the Arabic and Persian names, of which the Arabic name is clearly the most widely used in English. In relation to Kosovo, I guesss this would mean that (for example) the Sharr Mountains would have to remain at Šar Mountains, as this name seems to be overwhelmingly the most widely used in English sources. I'll amend the proposed guideline to make that principle clear.
Regarding Kosovo's name in English, there actually isn't any contradiction (or won't be, once I've amended the guideline as I've just described). The political entity that governs Kosovo formally calls itself the Republic of Kosova (interestingly, they've just changed their website - it used to say Republic of Kosovo). However, as I've said in the guideline, it's common practice in English to use a geographical name as a synonym for the political entity which governs it ("Greece" instead of "Hellenic Republic", for instance). And the common geographical name applied in English to Kosovo is, overwhelmingly, "Kosovo".
Finally, the thorny question of self-identifying entities. I'm afraid WP:USEENGLISH is somewhat inadequate in this regard, in that it doesn't take sufficient concern about the NPOV implications of self-identifying names, and it also doesn't take into account what happens when a name is changed. Should we, for instance, have kept Mumbai at its old name of "Bombay" because (up to that point at least) the vast majority of English-language sources didn't use the new name?
Disputed self-identifying names require a very tricky balancing act to maintain NPOV. The issue is essentially the same as for the Republic of Macedonia. If ethnic group X, which actually governs the place in question, says "this place is called A" and ethnic group Y says "this place should be called B", which name do we use? We can't make a decision about whether X or Y has a greater moral right to their chosen name, but we can reflect the situation on the ground. It's not really adequate from an NPOV perspective to rely on historical usage in English for self-identifying entities because names are very often artifacts of historical political dominance. In the cases of Bombay and Leningrad, the names were the relics of previous regimes (British and Communist respectively) and the inhabitants made a conscious political decision to undo this legacy. And we have by and large respected their right to do so, despite the prevalent use in English up to that point, hence the renaming to Mumbai and St Petersburg. Byelorussia→Belarus, Moldavia→Moldova and Kishinev→Chişinău are comparable examples. That is really the point of the key principle of WP:NCON - we shouldn't prescribe how a placename is used, we should only reflect how it actually is used. It was because WP:USEENGLISH didn't take this into account that I had to develop WP:NCON in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, both St Petersburg and Mumbai were renamed well before Wikipedia started, and general English usage in the media had time to adapt to the renamed versions before we had to make that call. If a place were to be renamed like that today, I'd still maintain we should stick with Stupidoldname, since 2008 officially Shinynewname, is..., and then wait and observe how actual usage develops. Apart from that, I think your point about descriptive-prescriptive doesn't quite hit the mark. The point is to be descriptive of English usage (where such is descernible), and on a secondary level to be descriptive of local usage (only where the first criterion fails). I disagree with your statement that "WP:USEENGLISH is somewhat inadequate in this regard, in that it doesn't take sufficient concern about the NPOV implications of self-identifying names". Isn't that exactly bringing back prescription through the back door? WP:USEENGLISH doesn't take concern about NPOV implications, exactly because it is impeccably descriptive and non-prescriptive; it very rightly doesn't take concern of (N)POV issues at all, that's just the point. Fut.Perf. 10:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And Mumbai has the additional complication that it passed in part on the basis that India is an English-speaking country, so {{WP:ENGVAR]] applies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fut. Perf. on this. I'm really uneasy with the idea of moving away from the "impeccably descriptive and non-prescriptive" nature of our core criterion of common English usage, which I understand as being basically the same approach that led to the idea of "verifiability, not truth" (in this case, "common English usage, not official or local or ethnicity-based or true name"). It's a can of worms; it has NPOV implications; it would mean using different names from the ones our readership would commonly find elsewhere; etc. Let's patiently wait to see if English usage itself changes. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of Kosov@"[edit]

Find sources: "Republic of Kosovo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Republic of Kosova" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

I find that "Republic of Kosovo" is about four times more commonly used than "Republic of Kosova" at this point. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful not to commit the famous logical fallacy - argumentum ad populum. That is, the fact tha 98% of the world believes in some supernatural form (i.e. God) does not mean that God exists. The same way, the fact that Google returns four times as many hits for "Kosovo" as it would for "Kosova" does not mean that Wikipedia should accept the former in favor of the latter. It should, in fact, accept the correct name, the official name, which is (according the the Kosovan government) - Kosova.--Arbër Let's talk 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature isn't a metaphysical question like the existence of God. It is a matter of convention. Our policy is to use the most common spelling in English language usage. There may be room for debate if conventions in academic literature differ from those in newspapers etc. But if one spelling is clearly the most common throughout English language sources, that's the one Wikipedia will use. You will also note that the Greece article is called "Greece", not "Hellas", simply because that's the common English name, in spite of what Greek authorities would like. That has nothing to do with Greece being an independent state, it's a simple matter of the English lexicon. I note that the OED has:

  • Kosovan, n. and adj.: = Kosovar n. and adj.
  • Kosovar: n. and adj.:
    • n.: A native or inhabitant of the region of Kosovo, bordering Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Macedonia. (The term is frequently used to refer specifically to an Albanian-speaking inhabitant of Kosovo.)
    • adj.: Of or relating to Kosovo or its inhabitants.

The OED isn't aware of the spelling Kosova. dab (𒁳) 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's factually correct, but logically incorrect (that was my point - anyway :)). --Arbër Let's talk 10:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
terminology isn't "logical", it's conventional. It may change over time ("Kosovan" appears to be gaining ground on "Kosovar"), but Wikipedia is not the place to coin new terminology, it has to reflect current conventions. dab (𒁳) 11:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Kosovo placenames[edit]

moved from guideline page

(add gazetteers, maps etc here)

The best source that enforces the order Albanian (A)/Serbian (S) is the 2000/43 UNMIK Regulation, which may be found here.--Arbër Let's talk 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Does the regulation actually say "use Albanian first"? BalkanFever 10:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Regulations are not prepared to give directives regarding the order of names, but they do give the order of names. See Schedule A of the Regulation to verbally comprehend the order: Albanian/Serbian. --Arbër Let's talk 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a table. The names are written parallel. BalkanFever 11:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

guys, this has been long debated. We can give both Serbian and Albanian names. But we necessarily need to give them in linear order. The best we have been able to come up with in the spirit of WP:NPOV is alphabetic order, first Albanian, then Serbian (or, if you prefer, Shqip, then Srpski). This is for listings of the native nomenclature. Of course English usage (common anglicizations) will trump these for the question of article titling. There may be room for the argument that for toponyms in North Kosovo, where there is a Serbian majority, the sequence may be inverted to Serbian, Albanian. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is there is no enforcement of any particular order. If we go by alphabetical on wiki, so be it. But I'm quite sure the UNMIK was concentrating on just including the Albanian language names, rather than putting them "before" the Serbian names. BalkanFever 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest naming them accorfing to their ethnic population (e.g : Prishtina is mostly albanian populated so the name should be Prishtina , while novo brdo is mostly serbian populated so Novo Brdo)--Cradel 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
this sounds reasonable for clear-cut cases, but may lead to endless bickering in borderline cases.... oh well, it will be a case-by-case discussion in any case. dab (𒁳) 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovar / Kosovan[edit]

According to dictionary.com and the Oxford dictionary, Kosovar is the correct demonym for Kosovo. Grammaticaly it should have been Kosovan, however in this case due to the widespread usage of the term Kosovar, this has generally been replaced the with Kosovar. I believe this version should be applied.

No so long ago the US spokesman referred to "Kosovar Serbs" and "Kosovar Albanians" living in peace. I disagree that the term Kosovar causes confusion. Most people who would be confused are the ones that woudn't know anything about Kosovo.

I found that people that never heard of Kosovo tend to say, "Kosovians", "kosovovians", in spain I encountered, "Kosovovos" or "Kosoveños".

Kosovar is a widely accepted term in most european languages. See elpais.es, lemonde.fr, or even local balkan versions jutarnji.hr (croatian best selling daily) or delo.si (slovenian daily). They all refer to them as Kosovares, Kosovari, Kosovars etc.

Most english speakers refer to its people as Kosovars. United Kingdom however tends to use the term Kosovan. This alone doesn't justify it's exclusive use.Logitech999 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the CIA world factbook [1] , the noun and adjective for Kosovo are:
  • noun : Kosovoan
  • adjective : Kosovoan--Cradel 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
very idiosyncratic... a simple google search shows that it is hundreds of times less current than either "Kosovan" or "Kosovar". dab (𒁳) 08:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA word factbook has corrected itself as it is written now:

  • noun: Kosovar (Albanian), Kosovac (Serbian)
  • adjective: Kosovar (Albanian), Kosovski (Serbian)
  • note: Kosovan, a neutral term, is sometimes also used as a noun or adjective --Tubesship (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Order[edit]

Radiant suggested that WP:MOSMAC put its recommendations first and the reasons for them below. This seems to work well.

The major problem with it is, as Chris knows, that the different factions each see it as legitimizing their own preference, which is why it (briefly) claimed consensus. Let's not do this again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete?[edit]

I don't know that we want to describe Kossovo as obsolete, although Cossovo may be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

can you point to any recent usage? The spelling on google news is so rare as to suggest misspelling. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Google Books shows 540 since 2000. Some of these, like the first, reflect the spelling of the First World War; but most do not. (Many are the battle, or the place, but it is the same word.)
The real reason not to say this is that Kossovo is the Croatian, and represents the Serbian, spelling. Declaring the Serbian spelling obsolete is pouring gasoline on a fire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And we do not want that right, because we stick to the facts here. O do give me a brake with this crap. This is an encyclopedia. It is meant to be written based on facts and not to favour or hurt someones feelings. Jawohl (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When ?[edit]

This guidelines seem quite fair and neutral , no ? When will they be implemented ? Cradel 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Implementation[edit]

Who will be actually implementing this guidelines? Do the editors/users need to do it and always refer to them?. Thanks 85.144.179.57 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

correct English terms[edit]

Is it Kosovo or Kosova? And is it Pristina or Prishtina? i don't want a reply without a good source, otherwise i will see it as void. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is an native speaker a good source? I as an Albanian say "Kosova" and..., well I have to admit, at least in the Albanian accent that we speak (from Tetova, Macedonia), we say neither "Pristina" nor "Prishtina" but "Prishtine". And here is the official governmental website of Prishtina: http://www.prishtina-komuna.org/ and here is the official governmental website of Kosova: http://www.ks-gov.net/portal/eng.htm You see, officially it is written "Kosova" and "Pristina" --Tubesship (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean Prishtina instead of Pristina. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferizaj, Gjakove and others[edit]

Ferizaj is the youngest City in Kosovo, founded in 1896 by the Turks. Originally it had only a railroad station and a "motel" who's owner was Feriz. Thus later the location became known as the place of Feriz or Ferizaj. Uroševac was added only later when Kosovo was annexed by Serbia after 1912. Gjakove is founded by the family of Jakova, common albanian christian family name, which throughout the times changed it's form onto Gjakove and was also changed by the serbs onto Đakovica. Prizren comes from the Albanian (pesrend) which means five rows and describes the houses situated on the hilltop under the castle. Lipjan derives from the name of old Roman City of Ulpiana. Novobrdo, one of the most powerful Kosovo cities in the 14th century was founded as Neuberg and later translated onto Novobrdo, is known by the albanians by the name Artana (because of the gold mines)

Serbs did not only change place names or created new ones but changed also peoples names especially after 1989. For example Gashi and Thaçi were changed to Gasi and Taci. If you think that wikipedia should take onto account these changes which every colonial power enforced, then you are clearly out of touch. In a lot of discussions forums, serbs use as an argument that Kosovo is Serbia because there are so many serb named places. But local population has their own albanian names and wikipedia will not able able to change that. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised they didn't change Thaçi to Tačič (just kidding) --Cradel 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is your point in regards to place names? In regards to people's surnames - no. Thaçi wasn't changed to Tači, that is just how it is pronounced in Serbian - and Serbian orthographic convention is "write as you speak". There is no "th" sound; it becomes "t". Gashi becomes Gaši because Serbian has it's own alphabet - it doesn't use the Albanian one. BalkanFever 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should english then use serb letters for name places in Kosova?85.144.179.57 (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Peoples surnames were changed in their personal documents (birth certificates, ID's etc.) and yes Serbian language does not have: th, sh, zh, q , ç and other letters used by the albanian language but their typewriters or computers do have these letters and yet they did change them. Peoples and place names in the Balkans have been changed by most of the countries (Turkey, Macedonia, Greece, Bullgaria, Serbia, Kosovo etc.) and mostly for political reasons and not for practical or linguistic ones. Wikipedia should use the names used by the majority in these places otherwise it will turn into an political instrument. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I know my surname was changed ( Çapriqi to Čaprič - notice the change : the iqi part was changed to ič , which is the way most serbian surnames end (also with vič), in order to make it sound serbian, if this was only a linguistic matter it would have been changed to Čapriči and not Čaprič ) - thank god its good now --Cradel 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we have some sources and references on this topic? Without that, this discussion has no sense. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for a separate policy or guideline[edit]

We have a general rule to use for place names the most used variants in English language. We don't need a separate guideline only for Kosovo.--MariusM (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually , we do , please read this manual for more information why it is necessary--Cradel 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
of course he have "general rules". What do you think would happen if we didn't keep track of consensus how to apply these guidelines to specific cases? Correct: the exact same debates would be rehashed over and over and over again with no memory of what has been said before. Come on. Obviously these specific guidelines need to comply with the general guidelines. dab (𒁳) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I also think that we do and besides as you said we have a general rule, why not have some specific rules as well :) 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina vs. Prishtina[edit]

KOSOVO'S CONSTITUTION SPELLS "PRISTINA" AS SO[edit]

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. Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 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)

I agree we should spell it "Pristina", but I insist the constitution draft does have nothing to do with that. We need to follow de facto current usage in notable (and neutral) English language sources, not one single document, let alone a partisan one. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But that shows that even the Kosovo Govt agree that in English it is spelled "Pristina". The English translation for the Albanian version of "Prishtina" is Pristina. We should use the English version for English Wikipedia and the Albanian version for Albanian Wikipedia. Seems logical to me. Also Google news hits... Pristina gets 1,638 hits [2], "Prishtina" gets 49 hits [3]. English speakers overwhemingly prefer Pristina. Pristina is also neutral as it's not the Serbian or Albanian spelling. Almost all of the governments that recognise Kosovo use Pristina (see [4] [5] [6], etc.). 2008
  • CIA WORLD FACT BOOK [7]
  • BBC Country Profiles [8]

These two who are very important in the English speaking world and spell it as "Pristina".
Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

you have a point. As I said, I agree with the spelling Pristina, I just don't think the constitution draft has any relevance in this. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We should add to this article that "Pristina" is the correct spelling of the city[edit]

Shall i add this to the page as a final consensus is needed on the name of the city?
Please read in the above section named "KOSOVO'S CONSTITUTION SPELLS "PRISTINA" AS SO" before commenting on this Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on the Prishtina/Pristina/Priština naming dispute[edit]

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. Happymelon 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made some comments after Happy-melon gauged consensus. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDED[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština. A consensus was reached that on English Wikipedia we are to spell the name of that capital/ largest city of Kosovo as "Pristina". So this must be included for future edits. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Tocino 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, enough of this nonsense. It's clearly Pristina in English, by a very wide margin. We can still note its Serbian spelling, as Serbian, if the context requires it, but mere mention of the city within English prose will be spelled Pristina. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • NOTE from 2013 - this was the decision from 5 years ago. Resulting in move (cur | prev) 14:43, 5 May 2008‎ Ev (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (149,550 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Talk:Priština to Talk:Pristina: article moved two days ago per discussion at per consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština) (undo). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the URL (Page) naming[edit]

Reading through almost all the hot pages related to Kosovo, I notice we have reached a consensus regarding naming of cities, towns, etc. The consensus in effect seems to be: "The name of a place should be expressed in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. Thereafter, it can be followed by the Albanian - slash - Serbian name. In case of a missing English naming, the Albanian - slash - Serbian convention will be used." Because the majority agrees with this convention, then this should also apply to Wikipedia URL/Page names.

For instance, the main page name for Shtërpcë is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Štrpce. We notice the use of a diacritic S in the URL. The anglicized version would be Strpce. However, the Albanian name is Shtërpcë. That is, we should reach a definite consensus regarding naming. Because in most of the cases the English version of names is missing, I raise the need for new requirements.--A B X T? 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we should use the English name as the article title, where there is one. (I don't think anyone would disagree with that.) Where there isn't an English name, we should use the name used by the majority of residents. Therefore the article for an Albanian settlement in Kosovo should use the Albanian name, and the article for a Serb settlement should use the Serb name. So Štrpce is the correct name, as it has a Serb majority. Bazonka (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Bazonka, read MOSKOS. It is more complicated that that. --Tadijaspeaks 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There will of course be exceptions. But in general, what I suggested is what MOSKOS suggests. Any contentious exceptions will probably have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Bazonka (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? It is quite balanced, is it? It would be nice to have it official. --Tadijaspeaks 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems good to me. Bazonka (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

What about categories? That is last thing to be added to MOSKOS in order to became totally funcional. How to show that some building, river, mountain or anything else belong geographically to Kosovo, but it is regarded as Serbian also by multiple sources? Oldest bridge in Serbia is now in Kosovo, same as highest mountain in Serbia, Đeravica, etc. Also, for the bigger listing, where all things should be included, for multiple articles... I propose adding both Serbia and Kosovo, like in article Sitnica, as today, both categories are here.

Just with Template:kosovo-note on both sites. I hope that is NPOV. In most cases, this is already used, like categories of churches and monasteries. How we should create these guideline, in order to obtain neutral status like all other MOSKOS segments, and still have valid Serbian and Kosovo categories? Also hope that this will be last step before introducing MOSKOS, from proposed to accepted Wiki guideline.

As today, almost all of the MOSKOS is used in practice, and just template:kosovo-note introduced by User:Ev is not totally widespread per vandal deletes. And those categories, as written above. So, what did you say? What to do next? --Tadijaspeaks 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two options. First, place things in Kosovo into both the "X of Kosovo" and "X of Serbia" categories, but this may result in the unfavourable template being removed from articles by biased editors. Or secondly, use just one category for Kosovo and Serbia called "X of Serbia (with Kosovo)". This wording is as close as I can get to NPOV, although it's not perfect (certainly better then "Serbia including Kosovo" or "Serbia and Kosovo"). Bazonka (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Tadija invited me to comment here. – Remember that categories are intended to help readers (and editors) to find and navigate sets of related articles. Catergories & category pages are not intended to provide information by themselves, much less to stake claims of sovereignty or proclaim independence. In the case of Kosovo, I can think of two possibilities, one more simple and another more complicated:
  • That the categories of Kosovo be simply included in both "X by/in/of country" and "X in/of Serbia", as already done in Category:Lakes of Kosovo (cf. the result in Category:Lakes of Serbia).
  • That the categories of Kosovo include at the top {{Cat see also|X in/of Serbia}} (See also Category: X in/of Serbia), followed by the standard "Kosovo note".
    That the categories of Serbia include at the top {{Cat see also|X in/of Kosovo}} (See also Category: X in/of Kosovo), followed by the standard "Kosovo note".
I recommend the first, more simple approach, that provides the navegability without adding to much details to mere category pages (the information on Kosovo's complicated situation is provided in each article). - Best, Ev (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ev's first option (also proposed by me above) seems to be the most workable, although I do worry about people removing the category that they don't like. But overall, it seems like the best way of doing it. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree --Tadijaspeaks 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo municipalities[edit]

The WP:MOSKOS for Kosovo municipalities states that local names (Albanian name for a municipality dominated by Albanians; Serbian name for a municipality dominated by Serbs) should be used for article names, while in reality all article regarding municipalities, towns and villages in WP are using the Serbian name. Any input? Cheers. kedadial 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When MOSKOS is accepted, it can be followed. Also, older and more important rule WP:COMMONNAME decided this practice. As you know. --Tadijaspeaks 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Tadija, the issue here is not interpreting policies & guidelines on the basis of seniority. An approved Manual of Style for Kosovo-related articles should not contradict our policies (such as our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names). - Best, Ev (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, i just remebered, as Kosovo status is disputed, it was agreed that official town names are used. By majority of the world, official is Serbian. That is reason for that. I will send that link here. --Tadijaspeaks 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Tadija, keep in mind that the "official status" of a town's name has very little relevance in these cases. For the specific purpose of deciding what name to use in the English-language Wikipedia, the basic determining factor is common English usage: what name is commonly used for a place in English-language publications (irrespective of that name's origin, status, etymology, history or perceptions of legitimacy). See our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Kedadi, that particular part of the current proposal (link) has raised objections as early as February 2008 (see the "Anglicised" section above). In my opinion, it runs contrary to our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I support Kedadi's proposal where no common English-language name exists. Where there is one, we use it. Where there isn't one, we should be neutral and not pick sides. So we wouldn't use the Serbian name just because the majority of countries still see Kosovo as part of Sebia; and we wouldn't use the Albanian name just because Kosovo is de facto independent. We must use what the majority of the population use. That's NPOV. Of course there may be exceptions that would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (e.g. where the Serb/Albanian populations are roughly equal), but overall I think this is the fairest way forward. Bazonka (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Bazonka, you said: We must use what the majority of the population use.
The current naming practices of the English-language Wikipedia are based on what the majority of English-language publications use, irrespective of what the local population use. That is our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names. That is also NPOV (whose Article titles and structure sub-section currently indicates that "[t]itles should follow the Article titles policy"). - Ev (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
But what about historical balance? You do know that population number is not the main factor for naming the inhabited places, as numerous wiki article shows. Town have their official name, that was used for years. Now we have two official names, while one (Serbian) is accepted by larger number in international community. While other (Albanian) have population majority on the disputed territory. I think that larger number of arguments are on the version that is now used. --Tadijaspeaks 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Tadija, forget official names. The only relevant issue is "what names are commonly used in English-language publications". - Ev (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I too support kedadi's proposal. It is is the only neutral proposal.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
@Tadija, your proposal has a Serb bias. We need to be neutral. Talking about the international community is irrelevant - the international community rarely refers to any of the places in Kosovo (other than Pristina) - your proposal seems to hinge entirely on your opinion that Kosovo is Serbia. Secondly, you're suggesting that we use Serb names for localities that used to have a Serb majority, but no longer have one. Well, you cannot keep relying on the past - the present is where we are. If the demographic changes to Serb majority again, then we change the article name. But the fairest, most NPOV approach is simply English name, or if there isn't one, the name used by the majority of current occupants. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, Bazonka, if you think so. Anyway, this massive change in wiki rules must be followed by MOSKOS. We cannot do this without firm wiki guideline, as chaos will erupt. As MOSKOS is accepted, we can do that. Not before. --Tadijaspeaks 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not agree with this part of the proposal, which says local official place names are to be used. First of all, municipalities of Kosovo all have two official names, Albanian and Serbian, as those are two official languages of Kosovo since 1999. In most municipalities where Albanians are majority, Albanian name is predominantly used, while in others Serbian name is mostly used by the population. But there are also municipalities where number of Serbs and Albanians is (almost) equally balanced. In those municipalities we have two official names and two names used by the local population. So, this proposed policy can not bu used in such a situation, and I think that we need an universal policy, that applies to all the situations. Another thing that I want to say is that the aforementioned proposal would be in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. We already had numerous discussions (see Talk:Uroševac#Requested move or Talk:Kosovo Polje#Requested move) and the conclusion was always that the Serbian name is most commonly used in English, even if we speak about municipalities populated by Albanians. This proposal claims that the rule local official place names are to be used is the aplication of Wikipedia:Naming conflict, but this page is now deleted and redirected to WP:TITLE which does not say anything about using official names or the self-identifying entities which are mentioned here. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

English usage is the deciding factor for this issue, not local populations, ethnic majority or official status. See Talk:Kačanik#Proposed move (March 2009) for details about English usage related to Kosovo. - Best, Ev (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But, Ev, then, MOSKOS is wrongly written? I also know that, shouldn't we then fix that section, and tell that most common English usage is important, not anything else? --Tadijaspeaks 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Tadija, in my opinion the current proposal is flawed, as mentioned in February 2008 in the "Anglicised" section above. It should be modified in accordance to our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names. - Ev (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think people here are confusing the English-language name of a place, with the foreign names used in English-language media. In the former case, I refer to a name used in English that may not be used by the inhabitants of the place (e.g. Germany not Deutcshland; Rome not Roma). The latter case would be for places that aren't commonly referred to in English. Probably every municipality in Kosovo falls into the latter category. These places don't have English names (the exception is Pristina which has an English-language name) - they have foreign-language name, which would be Serbian and/or Albanian. Guidance simply states that we use the one used by the majority of the population. Bazonka (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right. We should then use this policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names which states that: We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems. That is exactly what we done at Talk:Uroševac#Requested move, Talk:Kosovo Polje#Requested move and Talk:Kačanik#Proposed move. Google search shows that Serbian names are more frequently used in English language sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No!!! You've completely misunderstood me. English usage doesn't matter where there is no English-language name! (And in practically every case in Kosovo, there is no English name.) We must use the majority local name. See WP:NCGN - "follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive". Bazonka (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The policy we are discussing here (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names) is refering to the situation where there is no English language name, but only local language names (more than one). It is written the first sentence of the aforementioned policy. After that, it gives some possible solutions to the problem. The first solution given is "simple Google test", and another solution given is "adopt the name used by the linguistic majority". It clearly states that the linguistic majority rule is "one solution" (out of many) and not some strict rule. This policy also states that it's on editors to decide which solution is to be used. There is no strict rule on such a problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, but in this case the "simple Google test" is POV. Linguistic majority is much, much fairer. It is the only solution. Bazonka (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the Google search is POV. It shows which name is preferred in the English language media. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Many of the articles found by Google may date from before Kosovo's UDI, when it was indisputably in Serbia. And it is clearly unfair to name a town with 95% Albanian population by its Serb name. I think when the proportion of Serbs to Albanians is more like 60/40 (in either direction) then a Google search may help to decide the name we use. But I stongly feel that it is wrong to use it at any other time (and I must point out that I have absolutely no Serb or Albanian bias, I am totally neutral). Bazonka (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
+1 kedadial 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bazonka, you said: I think people here are confusing the English-language name of a place, with the foreign names used in English-language media.

Not really. Our policies are based on what names are used in English, regardless of whether they are English exonyms (like Germany & Rome), identical to the local names (like Paris & Berlin), or local names (any village seldom mentioned in English-language publications). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) & the "Use English" section of our naming conventions for geographic names.

Our naming conventions don't require us to use English words, but to follow common English usage, i.e. to use the names most English speakers are familiar with.

The fact that we're dealing with English usage and not necessarily Englishness is mentioned in the first general guideline of our naming conventions for geographic names. It currently states that "[w]hen a widely accepted English name [...] exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always" (underlining is mine).

It clearly says "this often will be a local name". That is, "this often will be an Albanian or Serbian or French or Italian or Chinese name, which happens to be the one commonly used in English-language publications and the one most English speakers are familiar with".

This approach of following the usage of English-language publications, irrespective of the name's Englishness, has various advantages for the English-language Wikipedia:

  • The ones mentioned in the "Anglicised" section above, related to compliance with the neutral point of view policy.
  • It assures that those reading our articles find the same names they commonly see in other English-language publications (the ideal title is recognizable), instead of now-less-common English exonyms (like Peking or Leghorn).
  • By following English usage, we also avoid often-insoluble arguments of whether a name "is English" or "a local name" (for example: is Paris the English name of the city, or just the French name used in English ? Does the daily use of a local name -like Berlin- make it an English name ? If so, at what point does a local name become the English name too ?).
  • By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called in English-language publications.

Local names only become relevant as a tie-breaker of sorts where no established English usage exists. The first general guideline of our naming conventions for geographic names. It currently states that "[if no common English usage] exist[s], the modern official name [...] should be used." See also the "No established usage" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

(The wording of the naming convention for geographic names should probably be clarified or modified from "modern official name" to something along the lines of "modern local name", to avoid arguments about which official name to use. In the case of Kosovo: the one used by the city itself, by Pristina or by Belgrade ? In essence, in these disputed places choosing an official name can imply deciding which authority has jurisdiction over it... something that the neutral point of view policy ask us to avoid.)

Luckly for us, in the case of Kosovo a general usage does exist in English-language publications: see the "English usage related to Kosovo" sub-section of Talk:Kačanik. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm trying to follow this discussion, but I can't really. Could someone answer me these questions:

  • What is the current usage, and what is it based on? Is it WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOSKOS or something else? Whichever of these, why that one and not another?
  • What exactly is the proposed new usage and how does it differ from the previous one? Why should we follow it if we (don't) follow the previous one?

? Nikola (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure :-)
  • The current usage remains, as always, reflecting common English usage: adopting the names commonly used in English-language publications, the ones most easily recognisable by our anglophone readership. It is based on our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names (which often means using common names).

    We follow them because they are long-standing policy, while this Manual of Style for Kosovo-related articles remains a mere proposal that has yet be approved.

  • The proposed new usage is adopting official names & in effect basing decisions on the ethnic composition of places (if the majority of a city's population is Albanian, we use the Albanian name; if it is Serb, we use the Serbian name). The difference with the current approach is rather obvious: following English usage (current policy & usage) or adopting the name used by the local ethnic majority (new proposal).

    In my opinion, we shouldn't follow the new proposal, because it runs contrary to the long-standing policy on the issue & to the advantages it has for a site of Wikipedia's characteristics (details in the "Anglicised" section above). "We shouldn't follow the new proposal" = we shouldn't approve this Manual of Style for Kosovo-related articles until it becomes compatible with our general policies.

I hope that helped. Best, Ev (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote for WP:MOSKOS?[edit]

On Talk:Vučitrn I raised and 2 supported the idea of a RfC on the subject. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles aka WP:MOSKOS seems the appropriate location.

  • (1) would a RfC be helpful?
  • (2) what is needed to phrase a RfC question

rough example: Question : following the disputed 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence (not recognised by Serbia and Russia) usage of Albanian place names has begun to increase versus traditional Serbian place names in some English sources. How should en.wp respond to this? e.g. Should a Talk:Gdansk/Vote take place? If so what should the question be? And if so should involved editors (meaning any Balkan connection) !votes be excluded or !counted separately?

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I must oppose this for now, as we found out that MOSKOS is faulty. It is proposed MOS, and it should be fixed in order to follow it. Please read explanation in sections above. Also, i think that we should postpone this up to the end of Belgrade-Pristina negotiations, as we may have more informations about it. At the very end, i dont think that we need centralised discusion about it, separate RM template will do it. We should follow COMMONNAME, wherever, whatever. P.S. on talk:Vučitrn, nobody suported your rfc idea, as far as i can see... --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I see WhiteWriter's argument. Why not start with an WP:RM of one or more places where there is some case for making a change? This might give us an idea of whether it is possible to get any usable sources. I suspect that the usual conservatism of Wikipedia will incline us to keep Serbian names when there is nothing in English-language sources to show usage of the Albanian name for that place. There has already been a discussion in April at Talk:Vučitrn#Requested move, which was closed as declined. If anyone is unhappy with the outcome or thinks more people should be involved, let's talk about how to do it better. EdJohnston (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Exectly my point. :-) --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ed, the trouble with RMs is they attract special interest groups from both sides. We've just seen an RM, and only 3 participants were normal RM/WP:AT denizens rather than "involved" locally. Further RMs will just show RM results.
WhiteWriter, why would Belgrade–Pristina negotiations affect the use of Albanian names in English sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Those favoring the move ought to be sure that WP:COMMONNAME is on their side. I see that there were arguments both ways in the move discussion based on COMMONNAME, and perhaps people can work on this issue further. I don't see the point of an RfC as proposed by IIO since we aren't likely to suspend the common name guideline just for Kosovo. The question of 'increasing usage of Albanian place names' is simply a factual question and needs collection of real-world data, not a vote. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ed, WP:COMMONNAME isn't god, it isn't the only factor in titles. However in the RM we just had the issue was that the 2013 WP:COMMONNAME and the last-10-years WP:COMMONNAME disagreed. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If a yearly change of COMMONNAME would suffice for changing the article's title, at a later point in time someone could argue that a monthly change of COMMONNAME could also suffice. Or a daily for that matter. We could divide time intervals infinitely and apply different COMMONNAME criterion and which it would be hard to agree. Anyway, one year is to short of a time span to decide on a title change. By the way, what does this normal denizen mean - should others be regarded as not-normal? I find this characterization offensive, and I didn't participate in that discussion. --biblbroks (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Biblbroks.
You're a Serbian speaker, I speak Croatian, Hi.
We aren't talking about "a yearly change of COMMONNAME" we're talking about one change, caused by the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and the new official Albanian names.
Normal denizen means en.wp editors who don't have local connections. Ed appears to trust that Serbian/Croatian and Albanian editors will impartially apply WP:COMMONNAME. I don't trust even myself to do that, I don't trust any nationality on en.wp to do that. Would anyone trust British vs American editors to be impartial re "Tyre/Tire" or WP:ENGVAR? Sorry, but experience shows non-involved humans are generally more impartial than even lightly involved humans, in any issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Croatian speaker, I am primarily a Serbo-Croatian speaker but for the sake of clarity I specified the variety of sh at my user page. It isn't meant to imply any special importance or exclusiveness of Serbian over other varieties. Even in my daily talk I try to emphasize the use of the term Serbo-Croatian, and not any other. And it seems weird at times.
Anyway, if you are talking about a change caused by the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, why are you then signifying this one year's COMMONNAME to be different than the last 10 years' COMMONNAME? One might legitimately ask why one year, why not two years? Or five? And it can go in a different direction - shortening the time span for calculating the statistics of COMMONNAME - which is what I already explained that it can cause problems in the future. Not just that, but if we for example decide on two years span as sufficiently large but not too large, then depending on the day we calculate the stats we can come up with different results. Every single day we should count the stats and have a vote. And if I understand correctly, the last RM didn't provide significantly different results for Albanian and Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) variants. Then, should we have a vote on how much the results should differ for the change to have any meaning? Maybe, but probably defined as a percentage of difference.
And if you don't trust any nationality on en.wp to do the unthankful task, why do you think it can be done in the first place? Everybody is partial, that's true, so we can't wait for the non-involved humans since such don't exist. And you calling someone not having local connections normal doesn't help, because those having are then not-normal. Having such point of view is being partial, and you should get rid of it if you seek to be impartial. Even if you think of yourself as being not normal, abnormal, unnormal. --biblbroks (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikipedia can sometimes reach a compromise on whole groups of geographic names. See for instance Talk:Municipalities of South Tyrol, where the controversy is whether places should have an Italian or a German name. But imagine how many thousands of words were expended in that page, and ask yourself how much time and patience you have. For a person outside the disputed area (Kosovo or South Tyrol) the names probably have little importance one way or the other. The important thing is for places like Pristina to get sorted out in a reasonable way. The present draft of WP:MOSKOS *does* treat the high level issues reasonably. Where it goes astray (in my opinion) is thinking that the local official placenames should determine what the place should be called. I admit that such a rule, though unlikely to be approved, would save a lot of discussion. The only conceivable grounds for doing that that would be that nobody cares. But in practice both the Serbian and the Albanian sides would care a lot. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Biblbroks, why? because it is not unusual to restrict WP:COMMONNAME to past 2 years or even past 12 months most recent usage when there has been a major change. We do this all the time with WP:BLP celebrities who get married and change to married name, or change stagename, we do this when schools and companies change names. This is normal.
@Ed, I think my concern is not that a flood of similar RMs to Talk:Vučitrn will happen (the Albanian and Kosovan editors will soon learn that the demographics of en.wp do not favour Albanians), but rather that without a Talk:Gdansk/Vote there will be WP:3RR, sockpuppeting, IP hopping and meatpuppeting across everything from footballer stubs to really important/visible articles.
@Biblbroks, back to your point. I suggested in the Talk:Vučitrn that WikiProject Knitting should be invited. All human beings are partial but I am not greatly enflamed by knitting issues, so I suspect knitters are less likely to be partial to Balkan politico-ethno-linguistics. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is the only thought i have in mind now... --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, not unless you drop your stick first ;). ...but yes, seriously, obviously this is not going to progress without the 3 non-Serbian/Albanian editors who supported a review in the Talk:Vučitrn RM expressing/repeating their opinion here - and they were notified, as you were, and have chosen not to. My sense is that the disruption/WP:3RR/meat/sockpuppeting has died down for the time being anyway. If it starts again, this conversation will likely not have been archived. You see I am not opposed to Serbian names from your Ana Ivanović edit. Живели! In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi, restricting WP:COMMONNAME to any time interval should be done with care especially in this case. If we restrict it to past 2 years or less we should have a margin wide enough for the other variant of the name to be considered as not common. I am not sure this is the case at the moment. Anyway, comparing this type of name change to the case of one celebrity changing stagename is frivolous at best. Even when companies or schools change names it has a much smaller impact than this type of change has: not only does it convey the preference of one language over some other but it has a significant if not the biggest influence on how one perceives one entire settlement completely with its history together.

Also, if one cares so much to suggest that editors totally unknowledgeable of this name situation are necessary, why not invite them then? A situation of such importance to be called a politico-ethno-linguistic one surely deserves input from as many sources as possible.

And this mention of the need for only the non-Serbian/Albanian editors to express/repeat their opinion here; if a casual passer-by wouldn't have read the words "meat" and "sockpuppeting" within this same comment, they surely would've thought an editor writing this were an inexperienced editor, because how they mentioned only the 3 of the non-Serbian/Albanian editors' opinion is necessary here for the "progress" of "this". --biblbroks (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More canvassing by FkpCascais[edit]

FkpCascais has been canvassing again. When the stalking and the canvassing stops, perhaps pages like this may make more progress towards neutrality. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talking about neutrality, I noteced you have allways been going in the same direction - towards minimazing and turning this template obsolete (exemple1, exemple2, exempe3 (lol "grammar fixes"? It would be really nice to see all editors making controversial changes and just naming them "grammar fixes". Funy, its all about changing words, isnt it?), exemple4 ("No consensus for that change" obviously not, it was your change, the other editor just reverted you lol. Curiously you are right, no consensus for your change), and more and more cases where you just want to diminish the template or many cases where you removed it from articles.
However, Ive been thinking, and I am starting to agree with you that this template is not good. Indeed, it is very unbalanced. It clearly favours the Albanian POV. It basically says that we should be using Kosovo in the articles just as if it was an ndependent state, with just this minor asterisc next to it, with an explanation down the article about the status which 90% of readers dont read. So after some thinking, I beleave it would be appropriate to return to the pre-asterisc situation, and simply return to a much more realistic wording such as "disputed territory of Kosovo", "partially recognised state of Kosovo", "Serbia/Kosovo", "unrecognised state of Kosovo", etc. and stop using Kosovo as an independent state with just this silly barely visible asterisc next to it. What do you think? FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
About canvassing, why isnt this page within the scope of WikiProject:Serbia? I am gonna add it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You know, of course, that Kosovo is a different country to Serbia. Stop this tendentious editing. bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I know very well the reality, which is explained here: International recognition of Kosovo. So, 108 UN member states recognize Kosovo as independent country, while 81 recognize Kosovo as Serbian territory. I recognize the complexity of the issue, while you are tendentiously disregarding the fact that half of world countries don't share your view about Kosovo independence, and that fact clearly unables you to edit en.wiki as if Kosovo was clearly independent.
So, how it is going to be? You want the template or should we just add Serbia/Kosovo or similar formulations instead everywhere? FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Isnt this way too much from you Bobby? Not in the scope of Serbia? When the territory is clearly a disputed territory of Serbia? Why so much hateriot towards Serbia? Was it something personal? I beleave for quite some time that you are totally unable to edit anything regarding the Kosovo dispute, you are just too partisan about it. You are convincing me that if you continue this crusade of yours, a topic-ban would seem quite adequate. I noticed that you are a perfectly positive contributor in other subjects, but when the subject is Kosovo, dear lord... you transform yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I recognise that you are frustrated. People often are, when they are caught cheating. Just relax, and stop canvassing and POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The only frustrated person I see here is the one talking about it. Now do something productive and open a discussion for your changes or otherwise stop disrupting and move somewhere else. FkpCascais (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Kosovo[edit]

Hi guys, I'm not sure how many people have this page still on their watch list but I'd like to bring this discussion to your attention: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Kosovo#Languages of Kosovo. I'd most certainly like to hear your opinions. Thanks in advance. Kind regards IJA (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)