Jump to content

Talk:Rahovec/Archive 1

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

The Name

If sombody have UN acceptit evidence that the name of the city is not Rahoveci but is Orahovac, then this articel must be unter the name: Rahoveciand the page named "Orahovac" must be redirect. My evidence you kann see in UNMIK oficiale page and documentation.--Hipi Zhdripi 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The territory is under temporary UN administration, as ruled in the Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999[1], where the UN reafirmed its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, after the country changed its name). Therefore, it is not up to the UN to invent new geographical denominations. I also like to remind you that this is English language wikipedia, so please make sure your contributions are up to standard regarding syntax and spelling, together with the use of commonly recognised geographic denominations. Regards, Asterion 12:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We are an independent Nation so theirfor need an change off our wrong name !! Xonilatifi25 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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 are destroing the Wikipedia image. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. You can have a problem with "Haage". This tabel is speeken better then I.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:02, 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 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo and Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINCE 2 YEARS, ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA WITH NOT RESPECTING THE UN LAW, IS HELPING IN DESTABILSATION OF THE BALKAN REGION. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arraveci?

To Antidiskriminator: Just to clarify, I did not add the name to the article - i found it on the article and assumed it was correct, so edited the article to include the name. Where did 'Arraveci' from? Has someone just made up this name and put it on the article (as, like you, i can't find any results on google)'. Dirifer (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. There is a rule on wikipedia that editors should not use wikipedia as source for their edits in order to prevent spreading of the mistakes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.logincee.org/file/13452/library. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is no consensus on whether the Serbian name is more common in English, the Albanian name is more common in English, or there is a tie. But as Excine pointed out, the tiebreaker prescribed under WP:NCGN in case no common name in English can be determined is to use the local name. Since this town is predominantly Albanian-speaking, the Albanian name is to be used. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Orahovac → Rahovec – Rahovec 822 Orahovac 800. The name Rahovec is the most common name and it is also the most used by its citizens. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as per the reasoning provided by nom.Alltan (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support its the official and most common name. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, the argument presented is entirely unconvincing – the difference between 800 and 818 results on Scholar is not enough to be remotely significant. For comparison, on JSTOR: Orahovac 142, Rahovec 48; on EBSCO: Orahovac 66, Rahovec 25. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support @Justlettersandnumbers: There is no common name in the English language, yet one is far more prevalent than the other. These matters are addressed by WP:NCGN. : "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name" The local population is almost entirely Albanian. In addition, there are WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The official name used by local authorities in all official papers is Rahovec in Albanian (the Serbian one Orahovac is used only in some documents). This is how prior Kosovo disputes were resolved. The majority-Albanian localities have Albanian names, whereas the majority-Serbian places have Serbian names. Excine (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Relister comment Relisting due to a mistake in the requester's signature (namely, the date being erroneously written as May 3 instead of May 28) that accidentally placed this request in the backlog. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support its the most common name Truthseeker2006 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Rahovec is widely used in English sources. Anyways, in cases where a common (with a large margin) English name is not clear, then per WP:NCGN the local name should be used. Also WP:OFFICIAL applies. Durraz0 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCGN and WP:OFFICIAL. Besides, this would be consistent with the overall pattern of settlement names in Kosovo, as already pointed out by Excine. Uniacademic (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom. Bes-ARTTalk 05:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The filer offered two arguments, both of which are wrong. First, they claimed that The name Rahovec is the most common name, but the Google scholar search shows that both names are equally common. Second, that the proposed name is the most used by its citizens. This is, of course, irrelevant, as Wikipedia does not use local names, but the names most common in English literature. Google Ngram viewer shows that Orahovac has been more common in English literature for the last 100 years. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that Orahovac isn't the WP:COMMON NAME. As Justlettersandnumbers pointed out, the results on Google scholar show Orahovac is used at about the same frequency as Rahovec but other digital libraries use Orahovac much more. As Vanjagenije's ngram analysis shows, Orahovac has been used a lot more over the last two decades. It has slimmed down in recent years and Rahovec might very well overtake Orahovac in the future but in the meantime I would say it's a case of too soon. --Griboski (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the negligible numerical difference in results. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Vanjagenije & Griboski. Ничим неизазван (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have checked "The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names", an Oxford Quick Reference Online by John Everett-Heath, 4th edition; Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562436. There the names of the town are described in the following sequence: Rahovec, Kosovo (Orahovac). Derived from the Serbo-Croat "orah" 'walnut'. The present name, adopted after Kosovo's independence in 2008, is merely the Albanian version of the previous Serbian name. Jingiby (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology

@Durraz0 Etymology is the study of word's origin and meaning. The origin and meaning of the word is Serbian, and is supposed be explained first. Later-developed variants goes more in depth later on. That is how an article is supposed to be composed. The title of the article has no purpose in this section of etymology. --Azor (talk). 13:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It makes more sense to have the current name followed by its root, this is how the other articles on wiki do it, see for example Niš or Berat, there we have the name followed by its original stem from another language. Durraz0 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Durraz0 What gives sense to you is off topic. Etymology is the study of origins, in which the origin is first presented and then preceded to present the later-developed variants. That's how all Etymology section is composed. Both of the cities you mentioned start with the original etymology of the names, so I do not see your point. While the current name of the city is irrelevant to the Etymology section, Orahovac is co-official and can also be considered the city's name. --Azor (talk). 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, etymology is the study of origins, the origins of Rahovec is from Orahovac. the name of the article is Rahovec, therefor it follows that it is first explained where Rahovec comes from. The way you wrote it now makes it seem like the name of the article itself is Orahovac. Durraz0 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
As I have said, the name of the article has no role in the etymology section. Rahovec is of Serbian origin, just like Orahovac. Despite Orahovac also being the city's name, I decided to change the sentence up, take a look. --Azor (talk). 13:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Rahovec is indeed the Albanized version of the Serbian name Orahovac. The name of the article has a role in the etymology section, because that is what we are trying to explain/find the origin of. I really appreciate that you want to reach a consensus here. friendly reminder you accidentally removed the source in this edit [2]. Durraz0 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes my mistake, cheers. --Azor (talk). 14:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rahovec/Archive_1&oldid=1249729231"