Jump to content

Talk:Kaçanik/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Kaçanik

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sadko (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 6 October 2024 (→A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: archived using OneClickArchiver)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tabel of contens >A< 

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

If sambody have a argument Im waitting. In another cases you are going to interpret the dokumets (you are out of UN Law) and you dont have argumet, you dont work for Wikipedia but you are destroing the comunity of Wikipedia. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. Dont forget You can have a problem with "Haage" or Carla del Ponte. This tabel is speeken better then I. --Hipi Zhdripi 20:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 04:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo and Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINCE 2 YEARS, ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA WITH NOT RESPECTING THE UN LAW, IS HELPING IN DESTABILSATION OF THE BALKAN REGION. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

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 result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move the page to Kaçanik, per discussion below. There may be reason to move the article to Kachanik, as noted below. If so, that should be decided on its own terms, and based on usage in English language sources, as per our naming conventions. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kačanik → Kaçanik — Due to the new status and the majority population — CD 06:57, 5 September 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:
Kachanik should also be considered instead of any of the two local native names (Serbo-Croatian and Albanian). It is used in English language media and resembles English pronounciation. Some examples: Time magazine, 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, NATO press release, The Guardian, RTE. It is also used by Serbian, Albanian and Macedonian sources: [1], [2], [3]. Regards, --Asteriontalk 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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.

Proposed move 2009

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

The result of the move request was not moved. Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the above discussion about the move of the page, but I am relisting it, as the argument was not sufficient.

Per WP:NCGN, I could not find encyclopedias containing the town, but the rest critireas are as follows:

Per WP:Google test, "Kacanik" (in brackets, in order not to be confused with other versions of "c") has 119,000 results, while "Kačanik" (again in brackets) has 35,200 results

Per news sources: Guardian, BBC, Times, etc, use the name Kacanik and not Kačanik.

As such, I propose to move of the article from "Kačanik" to "Kacanik" Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose! There are no need for moving the article. Your sources are not good, because they are news that dont use neither Serbian, neither Albanian, but that is logic, because of the Slavic letters (ŠČĆĐŽ), and that is unreadable for the foreign readers. But that DOESN'T mean that this source is reliable! It if just foreign! No move! Tadija (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:NCGN is quite clear on this point "Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted." This is not about using the local name, whichever is it, but the most used name in English. And the sources above, show that Kacanik is the most known name in English.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have to opt between the Serbian name and the Albanian name, not to be left with a diacritic-less name that nobody would know how to read properly. Since the town seems to have Albanian majority, it might be reasonable to move to "Kaçanik" though. Húsönd 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:NCGN is quite clear on this point "Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted." This is not about using the local name, whichever is it, but the most used name in English. And the sources above, show that Kacanik is the most known name in English.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. That's just a diacritic-less version of the most common spellings (Kačanik and Kaçanik). We don't go for those and always use local names for towns. Húsönd 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, i agree with Husond, but official name of the place is Kačanik, not Kacanik, or Kaçanik, and no mater on majority of population. Tadija (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, there is no move request, so this discussion is only informal. The article should not be moved. The sources given above, which spell the name as "Kacanik", use that spelling because they do not use diacritics (č) and not because that is accepted English spelling. A similar example could be São Paulo. On Google search, there are much more results for "Sao Paulo" then for "São Paulo" (in English language search), but it is still São Paulo. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is a move request for this listed at WP:RM so the proposal is valid. Húsönd 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I guess it's "valid", whatever that means. Any discussion is valid, and any discussion may result in any action. There's no commandment that page-moves be handled via WP:RM. My question is this: have we got any English-language sources that do use diacritics, and if so, which form do they use? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"Valid" in the sense that controversial proposals require going through WP:RM in order to be uncontested after their closure. Certainly there are no rules set on stone, but it is Wikipedia's tradition (and for good reason) that controversial move proposals follow some procedures otherwise their outcome will simply not be taken seriously (and prompt move war). Húsönd 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is common for controversial moves to go through RM, but it is certainly not required. A thorough discussion can be had, a consensus established, and the page moved, without any WP:RM red tape being involved. It is recommended that the formalism of WP:RM is a good way to make it clear to any interested parties what is going on, but it's not required. We moved pages before WP:RM existed, you know. Any decision undertaken after serious discussion should be taken seriously, and to do otherwise is Wikilawyering.

From WP:RM: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry."

You mention that something could "prompt a move war"? There is absolutely no excuse for a move war, no matter what anyone does. If a possibly controversial move is made — with or without the formalism of WP:RM — and later contested, then it's time to have another conversation - with or without formal structure. It is never time to move war, and no form of edit-warring is excused by anyone else's actions. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Google's search engine's ability to reliably identify diacritics is poor to atrocious (I can give more than ample detail if required), so the Google "test" isn't worth the pixels that illuminate it, even as an approximate guide. The other evidence is of usage, but not of predominance of usage. Knepflerle (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Some places just aren't talked about enough in English-language reliable sources to say that there is any established English usage. In this case, we generally go with the common native name, but when there's a dispute between two of those... it's tricky. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually what I was referring to was the technical limitations of Google's OCR and counting algorithms to properly distinguish letters with diacritics, causing large discrepancies in the counts - some things counted twice, some counted in the wrong set, large numbers not counted at all. For these particular cases of comparing xxxxYxxx with xxxxȲxxx, the tool's too blunt for the job. There is a problem of insufficient corpus, but that's a minor problem in comparison. Knepflerle (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's all true. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
See also the more detailed explanation Knepflerle gave me in a similar case. - Ev (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think Vanjagenije has it spot on: That the BBC, the Guardian, and Time have the diacriticless version is due to those publications simply having as a (perhaps implicit) convention the practice of deleting diacritics that aren't very familiar to most of their readers. It says nothing about any established usage of Kacanik qua Kacanik versus Kačanik qua Kačanik. The sources tell us how they render the name of the town Kačanik in their publications--they do not tell us whether the English name of the town is Kačanik or Kaçanik or Kacanik.--Atemperman (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

    That said, I wouldn't mind a general WP convention to replace c-hacek with ch for articles where that is done in a substantial proportion of authoritative sources--this would be especially useful in this case, where there isn't consensus on the c-hacek versus the c-cedille.--Atemperman (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support May I remind you that according to WP:NCGN If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. What is the local name? The name used by local authorities or local inhabitants. Now local authorities declaring their authority in that region are UNMIK mission, Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Serbia, Local government unit of Hani i Elezit/ General Jankovic. From the above mentioned authorities I think according 1244 resolution (signed by even by Serbia, following the NATO intervention) the UNMIK mission is the most undisputable authority on that region (I don't want to enter in a debate about the Kosovo Indipendence). Now looking at the sources above we see that UNMIK uses Kaçanik or Kacanik. So the local authorities make use of these versions of that name. Also as per the local population (99.9% Albanian) the name in use is Kaçanik. In the end we have the versions of Kaçanik or Kacanik in all actual legal documentation and in the spoken language of that region. Aigest (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is simply not true. Who says that UNMIK renders the name as Kaçanik or Kacanik? If You take a look at the official UNMIK's law on names ([4], which is given above in the first section), in the Serbian language version, You'll see that the official name is Kaçanik or Качаник. The second name is in Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, which is in Serbian Latin spelled Kačanik. So, we can say that Kačanik is one of two local official names used by UNMIK. The Albanian language version of the same document ([5], take a look) gives the official name as Kaçanik / Kačanik so, again, Kačanik is one of the official names, and there is no argument to move the page.Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You are forgeting that Kačanik is one of the official names the other one is Kaçanik. Also since here is a dispute about the english version we should use the local version of teh name. According to WP:NCGN a proposed 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. Now based on officially published linguistic survey of Kaçanik area [6] it seems that in Kaçanik a 99.7 % of the population is of Albanian language. That means that the it should go to Kaçanik page, unless you find a consensus for the English name (which it seems to not exist:)). Aigest (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed proposal, as it is clear not only in the discussion but also per sources, the English name of the town is unclear, or both version are used. As such, per WP:NCGN, the acquarite name would be Kaçanik, as per Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple local names, which is this case: 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.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The other solutions of WP:NCGN is to use WP:Google test, or to use another name ("Kacanik" in this case). Since you oppose the three of them, you wish to create a new guideline. There is no other solution, since Kačanik cannot be used in any of these cases.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not oppose Google test. Try Google English language search, and You'll see that "Kačanik" gives 13,200 results, while "Kaçanik" gives 3,790.Vanjagenije (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but "Kacanik" would have 23,500 results. So, there is no clear name for the region in English, and as such Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple local names comes into force.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Kaçanik. The 1911 Britannica used Turkish names for some locations of Kosovo. But probably because since 1912 Kosovo has been part of Serbia/Yugoslavia for almost a century, the English language has usually adopted the Serbo-Croatian names for the region of Kosovo (e.g. the NGS map The Balkans, of December 1999, uses "Kačanik" alone). For the moment, the Serbo-Croatian names -with our without caron & diacritics- are the ones the greatest number of English speakers would find in print, and thus most easily recognize (the basic idea of our naming conventions policy).

    This usage may change in the future (it may be changing right now), and Albanian names may become the norm in English texts, but this isn't the case yet. Only when/if that change actually happens should Wikipedia reflect it, instead of spearheading it. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

    See sources on English usage related to Kosovo below. - Ev (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps what we need to do is not to see whether consensus exists that any particular move should happen, but rather to see what people think are acceptable titles for the page. I, for example, think that Kačanik, Kaçanik, and Kachanik would all be acceptable, but Kacanik would not, because it misleads English readers as to the pronunciation and for the reasons Vanjagenije and I discussed above. Maybe some of the pro-Kačanik editors would also accept Kachanik (or Kacanik, even), and likewise with the pro-Kaçanik editors, even if it's not their first choice. In a way, we're lucky that an easy out exists for this case--less so than with the debate over, say, Meissen vs. Meißen--Atemperman (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Kaçanik The Ev's argument about the big number of Serbo-Croatian diacritics does not fit in this case. Ou contrair there are more Kacanik in English searches (see google) than Kaçanik or Kačanik. Furthermore we are talking for the same name but in different languages. For example the name Durrës in Serbo-Croatian is Drač. But the name in use now in Encyclopedias is Durrës because it is a local name. The name Kaçanik is in Albanian while Kačanik is in Serbian. Since the local population and administration uses Kaçanik as a legal form I think that is it a rightfull claim to have the name Kaçanik first and Kačanik second. That's why I agree with BW for the move. For more arguments about the local authority see my comment above. Aigest (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I did not mention anything similar to "big number of Serbo-Croatian diacritics"; instead, I specifically stated "Serbo-Croatian names -with our without caron & diacritics-".
Our naming conventions don't ask us to use the local name (be it of the local population or the local administration), but instead the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. - Ev (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And there is a clear situation where "Kacanik" (in brackets, in order not to be confused with other versions of "c") has 134,000 results, while "Kačanik" (again in brackets) has 35,200 results and "Kaçanik" (again in brackets) 119,000 results. So Kačanik is the least used term in English, while Kaçanik is the second most used after Kacanik.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not correct. You've forgot to restrict the search to English language only. If You do that, than there are much more results for "Kačanik" than for "Kaçanik".Vanjagenije (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
On Vanjagenije: Google English language search, and You'll see that "Kačanik" gives 13,200 results, while "Kaçanik" gives 3,790 and "Kacanik" would have 23,500 results. So, there is no clear name for the region in English, and as such Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple local names comes into force. Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
We are here discussing about moving "Kačanik" to "Kaçanik". That is the request. We are not talking about "Kacanik".Vanjagenije (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Such raw Google searches are almost meaningless, even without considering Knepflerle's comments above. – Please, see Widely accepted name. - Ev (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
On Ev, Widely accepted name is exactly where this is based. Since there is no encyclopedia, the other sources (news sources and google test) are used, as per the guideline. This tests show that there is no "one" most used english version, but at least two. So, in this case, Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple local names comes into force, which asks for the majority language of the region, aka Albanian. Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
A clear general English usage does exist. See sources on English usage related to Kosovo below. - Ev (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well, maybe, but no. It is nit that, it is the official name of the town. There is no official albanian name, just used albanian name, and there is no need for changing that. Nenad, 89.216.199.188 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - first, as Ev points out, the Serbian name is standard in English. Just because English-language media outlets have an aversion to diacritics, however, does not mean we should (or do); hence, by default, Kacanic in press sources is assumed to be a use of Kačanik, which we should retain. Second, usage, not ethnic majority, is the controlling factor; hence, San Sebastián not Donostia; Krumovgrad not Koşukavak; Târgu Secuiesc not Kézdivásárhely, despite the fact that in all three cases, the ethnic majority routinely uses the second of the names given. - Biruitorul Talk 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
In practice, we actually do tend to follow English-language media in their aversion to diacritics in scores and scores of cases. I can direct you to a list including many of them, if you're interested. I won't claim that we've been entirely consistent, but a lot of moves passing through WP:RM over the last few years have resulted in the dropping of diacritics, precisely because of what English-language media does. This is simply an observation. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That does sound intriguing. For Serbia, I know Priština got moved, but the others all seem to have accents. And I note the continuing presence of diacritics at Düsseldorf, Zürich, Kraków, Łódź, Saarbrücken, Saint-Étienne, Nîmes, Besançon, Orléans, Münster, Mönchengladbach, Mülheim, Osnabrück, Würzburg, Göttingen, Linköping, Malmö, Setúbal, Guimarães, Évora, Málaga... - Biruitorul Talk 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I know there are a lot of pages with diacritics. I'm claiming that many, many pages that have passed through WP:RM have had their diacritics removed. Are you arguing that this is not true? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
For city names I'm not sure. For personal names, you're right (although Ana Ivanović, herself a Serb, is a recent exception). - Biruitorul Talk 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is also a question that extends well beyond Serbia, you know. How many Japanese place names use the character "ō"? Do we generally use it? Even if most Serbian personal names keep diacritics, that doesn't mean the same pattern is reflected project-wide. There are many exceptions to any pattern you'll observe in our handling of diacritics. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As Japanese isn't written in the Latin alphabet, English tends to be rather more permissive in its transliteration. When Serbian was written more exclusively in Cyrillic, it too was transliterated: cf. Rod Blagojevich & George Voinovich versus more recent arrivals like Branko Milanovic or Boyan Jovanovic. Similarly, this city used to be spelt Kachanik, but with the Latin alphabet more common in Serbia and the need for transliteration lessened, English has tended to use Kačanik (or Kacanik and by implication Kačanik). I hope that wasn't too convoluted. - Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On all contributors, it seems that you do not get my point. The problem is that Kačanik *is not* the actual most used name. Google test makes it clear that Kaçanik, Kačanik and Kacanik are used in English, and nothing is clear, for which one is most used. As such the term of the majority should be used as per WP:NCGN.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear usage here. For many decades English-language publications have used Serbo-Croatian names -with or without diacritics- for the region. This usage is obvious to anyone who has read about the region from English books, magazines & newspapers. This is the usage the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. – So, since a clear general English usage does exist, there is no need to restort to the name used by the local population. - Ev (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You say that "There is a clear usage here."[citation needed]. I say that "There *is not* a clear usage here"1 and thus "Kaçanik" should be used.2 You have a "fact" tag to be filled.
Footnotes:
1. WP:Google test: Kacanik - 135,000 results, Kaçanik - 117,000 results and Kačanik - 35,200 results
2. Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple local names: Follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive
Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough: see sources on English usage related to Kosovo below. Is there any evidence demonstrating that Kačanik is an exception to that general pattern ? - Ev (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Ev's is playing with words. His supposed use of Serbo-Croatian names is not supported by numbers just google it. Speaking deliberately I can say than the Albanian names for that region are more numerous in English or there are more mentions of that city in Latin letters Kachanik or Kacanik in English form. Also Ev's is trying to convince us that the English speakers would most easily recognize Serbo-Croatian diacritics than other diacritics THIS IS PURE SPECULATION (don't mess Serbo-Croatian names without diacritics because this is not the case, none has proposed a Serbo-Croatian name of Kaçanik without diacritics, but if someone does, we can discuss that proposal). The problem here is to use diacritis of either Albanian Kaçanik or Serbo-Croatian Kačanik. Since we don't know the how English speakers can more easily recognize a č than a ç (this is a pure speculation), this is not an issue. The real issue is should it be in Serbo Croatian variant or Albanian variant. My opinion is that the use of Serbo-Croatian in the head is somewhat confusing since if you go through article you can see that there are not serb speakers on that area and also if you further dig the issue you see that Kosovo (albanian speking country etc) has declared indipendence etc etc (not mentioning that the majority of English speaking states have recognized the Republic of Kosovo etc). So since there is no acceptance of the use of Kacanik we shold go for the multiple names of the city. WP:NCGN is clear on that point and Ev's arguments are a pure speculation (see above). BW's arguments are based on what is stated on WP:NCGN and real data (see above). That's why I think that BW's is wright choice. Aigest (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since my general perception of English usage derived from years of reading English-language publications is viewed as pure speculation, I have now provided some sources on English usage related to Kosovo below. As you can see, we do know what form will English speakers more easily recognize. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

In the following examples, emphasis is always mine:

Tim Judah mentions this fact in his 2000 book The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (p. xv-xvi): "In the wake of the war in Kosovo, those writing about it have had to face the choice of using either the Serbian or Albanian names for places there. I have decided to stick with the Serbian ones because this is a book about the Serbs, and in general, news reports and maps continue to use the Serbian names. Not using Albanian names, nor calling the region Kosova, its Albanian name has no political implication whatsoever."

And again in his 2002 book Kosovo: War and Revenge (p. xix): "I have used the Serbian [names] because, for the moment, people outside Kosovo are still more familiar with names like Pec and Djakovica rather than Peja and Gjakova".

Human Rights Watch published in 2001 the book Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo, which mentions the issue of "names and terminology" (p. xxiii): "For the sake of clarity and consistency, Human Rights Watch provides both the Serbian and the Albanian name at first mention of any location. Subsequent references are in the Serbian language only, since this is the English language practice (for example, Pristina and not Prishtina)."

Paul Hockenos mentions in his 2003 book Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism & the Balkan Wars (p. xiii): "When writing about Kosovo I have chosen to use Serbian names rather than Albanian simply because they are more widely known and tend to be used on most (non-Albanian) maps."

As a sidenote, Thomas Schmid mentions the same thing in regard to the German language in his 1999 book Krieg im Kosovo (p. 14): "Im Buch wird in der Regel die serbische Schreibweise statt der albanischen verwendet: Priština statt Prishtina, Peć statt Peja und Kosovo statt Kosova. Daher steht keine Absicht. Es ist nur eine Konzession an den Umstand, daß die serbische Schreibweise der Leserschaft wohl eher vertraut und geläufing ist."

Is there any evidence demonstrating that Kačanik is an exception to this general pattern ? - Regards, Ev (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's some good evidence - sources that directly address the naming question, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers. Thanks for finding it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2014

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: Page moved to "Kaçanik" per discussion Ground Zero | t 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Kačanik → Kacanik or Kaçanik – Per WP:CommonName. The Anglicisation of the town's name (replacing the "č" with a "c") is the most common name for the town in the English language. I've done google books tests on all three names for the town:

  • 1. Anglicised-Kacanik
  • 2. Albania Albanian-Kaçanik
  • 3. Serbia Serbian-Kačanik.

The Anglicised name comes first, the Albanian name comes second and the Serbian name (current article title) comes third. I propose moving the article to the Anglicised name for two main reasons: 1. It is the Common Name in the English language. 2. per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština where it was agreed not to use either the Albanian or the Serbian name, instead to use the Anglicised name for the town. Here is my google books evidence:

As it was agreed with the Pristina article not to use the Anglicised spelling of the town which most English language sources and media use, instead of the Serbian Priština and Albanian Prishtina, I propose we do the same for this article. We shouldn't use the Albanian "Kaçanik" or the Serbian "Kačanik", instead we should use the common Anglicised name "Kacanik" which drops the "ç" and "č". For example as used by the BBC. Since we have an Anglicised spelling for the name of the town, we should use it on English wikipedia. The Albanian name should be used on Albanian Wikipedia and the Serbian name should be used on Serbian Wikipedia. Here on English Wikipedia we should use English spellings. Regards IJA (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment for Admin - I have now changed this into a three way proposal as other uses have voiced their preference for a third choice title. It is only fair that this third choice be taken into consideration in the RM. I myself now support moving the article to "Kaçanik" not "Kacanik" or "Kačanik", please see my second lot of evidence below for proof. IJA (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stripping diacritics from a relatively obscure placename is not an "Anglicised name" or exonym. It's a result of style manual limitations, technical limitations, ignorance, or laziness, none of which afflict or should afflict Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of why you think diacritics are dropped in the English language is irrelevant, what matters is what the the most Common spelling is. That would be "Kacanik" in this case. Please feel free to prove me wrong. And if you want us to use diacritics, then we should rename the article "Kaçanik" as that gets more hits than the current article's title "Kačanik" which is the third most common name for the town in the English language. IJA (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I want to use diacritics (though I do). It is the general practise at Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia, not a news service or a blog. Cf. the other places at List of populated places in Kosovo by municipality which use diacritics (as do List of populated places in Serbia and Municipalities of Albania). If you think the page should be at Kaçanik, by all means propose it. —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I want it moved to "Kacanik" because that is the common name/ spelling for the town in the English language. This is taken from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles#Current nomenclature: "Internationally, localities in Kosovo are most often known by Serbian names, often spelled without diacritics in English-language publications (e.g. Pristina rather than (S) Priština). The prevalence of Serbian names in non-Serbian sources is due to mapping usually being based on Serbian sources, which used the Serbian forms of Kosovo placenames.[2] However, very recently published maps and guidebooks do now use Albanian placenames primarily, with Serbian placenames given secondarily (see e.g. Gizi Map's Kosovo Geographical Map (ISBN 9789630039208) or Bradt's Kosovo guidebook (ISBN 1841621994), both published in 2007)." IJA (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We would require to perform advocacy or original research to make determinations on technical limitations, ignorance, laziness, etc. Wikipedia should not prescribe usage, it should merely follow the most common usage in English. If we cannot determine common usage, then we can fall back on native usage. The nominator has illustrated many appearances in English, from which we can choose one of the common forms. At any rate, it cannot stay at "Kačanik", as this is no longer Serbian territory, it should be "Kaçanik". The form proposed neatly severs arguments between Albanians and Serbs. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kaçanik would be my first preference, Kacanik second, but it's definitely got to be moved away from Kačanik. Many anglophone sources may have used Kacanik due to technical limitations; we don't have those limitations. The most popular accurate spelling is Kaçanik - which is also the official name. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The weakest of oppositions support Kaçanik. I like foreign (from a UK perspective) looking names just for the sake of WP:CRITERIA recognisability. People will immediately see an article in English about a subject that's not English Kaçanik :) perhaps but I didn't mean to put it in bold. Its not my city and it should be their preference. Gregkaye (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC) The opposition reference was opposition from a change from the use of a non standard Latin lettering as in Kačanik. Kaçanik is the obvious option. Gregkaye (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @ Gregkaye - Regarding Common Name, from the evidence shown above (or from other evidence) which 'foreign looking' name do you prefer, Kačanik or Kaçanik? There are three varieties of spelling for the town and this RM has turned into a three choice RM. IJA (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I had also tried a search on : Kaçanik qyteti (Kaçanik AND town in Albanian) but that was inconclusive. I had looked at parallel Wikipedia articles with a first attempt failing to find this:

The trend seems to be to use the ç in titles with some of the points in the article simply using c which I am guessing is because people don't think its really important in a non title context. also WP:CRITERIA : Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. de:Kaçanik, cs:Kačanik, fr:Kačanik, hr:Kačanik... but I give up with that. Without checking creation dates of articles it may be difficult to be sure that article creators did not just follow the format of the English article. sq:Kategoria:Qytete_në_Kosovë (cities),
On another point it might be worth Wikipedia developing a guideline on the appropriate use of the use of variant letters in the Latin script in article titles or maybe not. .. also

I would suggest that is might be worth asking opinions on that page but this would just be asking one of the language bases. Gregkaye (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Gregkaye for your useful insight. Here is the Government Page in English. The main text uses both 'Kacanik' and 'Kaçanik' in English, however the logo at the top uses 'Kaçanik' in English. IJA (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What they think is english is of no interest to us. Only real neutral english common name should be relevant. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Anastan - Have you got any evidence to suggest what is the common name? Also this discussion has changed course now to Kaçanik v Kačanik. What are your views on that? Have you got any evidence to help us here? IJA (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, i do. I oppose move, as it is only political. Why do we use only sources from after 2008? That means that only albanian names are used, as it is after independance. Per all awailable sources (not just post independance), Kačanik is COMMONNAME, and i oppose the move. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
So you don't have any evidence for common name? Things have changed since 2008, ie what the media and books in the English language refer to towns as. Wikipedia should reflect this change. Wikipedia needs to keep up with the times. IJA (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ąnαșταη, sorry m8 but I may have set a trend. If you want Kaçanik then you want to give qualified support. I'm going with the government page as the clinching argument. Gregkaye (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
And I'm going to go with the all time (includes sources prior to 2008 which Anastan believes in important) google book search and the 2008-14 google book search, both of which favour Kaçanik over Kačanik. IJA (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the Google Scholar (formerly Google Journal) search results which searches for media other than books. It is set to search specifically with diacritics:

Here are the English Language only Google Books search results. It is set to search specifically with diacritics:

Yes, you dida good search. I did "Kačanik" -"Kaçanik" search, and reverce, and had simillar results. You are right, Kacanik is not the most common name in google search. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks but this discussion had turned into a three way RM by the time you had entered, other users had concerns about the lack of diacritics; a new proposal by other users has been put forward. IJA (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for Kaçanik - I have had a change of opinion since I first nominated this article for a RM. I have done further research and come to the conclusion that "Kaçanik" is in fact the common name for the town in the English language and that "Kačanik" has never been the common name. Please see above for my Google Books and Google Scholar evidence. For this reason I support moving the article to Kaçanik. IJA (talk) 17:06, 22 August 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaçanik. 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) 15:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaçanik. 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) 16:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaçanik/Archive_1&oldid=1249729336"