Talk:Llapusha: Difference between revisions

Kosovo Unassessed

Llapusha is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Serbia Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The request to rename this article to Llapusha has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Prekoruplje → Llapusha – I was doing some research in order to gather bibliography for a future expansion of the article. There is no toponym in English in relevant bibliography. On google scholar, more sources use the name Llapusha and its indefinite variant Llapushë than Prekoruplje.

Prekoruplje 25

Llapusha 27

Llapushë 23

That by itself is a marginal difference, but when the post-2000 trend in bibliography is taken into account Llapusha has almost double the results of Prekoruplje:

Llapusha 26

Prekoruplje 14

The trend reflects a common change in literature in English after 2000 as the use of Serbian variants for various regions and settlements of Kosovo was gradually reduced and Albanian variants became more common. In wikipedia, this trend has been expressed in recent years in the move from Đakovica to Gjakova, from Srbica to Skenderaj, from Uroševac to Ferizaj and other articles. Maleschreiber (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Unlike other places (such as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) where the population change has not been internationally recognized, Albanian-speaking Kosovo's independence has been recognized by 101 UN members, including the entire English-speaking world (List of states with limited recognition), thus it is counterintuitive to continue using the former name in English Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Mikola22 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Google search argument" is just irrelevant and of little merit, and several editors have so far explained why that is a problem. Besides that - there is nothing presented in this requested move. It seems that WP:COMMONNAME was ignored as well and that canvassing and "sheep voting" is taking place. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:COMMONNAME in English about this microregion. I didn't make a "google search argument". These are google scholar results - how academic bibliography has treated the use of these two terms in published, peer-reviewed material. Now, if you cast WP:ASPERSIONs against other editors ( @Ortizesp: @Roman Spinner: @Mikola22: ) about "sheep voting" - there'll be admin oversight about your personal attacks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of editor Sadko is indeed personal attack and insulting of editors who spend their free time to make Wikipedia better. But unfortunately there are no sanctions for such behavior. We must used to it. Mikola22 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a search result/statistics from a tool which was founded by Google, which is, for some unknown reason, presented as an "argument". It's a manipulation and logical mistake in my book.

All scientific works used in the article (mostly done by Serbs, who else?!), are in fact using the current name, which is per WP:COMMON.

Before making harsh comments which will not do much good, be free to familiarise yourself with the term, which I have used quite correctly. [1] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin oversight will come if you ever cast WP:ASPERSIONs again about "sheep voting". Yes, it is "just a statistics tool" - one which shows how the two names have been used in bibliography. Wikipedia's policies about naming conventions are based on such statistical tools and arguments. The fact that a banned editor added some outdated/unverifiable material published in Serbia 50, 60, 80 or 110 years ago and an official publication of the Serbian state doesn't affect at all overall use of the two names in contemporary bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho ado about nothing; sheep voting has been seen in several requests for renaming so far, this is a free project and I am quite free to suspect. That banned editor has done more work than most of the Balkan editors combined, regardless of anybody's liking. Furthermore, you are contradictory, as your own analysis gives no clear reason for renaming, even if that shallow statistics had such an importance. There are ZERO other arguments. More material has been published later and I see that it's good enough for the article, therefore let's be consistent. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]