Jump to content

Talk:Skenderaj/Archive 1

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

Name

Skenderaj is mainly populated by Albanians. Source: The yugoslavian statistic office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.251.161 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The demographics does not give you the authority to rename the whole city. Srbica was/is the official name. The Albanian could be noted as an alternative... HolyRomanEmperor 19:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
See UN Law in Kosovo below, Skenderaj is the official name following the UN Law. Changed the name to Skenderaj.--Sulmues 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

Kosovo is now independent of Serbia. There is no Srbica anymore. The city is named Skënderaj, as it always was supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena88.m (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Skënderaj, nobody that lives there uses the name 'Srbica' - it's idiotic to call it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.8.116 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2011 (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 21:05, 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 05:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The usual simple tests

Google Print test:

  • Searching for Srbica : 34 books in English (2 using "Srbica/Skenderaj").
  • Searching for Skenderaj OR Skënderaj : 22 books in English (5 using "Srbica/Skenderaj").

Google Scholar test:

  • Searching for Srbica : 39 results in English.
    (including 2 using "Srbica/Skenderaj" and 4 using "Skenderaj/Srbica")
  • Searching for Skenderaj OR Skënderaj : 37 results in English..
    (including 3 using "Skenderaj/Srbica" and 3 using "Srbica/Skenderaj")

Amazon.com test:

The New York Times:

International Herald Tribune:

BBC:

CNN:


  • NGS maps: The Balkans (December 1999) uses Srbica only.

Best regards, Evv 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised since that's the name forced. Skenderaj - About 3,070,000 results (0.16 seconds) Srbica - About 434,000 results (0.06 seconds) The latter name doesn't even have any meaning behind it, besides standing for "serbia" yet only ~600 serbs live there currently. Of course, they are more than welcome to live there like any other free human being, but to be named after them after such a small amount in the province compared to Albanians living there.. doesn't make sense.. Srbica makes it sound very serb dominant, when in fact Skenderaj is from Skenderbeu who was seen as a hero not by just Albanians, but my many other countries (some of them even making statues of him in their hometown). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.8.116 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2011 (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) 00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The proposal was open for six days, but no discussion took place. After that time, JPG-GR moved the article to "Skënderaj", but forgot to close this section. — However, the proposal made no attempt to back its first point (that usage in English-language publications, as exemplified in the usual simple tests above, has changed due to the new status of Kosovo), and based its second point (new circumstances) on the false premise that our naming conventions contemplate the political situation of a given region -or the ethnicity of its population- instead of merely requiring that we follow the common usage of English-language publications, the usage the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. — Therefore, I have considered this proposal and subsequent move as null and void, and have moved the article back to "Srbica". - Ev (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Srbica → Skënderaj — Usage and new circumstances due to the new status of Kosovo. See population setup. — Maestral (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Skënderaj or Skenderaj

Although in the most versions of Wikipedias the city's Albanian name is written as "Skënderaj", the municipality's official site [1] refers it "Skenderaj" (without dots over e), as an OECD documents [2] also mentions it so. Which is correct to spell it as "Skënderaj" or "Skenderaj" in Albanian language? --Peccafly-talk-hist 13:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's Skënderaj.--kedadi (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that it is Skenderaj. ==Tadija (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In Kosovo PM occifial site, this and this call it "Skënderaj" but this calls it "Skenderaj". Kosovo Government's Local Administration Ministry's official website, here written "Skënderaj" but once you click the link, you will see here written "Skenderaj".... :/ This is really confusing.--Peccafly-talk-hist 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I as an Albanian am confused too. Both forms seem to me to be correct but I believe that it is Skënderaj with a ë. I'll request the official name and I'll update you if there is anything new. Thank you. kedadial 00:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Peccafly-talk-hist 10:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing agains cyrillic, but...

I believe that it would serve better to everyone if we should try and really try and contribute globally - not just to our small communities. I do not have anything against Cyrillic, but it is really biased to put the name of the city in Cyrillic before other two names. I mean, UN, EULEX, Kosovo Government all use other Latin written names. Cyrillic is not even official, so using the version that is now available is not at all neutral. Can someone please change the order of names (without removing the Cyrillic). If not, I will do so! AnnaFabiano (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot deside that you will just do something. Cyrillic is official letter in Serbia. It just follows name of the article. As article name is in Latin, first next in order is Cyrillic.
Србица / Srbica, (as article lead), and other name
Skënderaj
It is quite clear. And there are no need for any changing. Tadija (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna, it doesn't seem like your goal is what you claim it to be. It's not that you have anything against Cyrillic, you just don't like "Srbica" to be first, but rather "Skenderaj" [3] [4]. So, from what I can see, it's not about Cyrillic, it's about wanting the Albanian version of the town name. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Cinéma C 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Cinema I have become a bit paranoid. Everything is a battle here. You must have realized that allot of people here don't want to contribute rather make it their way. I really wanted to use a NPOV for cases like this. It seems that Srbica is the name used by the international community in Kosovo so it should be used in the English Wikipedia - I found some sources where they used Skenderaj, but it seems that Srbica is official - so for me that is OK. On the other hand in Kosovo the order is International/Albanian/Serbian, that is the order seemingly used in Kosovo (semi-recognized state) also, so I suggest it should be used everywhere (that is the order on most Kosovo cities, villages and towns). What do you think? —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I was talking about. You say you found sources that used Skenderaj, but you changed the order to put Skënderaj first. I'd love to see an English source that uses the letter "ë". Also, you have to take into consideration that the Serbian language treats Cyrillic and Latin script as equal, regardless of the fact that Serbia lists Cyrillic as the official script. Furthermore, claims such as calling Kosovo a semi-recognized state are provocative and against the Kosovo Arbitration rulings, where there is no place for discussing whether Kosovo is a province, country or state. As for the order of names, I'd like to see some sources where that system is used in Kosovo in practice, and why that's significant for how that topic should be treated on Wikipedia. --Cinéma C 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Cinema C, I just said that I agree with Srbica being used first. About semi-recognized thing: I personally am an Albanian from Kosovo, so I would prefer not to call it that - I prefer Kosova myself. But Wikipedia is not what I and YOU prefer but what is certain. Trying to consider your feelings (this is not an actual article, this is a talk page) i used "semi-recognized". BTW I sense a dose of bullying from you. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not about what you sense or what you and I feel, I'm talking about Wikipedia rules. --Cinéma C 20:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I read Wikipedia rules all the time. —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Good :) --Cinéma C 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Good :) —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rename.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, " 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". The discussion hinged on whether the evidence supported the claim that that common usage in reliable sources had changed to reflect the city's official change of name. The evidence presented by User:IJA and User:In ictu oculi supports the claim that it has, and no editor demonstrated any flaw in their methodology. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional closing statement. In response to queries below, please note that my closing statement above relied both on evidence presented of Google Books searches, and also the on evidence of Google Scholar searches performed by by User:IJA. The Scholar searches have not been queried, but the book searches have been challenged after the closure.
So I performed new Google Books queries from scratch, restricted to English-language results. I searched with a date range starting from 2010, and again with a date range starting 2012. In each case, I link to the last page of results:
2010
2012
These figures confirm the nominator's assertion of a trend in English-language reliable sources away from Srbica, and that Skenderaj is now the more commonly-used term in English-language reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Srbica → Skenderaj – Official name of city Skenderaj in English and Albanian. The most recent references on this subject, Deçan and Gjakova -- Maurice07 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, In ictu oculi research shows that there isn´t a clear majority since 2010: more less Srbica 2/5 Skenderaj 3/5. Pretty close. FkpCascais (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I even had a long standing agreement with Albanian editors regarding that issue about birthplaces for football related artcles. FkpCascais (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Antidiskriminator, stop this hypocrisy. You have repeatedly complained about other people's search results failing to exclude wikipedia, when that gave numbers which better suited your argument; but now your own search results include wikipedia... and, guess what, when I redo a Google Books Search adding "-wikipedia", Skenderaj is more common than Srbica. I trust that the closing administrator will see through your deception. bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. Even if you exclude wikipedia Srbica still has advantage in post 2010 GBS against Skenderaj. You forgot to show only last page. So much about deception. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is also Googlebooks Ngram Viewer link. It gives advantage to Srbica. Even in most recent years.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It's good to see that uninvolved editors aren't falling for this. I trust that the closing administrator will look at the evidence, too. bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The NGram search I presented shows the last available years. Just like in case of Dakovica (link). I don't remember you objected to it. It is interesting to notice that in the last available year,the year when Kosovo proclaimed independence (2008), Srbica has increase and Skenderaj decrease. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Another move discussion with a certain déjà vu-feeling about it. Same participants, same arguments, same accusations, same unwillingness to see the other side, same voting pattern. A few comments to some of the arguments about Google Books: 1) Different national extensions do not give identical results, but almost identical with no apparent bias. 2) The "-wikipedia" is important in a general Google search, but irrelevant in a Google Book search, where it only excludes books that mention wikipedia. 3) What is important in a Google Book search is to go to the last page of the search results. The number that comes up on the first page of a search is completely misleading and can not be used as an argument. Regarding NGram: This is very good tool to see trends, but does so far not give newer results than 2008. About Google Scholar: This may be a better tool than Google Books, since it also covers other texts than books. After all, there are not that many books written in English each year mentioning cities in Kosovo. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I voted in favour of moving to Gjakova and Ferizaj on the overall balance of arguments. I did not vote on Dečani/Deçan because I felt it was close to 50/50. In the case of Srbica/Skenderaj, Google Books and NGram seems to favour Srbica, Google Scholar seems to favour Skenderaj, none of them with a very convincing majority. The usage sems to move towards Skenderaj over time, and in a couple of years it may well be time for a change, But I feel we are not there yet. --T*U (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see any reason to move. The nominator states that Skenderaj is the official name. That is both irrelevant (we don't use official names per wp:commonname) and untrue (both Albanian and Serbian are official languages of Kosovo according to it's constitution). UNMIK uses both names as official (see this odcument from 2013). Google Ngram Viewer shows that "Srbica" is still more common name in English language books, and it's use is actually increasing. The comparison with Dečani/Deçan and Đakovica/Gjakova is not useful, as those are basically same names, just spelled differently, while Srbica and Skenderaj are two totally different names. I still didn't here any real reason to move which is based on Wikipedia policies. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:COMMONNAME does say such a thing: 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a significant difference between "we don't use official names" and "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name" . Further, the government of Kosovo uses both Serbian names (in Serbian language texts), and Albanian names (in Albanian language texts), but we should use English here, and in English-language texts it's called Skenderaj. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment You don't see any reason? How about it being more commonly used in the English language? That is a pretty good reason per WP:COMMONNAME. Also the NGram only does up to 2008 and it shows up until 2008 that Srbica has being rapidly decreasing and Skenderaj has been rapidly increasing. Skenderaj is the officially used by the town website in English. Yes, a lot of international organisations use both names as both names have official status. But it doesn't change the fact that Skenderaj is currently more commonly used than Srbica in the English language. IJA (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer You start writing about what is commonly used name, and then skip to what is official name. Those are two totally different things. As for me, there is no evidence that Skenderaj is more commonly used title. When determinating what is commonly used English name, we should not speak only about last 5 years. There are not many books in English that mention this town, so time frame of 5 years is not enough to determinate common name. As for the official name, both Srbica and Skenderaj are official names, although I am sure that common name is preferable over official name. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you don't think much has happened in the last 5 years in Kosovo? Plenty of evidence has been provided to suggest that Skenderaj is the common name. As for you wanting to use historic sources when defining the contemporary common name, that is akin to using historic sources to say that New York is called New Amsterdam. Pretty ridiculous. IJA (talk) 17:38, 31 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invalid argument for renaming

The argument for renaming was change of name. That is invalid argument because Albanian and Serbian language are official languages on Kosovo since end of WWII and the name of the place on Serbian language (official language on Kosovo) is still Srbica. I expect closing administrator to correct mistakenly closed discussion. Also, closing administrator stated that "no editor demonstrated any flaw in their methodology" which is another big mistake. I pointed to the problem of GBS hits in my comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No-one has denied that the Serbian Langauge is an official language of Kosovo. Also your GBS didn't produce the results you said they did. IJA (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any other reason for your comment then to generate huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. Please stop with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing administraor should follow WP:RM/CI and determine consensus by evaluating arguments presented by participants in the discussion. Closing administrator failed to do so, and renamed the article although there was no consensus for the move, by citing wrong wikipedia policy (the name of the place is still Srbica on one of two official languages) and based on incorrect GBS results, mistakenly claiming that "no editor demonstrated any flaw in their methodology". With "additional closing statement" closing administrator created even worse problem and got herself involved in discussion by presenting post 2012 GBS hits which she used as basis for renaming.
  • I politely ask closing administrator to correct incorrectly closed RM discussion and allow to some uninvolved administrator to close it properly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to comment on here, especially as I was involved with this RM. I am opposed the false flags which you've raised. No-one has denied that Serbian is an official language of Kosovo and no-one has said the name has changed, yet in opposition to the closure of this WP:RM , your main argument was "The argument for renaming was change of name. That is invalid argument because Albanian and Serbian language are official languages on Kosovo since end of WWII and the name of the place on Serbian language (official language on Kosovo) is still Srbica." which is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the what was discussed in this RM. Anyway, BrownHairedGirls's GBS searches are legit unlike yours. They produce the results which she says they do, unlike your results. Please stop spamming talk pages, especially my talk page. IJA (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Another incorrect claim. Almost every single comment you write in RM discussions contain incorrect GBS hits and claims. The same situation like in i.e. Đakovica case. Closing administrator based her decision on this quote "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". Now you claim that "no-one has said the name has changed". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you've completely avoided answering what I said in ,y response to you. Nice tactic, don't like what you hear, avoid and change the subject. I'm bored of that "incorrect" tactic you like to use when something doesn't go your way or when you read something you disprove of. The name hasn't changed as both names are official. BrownHairedGirl used the word "if", she didn't say the name has changed. Anyway my hits match BrownHairedGirl's hits, so it must be something to do with your settings on google. Good day! IJA (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Another incorrect statement aimed to generate huge wall of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. Closing administrator emphasized that "city's official change of name" is reflected in sources as proven with (incorrect) search results.
  • Please stop with repeating incorrect statements with which you are repeatedly confronting and inhibiting my position on multiple articles.
  • Please don't violate WP:NPA again with your comments about me. What I like or not is not of your business. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, not this whole personal attack thing again. You accuse me of this, every other day. Also warning as supposed to go on user's talk pages not article talk pages.
You'd say the sky is green if I said it was blue. Just take a look at the offical website. No matter what you say, you cannot change the fact that Skenderaj is the common name in the English language. Period! IJA (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
As posted in the RM discussion: http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/?lang=en-US uses Skenderaj.
Also http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/?lang=sq-AL uses Skenderaj.
* http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/?lang=tr-TR uses Skenderaj.
* http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/default.aspx?lang=sr-Latn-CS use Skenderaj. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. As posted in the RM discussion? Please be so kind to present diff from discussion that posted this link http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/default.aspx?lang=sr-Latn-CS?
  2. Since you got yourself really involved here, have you seen how this place is refered at both Kosovo and Serbia website i.e. on Opština Srbica gledajući kao geografski položaj se nalazi u centralnom Кosovu, koja se nalazi 50km severozapadno od Prištine and this link?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Antidiskriminator I really could not care what Albanian or Serbo-Croatian language websites call the town as this is English Wikipedia which uses the English language. Not the Albanian and Serbo-Croatian languages. IJA (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, stop being silly. You can see for yourself where http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/?lang=en-US was posted in the discussion by bobrayner. The RM discussion is over. Over and out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you know that I did not ask you about http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/?lang=en-US. I asked you who posted this link http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/default.aspx?lang=sr-Latn-CS in RM discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You were asking about foreign languages instead and they aren't relevant as this is ENGLISH Wikipedia. IJA (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No doubt you know that this link was presented by BrownHairedGirl. I don't see any other reason you repeatedly confront me after almost every single comment I write (even attacking me for something other editor wrote) except to make me feel threatened or intimidated, and to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine me, to frighten me, or to discourage me from editing entirely. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why have to make false accusation constantly, that is a misuse of wikipedia. IJA (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, if you don't like people pointing out your flawed arguments, the best solution is for you to stop making flawed arguments. We have an obvious English-language source and you're still trying to make an argument about a source that isn't even English and which wasn't even cited in the RM discussion. You can do better than this. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No doubt that you know that this link http://kk.rks-gov.net/skenderaj/default.aspx?lang=sr-Latn-CS was presented by closing administrator in attempt to justify (I believe incorrectly) renamed article. By presenting this link which was not mentioned in RM discussion closing administrator revealed serious problem with her being involved here:
  1. she explained that she also used her (incorrect) post-2012 GBS hits as basis for renaming although nobody mentioned them in RM discussion
  2. she presented above link that nobody mentioned in RM discussion (similar to above, this link also do not support her "change of name" point)
  3. even before she got herself involved trough (incorrectly) closing this RM based on her position instead of consensus reached during RM discussion, she was already involved because she participated in related RM discussion at Talk:Massacre at Krusha e Madhe only a day before
  4. Even after she (incorrectly) closed this RM discussion she remained involved by participating in related discussion at Talk:City Stadium (Đakovica). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Is INVOLVEment retrospective now? Oh no, we have to go back through all BrownHairedGirl's previous administrative actions to see if they're invalidated by subsequent comments!
You can do better than this. bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Skenderaj. 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) 20:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skenderaj/Archive_1&oldid=1249730082"