Jump to content

Talk:Ferizaj/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo

The user of the city names in English Language (newer version from the UN liable pilari in Kosovo for such think )

  1. http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html

The original page of the Law (1. in albanian L., 2.Serbian L.)

  1. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
  2. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf

The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for albanian language. 

RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43
UNMIK/REG/2000/43
27 korrik 2000
Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave
-------------------------------------------
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm,
Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të 
Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara,
Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të
Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK)
mbi autorizimin e Administratës së 
Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut 
mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë,
Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes 
së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë,
Shpall sa vijon:
Neni 1
Numri dhe emrat e komunave
Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje. 
Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’ 
të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare 
dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e 
atyre komuniteteve.
Neni 2
Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave
Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale. 
Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 3
Zbatimi
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative 
në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje.
Neni 4
Ligji i zbatueshëm
Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të. 
Neni 5
Hyrja në fuqi
Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000.
Bernard Kouchner
Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm

The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language. 

UREDBA BR. 2000/43
UNMIK/URED/2000/43
27. jul 2000. godine
O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara,
Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih
nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine,
Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene
administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i
dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe
UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na
Kosovu, <u>(hier is oficele user)</u>
U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa
op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu,
Ovim objavquje slede}e:
Clan 1
BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA
1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli '''A''' u dodatku ovoj
Uredbi.
1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje
nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i
jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde
se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica.
Clan 2
PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA
Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim
katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u
Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi.
Clan 3
PRIMENA
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno
uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe.
Clan 4
ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI
Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna
sa wom.
Clan 5
STUPAWE NA SNAGU
Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine.
Bernar Ku{ner
Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara

tabel of contens >A< 

TABELA ‘A’ (alb) RASPORED A (ser.)
Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb)
Albanski Srpski
01 Deçan \Decani
02 Gjakovë \Djakovica
03 Gllogovc \Glogovac
04 Gjilan \Gnilane
05 Dragash \Dragas
06 Istog \Istok
07 Kaçanik \Kacanik
08 Klinë\ Klina
09 Fushë Kosovë\ Kosovo Polje
10 Kamenicë \Kamenica
11 Mitrovicë \Kosovska Mitrovica
12 Leposaviq \Leposavic
13 Lipjan \Lipqan
14 Novobërdë \Novo Brdo
15 Obiliq \Obilic
16 Rahovec\ Orahovac
17 Pejë\ Pec
18 Podujevë\ Podujevo
19 Prishtinë \Pristina
20 Prizren \Prizren
21 Skenderaj\ Srbica
22 Shtime\ Stimqe
23 Shtërpcë\ Strpce
24 Suharekë\ Suva Reka
25 Ferizaj \Urosevac
26 Viti \Vitina
27 Vushtrri\ Vucitrn
28 Zubin Potok \Zubin Potok
29 Zveçan\ Zvecan
30 Malishevë\ Malisevo

If sambody have a argument Im waitting. In another cases you are going to interpret the dokumets (you are out of UN Law) and you dont have argumet, you dont work for Wikipedia but you are destroing the comunity of Wikipedia. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. Dont forget You can have a problem with "Haage" or Carla del Ponte. This tabel is speeken better then I --Hipi Zhdripi 20:35, 13 April 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 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Name

It is more than right to change the articles name from Uroševac to Uroševac/Ferizaj since the majority of this city calls it for it's other name Ferizaj. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proffesorn (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The relevant issue here is what English-language sources commonly call this city, and not what the city inhabitants call it. Please, see WP:NC & WP:UE. - Best regards, Evv 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's correct. But this city name is also not written based on the english rules of writing, i.e. Uroševac with the diacritical sign on top of the S. I'm not aware that english language has a letter like this. The name, if it has to be in english must be Urosevac and not otherwise. The diacritical sing can be used when referen the name of Uros and other historical names, but not on the city itself. I will probably go and change the name properly, if there is no more comments in this issue. And accordingly update the document since some of the data are incorrect, like the name of city mayor.
Because Albanian is the primary language of the two official languages (Albanian, Serbian) of Kosovo, then the names should be in this order: Albanian followed by Serbian. I have made a naming convention suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Kosovo, the newborn state.--Arbër (Let's Talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

I put the official name of the city on brackets() —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindicapriqi (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The official name of this city is only Ferizaj , No ursevac , All people in the world if he know with name FERIZAJ . 

Ledion Kukaj (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject-Serbia

I removed the tag "Wikiproject: Serbia" because Ferizaj (or Urosevac) is a city in the Republic of Kosovo. It would be a reductio ad absurdum to consider Kosovan cities part of Serbia projects because it would be the same as considering New York City as part of the Mongolia Project...--Arbër (Let's Talk) 10:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Serbia related stub, "Serbia location article", because the city of Ferizaj is not located anywhere in Serbia, but in the Republic of Kosovo.--Arbër Let's talk 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on removing the serbia-wikiproject template but even if it is there it doesn't matter much because wikiproject templates dont reflect any territorial claim , they are just there to tell that a specific article is in the scoop (meaning in the interest) of a group of editors who formed a wikiproject for there interests of editing in wikipedia .Look at Talk:Presevo for example it also has the wikiproject kosovo in it even though it isn't part of kosovo --Cradel 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Starting a section on

Notable people, such as Shefqet Pllana.Tironc Puro Fare (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I live in Ferizaj where almost 100% live Albanians and call our city Ferizaj and for us as a citizens of this city its profanity to call it on Slavic(EX oppressors) version,I just have read the debate above what made me not to visit wiki as much as i did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolkid (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I catch your point. Are you suggesting that articles be moved to their local names according to majority population in spite of their English names? Or were you hinting at something else? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Striking out sock. bobrayner (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. The proposed title of Ferizaj appears to not be clearly and widely preferred in English over Uroševac/Urosevac at this time, so defaulting to last stable title, Uroševac. kotra (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Uroševac → Ferizaj — 99,5%+ of the population is Albanian.

If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó). If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself. Kreshnik25 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Moral/cultural objections (such as percentage of Albanian populace) aside, the nomination quotes from the wrong part of the policy. The relevant passage is "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the most common non-English name." Focusing on reliable sources (such as books and Google Scholar), Urosevac is still more common than Ferizaj. There have been attempts over the years to force the name change on Wikipedia, but I still don't think there's a basis for it at this point. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Google: Ferizaj = 3,300,000 hits; Uroševac = 1,460,000 hits.
Google Books: Ferizaj = 534 hits; Uroševac = 232 hits
Thank you. kedadial 21:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said, we're ignoring the basic Google hits; the policy is based on reliable sources, which the average Google hit is not. A Google Books search for Urosevac comes up with 699 hits as opposed to the 534 hits you mentioned for Ferizaj. Google Scholar shows 408 for Urosevac and 320 for Ferizaj. This is English - you need to search without the diacritical marks. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
We do not achieve these goals by concensus. Further more, it is an incorrect assumption that there is no English equivalent. Is it also a mistake to assume that there is no equivalent in any language, because there are exonyms for all settlements and regions. Your task is to find the sources. It is no good saying "ah well, there is a 99% majority of X population in this town, the English name must follow". Wrong. First seek the possible names among the so-called "reputable sources", and if you cannot find anything then you need to consult maps or placename dictionaries or the like. I am talking about remote villages here, not major towns which have featured in reports for one reason or another. All of Kosovo's major towns were mentioned in western news reports during the 1998/99 period. Just find some which referred to Ferizaj, that's all anybody needs to do. At home, we have two maps. One is of the former SFRY published in West Germany in the early 1970s. This is very large scale and magnifies Kosovo to a size not usually seen; it is certainly too big to fit onto the screen. As such, it contains all settlements. The other map I can produce is British published in 2005 of Serbia and Montenegro, again including Kosovo. Now, I accept that these are both out of date concerning Kosovo so we desperately require an Englsih language map of Kosovo published any time after February 2008. Get that and there will be no quibble and no disupute over naming convention. And it goes without saying, if you see Gjakova then you have the impetus to move the page with or without a concensus. If the maps continue to refer to Đakovica then even a 100-0 concensus will be inadequate. If usage is split roughly half and half, then we have a problem. English has no regulatory body to prescribe certain usage and you will all seriously need to rub your heads together to decide what, why and how. Evlekis (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Kafziel. Urosevac is definitely more common than Ferizaj. And might I add, this is getting really ridiculous, almost every single article about towns in Kosovo is occupied by POV pushers requesting moves to the Albanian version of the town name... and every time there is no consensus. Anybody ever considered the option of um.. giving up? And letting serious users focus on improving articles, instead of wasting their time to repeat the same points over and over again. --Cinéma C 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Cinema, please try to restrain yourself from premature assumptions like almost every single article about towns in Kosovo is occupied by POV pushers. We are all here to build encyclopedic information. It is not POV pushing to try and inform people in as realistic manner as possible. For the moment, there is a really small Serbian population in Ferizaj and the municipality is run by people who call the city Ferizaj, officially. WP naming convention shows (as it was mentioned more that once) places that do not that have an English name, should use the one used by its people. I do not know how this can be discussed. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna, you said yourself that "this issue has been politicized all over".[1] POV pushers (from both sides of the issue) have plagued these articles for years. The fact remains that there is a well-established English usage of the term Urosevac due to the heavy US and UK involvement in Kosovo from 1999 to the present. We spell it without the diacritical marks and we quite likely badly mispronounce it, but it is the dominant English term for the city. That fact is clearly shown in the links I've provided above, and disregarding it only highlights your bias. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Lets assume that I agree with you. How can we possibly prove that Urosevac is more frequently used in English than Ferizaj? How can we establish in such an arbitrary way that it is the dominant English term for the city? I read your previous comment and analysis. The difference between two names is not that big to define one as valid and the other as invalid for WP usage. If there are more quality books published with Ferizaj in a near future, should we change the name than? Furthermore, the current name is Uroševac with a "š". —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The "š" is not part of the English alphabet, so obviously it is not commonly used in English writing (such as when referring to Urosevac). I don't complain that "California" is spelled with a "K" in Hrvatski; that's just the way it is. But checking scholarly and published sources with Google is a neutral way to find usage. The difference is significant enough to show that it's not a fluke of the search engine; all this time later if you do the same search you will come up with similar results. Debating the merits of the results just introduces points of view where none are needed; just taking the results at face value, without adding personal analysis, we can see that Urosevac is more common. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But the current page is called Uroševac with "š". Should we transfer it to Urosevac instead of Ferizaj? —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that's okay. Wikipedia consensus has generally allowed for the use of diacritical marks in article titles as long as the appropriate redirects are in place. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah! But what if that small detail leans towards POV pushing. Using the Serbian form, and not the English one (see: Pristina). —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be a different conversation, and I might have a different stance in that case. However, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) Wikipedia does not have a comprehensive guideline on when to use diacritics and when not to. Each case is different. 2) Diacritical marks do not have a point of view. Most of these articles (including articles on foreign towns and cities) were written by American or English writers with no opinions at all on the Serb-Albanian conflict. To be quite honest, most people just don't care. In fact, most Americans don't even know anything about it. So be careful not to read too much into titles; most of them were created on the basis of common usage with a (sometimes misguided) attempt to be inclusive and avoid the appearance of English-language bias by using diacritical marks. Similar issues have arisen on articles written for Irish, Czech, and Chinese subjects, and it's rarely a case of POV. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That is true. However going back to an earlier point, there is nothing un-English about diacritics. No grammar or ideology has ever moved to stop them; never have they been proscribed, not even by prescriptivists. So what chance is there that the liberal descriptivists recommend otherwise? The English alphabet contains the 26 basic letters with no special additional features; that does not mean that diacritics are incorrect. Their usage simply indicates the foreign source of the text and nothing more. Serbian and Macedonian for example would not honestly need these Romanised forms for anything more than transliteration had they not used Latinic primarily on occasion. If the transliterations had not been suitable for Roman alphabet scripts in the first place, they would not have employed characters which the target language would itself have to further transcribe. As such, Serbian/Macedonian/Croatian diacritics are acceptable in Swedish text, and the Swedish characters such as /å/ in turn are all acceptable in German and Dutch (where applicable). I've said this before on Pristina-related talk: the question is not whether a word containing a diacritic is less common than its counterpart without it, but whether the source is question observes it or not. It it doesn't observe one, it won't observe any other. Where is the sense in publishing such characters as: ö, ä, é or ź, but not ë, ň, ò or ø? --Evlekis (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My previous comment seems to have been confusing. I am saying: using Uroševac is very much the Serbian version of the name, and considering that the city has no Serbian population whatsoever, it might be considered POV. On the other hand, if Ferizaj (as you claim) does not have the necessary usage, at least Urosevac without š would be nearer to NPOV. —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No it would not. It would simply be the Slavic name minus diacritic and there is no evidence to suggest that this is the English name (which we need to be taking into consideration); there isn't with Pristina either. If English speakers had a particular reason to refer to a particular place, it would have had a permanent name which would not have changed as a result of local activity. One needs to clarify exactly what is the English name for this city, and that will either be Ferizaj or Uroševac. --Evlekis (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What you are saying is the Serbian version is NPOV. Ferizaj is under ARBCOM, its name is an ethnical dispute (though the city itself is not - the population is Albanian by a huge majority). Google scholar and books, showed not a very big difference between two names (around 100). And, if one would use Urosevac instead of Uroševac the same results would come up. The only difference is that Urosevac (without š) is slightly more supported by Albanian editors. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Google actually shows a very significant difference, considering the low number of overall hits. 100 more hits for Uroševac constitutes about 20%-30% more hits than for Ferizaj, which is authoritative by any standard.
The whole disagreement about "š" is not relevant to this discussion; this proposal is about Uroševac vs. Ferizaj, not Uroševac vs. Urosevac. If you want to begin a separate request after this one is finished, by all means do so. Please stay on task here. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I might not be the most neutral authority on the issue, as I am an Albanian from Kosovo, however, I think it is precisly this that makes me see the complexity of the issue more clearly. I agree with you, that "š" should be addresed on another request or section. Getting back to the topic, I do not know if 20-30% or even 40% is enough to make such a bold decision (I know that bold decisions are encouradged by WP) - consider your hometown (though Ferizaj is not my hometown) being called with the name that someone who once ocuppied your country used/uses. I believe that 70-80% difference would make a difference, but not less. For example, Albania is known internationally as Albania for a milenium or so... the name is more than valid, but Ferizaj is a fairly new town not much realiable/seriuos materials are written about it (there is no info on Encyclopedia Britannica or any other major encyclopedia). So in a way it sets a precedent for future usage. It is really not an issue of 20/30%. I would just request on a friendly way that you look at this problem from a closer perspective. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No no no no no no Miss Comnena. Again you fail the grasp the point. Take out the diacritic and you still have the base for the Serbian name and that is just as unfavourable to Albanian editors. Why Albanian and Serbian editors need to be different on this is beyond sense: we are trying to establish the English name. English in turn clearly uses either form. Now the diacritic subject needs to be dropped and buried because it is totally irrelevant. Sources which do not observe diacritics consciously discard anything outside of the basic 26 letters. An editor as such would not know where to put them or how to use them in the first place, that doesn't mean that it is the English name for a place. If he writes Pristina instead of Priština, he will surely write Malmo instead of Malmö. However, it is certainly odd to use Munchen instead of München given that the English name is Munich (rather like Belgrade for Beograd). English when on Kosovo simply uses whichever. I say Ferizaj and you say Uroševac and so on. Sadly all Kosovo naming subjects are sensitive issues and there is no POV solution anywhere. Mitrovica? Fair enough, I've seen this used without Kosovska on television maps which refer to Đakovica and Peć. What you really must stop doing is playing this redundant "Albanians are a super-majority" card. Hungarians are also a majority in many towns in Vojvodina but WP still uses the Serbian name. You could argue that "Serbia is the legal country" but this should not matter where English naming is the case and both forms are widely used. Sadly we are a million lightyears from a remedy on this ugly issue. Evlekis (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


My home town is New York. When it was ruled by the British, it was called New York. After the war, we called it... New York. The city I live in now is Los Angeles. It was called Los Angeles when Mexico ruled it, and after we won the Mexican War we called it... Los Angeles. A name is only as important as you make it. It doesn't have to mean anything.
A 70-80% difference has no basis in policy, but if that's what you feel is necessary, then you should support keeping the article where it is. As shown in the book results, Ferizaj is nowhere near 70% more popular than Urosevac. It seems what you're really saying is, you'll only accept dissenting opinions with 70-80% more support than your own, but your opinion should be accepted by default. That's not how it works. The burden is on those who want to move the page, not on those who wish to keep it where it is. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Your examples are very clear and helpfull. New York and Los Angeles had their day like Ferizaj is having today, and because of many reasons that I am not familiar the current names got stuck. Of course there is no base to clame that naming of those two was done in a day, that is only a ridiculous simplification in order to prove a point. Ferizaj is not called Urosevac by its inhabitants as New York and LA are also called such by theirs. Lets make another question, if you would call New York something else, and British would try to impose their version, would 20-30% be a reasonable percentage to keep the british version? Furthermore, this is not my opinion per se, I am stricly holding a certain position to the matter, that needs to be presented. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You misrepresent the situation: It's is a 20-30% difference, not just 20-30% total support. To use your example: If there was a vote to rename New York, and 60% voted to keep it and 40% voted to change it, it would not be changed. The same goes in this case, where 60% of sources use Urosevac and 40% use Ferizaj. That is the 20% difference, and it is quite significant.
I certainly understand the grudges and the nationalistic feelings, but Wikipedia is not a place to settle disputes like this. We just mirror what other reliable sources have already concluded. If the title of the English Wikipedia article is so crucial to the Albanian community's national identity, all I can suggest is that they write more English language books about Ferizaj and wait for it to take hold in the English-speaking world. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose your attempts to categorize my comments as nationalistic. I did not misrepresent the situation. I am just saying, it is not fair to set a precedent on such a pale criterion. Your example If there was a vote to rename New York, and 60% voted to keep it and 40% voted to change it, it would not be changed is irrelevant. In Ferizaj 100% want to keep the name. —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Your stance is the very definition of nationalism. You oppose the current name for absolutely no other reason than that it is used by a different group of people and not your own. Perhaps I should have ignored your question about New York because it seems to have confused you. In this case, it really doesn't matter what the people of Ferizaj want. All that matters is what the people of the English speaking world have traditionally called it. This isn't a vote.
This discussion no longer seems productive, so I think I'm finished here. The article will stay where it is, so there's nothing more I need to say. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this discussion is not going anywhere! But totally disagree with your definition of nationalism. This seem to be a problem with some editors and even (apparently) admins. Protecting your stance on a particular issue is one thing, but trying to offend (though I did not get offended) an editor because he is insisting on his view, is another thing. This is also my last post for this section... —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Uroševac or Ferizaji

Why is the article name one thing and the content another? Shouldn't they match? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are we using the Serbian name over the Albanian name when only 26 Serbs live there and over 100,000 Albanians live there? IJA (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; the actual name is Ferizaj. bobrayner (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed at length above and I'm not about to read all of that. It's probably best that I don't.

The bottom line for me is visitor experience. The article name is Uroševac and "Ferizaji" is used throught the article with Uroševac appearing only once. That is a lousy state in which to get deadlocked. Visitors must be confused. It looks like a mistake and there's no clarification plainly put forth in the lead.

There are lots of choices ranging from rubbish to reasonable. All are better than how it is now.

As a stretch, both names could even appear in the article title like Uroševac/Ferizaji or Ferizaji/Uroševac. But, at a very bare minimum, both names should appear in the infobox and in the lead, preferably in the form of an explanation other than "...also known as...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

All inhabitant from Ferizaj called their own Town " Ferizaj " . " Urosevac " was introduced with the kolonisation of the new Serbian Govnership in 1915, thats why the serbian from out of kosovo does not know the name which is used from the Ferizaj Inhabitant by self, but only the serb. administrative Name Urosevac. Page of the Municipality of Ferizaj; https://kk.rks-gov.net/ferizaj/
With the Serbian conquest of 1913, the present territory of Kosova , used the new Serbian Governorship serbians names for towns , or they created a new name. With the cultural and political autonomy right of the Kosovars 1972 allowed the Serbian Governorship original names of the localities to use in addition to the Serbian . 1990-2000 forbade Slobodan Milloshevic the language and writing of the Kosovars and was only allowed in Serbian language and Cyrillic writing and change all names in serbian . What ended fortunately in 2000. Since 2000, have been democratic structures introduced , and the villages are so called as they call him their own inhabitant.
1915, the Mosque of Ferizaj gives land to the Orthodox Church , who then built the Uros church next to the Mosque , and the Serbian Governorship also called the city Urosevac . The Orthodox Church in Ferizaj is 2m away from the Mosque in Ferizaj.
The compromise of Athisariplan with strong minority rights, especially for the Serbian minority, which forms the basis of the Kosovo Constitution, is serbian the second official language. --84.227.25.47 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as requested. Support for the move outweighs opposition by about a two-to-one ratio. Although there are contradicting interpretations of common name evidence in varying time periods and language sources, there is no clear superiority of one usage over another in recent English language sources, making it plausible to have the name at the title preferred by a substantial majority of participants in the discussion. I also took into account the accusations of canvassing, but note that at this point, the discussion has been open long enough for any interested party to weigh in. bd2412 T 17:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Uroševac → Ferizaj – Official name of the city in English is Ferizaj. Also majority of the city's population call it 'Ferizaj' and not 'Uroševac'. Google searches for Ferizaj and Uroševac produce a similar amount of results. Urosevac is only the offical name in the Serbian Langauge whereas Ferizaj is the offical name in English Langauge and Albanian Language. GBS shows that word 'Urosevac' appeared more times in 200 books than word 'Ferizaj' did in 220 books; however 'Ferizaj' appeared in more books (220) than 'Urosevac' (200) therefore proving that 'Ferizaj' is the common name because it appeared in more books than 'Urosevac'. The fact that 'Ferizaj' appeared in more books than 'Urosevac' shows that 'Ferizaj' is more widely news. Also as shown below, 'Ferizaj' gets more hits than 'Urosevac' in Google Scholar and it was used in more journals. Ferizaj was used in 610 journals whereas Urosevac was used in 570 journals. Google News produces no English Langauge results for Urosevac however there are several English Language results for Ferizaj. Ferizaj is the most WP:COMMONNAME in the English language and it is the official name in the English Language. @ Admin reviewing this Please take into account the WP:CANVASSING on Wikiproject:Serbia (shown below) and please take into account that several of those opposed are Serbs/ native speakers of the Serbian Language; therefore are likely to be opposed to this WP:RM due to personal interests. IJA (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ferizaji without "i" have 3,330 GBS hits which is half of the current widely used English language title.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
When searching for recent books, the Google Books results are the other way round. Did you omit that intentionally, or unintentionally? bobrayner (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Both post-2008 and post-2010 English language sources most frequently use Urosevac to refer to this town, per below presented search results. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
...which include Italian, German and Slovene books. Can you please find a NY Times, London Times, Guardian, Telegraph, etc. news article using a Serbian name for a Kosovan town since 2011? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly In ictu oculi! No one can! --Huh39291 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
When searching for recent books, the Google Books results are the other way round; they favour Ferizaj, not Uroševac. Antidiskriminator, why did you omit that? bobrayner (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
When searching for recent books, the Google Books results are the other way round; they favour Ferizaj, not Uroševac. Antidiskriminator, why did you omit that? bobrayner (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
When searching for recent books, the Google Books results are the other way round; they favour Ferizaj, not Uroševac. Antidiskriminator, why did you omit that? bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That is, of course, just another disruptive loaded question and best indicator that you don't have arguments for your position. I did not omit anything. Post 2008 GBS English language search results: Urosevac 110 - Ferizaj 91.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, before accusing others of being disruptive, please take the time to read English speaking encyclopaedias, such as Britannica, which is an important encyclopaedia. Britannica uses Ferizaj.--Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of them books were published before 2008 (ie whilst Kosovo was apart of Serbia) and many of them are in the Serbian Language and will therefore use the Serbian spelling. So your google books search doesn't prove much re Common Name in the English Language for English Language Wikipedia. Not to mention the searches on the Serbian Version of google books produce different results to the British and American (ie English Language) versions of google books. Also some of the books say things along the lines of "Ferizaj, or Urosevac as it is known in Serbian". Your google books search isn't very relevant or reliable for the Common Name in English. IJA (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Even post 2008 English langauge sources most frequently use Urosevac. (Urosevac 106 : Ferizaj 79).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Not on my browser. There must be something wrong with the settings on Google.rs, since that search is picking up Italian and French books as well. These are English sources post 2010 A B. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point In ictu oculi. The browser that Antidiskriminator uses is www.google.rs, hardly the browser that would be used in the English speaking world. --Huh39291 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Search results are the same with google.com. Please read below explanation why it is necessary to present the last results page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Please provide then results in google.com, not google.rs. I don't understand Serbian to be able to take any advantage of the links you provide. This is the English wikipedia, not the Serbian one. Why do you have to impose on readers the google in Serbian? --Huh39291 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLE explains that what you presented is "the "match" count estimate" which can be significantly different to the "total count of results shown on the last results page", which is what I presented. -wikipedia content of course, per wikipedia guidelines. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
My problem is that you use the browser in Serbian, where I can't read. It is an unnecessary imposition on the other wikipedians, who don't speak or understand Serbian, to read the google in Serbian. --Huh39291 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, English is not Serbian. Naming often differs between the two languages. That helps explain why your searches in Serbian return the Serbian name of the town, but other editors have established that the common name of the town in English is now Ferizaj. bobrayner (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think Ferizaj is probably the better spelling variant. (Of course, naïve google searches will also find a few results for variants like "Ferizajt" depending on grammatical case). Antidiskriminator's opposition can be discarded, because it's founded on a google search which returns lots of older documents; and a Serbian search is a sure way of stacking the deck. Perhaps Antidiskriminator would like to pretend that nothing has changed in Kosovo in the last decade or so; but the encyclopædia must reflect reality. Anyway, back to the point: Ferizaj is the actual name of the town. bobrayner (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've dropped the 'i' from my nomination. Also please note that on the American Version of google books, there are 3,440 results for 'Ferizaj' and it has books published mainly from 2008 onwards. IJA (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ferizaji without "i" have 3,330 GBS hits which is half of the current widely used English language title.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Which ones? Antidiskriminator is all over the place and I really am confused. Can you please specify? --Huh39291 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Since Antidiskriminator's numbers have been discredited, and are incompatible with current english-language usage, would you reconsider your position, 23 editor? bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Pinging @23 editor:. Since Antidiskriminator's numbers have been discredited, and are incompatible with current english-language usage, would you reconsider your position? It's a shame that you found time to canvass but not to review the sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
23 editor, since Antidiskriminator's numbers have been discredited, and are incompatible with current english-language usage, would you reconsider your position? It's a shame that you found time to canvass but not to review the sources. 23:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
23 editor, since Antidiskriminator's numbers have been discredited, and are incompatible with current english-language usage, would you reconsider your position? It's a shame that you found time to canvass but not to review the sources. bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Most English Language sources post 2008 refer to the City as 'Ferizaj' and not 'Uroševac', therefore per WP:COMMONNAME we should be calling it 'Ferizaj' and not 'Uroševac' as to reflect on the contemporary Common Name. On Google Scholar there are 617 for Ferizaj and 570 for Urosevac. Common Name cannot be used to argue in favour of Urosevac in the English language these days. A lot has changed since 2008. Also Antidiskriminator's numbers do not 'check out'. IJA (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is a sort of Istanbul/Constantinople issue. There's the "old" name that has been used for a long time, but it's not what the people actually there call it, anymore. Wikivoyage calls it Ferizaj [2]. The Kosovars call it Ferizaj [3]. The name should be changed in the article to reflect the local reality. - ILBobby (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Even google maps and google earth use Ferizaj as it's primary name and use the Serbian name in a smaller font in brackets. IJA (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No similarity here. "What the people actually there call it" is irrelevant. Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Take Kosovo for example. Majority of the people actually there call it Kosova. English language sources most frequently use Kosovo to refer to it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You're inventing a linguistic strawman. The people in Serbia call it "Srbija." The Kosovars call Kosovo "Kosova." When I say "Serbia" and "Kosovo," that's the equivalent in my own native language. We don't call China "Zhongguo." The Kosovars who actually live there call the city "Ferizaj." There's no English equivalent to that, so we must use the native name, as we would with Astana, Tbilisi, or Dar es Salaam, which are romanizations of Kazakh, Georgian, and Arabic, respectively. - ILBobby (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. The people in Serbia call it Kosovo. The same name English language sources most frequently use to refer to it. Just like in case of Urosevac.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not true. Since independence, English-language sources prefer Ferizaj. I imagine that AfDs would run more smoothly if you could avoid saying things that directly contradict sources. bobrayner (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Canvassing: I wonder why User:23 editor thought it would be a good idea to notify users on Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia but not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo? This is where one would naturally assume to be a more relevant and appropriate place to invite users to comment on this RM. I dare say as a result of this canvassing, we'll inevitably see lots of users with the userbox "This user is a native speaker of Serbian" and anti-Kosovo userboxes on their profiles, add their opinions to this RM. I'm pretty sure people would complaint if only users on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania were notified. I'm removing this canvassing. This selective canvassing is very unfair and very unsporting, should an admin be notified of this? IJA (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Members of both WikiProject Serbia and WikiProject Kosovo are regularly notified by bot on article alerts because this article is classified within their scope.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That is a non sequiteur, and I'm sure you know it is. The town is in Kosovo; it is not in Serbia. 23 editor was caught redhanded canvassing people from WikiProject Serbia, not Kosovo. Canvassing is a Bad Thing; covering up for your allies' canvassing is a Bad Thing too. bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Again incorrect. You presented French language search results. If you use English language search results you will get 53 for Urosevac and 38 for Ferizaj. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Please look again. I happen to be using French menus, but my search includes "search?lr=lang_en" - all those books are English. Wheras your first page of results are (1) Kosovo: un paese al bivio = Italian, (2) Slovenski izseljenci in Zahodna Evropa = Slovene; (3) Kosovo: unterwegs im Herzen des Balkans = German; (4) Calendario Atlante De Agostini = Italian, (5) Freibrief für KFOR im Kosovo? = German; Modern English publications use Kosovan names for towns in Kosovo.
See The Times. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Per in Ictu Oculi's research in Googlebooks, clean of wikipedia, it's the following a clear result, Ferizaj 286, and Urosevac 115, which shows that Ferizaj is preferred in English:
The case for me is very clear, that the article should be renamed to Ferizaj. --Huh39291 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My edit corresponds with wikipedia policies and guidelines. It was also based on the comment of another editor in the section below this. It is actually your introduction of the false interwikilinks and new name which can be characterized as disruptive and tendentious. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator All them figures show is that Urosevac was the common name prior to 2008 and that Ferizaj is the contemporary common name 2008 onwards. You just have to look at the year of publication. Books published 2008 onwards predominantly use Ferizaj whereas books prior to 2008 predominantly use Urosevac. It is our duty here at wikipedia to reflect on what is currently the Common Name, not what was formerly the common name. Times change and we must keep up to date with change. IJA (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. I presented links to search results which prove the opposite.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You're incorrect, them links you showed us proved no such thing. I don't even know where you got them "Urosevac 106 : Ferizaj 79" figues from because when I clicked on your links, it showed no such thing. When I get some time later today, I'll make a list of the titles, year of publication and which name they use. Even on Serbian google books Ferizaj = produces 20 pages of results compared to Urosevac = produces 19 pages of results. IJA (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Same with American google books
Urosevac = 19 pages of results
Ferizaj = 20 pages of results
I really can not see how 'Urosevac' is the Common Name when Ferizaj produces more results. IJA (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I checked again. The search results are:
All them links are the same regardless of the years. Also it doesn't change the fact that moor books use Ferizaj (200 books) than Urosevac (190 books). IJA (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course it does. You use "private results" option in your searches which results with wrong figures. The search results I presented directly prove that Urosevac is WP:COMMONNAME even in most recent publications.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Them links didn't prove anything, they were all the same, there was no difference in them. Also it doesn't change the fact that more journals use Ferizaj (610 journals) than Urosevac (570 journals). More books on Google Books use Ferizaj (200 books) than Urosevac (190 books) and more journals use Ferizaj (610 journals) than Urosevac (570 journals). WP:COMMONNAME would apply to Ferizaj because more books and journals use this name than Urosevac. IJA (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes they do. I suppose you are unable to see that because you use "private results" option in your searches. Try after unchecking this option.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I've made sure my google books is set to default. You must have Private Results on because you said that no books were published in 2013 (post 2012) which use either Ferizaj or Urosevac. The following books (from google books) were all published in 2013 and use "Ferizaj":
So much for no books being published in 2013 (aka post 2012) using "Ferizaj". Well I manged to find them easily enough, you on the other hand conveniently couldn't find any. IJA (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not say no books being published in 2013 use Ferizaj. I said there were 0 GBS hits for both Ferizaj and Urosevac. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I've just proved that to be false as there blatantly are GBS hits. IJA (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No. You did not present search result hits. You present links. Some of them use Urosevac too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
They are some of the books which came up from earlier seach results I posted on here because you said there were Zero GB seach results for Ferizaj and Urosevac post 2012 when that is not true at all; to prove this you posted a link to a generic search of the two on google books (so it dodn't prove anything). And yes, some of them do use 'Urosevac' as well, but in brackets after the predominant Ferizaj which is the contemporary common name for the city. IJA (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's summarise: Antidiskriminator claimed to have found zero recent books using "Ferizaj", IJA pointed out several recent books using "Ferizaj", which shows that Antidiskriminator's numbers are wrong; and every oppose !vote is based on those numbers. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Which arguments? Most of them have been refuted by other editors. Can you please be more specific? --Huh39291 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, here we have another Oppose !voter who has suddenly arrived at a new topic just when more votes are needed. VVVladimir, doesn't it look suspicious that you've never edited this article before, haven't edited a WP:RM since September 2011, but you were canvassed by an Evlekis sock as recently as November 2013? bobrayner (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not to repeat myself, I have responded to this nonsense on Talk:Đakovica#Requested move 3. Vladimir (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You were canvassed, on your talkpage, by 217.36.124.203, signing as User:You find the truth painful. Both were blocked as Evlekis-socks. You know that. The last RM on this page was also affected by a WhiteWriter sock. Both WhiteWriter and Evlekis fought to use Serbian names for places in Kosovo, rather than the most common English-language name. The canvassing and sockpuppets are quite obvious; the editors now feigning ignorance of it - like you - are all Oppose voters. bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Media If you search 'Uroševac' in Google News this is what you get [4], not a single English Language News Story. However if you search 'Ferizaj' in google news this is what you get [5], several English Langauge News Stories. More proof that 'Ferizaj' is the WP:COMMONNAME in the English Language. Even the US Government calls it Ferizaj[6] IJA (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Again incorrect. Urosevac results with 8 hits and Ferizaj with 6. There is no such thing as official language on English language. Both Urosevac and Ferizaj are official names. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you're incorrect. I'm not referring to all results. I'm referring to ENGLISH LANGUAGE results as this is regarding the Common Name in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Also the Official Municipality Website disagrees with you over the Official Name in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. This is ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. IJA (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Again incorrect. Constitution of Kosovo says:"The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian." Not English. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Having a link war and comparing numbers is fun, but it sort of defeats the purpose of objective, on-the-ground reality. I'm sure I could offer plenty of links asserting that the earth is flat, but that wouldn't get me anywhere towards changing the earth article. If New York City changed its name to New Amsterdam, I'm sure there would still be millions of articles and references online to it being "New York" and not so many to it being "New Amsterdam," owing to the newness of the change. Would you insist on the title being "New Amsterdam" until the number of online references reach a number that you deemed personally satisfactory? Would you leave the renamed city stuck with its old name because of a pedantic game of article or link counting? The point is that the locals call it "Ferizaj." The official name of the municipality is "Ferizaj." What more is there? Many sites use wikipedia as their own point of reference, so citing some of them is akin to an echo chamber. The fiction that some are seeking to maintain in this particular case is not encyclopedic. - ILBobby (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Again incorrect. The name of this town has not changed. The official languages has not changed. Since Yugoslav period there are two official languages on Kosovo, Serbian and Albanian. Both Urosevac and Ferizaj are official names. English language sources most frequently use Urosevac. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, what do you mean by "name of this town has not changed"? The name of the town in Yugoslav times was Urosevac, right? And now the municipality calls itself "Ferizaj" in English sources, not "Urosevac". You can't deny that in English publications in 1971 or 1981 the Yugoslav authorities wouldn't dream calling the city "Ferizaj", correct? Or are not on the same page?
Besides this is not the point. The point is that English sources have a preference in calling the city Ferizaj, not Urosevac, and IJA pointed that out well. It is also a direspect to the preferences of the municipality itself, which calls the city "Ferizaj" in English. --Huh39291 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, what do you mean by "name of this town has not changed"? Sources show the change. bobrayner (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: As said above, this is a simple case. The municipality calls itself Ferizaj in English. The English sources are in majority Ferizaj, especially new ones. A search, clean of wikipedia, for recent sources, in English language (last 4 years), gives the following results: Ferizaj 286, and Urosevac 115, which shows that Ferizaj is preferred in English three fold:

The case for me is very clear, that the article should be renamed to Ferizaj. --Huh39291 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator, I'm not disputing that the two official languages of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian, I think that is something we can all agree on. And I'm not saying that English is an official language of Kosovo. What I'm saying is that on the City's Official English Language Website, uses Ferizaj and NOT Urosevac, which says a lot. You have been unable to prove that Urosevac is the Common Name today. You published the EXACT SAME LINK 4 times of one google books search but said one was 2008, one was 2010, one was 2011 and one was 2012 even though the link result was exactly the same for all four years. Google Books proves that more books use Ferizaj than Urosevac. Google Scholar proves than more journals use Ferizaj than Urosevac. And English language news doesn't use 'Urosevac' apart the odd occasion B92 English reports something about the city, but then again it is based in Belgrade and they deliberately and intentionally use Serbian spellings and names for all things Kosovo (such as using 'š' in Pristina and when referring to Kosovo as 'Kosovo i Metohija' which no other English language media from an English speaking country does). Times change and Wikipedia must reflect them changes. Yes, I know you're blindly telling people that their 'incorrect' because you choose not to take in what they've said and yes, I understand that you're a Serb/ Serbian and therefore have some sort of personal/ emotional interest in not having this article's name changed, but you shouldn't let this get in the way of Wikipedia Policy. IJA (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: You are reminding everyone that the Serbian language is an official language in the Republic of Kosovo. Does that mean that we have to use that standard and recognize the official will of the Republic of Kosovo, which in its own website claims that in the English language, the name of the city is Ferizaj? Or would you rather prefer a double standard: respect the constitution of Kosovo that Serbian is an official language, but not respect the Constitution of Kosovo when it boils down to the will of the municipality to call themselves in English under the name Ferizaj? --Huh39291 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Antidiskriminator, what does the figure 56 next to Urosevac represent? And what does the figure 38 next to Ferizaj represent? They are nowhere to be found on them links. Because when I click on them links, I get 220 books (200 in French Google Books) for Ferizaj and 200 for Urosevac (190 in French Google Books). So what do the figures 56 and 38 even represent? it is almost as if you have made them up. And I have no idea how French GB even came up. We should stick to an English language version of GB for searches as this is English Wikipedia. There was no attack, if you believe there was, then I suggest you should inform an admin instantly. IJA (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Zoupan, given the problems with Antidiskriminator's searches (old books and non-English books) please produce your own search of current English sources, say since 2010. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Zoupan, did you look at the sources? bobrayner (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Zoupan, did you look at the sources? bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Zoupan, did you look at the sources? bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, ILBobby makes a good point and the name is now Ferizaj. "Antidiskriminator's arguments" depends on counting old sources but not new ones, which is bad because a lot has changed in Kosovo in recent years. Sitta kah (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That is wrong. Other people have proved that newest sources more frequently use Ferizaj. Sitta kah (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It looks like it's officially "Ferizaj". Guidelines seem to say that the official name carries weight as a consideration but COMMONNAME is preferred. So, what is the common name? It's pretty close, maybe even, but probably Ferizaj by a hair and the gap is widening each year. Put it all on the scales and it's Ferizaj. Reverse it. If the article right now was Ferizaj and there was an RfC to change it to Uroševac, how would that go? Less support or even no support, I imagine. To me, the scales tip in favour Ferizaj. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, both names are official. Only in 2008 gap was narrowed and advantage of Urosevac fell to +19%, when Kosovo independence was declared. In post-2011 advantage of Urosevac rose to +33%. Its not about the number of editor's !votes "but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
In my above comment I explained that there is no official English name because English language is not official language on Kosovo: Constitution of Kosovo says:"The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian." Not English. Since Yugoslav period there are two official languages on Kosovo, Serbian and Albanian. Official languages remained unchanged.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. But what about the English government website using Ferizaj? That seems pretty official. Sure, it may not be the same as an official statement, but it's a really bold statement about what they want to be called in English. Wouldn't you agree with that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That is Kosovo government website not English government website. I assume you know that Kosovo is disputed. Maybe Kosovo government does want it to be called Ferizaj, just like Serbian government calls it Urosevac in their English language documents. It is irrelevant for wikipedia. Wikipedia cares about what name English language sources most frequently use. It is Urosevac.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant English language version of their government website. I should have been more clear. I disagree that their site is irrelevant. The COMMONNAME is preferred, but the fact that the site says what it does, carries weight, they way I see it. All things being more or less equal, it's the scale tipper. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, surely you know that any official name is determined by government in Kosovo, not government in England. The official name of the city in English is Ferizaj. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and government of Serbia website also carries some weight, and they say Urosevac (link to example).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait a second. That's an article. That's very different from the actual Municipality of Ferizaj government website that says in big letters "Welcome to Ferizaj". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
In English language texts of Serbian Government Urosevac is referred to as Urosevac. Wikipedia should follow its WP:NPOV policy and remain neutral in this issue, following what most English language sources say, which is Urosevac.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Comparing the two sources we are discussing is an easy call. Text within Serbian Government website articles is trumped by the Municipality of Ferizaj website's homepage with the big huge letters saying "Welcome to Ferizaj". The latter is making a strong declaration of what they want to be referred to as in English.
And where is breach of NPOV you are referring to? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator: Ferizaj is in Kosovo. It is not in Serbia. Hence it is not "neutral" to favour Serbian government documents which contradict what the municipality actually calls itself in English. How on earth did you did you decide that would be "neutral"? It may be helpful to read WP:NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
@Bobrayner, your loaded questions are best indication that arguments presented for renaming are not valid enough to support move:
  • Ferizaj is English langage offical name - Incorrect, English language is not official language in Ferizaj
  • Ferizaj is what government of Kosovo wants this city to be called - Irrelevant, POV and incorrect. Kosovo government also uses Urosevac on their website to refer to this place
  • Ferizaj meets requests of WP:COMONNAME - Incorrect, English language sources most frequently use Urosevac
  • Ferizaj is more frequently used in recent sources - Incorrect, even the most recent sources use Urosevac
  • Ferizaj is new and Urosevac is old - Incorrect, Urosevac is more recent name than Ferizaj
  • Ferizaj is official name - so is Urosevac
  • Ferizaj is new because the town is renamed - Incorrect, the official name of the town is not changed. It is still Urosevac, not only in Serbia but also according to Kosovo legislative on Serbian language which is one of the official languages of Kosovo.

Please be so kind not to continue with cloging this talkpage with loaded questions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is clogging any talkpages Antidiscriminator: Bobrayner's arguments are valid and assist the decision making process of this move request. Britannica uses Ferizaj and so should wikipedia. Britannica is the most important encyclopaedia in the English speaking world, and Wikipedia should try to mirror that. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Albanians are the majority of the population in Ferizaj/Uroševac. Albanian population 104,152 and 32 Serbian citizen live in the city. The second option, Ferizaj/Uroševac using together. Also, Ferijas is recognized many official and unofficial institutions :
  • [7] United Nations Report
  • Europen Union
  • U.S. Department of State Maurice07 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Analysis: I came across this discussion by coincidence and became interested. There seems to be some conflicting evidence presented, so I decided to do my own analysis. I prefer to make a search for "Urosevac -Ferizaj" and "Ferizaj -Urosevac " respectively in order to find entries that only use one of the names. The Google Books search gives the following numbers:
  • Urosevac -Ferizaj: 171 ([8])
    Books after 2010-: 34 ([9])
  • Ferizaj -Urosevac :176 ([10])
    Books after 2010-: 37 ([11])
This search gives a small majority for Ferizaj, but not large enough to merit a move by itself. No one seems to have made a search in Google Scholar, so I performed a similar search there, finding the following results:
  • Urosevac -Ferizaj: 432 ([12])
    After 2009-: 92 ([13])
    After 2012-: 29 ([14])
  • Ferizaj -Urosevac: 526 ([15])
    After 2009-: 220 ([16])
    After 2012-: 96 ([17])
This search shows a clear tendency: While the numbers earlier were in favour of Urosevac (pre2009: 432–92=340 against 526–220=306), results from the last years are clearly in favour of Ferizaj, more than 3:1 for the last years. My conclusion has to be that the common name in English seems to be changing. At one point the article will have to move. 2009 was clearly too early. By now it seems to be time. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Ev, you have not been active on en.wikipedia.org since 2011. Did somebody contact you offsite about these moves? I see that 23 editor was caught canvassing. Nikswerdhond (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, nobody contacted me. I just happened to look at requested moves today, as I do from time to time. --Ev (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You last commented on a WP:RM in May 2010. You last used article talk in August 2011. Then you appear on some controversial requested moves, where there has already been canvassing for oppose voters and say that you routinely look at requested moves. That is hard to believe. Nikswerdhond (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I used the expression incorrectly (English is not my native tongue). I did not mean to say that I routinely look at requested moves. I do it from time to time (now and then, sometimes, occasionally, irregularly), out of curiosity. I did today.:-) Ev (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Systematic reviews of sources by people like In Ictu Oculi show that Dečani is now the common name. Ev's results are blatant cherrypicking - only using sources before independence and even using sources in a different language (this is ENGLISH wikipedia and we use the names from ENGLISH sources). Also, Dečani is the official name. Nikswerdhond (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
a. No cherrypicking took place. Those happened to be all the books I could find that directly address the naming issue, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers. Please, feel free to present any other books that I may have overlooked. — By the way, when accusing someone of "blatant cherrypicking", the least you can do is provide evidence that such unhelpful conduct took place.
b. I did not use the German-language book as my argument to use Uroševac, but simply as a sidenote illustrating that this usage is not unique of the English-speaking population.
c. Even you use Serbo-Croatian forms (Dečani) instead of Albanian ones (Deçan). --Ev (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In Ictu Oculi found hundreds of sources. You chose five, all from before independence, and "die serbische Schreibweise der Leserschaft wohl eher vertraut und geläufing ist." is not English. Nikswerdhond (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Munich") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Munich for Bavaria's capital city"). --Ev (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On usage alone, the shift from Uroševac to Ferizaj is close to tipping definitively toward Ferizaj but it's not there yet. (See this Google nGram for a graphic representation of book usage.) An additional reason to wait is that such a naming shift should be done Kosovo-wide rather than piecemeal. —  AjaxSmack  00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support as per WP:UE Red Slash 03:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    • @Red Slash, you are editor involved in numerous attempts to Albanize names on English wikipedia. Please don't attempt to close this RM discussion like you renamed Dečani article (link to section with RM discussion) although there was no consensus for such move and although it was violation of wikipedia rules because of your involvement and invalid rationale.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Antidiskriminator, stop these hypocritical ad hominems. It is clear that the evidence doesn't support your position, but there is no need for you to resort to personal attacks. You are discrediting yourself even further. bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @ AjaxSmack That source you provided us with proves that Ferizaj is the contemporary common name and that Uroševac is in rapid decline and is now less commonly used compared to Ferizaj, as of 2008 which we've been saying all along. Also we shouldn't do it Kosovo wide as English Language Media prefers Serbian language names in Northern Kosovo and in Southern Serb enclaves, it should be done town by town based in what is the most recognisable WP:COMMONNAME in the English language. With this article, the most recognisable common name for the City is Ferizaj hence why most modern English language books use Ferizaj over Uroševac and why most English language media from English Language speaking countries use Ferizaj and not Uroševac. IJA (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a related move discussion over at Đakovica‎; it's been proposed that it should move to Gjakova. I imagine that many people who commented here would like to weigh in there. Please try not to canvas or misrepresent sources this time. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This was closed with move to Albanian name Talk:Gjakova. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That was mistake. It should have been closed to name most frequently used in English language sources. Closing was based on wrong assumption as explained on relevant talk page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because since 1912 Kosovo has been part of Serbia/Yugoslavia for almost a century, for decades the English language has usually adopted the Serbo-Croatian names for the region. This fact should be evident to anyone who has read English-language books, newspaper articles & publications on the Balkans in general or Kosovo in particular.

Do take into consideration that our naming conventions for geographic names indicate that «[a] name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".»

In the following examples, emphasis is always mine:

  • Tim Judah mentions this fact in his 2000 book The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (p. xv-xvi): "In the wake of the war in Kosovo, those writing about it have had to face the choice of using either the Serbian or Albanian names for places there. I have decided to stick with the Serbian ones because this is a book about the Serbs, and in general, news reports and maps continue to use the Serbian names. Not using Albanian names, nor calling the region Kosova, its Albanian name has no political implication whatsoever."
  • And again in his 2002 book Kosovo: War and Revenge (p. xix): "I have used the Serbian [names] because, for the moment, people outside Kosovo are still more familiar with names like Pec and Djakovica rather than Peja and Gjakova".
  • Human Rights Watch published in 2001 the book Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo, which mentions the issue of "names and terminology" (p. xxiii): "For the sake of clarity and consistency, Human Rights Watch provides both the Serbian and the Albanian name at first mention of any location. Subsequent references are in the Serbian language only, since this is the English language practice (for example, Pristina and not Prishtina)."
  • Paul Hockenos mentions in his 2003 book Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism & the Balkan Wars (p. xiii): "When writing about Kosovo I have chosen to use Serbian names rather than Albanian simply because they are more widely known and tend to be used on most (non-Albanian) maps."
  • As a sidenote, Thomas Schmid mentions the same thing in regard to the German language in his 1999 book Krieg im Kosovo (p. 14): "Im Buch wird in der Regel die serbische Schreibweise statt der albanischen verwendet: Priština statt Prishtina, Peć statt Peja und Kosovo statt Kosova. Daher steht keine Absicht. Es ist nur eine Konzession an den Umstand, daß die serbische Schreibweise der Leserschaft wohl eher vertraut und geläufing ist."

Usage may be shifting since 1999 and 2008, but from everything I see I don't think we have yet reached a tipping point that invalidates what these books state. - Regards,--Ev (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Ev Nice to see you for the first time in over a year (29 January 2013 to be exact), back from the dead? Did someone resurrect you via email? I smell WP:MEAT. IJA (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see you too, IJA. It's been a while :-) As I already said to Nikswerdhond, nobody contacted me. I just happened to look at requested moves yesterday, as I do from time to time. - Best, Ev (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In Ictu Oculi found hundreds of sources which support the move. You have picked out five in order to oppose, but one of them isn't even English, and they all predate 2010 by a long way. Do you expect your oppose vote to be taken seriously by the closing admin? Who told you to come here to vote? bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Again:
a. There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Munich") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Munich for Bavaria's capital city").
b. I did not use the German-language book as my argument to use Uroševac, but simply as a sidenote illustrating that this general usage is not unique of the English-speaking population.
c. Nobody contacted me or told me to participate in this discussion. --Ev (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I trust that the closing admin will see through such wordplay. WP:COMMONNAME says: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". You continue to rely on five handpicked sources, one of which isn't even English, all from before Kosovo declared independence; other editors have found far more sources which support a move and which are more recent. bobrayner (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice that the name of this city has not changed. It remains Uroševac in Serbo-Croatian and Ferizaj in Albanian, just as it was before 2008 & 1999. — Compare this situation with that of a certain Russian city that first changed its name from Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad, and then to Volgograd. Can you see the difference? --Ev (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Common usage has shifted toward Ferizaj in recent years, as the many sources show. If you're now arguing on the basis of official names rather than common usage, we get the same answer - the municipality calls itself Ferizaj in English. If your first, second, and third arguments are discredited, will you reconsider your !vote, or will you think up a fourth argument? bobrayner (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Ev You are missing the point. I really do not care what the city is called in Albanian or Serbo-Croatian, I only care what it is called in English because this is English Wikipedia. The Common Name in the English language used for the City post 2008 is Ferizaj. You produced 5 non-recent sources which use Urosevac, inlcuding one in German for some reason. They were all giving specific reasons why they used the Serbian name, however, not one of them said they used the Serbian name because it is the current Common Name in the English language. So I am struggling to see what your argument is. Also your Munich/ Munchen argument is irrelevant because there is a specific English language name for the city unlike Ferizaj/ Urosevac. According to WP:COMMONNAME when there is no established name for a place in the English language, we use the most commonly used name. That is Ferizaj post 2008 as proven many many times above. I still don't believe that a non-native speaker of English, who hasn't used English Wikipedia in 11 months and was never really in involved with Request Moves previously would coincidentally stumble across this WP:RM from the RM home page out of nowhere. You were blatantly invited aka canvassed to oppose this RM, which goes against Wikipedia Policy. IJA (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear IJA:
a. All four books (the fifth, in German, is a mere sidenote, a minor related mention of a similar general usage) do clearly mention that they use the Serbo-Croatian form because at the time they were written (a mere decade ago) that was the common practice in English-language & because anglophone readers were more familiar with the Serbo-Croatian forms rather than the Albanian ones. Granted, usage is shifting since then, but I don't think we have yet reached the tipping point that fully invalidates what those books state.
b. If you prefer, read my comment as saying: «There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Uroševac") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Uroševac for the third most populous city in Kosovo").»
c. You say that I "was never really involved with Request Moves previously". If you take the time to read my requests for adminship (2007) & take a cursory look at my edits to the "Wikipedia talk" namespace, you would notice that the truth is very much the opposite, and you would understand why, despite taking a long "wikibreak", I continued to keep an eye on requested moves from time to time.
Best, Ev (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ev Please produce some evidence to back up your claim that "English-speakers tend to use the name Uroševac for the third most populous city in Kosovo". IJA (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is any evidence to that. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ev's comments directly contradict what the sources say. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Immediate action

I think we should think of visitors to the article and immediately address twin name issue. We could add both names to the infobox. We should add both names to the lead with an explanation, such as "...officially called....commonly called...". If nobody objects here, I will boldly go ahead with it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I object to addition of "twin name". This town has only one single name. Not twin name. The infobox already has a place for both common English name and official name. Regardng the lede, alternative name can be added after Uroševac in the form you proposed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
My term "twin name" was confusing. I didn't mean it has a twin name. I like what you've done. It's a good start and will help visitors. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Anna Frodesiak, since this section is discussing the lead mention of the old Serbian name (not first Antidiskriminator please note) would certainly be appropriate to 1999, when the town was last in the news

...but as far as title goes is the Serbian name it still as appropriate in 2013?

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, In ictu oculi. There are indeed plenty of reasons to explain things about the two names in the lead, and almost even in separate section. It's an important fact about the place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Urosevac is completely appropriate because:
Urosevac is only the offical name in the Serbian Langauge whereas Ferizaj is the offical name in English Langauge and Albanian Language. GBS shows that word 'Urosevac' appeared more times in 200 books than word 'Ferizaj' did in 220 books; however 'Ferizaj' appeared in more books (220) than 'Urosevac' (200) therefore proving that 'Ferizaj' is the common name because it appeared in more books than 'Urosevac'. The fact that 'Ferizaj' appeared in more books than 'Urosevac' shows that 'Ferizaj' is more widely news. Also as shown above, 'Ferizaj' gets more hits than 'Urosevac' in Google Scholar and it was used in more journals. Ferizaj was used in 610 journals whereas Urosevac was used in 570 journals. Google News produces no English Langauge results for Urosevac however there are several English Language results for Ferizaj.
Ferizaj is the most WP:COMMONNAME in the English language and it is the official name in the English Language. IJA (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Urosevac has 8 hits, Ferizaj 5 hits in Google News. Flooding this page with incorrect cherry picked search results is not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you're incorrect. I'm not referring to all results. I'm referring to ENGLISH LANGUAGE results as this is regarding the Common Name in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Also the Official Municipality Website disagrees with you over the Official Name in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. This is ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. IJA (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You see, this is why I didn't !vote. :) Half of the other language Wikipedias use one thing and the other half, the other. It's so close that whichever is picked, it can't be terribly wrong or terribly right. What is terribly wrong is omitting from the article a decent explanation on the whole name controversy. By telling visitors about it, both names get acknowledged properly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Anna Frodesiak, the slavic wps naturally use the slavic name. In French, Italian, German sources since independence use the Kosovan name, the same as in English: Ferizaj 286, and Urosevac 115, which shows that Ferizaj is preferred in English. Why should the Serbian name be retained by en.Wikipedia when English sources have mainly stopped using it? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I'll read everything above and do my own homework and !vote. Give me 15 minutes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links added by Bobrayner with this edit (diff) are wrong do not correspond with wikidata interwiki links (link). In most cases links added by Bobrayner are incorrect because they present Ferizaj instead of Urosevac.

Based on WP:INTERWIKI which says "As of February 2013, the use of "local" links for interlanguage linking has been deprecated, with interlanguage link data being centralized on Wikidata." i propose to restore Wikidata interwiki links. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please enter this comment on the principal thread (Request Move 2)? Rather than bombing this talking page with a lot of different sections, we should keep the discussion in one place. If you do it, I don't mind if you delete this comment of mine. --Huh39291 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I followed the lead by user Antidiskriminator and per Wikipedia:Be bold and/or Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and/or whichever policy,guideline,essay removed them. --biblbroks (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

History

I Edited, non-relevant information. The "History" is no field where nationalist claims by name-wars. Request for more seriousness and important information. --84.227.25.47 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Archaeology of Ferizaj be merged into Ferizaj. I think that the content in the first article can easily be explained in the context of the second, which is of a reasonable size — the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.--Zoupan 08:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There is enough content on "Archaeology of Ferizaj" to justify a stand alone article. Also if we're to merge the article, we're potentially putting off editors from expanding it in the future. But I'm open to hearing why we should merge the two articles, as I haven't heard why yet. Also I haven't heard what would be gained/ achieved from merging the two articles. IJA (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Support 100%. I understand, say, Archaeology of Kosovo. But going from town to town and creating "Archaeology of..." articles for places in Kosovo is strange to say the least. 23 editor (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly why I proposed it. If you review this summarization you may conclude that the Archaeology of Ferizaj is not that "stand-alone".--Zoupan 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see a reason from either of you as to why we should merge the article and I don't see what is being achieved. Yes you have summarised the content into this article, but becuase you have summarised it, it is now in less detail. If we go ahead with this merger, Wikipedia is losing content. We are also putting off editors from expanding it in the future by having it as a sub-section of an article instead of having it as a stand-alone-article where there is more room for improvement. IJA (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ferizaj/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

===C-Rating=== I believe this article should recieve a C rating for WikiProject Kosovo. It is developed but it needs more work.

Last edited at 17:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Notable people

Wikipedia guideline says that a person, living or dead can have an article only if notable enough. In addition, notable people guidelines says that every person which has an article in Wikipedia is notable enough to be part of this section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist. But i would raise a question about notability of those articles anyway, but if you insist, i am ok with that. Point of that section would be just to mention few most important ones, and everyone related that have article. That would be nonsense. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferizaj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ferizaj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferizaj/Archive_1&oldid=1146355128"