Jump to content

Talk:Vushtrri/Archive 1

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

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. 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: No move. As several editors have said, this is probably a case for a wider discussion. Cúchullain t/c 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Vučitrn → Vushtrri – move from Serbian name to Albanian name used by local population, following the increase in use of Albanian names in English WP:Reliable sources since the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. [Initial reason: 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)] --Tëfcí (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is actually false request reason, as en reliable sources are by far more toward Vučitrn then Vushtrri. Oppose anyway, per obvious and massive COMMONNAME toward Vučitrn. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed per WP:COMMONNAME. Proposed move has no grounds. Perunova straža (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal does not state a valid reason for a move. I have no expertise and no opinion about what the "correct" name is, if such a thing even exists. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - whether to allow local-language names for Kosovo's towns is bigger than a single RM. RM is also potentially problematic because the Alerts attract editors from WP Serbia and WP Albania - which is okay in itself because neither speakers of Serbian (inc myself) nor Albanian speakers may be 100% neutral, and on en.wp the former massively outnumber the latter. The cities box at article bottom shows almost all (all?) names at Serbian spellings, so it would need a large RfC with the participation of totally uninvolved editors (e.g. from WP Knitting or WP Insects) to decide whether to rename from Serbian Vučitrn to Kosovan-Albanian Vushtrri etc. In this case Vushtrri is, naturally, used by NATO pdf but in fact the name the majority of the local people use has also has overtaken the Serbian name as WP:COMMONNAME in printed English books since 2005: 365 352. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If you exclude wikipedia publications the result would be in favor of Vučitrn.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, you are correct, but not strongly. from 2009 Vučitrn -wikipedia -llc = 72 results Vushtrri -wikipedia -llc = 68 results. What's more of an issue, which I didn't realise is that Vučitrn massacre is being picked up. So removing -massacre 66 to 65, the Albanian name is slighltly ahead. Ahead the trend is turning. 2011-2012 there were 7 hits for Vushtrri and only 4 hits for Vučitrn. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Both Post 2009 and 2011 English language GBS are in favor of Vučitrn. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support we should use Albanian, not Serbian, for Kosovo. The administration has changed, so the language of the country/region is now Albanian, not Serbian. Same as why we use Polish spelling and not German for many towns that have common names that come from German not Polish. If we don't move to Albanian, then I don't see why we should have moved those Polish names, or any other name, from the more common English forms. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:COMMONNAME; I would agree with In ictu oculi's suggestion of an RFC since there are likely to be several other articles on settlements in Kosovo which have the same problem. bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, commonname is argument for Vučitrn, you obviously made an accidental mistake... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed per WP:COMMONNAME, which is not what "majority of the local people use" or what is "used by NATO". I wanted to say that maybe English language sources would adopt Albanian transliteration in future but taking in consideration that even post 2011 English language books use Albanian transliteration much less frequently then existing English language common name I am uncertain if it will ever happen. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed per WP:COMMONNAME, far more sources mention Vučitrn than "Vushtrri" (an Albanianized version of a Serbian name) 23 editor (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Avoid diacritics when possible. If that means we use a different language's name for it, so be it. Support. Red Slash 05:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I must say that agument is bulls..t. COMMONNAME should be used, and not easy writing version of that common name. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't have a position here, but "Avoid diacritics when possible" has no basis whatsoever in Wikipedia naming conventions. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2013 (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.

Next step, non-involved editor RfC

  • Looks like what was predicted above about the inevitable demographic weighting of en.wp editordom (no offence, I'm on the Serbo-Croatian side of the linguistic fence here myself) has come true - but note that no-stake editors have favoured going with the upsurge in 2011-2013 sources catching up with 2008 independence declaration. We now need to have a RfC where truly uninvolved 3rd party editors take a detached overview. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I dislike herding voters based on their votes but this analysis strikes me as partial, or at least incomplete. One IP editor voted in favor of proposal with a comment that since the administration in Kosovo changed then the language also changed and by this disregarding the fact that based on the article, Republic of Kosovo has two official languages: Albanian and Serbian, so Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) can also be used as an official language. The second pro proposal vote came from an editor who was lately advocating Albanian language variants in piped links and was told by an admin among other things that Admins are unfortunately familiar with wars over place names, and hopefully the problem can be resolved locally instead of being chewed over at WP:AE. The third pro vote was given with an explanation that diacritics should be avoided even if that means using a different language's name which (the explanation) was refuted by AFAICT a no-stake editor with "Avoid diacritics when possible" has no basis whatsoever in Wikipedia naming conventions.. Also, one IP editor (the address belonging to the Georgia Public Library System) voted against the proposal. I don't know if this editor should be deemed as one having-a-stake editor. Therefore I don't trust the observation that no-stake editors favored the article's name change, nor do I support any conclusions coming from this observation. --biblbroks (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Biblbroks, with respect you, like me, stand on one side of the Kosovo linguistic fence. I stand by the observsation that no stake editors favoured the article's name change. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, with the same respect, you then consider the other IP that disfavored article's name change as having a stake in this matter? How so? --biblbroks (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that was just random passing traffic. Anyway, see explanation on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles In ictu oculi (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Why disregarding random passing traffic? At the aforementioned page there was a repeated mention of "WikiProject Knitting" who might help as uninvolved editors, but when a real passer-by passes by and comments, they are considered random. Should that mean that their comment is also random then, and if so, why? --biblbroks (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Because (A) "I have no expertise and no opinion about what the "correct" name is, if such a thing even exists. 168.12.253.66" wheras (B) the other IP is an active long term editor who regularly contributes to RMs.
Also Project members of any project wouldn't be random. They would be neutral. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
But if you disregard votes based on their rationale, why regard the other IP editor's support vote when basically their rationale was to follow the logic of what the language of the country is and that the administration of Republic of Kosovo changed it while, as already said, the official languages of the country are still both Albanian and Serbian - that is not just one. At least according to the article Republic of Kosovo they are two. Also the argument for another support vote was characterized as bulls..t with an explanation with which yet some other presumably "no-stake", and if so, a neutral-in-this-case editor seemed to have agreed. If we go this way, then we're left with only one support vote coming from a presumably "no-stake" editor. Supposing that the initiator of an action (the nominator of a RfM in-this-case) must have a stake in the action and they aren't acting randomly i.e. mindlessly, and therefore we shouldn't count them in as a no-stake editor.
Anyway, if the invited Project members who are to help as uninvolved editors, if they are not expected to be random, by which criterion should they be selected? And by whom? --biblbroks (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said "(B) the other IP is an active long term editor who regularly contributes to RMs." RfCs are self-selecting, there's a sendout mechanism. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean that only IPs which are active long term editors and who regularly contribute to RMs are to be considered and that even regardless of their argument? Sendout mechanism: if we are talking about this Wikipedia:Feedback request service, there it says "By signing up in the section of your interest, you may be randomly selected to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in a discussion in that topic area". This suggests the mechanism to be quite random. --biblbroks (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased text without the sources

Vučitrn gave a great contribution in the general rebellions of 1910-1912. Hasan Prishtina was the greatest intellectual man of the time, who’s patriotic activity was the key to development of education and economy in the Albanian territories. In 1912, the Serbian army invaded Vučitrn committing big crimes.

--VuXman talk 23:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll reword, reference and expand it tonight. IJA (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2020

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: Not moved. Titles are determined by usage in English-language reliable sources, not the official name or local name. The consensus among editors who commented on sources is that the current title is proper per WP:COMMONNAME. There are also concerns about canvasing and meat-puppetry. Future RM closers should be aware of that issue and take it into account when closing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


Vučitrn → Vushtrri – This move is requested in coordination with WP:Common Name and WP:Place#Multiple_local_names.

Vushtrri is a town and municipality located in the Mitrovica District in northern Kosovo. The population is 90% Albanian. The vast majority of the inhabitants call their town Vushtrri, and this is and official name of the town( it is possible that town also has and Serbian name that is, to have two names). Whether you support that this town and article being named as most of its inhabitants call it ie Vushtrri? Mikola22 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support It is the official name of the town in Albanian, the inhabitants are almost 100% Albanians and I see no reason to use other name for town. Mikola22 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seriously? No arguments were made regarding the common name, policies, etc. Such a simultaneous campaign of pressure and initiation of RMs (from editors who have never edited those articles) really looks more and more like a nationalist WP:POVPUSH that should be considered at the ANI. A really sad scene of polarization in which the same group of editors gathers and it is always known who will vote for what. Unfortunately, there are always such things on Balkan topics, but that is why we should not open a large number of similar RfCs and RMs at short intervals.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe my intention is also because of my Nazi background? Anyway, what else I need to attach, my master's thesis about this issue? I explored some places in Kosovo and came to Vushtrri. How can an article have a name that people in that place don't know? Kosovo is an independent state, I guess we should use the names of the towns used in that state. Mikola22 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why? You have given us no real arguments. Serbs do not make the majority in Subotica but the city name is still in Serbian and there is a dozen of similar examples in Europe. Nationalistic POV pushing is not something which should be greeted with open arms on Wiki. 21:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Where in the article writes about history of the place name and history of that place but with reliable sources as evidence? In fact, nothing is written in the article(history section) and I can't know more than that. I just know what I’ve exposed and I think that’s enough. Therefore do not falsely accuse editors because you have already been warned about it. Mikola22 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Subotica is a rather bad counterpoint. Serbs or not, the majority are speakers of the same Serbosnicroatimontengriyougettheidea language (well, whatever it is they speak, one language or not... they can clearly talk to each other in their own idioms, whether they are Serbs or Bunjevci or Croats or etc.). That said demographics aren't the only factor to be considered.--Calthinus (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Unlike in other cases of places in Kosovo, in this case GoogleBooks give a very clear picture. Vushtrri is more widely used. Especially after 2008 the picture become very clear. In addition to that, given that this is a small settlement, most people are likely to search info on it due to being its citizens who live in English-speaking countries (they are almost all Albanians) or due to being tourists (who tend to seek info in line with names used in official capacity by the country and local people). Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately is every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    And the same work also for certain editors from sq wiki who from time to time invite offwiki other albanian editors in order to use wikipedia as their political propaganda tool. Therefor this attempts of changing commonname of articles into albanian ones with attempts to present those as english. Not going to pass this time... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as WEBDuB explained, already talked about in 2013 on this page. Peervalaa (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed title appears to be the most common name in English based on Google Ngrams.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Personally, I would support the change. As a largely Albanian-inhabited town, Vushtrri makes more sense. However, I think Mikola22 (talk · contribs) could make a stronger argument. The name need not just be based on the town's ethnic makeup; like is being is discussed at Peć, we could draw up some Google search results here, or look at how the town is referenced in official documents. This would definitely set up a larger discussion, which I don't think is happening here currently. ArbDardh (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)ArbDardh
I don't know what is needed in this procedure. The article does not say anything about the town name and history(with evidence in RS). What we know is that town name is official name. Information from "ICRC, Red Cross and Red Crescent activities in Kosovo" (30-06-2001) : (Soup kitchens Run by the American Red Cross (Mitrovica North and South, Vushtrri/Vuctrin, Pristina), the German Red Cross (Peja/Pec), the Belgian Red Cross (Prizren) and the Netherlands Red Cross (Gjilan/Gnjilane, Kamenica, Viti/na, Ferizaj/Urosevac, Kacanik)).[2] One information from scientific paper (2000): (Before destruction. Market Mosque and Old Market, Vushtrri/Vucitrn. (Constructed in the fifteenth century, restored in the nineteenth century. Photo: Raif Virmic) page 116,[3]
There are probably two official names, but I think it would be correctly to use variant of the name which use majority of local population. As for the other parameters, I wouldn't know specific situation. Maybe editor @Ktrimi991: can help or someone else. Mikola22 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mikola22:@ArbDardh: I've seen the discussion, but I didn't have the time to run a proper search. I included "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" in order to also get the results which use the variant "Kosova" (they are excluded in a search of only + "Kosovo"). I used Boolean operators in order to include closely related variants/spellings of the two toponyms. In post-2000 bibliography on google scholar:
"Vushtrri" OR "Vushtrria" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 744
"Vučitrn" OR "Vucitrn" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 554
I support a move to Vushtrri based on use in contemporary bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:Common Name and WP:Place#Multiple_local_names. Since Slavs populated this region in the 6th century the title of this place is Vučitrn and remained Vučitrn until today, for about 1,500 years. Transliteration to the Albanian language resulted in neologism Vushtrri that entered sources about 100 years ago. There is no English name of this place nor there is a particular interest of English language sources for this place. Except when the town came to prominence among today's English-speaking community during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 or in relation to historical medieval period when Vučitrn was a seat of Serb medieval noble family Branković. Because of this, all English language sources refer to this place as Vučitrn almost exclusively. Recent English language publications of Kosovo Government (dominated by Albanians after the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo) and its institutions that use Albanian neologism Vushtrri have not gained wide attention of the English language speaking community nor it has featured major headlines, only minor, and even then there is often a mention of it being called Vučitrn.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not a neologism, that would mean it was recently coined, which it was not, it has been the Albanian name of the town for centuries.--Calthinus (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:Common Name and comments by Antidiskriminator and WEBDuB. This is old subject, nothing proper changed in the mean time. Since medieval time, this place is named exclusively as Vučitrn and recent publications by Kosovo government will not change commonname over night. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The results from google scholar are not "recent publications by Kosovo government". Note to the closing admin: this account with very little activity in English wikipedia logged in and basically made the same comment in three different discussions (within 4 minutes) without any regard for actual policies[4]. Wikipedia is not a democracy and !vote comments which blatantly disregard how bibliography perceives use of terms are discouraged.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, results are recent publications by Kosovo government, and that can be listed here as a confirmation. It would be nice not to lie and mislead. I opened account in 2013, unlike most of support editors, including you. Many users cited google hits, from books and search, all of those are google hits. The question of sources are more important then number of hits, as most of the books mentioned are published by either RoK or in Albanian language. So please, stop with false misrepresentation of users whose comments fail your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, stop WP:STAKING other users and their edits, that is rude and false representation. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
They are not "recent publication by Kosovo government". You shouldn't argue for narratives that everyone can very easily verify.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I checked the figures and the claim "most of the hits for "Vushtrri are by Albanian authors" is not correct. There are more Serb authors or publications in Serbian that use Vučitrn than Albanian authors or publications in Albanian which use Vushtrri. I don't think thatit can be used as an argument either way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, the evidence is quite clear [7]. All the authors that show up in the results are Albanian. Khirurg (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the sixth item on your result list is from clearly non Albanian authors IF Murphy and G Swinburn [8] (good luck finding a Murfi or Suin(m?)bë(?)rn in Albania...), then go a bit further down and we see the obviously Georgian Magalachvili [9] and then a certain Siefer [10]. But wait... why are we tokenizing the ethnicities of authors in the first place? Because everyone is biased by their ethnicity? .... um, what? That's actually a terrifying claim to make about a number of WP:BLP scholars, on the sole basis of their ethnicity....... --Calthinus (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
And if you look at the results for "Vucitrn" + "Kosovo" [11], you will see that all the authors are predominantly English-speaking. Which definitvely shows that "Vucitrn" is more common than "Vushtri" in English-language sources. Nice try though. Khirurg (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Btw you don't seem to find anything "terrifying" when one of your friends suggests dismissing votes based on users' ethnicity [12] [13] [14]. No, nothing "terrifying" there. Khirurg (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Eh, no, suggesting an author is biased by their ethnicity is WP:BLP, a la "Mexican (American) judge", period, no bizarre Whataboutism and logical acrobatics will get you out of that one. And it is overdue that someone took you to task for your postercase WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:ASPERSIONS. Have a nice day. --Calthinus (talk)
No whataboutism, no aspersions, just facts. It's a fact that "Vucitrn" is mainly used by non-Albanian writers and "Vushtrri" almost exclusively used by Albanian writers. I can see why you wouldn't want that inconvenient fact discussed, but no amount of logical acrobatics will get you out of that one. It's also a fact that some editors are trying to disrupt this discussion with unfounded allegations of canvassing, as it is a fact that some editors like to personalize things, and smear their fellow editors with straw men and other dirty tricks. Yes, that is WP:BATTLEFIELD, and it's time someone took you to task over it. Khirurg (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh it's a fact that some (not all as you claimed) of the authors on the first page were ethnic Albanians, but anyone can see who is WP:BLUDGEONing the process here. Stop deflecting and trying to make this about your hallucinated version of me -- apologize for insulting the integrity of Albanian authors solely based on their ethnicity and strike it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall saying anything about the integrity of "Albanian authors", so knock it off with the straw men again. And if anyone should apologize and "strike it", it's you, what with the Greek invention of hypocrisy [15] and contemptuously treating all editors of Greek ethnicity as you guys [16]. Yeah, apologize, and strike it. Khirurg (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you not turn the discussion into a personal debate? I'm posting on WP talkpages to get uninvolved editors to check it and you're making it more difficult for anyone new to be engaged. Also, I can't see a verification of what you're accusing Calthinus of in those diffs - but you yourself have made comments about coordinated ethnic bloc voting. So, you might want to take it down a notch.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you stop badgering me and following me everywhere and cluttering every discussion I participate with intellectually dishonest statements? I have nowhere made the kinds of comments that Calthinus has made. If you don't see anything wrong with Calthinus' comments, that says a lot about your worldview.And if you want to "get uninvolved editors", stop meddling in and prolonging discussions that are not your concern. Khirurg (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You are searching for results from 2000-2020. If we want to look for the common name then we should search from 2008-2020 or even further towards 2020. Because most of Your hits using Vucitrn were written from 2000-2007 a time when Kosovo was not yet a country. Most of the hits from 2008 - 2020 using Vucitrn were written by Serbian authors. Vushtrri is definitely more common in the English sources. If we look for the current common name then we should not look for results from 2000-2008 anyway. Also Ktrimi pointed out non balkan-editors because these editors can display a neutral opinion in this case. That's actually what some admins closing this kind of RMs were looking for. Crazydude1912 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg, I see you continue to divide editors in "friends" and "non-friends", as you in the past have divided them in "pro-Serbs" and kind of "anti-Serbs". Everyone can see that I have said that everyone is welcome to comtribute to the discussion, but the conclusion should not be based just on the number of !votes, as many of them have a history of canvassing. You expressed such concerns about Balkan editors, did you forget that? The RfC on Religion in Albania, an afD last months etc. Or is that an issue only when it does not suit your stance? In the last two months or so admins have closed several AfDs and RMs in opposition of your stance and that of some other editors here (the latest being a similar move request, Peja), regardless of how many srwiki accounts came out of the blue to "vote". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
And you were recently told by an admin (when you protested to him about closing a move request that didn't go your way), that judging votes based on users' ethnicity is not policy-based [17]. As for "canvassing" and "srwiki" accounts in this discussion, how about you provide some evidence for your claims instead of making unfounded accusations? Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I did not "protest" that move request. I suggested to the admin to take some things into account in the future. And they did so actually, on Peja. Minutes after the same admin closed the RM on Peja, you came here to make personal attacks on me and Calthinus. Someone else could go on to assume that you did so because it did not went your way, just like the many AfDs and RMs in the last year or so. Anyways, I do not want to waste time trying to assume what irritates you. I clarified there that I do not think that people should be ignored, and the admin did not have anything against what I said. You too have in some cases noted (when it suited your stance) that one side has Balkan-focused editors only or there is apparent canvassing. Two admins have expressed concerns about some editors who always have the same opinion. Either you are not able to understand that, or you just want to turn every discussion in a batteground. I will not respond to you, as I have many productive things to do. Bye. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes you did protest, just like you raised hell when the RfC at Religion in Albania did not go your way [18] (as has every single RfC in living memory). And you still haven't provided any evidence of "canvassing" and "srwiki" accounts on this thread. Where's the evidence for your claims? Trying to derail a fraught move request with unfounded allegations is highly disruptive.Khirurg (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Wikipedia. It is obvious that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors again, as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by WP:ARBMAC. Therefor this coordinated list of renaming of established article name with attempt to rename them to Albanian language, that should be presented as new "commonname". And this is happening on at least 4 articles at the moment. Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anastan: nice one. The nominator You are mentioning is obviously not even from Kosova not to mention being of Albanian descent. Crazydude1912 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Irelevant, i never mentioned anyone's nationality, we should never talk about contributor, only about the content ... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
You probably think that this is conspiracy theory? Mikola22 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The nominator Mikola22 is not a new editor, nor are any of the editors who have supported the move. Anastan should probably familiarize themselves with AE because statements like We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by WP:ARBMAC are part of the editing attitude that gets AE attention. There have been raised many concerns about canvasssing in recent move discussions and AfDs but they have concerned !oppose or !keep votes. The AfD which I recently filed was closed as !delete despite the heavy canvassing which very likely affected it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I have tried several times to point out the polarized and very tense atmosphere on Balkan topics (especially to Serb-related). It was wrong to launch several similar RfCs and RMs at the same time, until at least one situation is resolved and tensions calm down. Quality and productive discussion cannot be conducted in these conditions. Bias and canvasing on both sides were obvious. Unfortunately, the admins themselves are some times biased and inconsistent, and ignore many nationalist tendentious editing and POV-pushing. Only editors who were characterized as pro-Serbian were sanctioned, although much more serious policies violations from the “opposite side” were ignored, including threats, long term abuse, publication of private information, etc. I'm just asking you not to write that I should to report violations to the noticobards, since many reports have been completely ignored.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There has been no "canvasssing on both sides" because there aren't "two sides". Admins can discern what is probably the result of canvassing and what is not. Now that admin oversight has become more common in these discussions I don't know why you would accuse admins of being biased and inconsistent. An editor accused Mikola22 and most other editors in this discussion of paid advocacy in favor of the Kosovo government. Can you see how big of problem it is when an editor accuses others of getting paid to advocate for certain political views? --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There is canvassing, and voting by editors without contributions, tendentious nationalist changes, as well as serious violations of the policies, such as long term abuse and harassment. There are two sides, it is obvious and we all know that. Personally, I am already used to being declared both a “Serbian traitor” and a “Serbian ultranationalist” because I try to balance and add parts that criticize all nationalisms and authoritarian regimes. I don't think anyone is paid, but people approach these topics emotionally.
Many things are suspicious and an indicator of tendentious editing. For example, Mikola22 never contributed to this article. Where did he get the idea to launch the RM? Especially when there were similar RfCs and RMs at the same time and the same group of editors always advocated some anti-Serbian views. Furthermore, at the same time, they are working on reducing the death toll in the article on Ustaše genocide, and on increasing it in the article on Chetnik crimes. During all this time, I have been the victim of long-term abuse, including the disclosure of my private information, which the admins persistently ignore after a lot of my reports.
Yes, there may not be two sides, as one is obviously much more toxic and dangerous. I've never relativized or reduced the number of victims of crimes committed by some Serb leaders, nor have I noticed that this has recently been done by a group of editors often described as pro-Serbian. Discussions on the ethnicity of the most important Serbian personalities, such as Novak Djokovic and Nikola Tesla, were simultaneously initiated. In a short period of time, three authors copied identical sentences into different articles, trying to present all Albanian crimes against Serbs in history exclusively as the so-called revenge attacks. There are many examples like this. The simultaneous attempt to remove all Serbian names from Kosovo cities in such an atmosphere is really not an example of good practice.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@WEBDuB Many things are suspicious and an indicator of tendentious editing. For example, Mikola22 never contributed to this article. Where did he get the idea to launch the RM? I researched the names of some cities in Kosovo since I have previously participated in "Requested move" procedure. And I stated my reason in the introduction part. It used to be my homeland as well(Yugoslavia). Mikola22 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
By casting even larger WP:ASPERSIONs against Mikola22 (Many things are suspicious and an indicator of tendentious editing. For example, Mikola22 never contributed to this article. Where did he get the idea to launch the RM? Especially when there were similar RfCs and RMs at the same time and the same group of editors always advocated some anti-Serbian views. Furthermore, at the same time, they are working on reducing the death toll in the article on Ustaše genocide, and on increasing it in the article on Chetnik crimes., you're only highlighting the necessity of strict admin oversight. If you thought that attention should have been brought to any of their edits, you should have reported him at AE with evidence and both your editing attitude and theirs would be scrutinized. This discussion has become a launching pad for some very heavy accusations against Mikola22.
(Side comment: a change in the title is not "an attempt to remove all Serbian names from Kosovo cities". The Serbian name would still be mentioned in the article, but the title should reflect use in bibliography.) --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Please, stop with false accusations and WP:PASSIVE. I mentioned Mikola22 in just one sentence, the rest of the quoted message was general, it did not refer to any specific editor. I didn't accuse anyone of anything, but I explained what could be the reason for causing suspicion among other editors and leading to existing tensions. I explicitly said that I think that no one was paid, but people approach the Balkans topics emotionally. I wanted to point out why everyone should be careful and why it is wrong to open similar discussions and RfCs during tense atmospheres. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
We've already got one warning about WP:ASPERSIONs [19]. The same narrative still hasn't stopped, so admin oversight at ANI might be necessary. Also, "nothing seems to have changed" is WP:JDL because I've cited the results from google scholar about the terminology used in bibliography (744 vs. 554).--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Another note Anastan has been warned by an admin for the aspersions they made on move discussions [20][21]. The admin made a good summary of the situation while referring to Anastan: "As you know, you yourself were once named in an SPI and were blocked one week for apparent meatpuppetry. Ironically, that SPI involved another user that worked with you in the same Wikipedia workshop. Your charge about new editors who worked together at Wiki Academy Kosovo has some common elements with that". It seems that Anastan is accusing others of things he got blocked for in the past (off-Wiki coordination with srwiki academy editors). Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per analysis of English usage by Rreagan007 and Maleschreiber. I'd add that the trend since 2008 per Google N-grams even when we include "Vucitrn" is that Vushtrri has been the dominant name in English, and this trend has not changed as you can see here [22]. Of course, as is the case for most places in Kosovo besides Pris(h)tin(a), there isn't really a "common" name at all in English since Anglophones barely talk about these places, so it may be of relevance that anyone wanting to visit the place should probably use the name that the local authorities (whatever we think of their legitimacy, the fact that they are in control is just a fact) and basically all the locals use -- Vushtrri.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. What you argue for is covered by WP:NCPLACE which says that: One solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive. If some here do not find the common name argument sufficient and clear, then, based on WP:NPLACE, the name used by the local majority should be used. In this case, the proposed name. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support as the majority of the population call the town "Vushtrri", we have to respect the official name of the town.--Lorik17 (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only argument in favor of moving presented by the proposer is "majority of inhabitants use a certain name, so Wikipedia should be using the same name in the title". This argument is wrong for several reasons: first, Wikipedia titles should be WP:COMMONNAMEs, not the names used by the inhabitants, and, second, the inhabitants of this city do not speak English, so their usage has no influence on the English language usage. Some supporters then tried to rescue their case by claiming that Vushtrri is actually a common name in English. The only evidence they presented is the Google Ngram which is obviously wrong because they failed to include both "Vučitrn" and "Vucitrn" as the two variants of the same name. When both is included, we see that the current results are leveled (see [23]), while historically, Vučitrn is highly preferred. So, I think this proposal should be dismissed as it has no basis in Wikipedia policies. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:NCPLACE says that: one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive. Since according to you current results in English are equal, than the name used by the linguistic majority should be used. The move is based on relevant policy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: you're wrong in your comment that they failed to include both "Vučitrn" and "Vucitrn". I used the google scholar search function in post-2000 bibliography for both Vučitrn" and "Vucitrn":[24] (You're using the google books ngram viewer, a less reliable tool (google scholar is much more reliable than google books). You used it for post-1980 searches which include all Yugoslav-era publications(obsolete) and also don't include Vushtrria, the definite variant of Vushtrri). Google scholar, for post-2000 publications:
"Vushtrri" OR "Vushtrria" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 744
"Vučitrn" OR "Vucitrn" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 554 --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Side comment: @Ktrimi991: There's no linguistic majority and minority in this area. There are ~69,000 who speak Albanian, and ~400 people who speak Serbian. Every ethnic community - sizeable or small - has to enjoy its full linguistic rights, but the name which a very small fraction of the population uses, can't be used as the name of an article .--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would we arbitrarily choose 2000 as the cut-off? Some other periods had more frequent publications with this content. Even in the period since 2000, Vučitrn/Vucitrn appears more often in English literature (Google Books) than Vushtrri/Vushtrria.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The spike around 2000 appears to be due to the Vucitrn massacre, a separate entity from the town itself, which continues to be called the "Vucitrn massacre" not the "Vushtr(r)i massacre". That aside, obviously, there was a material change in the matter in 2008, and we can't just pretend that wasn't the end of an era. A whole generation of Anglophones has now grown up such that during the entire time of their political awareness, that has been the reality. We also have to entertain the reality that Anglophones may continue to use Vucitrn to refer to periods before 2008 -- exactly as is done with most other multiply named cities elsewhere in the world: Danzig/Gdansk, Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul, Lutetia/Paris et cetera.--Calthinus (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and change to Vucitrn. The current title with its diacritic over the "c" is consistently the least used name in English sources according to the ngram viewer. The most common for most of recent history is Vucitrn. Vushtrri khas been the most common for the last 6-8 years, but that's not long enough to warrant a change. Bermicourt (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Bermicourt, what you said in the last sentence actually is a good argument to do the move. WP:NC says that: Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. In 2008 the (official) name changed due to the declaration of independence by Kosovo. Since then, as you accept, the "new name" is more used than the other. Even if the most common name in English can not be figured out, then WP:NCPLACE which says that one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive applies. Ktrimi991 (talk)
No - the results are the opposite of your comment. These are the results which supposedly are "overwhelmingly" in favor of Vučitrn:
"Vushtrri" OR "Vushtrria" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 744
"Vučitrn" OR "Vucitrn" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 554--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Only if you rely exclusively on Google Scholar, and arbitrarily restrict the range to 2000-2020, as you did. Google Books, which is far more inclusive than Google Scholar, gives approximately 700 hits for Vucitrn [25] (35 pages of results) and 520 hits for Vushtrri [26] (26 pages of results). Khirurg (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that "google books is more inclusive"? It's not. It's also not accurate because it contains false results. Also, the 2000-2020 is not an arbitrary choice but a result of the necessity to determine use in present-day bibliography, not that of the Yugoslav era, 60+ years ago in Serbo-Croatian. It's really irrelevant that books in Serbo-Croatian published in 1912 use "Vucitrn" [27].--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course Google Books is more inclusive; Google Scholar has a much more narrow focus. And 2000 is absolutely arbitrary. Did you choose it because it's convenient? Your search also used "Kosova", which is rarely used in English. Khirurg (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, looking for present-day bibliography is better than looking for 1912 books if you're trying to establish use in contemporary bibliography. How is it "more inclusive" if it has fewer results and of those results quite a few are false hits? Why is it even relevant if google books has an indexed an obscure publication from the early 20th century?--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Restricting results to English language, and anything published in the last 50 years (so as to avoid "muh Serbo-Croatian 1912" type excuses) still yields more results for Vucitrn [28] than for "Vushtrri" [29]. Khirurg (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A 1970- is WP:OUTDATED because use within Yugoslavia while it existed is irrelevant. I used a 2000- search exactly because contemporary bibliography reflects the contemporary world.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no such stipulation in WP:NCGN or any other similar guideline. Your use of 2000 is selective and convenient. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Another very noticeable move has been that from Kiev to Kyiv which considered use of the toponym by the local population as a more important criterion than its use in bibliography. In this move discussion, both use in bibliography and the toponym used by the locals is Vushtrri/Vushtrria.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAP. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It definitely happened: Kyiv and it's a great thing that despite the fact that the Kyiv/Kiev ratio is much lower than the Vushtrri(a)/Vucitrn it was still moved because what the people call their home city was seen as the most important criterion. Truly, a great day for wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hadn't thought about Kyiv, but now that its brought up, the similarities and reasons surrounding that pagemove and the proposed one here do make for a compelling case to change Vucitrn to Vushtrri.Resnjari (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2020 (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.

Requested move 15 January 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: those supporting the move to Vushtrri have the stronger arguments.

  • "Google results aren't from third-party sources" is a confusing statement, and Maleschreiber is correct in their counter of that argument, which essentially was "only Albanians spell it like this".
  • The analyses of the Google (Books and Scholar) results by the nominator and by Maleschreiber are solid, and while the objection by Vanjagenije made sense, it was countered by Super Dro, with no rebuttal.
  • The Google results indicate a preponderance for the proposed article title, which reflects the situation on the ground, so to speak, and so per COMMONNAME as well as per Wikipedia:Official names there is good ground to move. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Vučitrn → Vushtrri – I propose that this article be renamed to 'Vushtrri' due to the fact that, not only is 'Vushtrri' the preferred and official name used by the government and the vast majority of people in Kosovo, but it is also the common name. Here are some Google Scholar results that prove this:

Additionally, recent trends are also important in choosing the name of an article. Therefore, looking for searches since 2018 yields the following results:

As can be observed, in recent trends, the form 'Vushtrri' has more than doubled 'Vučitrn'. It should also be noted that Vushtrri is more English-friendly, as the 'č' letter does not exist in the English alphabet. A variety of sources can also be cited that display a trend of governments and international organisations labelling it as 'Vushtrri', but in this case, the search results should be enough. Botushali (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But if we combine "Vushtrri" and "Vushtri" [33], we get over a thousand results [34] (compare to 938 when combining the three variants of the Serbian name [35]), so the Albanian name is still more common. By the way, if you look at the first page of results, the articles using the Albanian names are usually more recent and those using the Serbian one. Super Ψ Dro 17:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as the Albanian name is more common. Super Ψ Dro 17:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:NAMECHANGES, the "official" language of the region is Albanian.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I agreed with Vanjagenije. Ничим неизазван (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Vanja's argument. Elserbio00 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to state that two users have voted “oppose” using an argument that has already been deconstructed above. I urge all future voters to look at this move request from a reasonable, unbiased and logical standpoint - the combination of three separate versions of the Serbian name is still outnumbered by two separate versions of the Albanian name. It is time for Wikipedia to go along with the modern trend and call this article 'Vushtrri'. As previously mentioned, since 2018, the results on Google Scholar show that 'Vushtrri' comes up with double the results in comparison to 'Vuçitrn'. 'Vushtrri' is the common name and this should be reflected on the article. Botushali (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Vanjagenije is right. We should include all variants. "Vushtrri" OR "Vushtri" OR "Vushtria" OR "Vushtrria" (Vushtria/Vushtrria are the definited forms of the Albanian toponym): 1150 results (2000-2022) vs. "Vučitrn" OR "Vucitrn" OR "Vuçitrn" 746 results (2000-2022). Academic use favors a rename to Vushtrri. But we should also check use outside academic sources to determine which toponym people use the most in everyday life. Google ngrams: [36] It's obvious that Vushtrri has overtaken Vučitrn since the early 1990s, which is expected as over 98% of the population are Albanians. The article should be renamed to reflect common academic and everyday use.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The Albanian form is more common, plus it is the official name used in the language of the majority of the population there. For anyone confused by Vanjagenije's argument above, please also read the clarification by Super. Çerçok (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Folks, check the non-English names in the USA toponyms. Please, stop historical revisionism! Ничим неизазван (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    • That’s not a sufficient counter argument at all. This is not “historical revisionism”, this is updating Wikipedia articles to reflect current trends and realities. Botushali (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking at the Google Scholar diffs, the nationality of the scholar dictates the naming convention with those who are Serbian using Vučitrn and those who are Albanian using Vushtrri. The small number of non-Balkan scholars use both names in their work Vučitrn/Vushtrri. The diffs only demonstrate the common name is common amongst ethnic Albanian scholars and not worldwide. A search of grey literature could provide a solution to this. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Vushtrri is by far the most popular google trends.[37] even in Serbia Vushtrri is the more common. Durraz0 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting, I haven't checked google trends. It looks like almost nobody outside of Serbia is searching for 'Vučitrn'. Academic and everyday search frequencies show an overwhelming support for Vushtrri.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Like the admins and other editors pointed out (which the OP has neglected to present accurately): "Vushtrri" has 881 hits while "Vučitrn" has 958. Vushtrri is more used by ethnic Albanian scholars than being an actual worldwide trend, and therefore, I am not exactly convinced on why to support the RM. The editors should follow Wikipedia's naming guidelines, and OP Botushali really ought to slow down with the multiple RMs they have initiated the last couple of days (noticed the one here as well, by the same OP, on the same day). While there is no Wikipedia rule limiting editors on how many RMs they may initiate at once, trying to change articles into Albanian names, while failing to accurately present all the evidence (missing statistics favoring the current name), concerns me as it may suggest that there is an attempt to make a narrative where the proposed name is more commonly used, while it isn't. I can't exactly say that this is really helpful for the readers, nor for the WP:BALKANS topic area which politically remains sensitive. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@SilentResident:
  • Google scholar:1150 results (2000-2022) vs. "Vučitrn" OR "Vucitrn" OR "Vuçitrn" 746 (The link provided by Vanjagenije only included Vushtrri vs. all variants of Vučitrn)
  • Google books ngrams: [38]
  • Google trends (worldwide): [39] All show that Vushtrri is used overwhelmingly more than Vučitrn. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect. The vast majority of the sources in your results are Albanian. It doesn't change the fact that international usage of the terms (by third party sources), are more in favor of the current name over the proposed one. This is the International English Wikipedia, not the Albanian Wikipedia and I strongly believe that we shouldn't be changing names for articles of cities and towns without strong evidence for usage of these terms in English sources. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
They're worldwide results. Most searches for any toponym will be in the language which is used by most people in a region. Naming guidelines in that cases favor the most used local name. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"Worldwide results" is a red herring here; the results using the RM's proposed name aren't from third party sources, are -in their vast majority- Albanian websites and authors. You may argue indefinitely about bits and things, but I am not convinced by such arguments. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Google search provides a global index. If you want to call it "Albanian sites" that's on you, but it's not an argument against the rename but for it. Per NCGN, if a local name is the one used more commonly then the article gets renamed to that title.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Considering that this isn't the first time we meet in a RM (you came to the RM at Imia), I think you know me well enough so that you can tell whether my similar positions in both RMs isn't a mere coincidence, but my actual approach: where there has been history and are politically sensitive topics, such as Turkey-Greece or Albania-Serbia, then, in my opinion, is better for Wikipedia to reflect on international community and third party sources rather than on what local sources and views do say. You may find it impractical or absurd, but considering how sensitive these topic areas are politically, my position is not just in line with Wikipedia's naming guidelines, but also as neutral as it can get. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
If you want to be objective and neutral, start from objective reality: most data show Vushtrri as the top result and it is the language the locals. Right now you're !opposing the name used by the locals and most people who are searching for this town online in favor of a name used in just one country. The last Kosovo vote you took part in is [[40]] and you !opposed the move - but it was moved. Maybe this is the time for some reflection. Good day.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The reality is that not every RM can end however you want it. My own RM, where you oppose!voted, was closed with a large majority in favor of my arguments, and when the RM closure was reviewed, the closure was endorsed unanimously, with many votes which is unprecedented for my standards. But that doesn't matter I am afraid: In some RMs the consensus may be opposite of what we vote, and that's absolutely natural and we can only accept it and move on. Now, I kindly ask that you respect my votes, no matter however I cast them, even if they are based on what I believe to be better for the Wikipedia project as whole, instead of reflecting on what others may have voted in past RMs. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Google Scholar has a function to search English-only sources. Vučitrn (notice the "lr=lang_en" at the url) gets 542 results ("Vučitrn" OR "Vuçitrn" OR "Vucitrn" get 548) while Vushtrri gets 595 ("Vushtrri" OR "Vushtri" get 659). Super Ψ Dro 22:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCGN. Google scholar, google books, general google results all strongly show that Vushtrri is more common than Vucitrn. The results searched should be after 1999 (Kosovo War) per WP:WIAN: For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed. As is normal for a city of Kosovo where 95%+ are Albanians, the more commonly searched named online is the Albanian one. NCGN proposes in such circumstances that When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. That name in all cases is Vushtrri.--Bes-ARTTalk 23:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The most ridiculous claim that I read here is that "even in Serbia Vushtrri is the more common". It would be nice if people in this discussion would stick to facts. This is obviously part of the same initiative to promote Albanian names of cities (see discussion for name change from Lipljan to Lipjan). Having that in mind, I will repeat what I stated there, as situation here is very similar: "This is Wikipedia in English language. It makes no sense that names of cities in English language should change every time when political situation on Balkans changes (which happens very often, as we all know). Of course that Albanian version of the name is going to be more present on recent Google results, having in mind that it is officially in use currently (and as a result - there are many official documents mentioning it). But I don't see that as a valid reason for name change in English language. If Kosovo was not renamed to Kosova (Albanian version of the name) on Wikipedia, I don't see justification for this change either." Tresnjevo (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Counting 4 or 5 versions of Albanian pronunciation together does not make it "common", good God. Vucitrn has been in use since the Middle ages and it is more common in works by international scholars. 94.189.219.186 (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This vote completely ignores the evidence presented here - ‘Vushtrri’ on its own is actually more common than ‘Vučitrn’ on its own, as has been shown above. ‘Vučitrn’ can only beat ‘Vushtrri’ when other versions of ‘Vučitrn’ are counted, so why can we not do the same about ‘Vushtrri’ and the different versions? You cannot be selective about the evidence. Botushali (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The results which we can't decipher entirely about the language they're in although the majority are in English/German/French show way more hits for Vushtrri. If there is an English WP:COMMONNAME it is Vushtrri. If there is no English WP:COMMONNAME then the most frequent local name (Vushtrri) gets to be the title of the article. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Google scholar results show nothing, only that Albanian authors use "Vushtrri" and Serbian authors use "Vucitrn". Google scholar results have an exclusively narrow focus. On the other hand, Google Books results from the 21st century show 3500 hits for "Vucitrn" [41] and only about 500 for "Vushtrri" or "Vushtrria" [42]. Google Earth and Google Maps also uses "Vucitrn". Interestingly, while Google Earth and Google Maps use the Albanian name for most places in Kosovo, they do not do so for Vucitrn and Lipljan. It's a bid odd, but that's what it is. Khirurg (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Google books results are fewer than google scholar which includes all indexed gb results. There aren't 3500 results for Vucitrn but 26-28 pages x 10 results/page = 260-280 results. Google Books results in list format are just the Google Books ngrams results in non-graphic format:[43] And if you search for google trends (worldwide): [44] You're not bringing up something which isn't already in the discussion. You proposed such use of gbooks results at the discussion about Peja as an !oppose argument. But it's verifiably not correct.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support WP:NCGN: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the modern local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used. None of the names is really common in English, as GB/GS show. None of the names in used by a considerable margin compared to the other. This way the official and the name used by the local population of the city should be used as per the cited policy above. Albanian is the first official language of the municipality and the name used by the local population. Serbian is the second official language but not used in all of the municipality's documents and not used by over 98% of the local people (who are ethnic Albanians).Alltan (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support There is no "common English name" for this municipality and town. The two names are used in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar results without a large margin compared to each other. Such cases are solved by WP:NCGN where it says that "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name". The local population is almost 100% Albanian. Apart from this, the first official name used by the local authorities is the Albanian one. The only name used in every single document of the local authorities. Generally speaking, the articles of Kosovo municipalities with an Albanian majority should use the Albanian name, and the others the Serbian one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Majority of Albanians using the Albanian language version for Vucitrn, obviously, as presented at the Google Scholar diffs does not mean that is the case not worldwide nor is it a very strong argument. MareBG (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Jingiby (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per nomination by Botushali and Maleschreiber's informative comments. @Maleschreiber was spot on back in the previous RM and is again now.Resnjari (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per previous informative comments which do prove that there is no need for this change. Kosovo, not KosovA, or just take a look at numerous Greek cities or islands which are not named per the standard in Greek language, which is just proving my point, not to mention that Google search results are not completely relevant, only a part of the human population is regullary using Google. Вукан Ц (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a traditional and established name in English, other names can certainly be regulated by redirects. --Djordjes (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed name is widely used in Google Books and Google Scholars results, and is the local and first official name in line with WP:NCGN. If editors can't agree on a common English name, then the local and first official name are used for the article per the relevant policy. Lijaeujit (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Lijaeujit: your vote here is your very first edit, and only edit, as a registered user. Could you please explain why this is the case and how you know Wikipedia guidelines (naming conventions) as a first time user? I am very interested to know. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Google search results from intro. post are too narrow and selective. We could remove the Slavic ch from the title and that could probably make it more neutral. 178.237.216.149 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 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.

Vushtrri

Vushtrria urban have 27,272 population, not 26... 2003:C5:7721:30E0:B1D1:3324:4444:FCFE (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vushtrri/Archive_1&oldid=1249729825"