Jump to content

Talk:Gjakova/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2

On 1999

Do you want to say anything about the high level of destruction it suffered in 1999? As I recall the old town was almost completely destroyed.2toise 18:24, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know much about it. Nikola 06:14, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've added some material largely culled from OSCE, HRW and ICTY sources on events in Djakovica. -- ChrisO 02:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revert conflict

Once again, Nikola, don't simply delete large pieces of content without bothering to discuss them. This time you haven't even bothered to include a summary explanation. -- ChrisO 01:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[added] If you have specific concerns, please discuss them here. Archived from Requests for page protection:

  • Djakovica - User:Nikola Smolenski is repeatedly deleting large chunks of material (approximately 75% of the article) without discussion or explanation, apparently for partisan reasons. Please rollback and protect until he decides to start using talk pages. -- ChrisO 01:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I haven't even read what you have written. You could have posted it yesterday, you could have posted it tomorrow, but no, you HAD to do it today! And bad wiquette is better then no wiquette at all.
      On a sidenote, I do hope that articles whose protection was requested several DAYS ago will be protected before this one. Nikola 01:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This apparently is a reference to yesterday's violence in Kosovo, which (as far as I know) had nothing to do with Djakovica and certainly had nothing to do with the article in question. It's pure nationalist paranoia to suggest a link. And I think your comment that "I haven't even read what you have written" before deleting it all underlines the fact that this is a deeply abusive piece of editing by you. -- ChrisO 01:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No. It is deeply abusive piece of editing by you. I don't believe you that it is a coincidence, and even if it is, you could have waited. Why such a rush? Nikola 01:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I've simply been reviewing articles on the towns in Kosovo, and noticed the comments in Talk:Djakovica about the events in Djakovica during the recent war. You had said (on 5 October 2003) that you didn't know much about it. I did have some memory of it, did some research and updated the article accordingly. Then I found out about the events of yesterday. So, no link.
            • Given your history, my most probable assumption is that you lie. Nikola
          • And even if there had been, why would this have been a problem? Should all editing on articles related to Kosovo cease if there's a day's unrest in the province? -- ChrisO 01:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Firstly, yes, such abusive editing should cease.
              Secondly, there is no there is no "day's unrest" but three days' genocide. Nikola 07:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Protected. Kingturtle 01:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks. -- ChrisO 01:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Population figures

Note for future reference - Statistical Office for Kosovo (apparently a government organisation) has a useful population estimates chart at http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/population/Kosovo_and_its_population.pdf . Figures differ considerably from those given by The World Gazetteer. It seems prudent to use a credible official source rather than TWG; current figures are all estimates anyway given the lack of a census. -- ChrisO 02:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO, the Statistical Offica of Kosovo has been set up by UNMIK and is governed jointly by internationals (UN staff) and local Kosovar staff. SOK has the most up-to-date data on Kosovo, and are always checked by international institutions to ensure correctness before reports are released. Also, you may find some useful information on the official website of Municipality of Gjakova. --Kosovar 17:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hello! It seems that many links or references, meant to prove credibility of statements connected to Kosovo war, are pointing at wrong places, or simply are not working at all. And, even here at Talk page, the link for "Statistical Office for Kosovo", mentioned above, is pointing towards a closed website. There is no any credibility without a verifiable information.
Also, it would be useful to see some statistics on population demographics before Kosovo war. Particulary on numbers for a Serb population around 1991, 1981, 1971, and earlier. And also, what happened to the Serbs of Gjakova during the Kosovo war?
Best regards... Fendo99 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

On using Gjakova as name

<<St. Joanikije Google says is in Devic, Drenica - that is quite far away by Balkan standards. Try it. Gjakova was founded by Jak Vula in the 15 century. Acually the city for most of its history was called Jakova. The mosque library that held important documents regarding these events was burned by the Serbs in the first night of NATO attacks along with the Old Town. Taking all this in consideration and the the overwhelming Albanian composition of the population, shouldn't you call the city Gjakova instead of the Serb way. Just wondering :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianitd (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 August 2004 (UTC)

--Don't you worry about anything. Once Kosova gains its formal* independence, all these confusing Serbian manipulated names will be changed to what they were originally. -- user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.17.19 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

On writing the truth

Whoever created this website has no clue about what he is talking about. So you better close this webpage and dont write anymore false information, or if you dont then WE can do it, ok? Or another thing you can do is edit all the information that you put and write true information and all other statistics. ok. again by Fisnik Kurshumlija —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.116.207 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 August 2004 (UTC)

As you're evidently a new user, might I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Wikiquette?
Also, don't vandalise articles or you will find yourself being banned. -- ChrisO 08:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How did this latest outbreak of vandalism go unnoticed for 2 days? I think we need to keep a closer eye on this article... :-( -- ChrisO 19:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Djakovica in the Kosovo War

POV comment moved here for review.

"Most of the Albanian population returned following the end of the war, and most of the non-Albanian population fled or was forced to leave. Acts of revenge against Serbs and other non-Albanians occurred after the war's end, the most notable case being the destruction of the historic Monastery of St. Joanikije.the Monastery It was only built after the Serbs came there and also in Gjakove we all new it as the Serbian street not more so 4% sounds a lot if you talk before the refugees from Croatia and Bosnia came to Kosovo as to keep them happy for Serbs loosing all their wars. Also if serbs did not come from ukranian mountens we would not have these problems."

Details of the monastery's establishment and destruction may be appropriate for inclusion, and may provide a context for the latter comments, but the rest of the argument fails to develop any NPOV analysis Nigosh 21:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this from the article:

Đakovica has good resource for national development. Human resources are mainly the most important element for further development. Its most frequent mode of age is from 18 to 28. Youth is quit well educated, very good English speaker, and have high knowledge for Information and Technology. Đakovica has a picturesque setting. Its lack [Radoniqi] is one of the most beautiful places in Kosovo. Đakovica has very clear air because it is surrounded with hills and mountains.

Đakovica welcomes worldwide business for outsourcing since people are hospital, well prepared intellectually and government also is primed from infrastructural point of view.

Something could be written about recent investments in Djakovica, but this is not NPOV and not good English. Nikola 11:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Đakovica

Eksist not in Kosovo. You must learn at firt your language.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tabel of contens >A< 

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

If sambody have a argument Im waitting. In another cases you are going to interpret the dokumets (you are out of UN Law) and you dont have argumet, you dont work for Wikipedia but are destroing the Wikipedia image. I know that my english is not so gut, but a desinformation is not gut for Wikipedia and for the peopel in Kosovo. You can have a problem with "Haage". This tabel is speeken better then I --Hipi Zhdripi 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gjakova city

We do not need two articles on same city, so I proposed merge of the Gjakova city to here since this article is much larger. Even if there is some contention about the proper naming of the city, WP:POV forks are not allowed. Shinhan 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Postal Code

Postal Code for Gjakove/Djakovica/Gjakova is 50000 according to this PDF. It also has postal code for the rest of Kosovo cities so feel free to use this source. Shinhan 09:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pre-1999 history

History before 1999 yer is unknown ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.166.251 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) See diff.

The Name

If sombody have UN acceptit evidence that the name of the city is not Gjakova but is Đakovica, then this articel must be unter the name: Gjakova and the page named "Đakovica" must be redirect. My evidence you kann see in UNMIK oficiale page and documentation.--Hipi Zhdripi 00:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The territory is under temporary UN administration, as ruled in the Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999[1], where the UN reafirmed its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, after the country changed its name). Therefore, it is not up to the UN to invent new geographical denominations. I also like to remind you that this is English language wikipedia, so please make sure your contributions are up to standard regarding syntax and spelling, together with the use of commonly recognised geographic denominations (i.e. (Kosovska) Mitrovica is common in English, Mitrovice is not). Regards, Asterion 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Djakovica? And moreover cyrillic? Come on. This is an abuse of the authority that some people here have. UNMIK uses both the terms Gjakova and Djakovica. Population of Gjakova is 97% Albanian and that population calls their town Gjakova. Djakovica is a 20th century invention of the Serb occupation. Serb population at its highest point was only 3%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianit (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not named in accordance to UNMIK usage or the one of the local population, but in accordance to Wikipedia's naming conventions, which clearly states that "generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) further clarifies that "if you are talking about a [...] town, [...] use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
In this specific case, for a number of historical reasons the English language has adopted the Serbo-Croatian name of this town. Usage may change in the future, and the Albanian form Gjakova may replace Djakovica in English usage. When/if that happens, Wikipedia should reflect that change. But not before. - Best regards, Ev 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Mainly for Nikola Smolenski and Noah30: I really don't mind how the Serbian section is worded (belief, solid proof), as long as it is there, because it contains a source and so should not be removed. Because the Albanians also have two theories, I am saying that it is fair that it should all be on display: this is an encyclopaedia of course! :) Evlekis 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

I will pu the official name on brackets"()"--Bindicapriqi (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbian lang.

Is Djakovica for more then 40-years. DJ-222-333 the car tabel. And the name see #Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo this is for english lang. too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.189.255 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (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 Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) sing the IP 88.70.183.85 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Distinguished people from Gjakova

Hi everybody, please do not put names of people that are not academics, heroes, great sportist... etc etc. For example:someone put the name of an electrician engineer and I deleted it.Lets try and keep the quality of this section very high.So please consider the qualifications criteria before putting someones name in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agimetepara (talk • contribs) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

People, please dont put any names of Gjakova citizens who are not university doctors, famous writers, war martyrs or famous sportsman. Please dont put names of people who are just ordinary doctors, ordinary teachers or ordinary sportsman.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agimetepara (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move, August 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 page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Đakovica → Gjakova —

98% of the population uses Gjakova. It is official name used by Government of Kosovo in English and majority population of Kosovo and Foreign Governments. UNMIK and OSCE use both terms Gjakova/Djakovica to seem impartial, with Gjakova always being used first. 'Gjakova' has a clear Albanian orgin, from Jak Vula, the founder, then Jakova, finally Gjakova. Djakovica is a slavization of the word adding to it Serbian ending -ica. There have beem some spurious alternative arguments citing Noel Malcolm (no such thing exists) or one recent Serbian work basing it in the Serbian word djak for student. However, Serbs are recent arrivals to the city and no evidence has been offered to suggest that Serbs were present at founding date in late 16th century. . Arianit (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Gjakova was founded by an Albanian. Has been an Albanian town, built and established by Albanians.

2) To assume that the town was inhabited by Serbs and thus, need to be called Djakovica is ridiculous because Serbs have no reliable source or historical facts to prove such things. Tadija is making it up.

3) Arguing to keep Djakovica because there is a word in Serb language Djak which means student, is baselss because there is a word in ALbanian language Gjak - which means blood, it's one of the oldest words in the Albanian language, still another baseless, even though Albanian argument is stronger.

4)Gjakova was never known or famous for any learning place, but rather a town of trade, founded by Jak Vula, this is a documented evidence which retains its name up to this day.

5) The Albanians. The local population, making 98.9% call it Gjakova.

6) Accepting the argument that Serbs lived prior to XVI century, which facts do not exist is same as denying the argument with historical evidence of who lived in the past, who lives now - the Albanians, which clearly represents the Serbian POV. It's like calling red apples yellow, because someone wants to call them yellow, but today they are red, they've been red ever since they bloomed. Serb argument is like claiming that all apples once were yellow because they want to call them like that, so it needs to be yellow. Are all apples yellow? Should we call red apples yellow because Serb POV says so. It's a clear Serbian POV.

7) Rivers, valleys, alleys, hills, banks are all in Albanian in Gjakova.

8) Gjakova has been the capital of the region called Malesia e Gjakoves which lies mostly in Albania and southern Kosovo, the area around the town of Gjakova. Malesia e Gjakoves has one of the strongest Albanian highlander elements, where locals retained ancient traditions, old geg dialect of Albanian language, vendettas in accordance with Albanian code of honor of Lek Dukagjini, old folk traditions of Albanian medieval civilization since its foundation are found in the town of Gjakova - none of these facts Serbs have.

9)The ethno-cultural, socio-traditional, historical based elements of the Albanian populace and the name of the town called Gjakova are as old as its foundation. The name of Gjakova was widely accepted by the Balkans scholars including Serbs themselves until 80s when their Greater Serbia propaganda began to spread aggressively under Milosevic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.23 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 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.

Picture from the 1999 war victims memorial

I added the picture of a memorial in the center of the city. It is a really important piece of information for Gjakova because it suffered more than most other big cities in Kosova/Kosovo. Hope you are all OK with it! If not, ca we please discuss this here. BTW the copyright is OK, i have the permission of the author. AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

Đakovica is the title of the article and must therefore appear as the opening word. Rather than entertaining an edit war over over this issue, why not propose moving the page to Gjakova. That is the major issue here as with all Kosovan settlements. Evlekis (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to closer: Please check for sockpuppetry before rendering a verdict here. Many of these accounts have been blocked in the last few days. Dekimasuよ! 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Đakovica → Gjakovë — I will cite WP:MOSKOS

  • On the principle that self-identifying entities are named primarily according to the term that they use for themselves, and since anglicised equivalents do not exist for Kosovo placenames, local official placenames are to be used. In practice this means using Albanian names for Albanian-governed localities and Serbian names for Serbian-governed localities. In each case, articles must start with the predominant local placename followed by the equivalent name in the other language.
  • 95% of Gjakovë's population is Albanian, and Pal Lekaj its mayor is Albanian. The guidelines are very clear and therefore the title of the article should be in Albanian as the majority of the population is Albanian, and it is an Albanian-governed locality. Kreshnik25 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely! Agree There was a rule on Kosovo naming. But now is not valid anymore. A new rule should be strict and coherent. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Also as I saw there was a disagreement in the previous request. Alexsmack said that:
  • "If there is no common English name, then the non-English name most commonly used in English-language sources should be used In practice, this will mean that Serbian geographical names will take precedence".
AlexSmack was wrong. In google search there are 2,100,000 results for Gjakovë, and only 354,000 results for Đakovica and even less results for Dakovica(only 19,000).--Kreshnik25 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely Agree, also WP:MOSKOS#Kosovo_municipalities grants it since there is no anglicised name for it. Thank you. kedadial 13:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely no Disagree, by those arguments:
  • Đakovica 1.240.000 - (+Đakovica -Gjakovë)
  • Gjakovë 582.000 - (-Đakovica +Gjakovë)
  • Third, WP:MOSKOS is no longer relevant, as there are no more consensus on its purpose.
  • Fourth, ALL OTHER Kosovo related names articles use current version as common English name, so there is no unclear English name.
  • Fifth, and final, in ALL other articles Serbian geographical names take precedence, due to the unclear and disputed Kosovo status.
So, until some new and useful Manual of Style is made, it will be fatal to make any unneeded changes. So, in order to avoid conflicts, this change should not be accepted, by any costs.
Tadija (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I moved all your comments together, it looks like spamming otherwise. Tadija search the ENGLISH version of google, not the SERBIAN version google which (lol) you call it Googlle. You can do that by enabling it in preferences. Dakovica is not the English name, but the Serb name. There isn't an English name. All the other stuff about it being "fatal" are not worth commenting. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes "GoogLLE" ain't the standard version of English Google, but the Serb version. You search was wrong. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not up to you to fix those kind of things. Google celebrate 11th birthday, so it is written as Googlle (Goog 11 l). It would be useful to now little bit more before writing here. Tadija (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You still searched with SERBIAN preferences. And Dakovica is not the ENGLISH name. It is the Serbian name, there isn't an English name. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, i didn't. Tadija (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
And Đakovica is waay more English then Gjakovë. Tadija (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion and ain't an argument for anything. See WP:OR for that.
Đakovica IS widely accepted in English, so you cannot use that exception here. I already shown you that. And don't delete discussion. That is unacceptable. Tadija (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Dakovica isn't the English name, there is no English name. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it looks like it is. You can search by Googlle (lol)! That's the best way to find common name. The largest google hits number here is for Đakovica. So Đakovica is common name. But, as Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues, google can be used just as a help, not as a guide. Pagliaccioknows (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not Dakovica, it is Đakovica. I dont write Gjakova, i write Gjakovë. As i told you, Đakovica is undisputed name of the town. Until all of those towns are internationally recognized as independent towns of Kosovo republic, only regular name is this one. Đakovica. Tadija (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
"is undisputed name of the town". That is your personal opinion. It's official and LOCAL name is Gjakovë. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, only really internationally recognized name is still Đakovica. By majority of the world. En.wikipedia is not your local wiki, so that argument is not sufficient. Tadija (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't you read the naming conventions? The local name is Gjakovë, not Dakovica, no one uses Dakovica in the town. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and there is no strict rule yet on naming convention about Kosovo. So whatever you say is irrelevant for Wikipedia, unless you are proposing that. I think all editors interested in Kosovo, should discuss and standardize all the cities and towns with a consensus. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Until consensus is react, moves of this kind are unneeded. Tadija (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Unneeded by whom? Most users until now agree for move. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I for one, am for the move until a consensus is reached. Although, Third opinion could be helpful on this issue.—Anna Comnena (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I no Disagree with the move. This discussion features many relatively new users who don't seem to really understand how wikipedia works. It doesn't matter whether the town's population or mayor are Albanian. That is not how wikipedia works. What matters is common usage in the English-speaking world. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of English-speaking sources refer to the town as Djakovica, so that's what this article's name should be. Virtually none refer to it by its Albanian name. That may be largely due to historical reasons, but sorry, tough luck. So the requested move is based on emotion and national feeling, not wikipedia policy, and as such should be rejected. I also note that yet another proposed move was proposed and rejected in August. This is ridiculous. If it was rejected then, what makes some people think that it will pass now? --Athenean (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Athenian for being part of the discussion. Our view is that Đakovica is not right, maybe Djakovica would be less wrong, but not right per se. To clarify your view on references to Gjakova, I would agree that on percentage there are more references to Djakovica than Gjakova (Google Books: Gjakova 553 - 42%, Djakovica 787 results - 58%). On the other hand the name Djakova (a mixture of two) had 815 results. But on Google Search Gjakova had 1,330,000 results, Djakovica 356,000 results. So Gjakova seems to be more preferable by every standard. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
And since we speak about the "English-speaking" world:

[4] So NO, the move prposal is NOT based on emotion.

  • Djakovica as a name was used during the war, after the war Albanian names are used internationallly.
--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice not to argue to the administrators. I suppose that them knows better then you and me. And you should not attack all of us who disagree with you. Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues, google hits are not a legitimate argument. This is third time on this page that i write this! Will you accept it?
Well that was my reply to another editor who asked for such a thing. To you Tadija, [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština read this]. —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I Agree with Kreshnik & Anna. It's a matter of time the Albanian name to be the only name all over around. What is mattering Tadija is the current population percentage not the medieval one and how that population want to call their city. Boring Serbian nationalistic cries like yours cannot stop that. To understand it: Istanbul had the name of Byzantion for 1.000 years, then the name of Constantinople for another 1,000 years, but the current name of the city is Istanbul because this is how the current inhabitants want to call it. It is exactly the same with countries: People of Vardar Valley wanted to name their country Macedonia: Serbia was the first country recognized them on that name despite "historical objections" and was very right because what is only mattering in names, is current people's will, not the past. History goes on. WP also. --Factuarius (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Athenean: The issue has nothing to do with emotion and national feelings. Just with plain reality. If they are the 95% of the population, and they want to call their city New Tirana they must have the right to do so. If they agreed to call it Gjakovë, what the google statistics has to do with it? What is google? Did every official named city in WP need the statistical acceptance of ..google to be called as such? --Factuarius (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is another reason for that: Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Articles_name_2.
  • If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
  • If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself.
This clears out all the confusion. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Tadija was blocked for 31 hours and put under "ARBMAC"(whatever that means)--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
And Kreshnik25 is blocked indef for being a sock of User:Sarandioti. All his contribs should be rolled back at the discretion at the community, and his "vote" stricken from the record. --Athenean (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, what matters are not raw google hits, but common usage among reliable sources, such as books and peer reviewed journals. A search for "Djakovica" on google books [5] returns 717 hits, and only 489 for "Gjakova" [6]. Simlarly, a search on google scholar returns 639 hits for Djakovica [7] and only 425 for Gjakova [8], many of whom are in the Albanian language (google scholar does not seem to have an English language only option, unlike google books). So, it seems that among reliable English-language sources (not including nationalist web sites like www.illyrians.org), common usage is "Djakovica" rather than "Gjakova", so I think that settles it. --Athenean (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Athenian for participating in this discussion. I believe you are most neutral from as being that you are neither a Kosovar nor a Serb. I made the search myself, you can read id above. Actually it implies that Gjakova and Djakovica do not differ very much. On the other hand, as another user brought forward: Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues, google hits are not a legitimate argument. But, wat is particularly interesting is: If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself. from Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Articles_name_2. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Anna, for being a contributor with whom it is actually possible to have a rational discussion. There is too little of that in wikipedia these days, particularly so in the Balkans. Now, raw google searches are indeed not appropriate, because they contain all kinds of crap. However, Google searches of reliable sources using Google Books and Google Scholar are perfectly legit and in fact are the way to go. Since a clear majority of reliable English language sources refer to the town as Djakovica (see search results above), I would say that Djakovica is common English usage. --Athenean (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens, we have to take it steady and go one at the time. This edit for example[9], ackowledges Uroševac and gives its Albanian equivalent in parentheses. However, the same article makes specific reference to Mitrovica (not Kosovska Mitrovica nor Mitrovicë). There is a lot to consider before making any move. Evlekis (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have cleared out on this page that common usage in the English language is not the best criterion [10]. Also from your perspective Djakovica and Đakovica (give the same results - and Djakovica is more - though not quite - neutral than the former) and Djakova (a mixture) has a lot of results. Nevertheless, WP naming conflicts states:
  • If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
  • If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself
In this case Gjakova (or Gjakovë) takes precedence over Đakovica. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack - reliable English-language sources indicate Đakovica to be the most commonly-used name for this locality, and we should not be using a piecemeal approach for Kosovo names. - Biruitorul Talk 16:24, 18 October 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.

Bulgarian heritage

I don't want to enter the Albanian-Serb edit conflict, I just want to emphasize that this town and its area had its Bulgarian Christian heritage, too. Its pre-1999 history should be added. --Vladko 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please don't delete the ancient Bulgarian name of this town, Dyakovo/Дяково. It is important due to being Dimitar Obshti's birthplace. --Vladko (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
But it does not have any Bulgarian citizens? And it is not related to Bulgaria in any other way? Tadija (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

edit war

Can the IP stop and come here and gain consensus--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

english name

I must notice that the english name is Djakovica, not Đakovica. --Mladifilozof (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The last poll was heavily influenced by user:Pagliaccioknows, a sock of Tadija. There isn't much difference in google scholar between Djakovica and Gjakove, but the title as of now is NOT in English. --Sulmues (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)*
If you look at the official website of Gjakova (that is managed by a local government situated inside Gjakova LG building) you will see that in English and Albanian the name is Gjakova. I believe this is the right variant for the city. But other versions like Mladifilozof, could be better than Đakovica (total POV). —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
After reading the history of the polls I can't understand how people can accept as "english" the word Đakovica. Can somebody tell me which letter of the english alphabet is Đ?! Piasoft (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

About the demographics...

Does this help? It's neutral. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Demographic_history_of_Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.213.78 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I've started challenging a number of statements made in the article. Evlakis then unexplicably removed the tags. This is vandalism and I hope it will not be repeated. Article is quite poor in this regard due to POV pushing and does not stand up to WP policies on research. Remove them only if you can respond to the challenges per Wikipedia policies. --Arianit (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a false claim of WP:VANDALISM and such conduct is not permitted. Your account removed sourced information without addressing what was the issue, and that most definitely is blanking. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Not true I removed veryfiable information. Furthermore, you removed source challenges without explaining them, and that's WP:VANDALISM. You are forcing me to refer the issue you don't stop. --Arianit (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Name, Area etc.

WP:NOTFORUM --NeilN talk to me 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"The name 'Đakovica' is Serbian, which can be easily distinguished by the -vica suffix, which means "little". The Albanian name for the town is Gjakova. It is hard to tell which of the two names influenced the other. There are a number of theories concerning the name of the town: that it derives from the Serbian word đak (pupil) from earlier d(i)jak;[2][3] or that it derives from the Albanian word for "blood" (gjak).[4] Around 1594 or 1595, Hadum Suleiman Aga Hadum Efendia-built mosque[vague], which also bears the name of the donor-sponsors of the facility in town. Hadum Mosque, according to tradition, was built in property of Jakë Vula, a landlord with obviously an Albanian name and surname, hence the name would become the city – Jakovë. Furthermore, it is also plausible to conclude that the initial town name, Jakovë, may in fact represent an Albanian way of pronouncing the otherwise south Slavic (Serbian) genitive case 'Jakova', as in "(zemlja) Jakova", meaning "(the land) of Jakov", as is the case with many other place names in Kosovo, including the word Kosovë itself (the defintite article form being Kosova). which might easily have been one word within a full name - polje kosova (the field of blackbirds)."

= What a pile of nonsense. First of all, Đakovica didn't got the name from "pupil", but from Jakov, who was of Vuk Brankovic, there are coins of Jakov (Named "IAKOV" on Olds Cruch Language, Old Serbian) saved in National Museum of culture in country who actually have one. And the name dates from the years of 1300's. This nonsense you get when illiterate people start to edit topics they don't have knowledge for. In Ottoman list from 1485, Đakovica is mentioned as vilige with 67 housholds, all listed names and lastnames are Serbian (there is no trace of Albanians, therefore, that name from this 2nd proof cannot be Albanian).

2nd, Đakovica is not in country "Kosovo" (there isn't such country on planet Earth as far as i know), but in Serbia in province of Kosovo, UN didn't recognized Kosovo as country, therefore, ti isn't. Where from the time of Ottomans and especially after 1900's large Albanian migrations happened. After Albanian Terrorists (with US and NATO support) started to attack Serbs on more intense level, Serbian police decided to deal with terrorist (not all Albanians), and they did it with ease..., because they did menage Muslim extremist groups (who are by definition easy to menage, because of lack of education and intelligence) very easily without much cost of civilian lifes (except those civilians who "KLA" terrorists used as human sheilds), US togheter with NATO decided to bomb Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), using all sorts of bombs, among them depleted uranium bomb, while most amounts of depleted uranium bombs they did dropped on theritory of Kosovo province in Serbia. Ofc. that was all farse from the begining, they did needed Kosovo as military base, mining and human resources, and that is acomplished.

3rd, Serbs (civilians) greately suffered thanks to "KLA" terrorists who did (and still do) drug, human, and human organ trafficing. Same as before it from other Muslim (and even Chatolic) "neighbors". Because those Islamic extremist are famous for cowardness, they cannot fight with equal or stronger, only on women, old people and kids, or when they are numerically superior in ratio at least "10:1" (because any other ratio, don't garantee success). But all that suffer of Serbian people, and genocide those Albanian terrorists, US/EU with NATO did is nothing compared what waits Albanians (and those who done genocide, incl. US/EU etc.) in years to come. Now edit your page and write whatever you want, your time is out. Bye. Obozedalteima (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obozedalteima (talk • contribs) 05:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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: Moved. Clearly there is more support for the move than in the last debate in 2009. In terms of evaluating the arguments, I found IIO's Google Books results to be convincing. The Ngram viewer offered by AjaxSmack was impressive. Although AjaxSmack argues for keeping the old name, my reading of the Ngram is that Gjakova is in the lead over the sum of the other two names. Opponents of the move often supplied search results that did not limit themselves to English sources or did not screen out pre-2010 references. In at least one case search results were offered that came from google.sr (Serbian Google). A number of editors used arguments that were not compliant with policy. It would have been exhausting to try to screen out all the defective arguments. Luckily, it was unnecessary for me to do this analysis because the overall trend was clear. One editor argued that “such a naming shift should be done Kosovo-wide rather than piecemeal” but I can’t see any policy basis for that view. There seems no alternative to discussing these names individually. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


{{requested move/dated}}

– Google Books results since 2010 show only 69 hits for Ðakovica, 553 results for Gjakova. The Albanian name is also the official name since the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. With regard to disruption at Talk:Uroševac#Requested move 2 editors are requested to read and observe Wikipedia:Canvassing. Google searches should be limited to current English WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no official English name because English language is not official language on Kosovo: Constitution of Kosovo says:"The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian." Not English. Since Yugoslav period there are two official languages on Kosovo, Serbian and Albanian. Official languages remained unchanged. Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Take Kosovo for example. Majority of the people actually there call it Kosova. English language sources most frequently use Kosovo to refer to it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Gjakova refers to itself as Gjakova, not Đakovica, in English. Serbian is not English. English is English. It's quite simple. bobrayner (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The city speaks and refers to itself? FkpCascais (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
http://kk.rks-gov.net/gjakove/default.aspx?lang=en-US yes. This is the official govt website "Welcome to Gjakova". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but its a website of a governament still not recognised by half world... You have Serbian official websites that name the city Đakovica. What we need here are English sources. FkpCascais (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
As previous RMs - please desist from posting searches from pre-independence books and from including German and Italian books. The RM specifically said "Google searches should be limited to current English WP:RS." because being (a) current and (b) English is Wikipedia policy regarding article naming. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, what did you find when you searched for more recent results? bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, what did you find when you searched for more recent results? Policy says that our decisions should be based on recent sources. Other editors found that recent sources prefer Gjakova. bobrayner (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Post 2011 - djakovica -wikipedia - 50 hits : Post 2011 - Gjakova -wikipedia - 38 hits
Post 2012 djakovica -wikipedia - 39 hits : Gjakova -wikipedia - 25 hits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a Serbian search, isn't it? Repeating the same thing, in English - on google.com rather than google.rs - Gjakova gets more results than Djakovica. We all know that this RM should be determined by English-language sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a Serbian search, isn't it? Antidiskriminator, what did you find when you searched for more recent results in English? Policy says that our decisions should be based on recent English sources. Which prefer Gjakova. Why do you keep on returning search results which diverge from the policy-compliant ones? bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Another fallacy. Google in Serbia gives the same results as Google anywhere else. Google in Canada whose search results are presented by Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (diff) would also give the same results without manually exclusion of diacritics. Please stop with disruptive fallacies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Recent Google Books searches yield the opposite result; 553 results for Gjakova and 69 for Ðakovica. Obviously the name has changed. You know that a lot has changed in Kosovo since Serb forces withdrew. What more do you say? bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Links? 23 editor (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Links? LOL! The links are in ictu oculi's presenting statement for proposing the move. The links can be found there. Yes 'Dakovica' might be more common than 'Gjakova' world wide, but I'm only interested in the common name on the English language because this is English language Wikipedia. And in the English language, Gjakova is the most common name! IJA (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
23 editor, have you found time to look at the sources yet? Recent google searches return results which contradict your older sources. Would that influence your !vote? Policy is quite clear that we need to consider recent sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all, Đakovica has 258 hits with the links provided (Google French, which by the way is not the language used on en.wikipedia). You cleverly replaced the letter Đ with the letter D in order to receive less results. 23 editor (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I get the same results for Đakovica and Dakovica, don't understand why you say that. Google doesn't discriminate against diacritics. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo clearly states that: "The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian." (emphasis is mine) --Ev (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If you really believe the government's own views on naming should be respected, why haven't you changed your vote to Gjakova? That's what the government calls the municipality in [mpms.rks-gov.net/News/PublicationNews/tabid/134/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/835/language/en-US/Concludes-with-the-municipality-of-Gjakova-Berza-Employment-Kosovo-2011.aspx English-language media]. Nikswerdhond (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - A majority of place names in Kosovo, with an originally Slavic or Serbian root dating back to the Middle Ages, have undergone a recent "Albanization" on account of the successful rise of Albanian nationalism during the last decade. This is evident for such examples as the original Serbian name Peć which has become "Peja" in official Albanian vocabulary. Even Kosovo itself (originally a Serbian toponym) has become "Kosova" among the Albanians. There is no historic basis to these changes but simply nationalism aspiring to de-emphasize the Serbian history of the region. So why should it be endorsed in English? This Albanization is just as appalling as the attempted Serbianization of Bosnia and Herzegovina involving among other renaming Foča into "Srbinje" ("place of the Serbs") or removing the adjective "Bosanski/Bosanska" from places which the Serbs secured in the war there. Most of these changes have been declared unconstitutional in Bosnia and Herzegovina and reversed since. Simply being in majority or winning a war (in this case due to massive international intervention) does not warrant subsequent revisionism on ethnic grounds. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Red Slash 00:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I have searched Google Scholar to find the following: For "djakovica -gjakova kosovo" 629 [11], since 2009 87 [12], since 2012 28 [13]. For "gjakova -djakovica kosovo" 622 [14], since 2009 232 [15], since 2012 104 [16]. Seems to be a clear case of changed use. --T*U (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: commonest name in contemporary English-language use. Bazonka (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Praxis Icosahedron What has any of that got to do with the common name of the city in the English Language in 2013? IJA (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @ IJA I'm not contesting which names are the most common, it may be those preferred by Albanians for all I know, but I don't understand why English sources have come to embrace so flippantly the Albanian usage? It's not like the world around needs to buy into the Albanian nationalist hype? Using the original Slavic toponyms would be the most reasonable considering those are the original names. The Albanization of Kosovo (which is not a nation state of the Albanians) shouldn't be facilitated by western scholars, but I guess it's merely a continuation of the west's support for the independence of Kosovo (according to Albanians Kosova). Maybe Serbs should start calling London "Londovica" according to Slavic toponymy and have western scholars cite it as such! Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 03:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose What about "Djakovica". It yields 9,730 results on Google Books. --Երևանցի talk 03:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: No, It does not! You need to go to the last page of the list to see the real number of hits. There you find 240 (or thereabout), slightly more than Gjakova. I do, however, completely agree that the page should go to Djakovica if it is not moved to Gjakova. There is no doubt that "Đakovica" is not the common name in English. My search (see above) was for Djakovica and Gjakova. They are very close in Google Books, but in Google Scholar Gjakova is dominating in books after 2009. --T*U (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As 23 editor clearly demonstrated above, Đakovica is the most common name for the town in En.-l. sources. Moving to "Djakovica"? It might be acceptable. It is un-encyclopedic to determine the most common name of a place by separately considering sources published in several recent years. All relevant sources should be considered. Vladimir (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that VVVladimir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
adding the old Serbian Djakovica variant, the 2 Serbian spellings still are only half the Albanian spelling since 2010 in English sources In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, here we have another Oppose !voter who has suddenly arrived at a new topic just when more votes are needed. VVVladimir, doesn't it look suspicious that you've never edited this article before, haven't edited a WP:RM since September 2011, but you were canvassed by an Evlekis sock as recently as November 2013? bobrayner (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No WP policy states that a RM can be edited only by users who edited the article or who recently edited some other RM. I'll keep on checking Category:Requested moves in case that RMs like this one reappear. I don't keep track of any socks, and I don't know what that "Evlekis sock" is. To what was I "canvassed" by it in November 2013, and how is that related to this RM? Your suspicions look to me like paranoid stupidity (at least an extreme case of bad faith), and I noticed that you remove/distort sourced statements in Serbs-related articles (on my watchlist). Such like you shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia. Vladimir (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You were canvassed, on your talkpage, by 217.36.124.203, signing as User:You find the truth painful. Both were blocked as Evlekis-socks. You know that. The last RM on this page was also affected by a WhiteWriter sock. Both WhiteWriter and Evlekis fought to use Serbian names for places in Kosovo, rather than the most common English-language name. The canvassing and sockpuppets are quite obvious; the editors now feigning ignorance of it - like you - are all Oppose voters. You say you'll "keep on checking" RM as though it's a routine thing, but the last you edited was well over two years ago... something doesn't add up. bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
That edit which you linked contains some concerns about WP:ARBMAC and the fact that you were warned by it three times. It has nothing to do with this RM (except in your paranoid imagination). Though Evlekis has been a highly productive editor, I haven't had much interaction with him. I have not followed his sock affairs, and I'm not sure why he posted that on my talk page. Now that I have read some of his posts, and those of his alleged sock puppets, I can say that I mostly agree with what they said about you. (I see that you console yourself that it is because you edit "Balkans articles", but...) Anyway, according to your logic, if an editor ever got a message on his talk page from an alleged sock of Evlekis, that editor should not participate in this and similar RMs? That's silly. I'll keep on checking Category:Requested moves in case that RMs like this one reappear. And it was not shown here that "Gjakova" is the most common name. As I said above, It is un-encyclopedic to determine the most common name of a town by separately considering sources published in several recent years. All relevant sources should be considered. Vladimir (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You were canvassed, on your talkpage, by 217.36.124.203, signing as User:You find the truth painful. Both were blocked as Evlekis-socks. You know that. The last RM on this page was also affected by a WhiteWriter sock. Both WhiteWriter and Evlekis fought to use Serbian names for places in Kosovo, rather than the most common English-language name. The canvassing and sockpuppets are quite obvious; the editors now feigning ignorance of it - like you - are all Oppose voters.
  • @ Praxis Icosahedron On Wikipedia we use place names depending on what is most common in the English Language. As proven above, the most common names in the English Language in Google Books and Google Scholar post 2009. The origins of place name don't count for anything when deciding the title per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, there are Slavic variations of London in the various Slavic languages and I expect on the various Slavic Languages Wikipedias, they will use the Slavic name and not the English name. But on English Wikipedia, we use the most commonly used name in the English language. IJA (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Ev, you have not been active on Wikipedia since 2011. Did somebody contact you offsite about these moves? I see that 23 editor was caught canvassing. Nikswerdhond (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, nobody contacted me. I just happened to look at requested moves today, as I do from time to time. --Ev (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You last commented on a WP:RM in May 2010. You last used article talk in August 2011. Then you appear on some controversial requested moves, where there has already been canvassing for oppose voters and say that you routinely look at requested moves. That is hard to believe. Nikswerdhond (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I used the expression incorrectly (English is not my native tongue). I did not mean to say that I routinely look at requested moves. I do it from time to time (now and then, sometimes, occasionally, irregularly), out of curiosity. I did today.:-) Ev (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Systematic reviews of sources by people like In Ictu Oculi show that Gjakova is now the common name. Ev's results are blatant cherrypicking - only using sources before independence and even using sources in a different language (this is ENGLISH wikipedia and we use the names from ENGLISH sources). Also, Gjakova is the official name. Nikswerdhond (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
a. No cherrypicking took place. Those happened to be all the books I could find that directly address the naming issue, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers. Please, feel free to present any other books that I may have overlooked. — By the way, when accusing someone of "blatant cherrypicking", the least you can do is provide evidence that such unhelpful conduct took place.
b. I did not use the German-language book as my argument to use Đakovica, but simply as a sidenote illustrating that this usage is not unique of the English-speaking population. --Ev (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In Ictu Oculi found hundreds of sources. You chose five, all from before independence, and "die serbische Schreibweise der Leserschaft wohl eher vertraut und geläufing ist." is not English.
There's a difference between sources that use a name (e.g. "He visited Munich") and sources specifically about the naming issue, addressing it directly in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers (e.g. "English-speakers tend to use the name Munich for Bavaria's capital city"). --Ev (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I trust that the closing admin will see through such wordplay. WP:COMMONNAME says: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". You continue to rely on five handpicked sources, one of which isn't even English, all from before Kosovo declared independence; other editors have found far more sources which support a move and which are more recent. bobrayner (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice that the name of this city has not changed. It remains Đakovica in Serbo-Croatian and Gjakova in Albanian, just as it was before 2008 & 1999. — Compare this situation with that of a certain Russian city that first changed its name from Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad, and then to Volgograd. Can you see the difference? --Ev (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Common usage has shifted toward Gjakova in recent years, as the many sources show. If you're now arguing on the basis of official names rather than common usage, we get the same answer - the municipality calls itself Gjakova in English. If your first, second, and third arguments are discredited, will you reconsider your !vote, or will you think up a fourth argument? bobrayner (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually you would also have to include the spelling Djakovica, which is probably the most common English spelling of the Serbian name version. That would bring the sum of the different spellings more or less on par with Gjakova. On the other hand, you would then also have to include Gjakovë, so any way you turn it, the Albanian name seems to be slightly more used in books after 2010 than the Serbian. As I showed above, the same tendency is clearer in Google Scholar. What is completely clear after this discussion, is that the current title is not the most common in English. My vote is still in favour of moving the article to Gjakova, but if not, it will have to move to Djakovica. --T*U (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes we could include lots of versions, such as Gjakove and other cases in Albanian (or Serbian), and we could go on forever, but I have a question for you: Which cause would, for instance, Djakova help, and how long would we have to go with the cases? Djakova would be an incorrect spelling of the Albanian version, but would it help the Serbian name or the Albanian? --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You yourself refuted your position when you wrote: "Google doesn't discriminate against diacritics." You do. Manually, by addition of the quotation marks. Your attempt to misrepresent GBS hit results is disruptive. Please don't continue with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
How am I discriminating against diacritics if I just included them above? I gave you the results of the search with and without, separately and then I added them up. You can foot them yourself, if you want: 13+37=50. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any clear evidence that Gjakova is used more often. Maybe we should decide which method is best to measure this, since it seems several different ones were used above. I did a quick Google books search and got many more results for Djakovica than Gjakova. --Local hero talk 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw very clear evidence that Gjakova is used more often, as presented by user:TU-nor above, which contradicted what 23 editor presented. If you see evidence to the contrary, please present it. In addition, what do you think about the google trend results that I presented above? And your edit is contradicted by the official page of the municipality. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The official name depends on which governing body you consider to have the authority to deem a name 'official'. In Google books I searched each name and went to the last page, as TU-nor stated, and Ðakovica/Djakovica has more than Gjakova. If policy states that recent sources should be taken into account more so than old ones, then we ought to also consider that. But, I think the current name, as well as the Serbo-Croatian versions of most Kosovo placenames, is more recognisable to the rest of the world. --Local hero talk 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Đakovica is official name whatever governing body you consider. Serbian language is official language in Kosovo for both government of Serbia and government of Kosovo. Đakovica is official name of this place for both government of Serbia and government of Kosovo. A small group of editors repeatedly wrote misleading comments which implied that official name of this place has been recently changed and that Đakovica is not official name of this place anymore and that more recent GBS hits give advantage to Gjakova. That is simply not true. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I must be blind then, because the official page of the municipality of Gjakova says Gjakova, and not Đakovica. In the next hour I'll call my oculist. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is a disruptive Appeal to ridicule fallacy. The same official website says Đakovica. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't see that link. It's not opening. Oh, no it opened! And it's a page under construction. Well, even if the municipality completes the page this afternoon still Google Trends and Google Books, as I showed above, show clearly that Gjakova has more hits, which is what matters per WP:NAME --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Another disruptive ridicule fallacy do conceal that you actually refuted your position because the official website does not support renaming because it also says Đakovica.
  • The most frequently used term in English language sources is still Đakovica. I think it will remain like this in future. Just like Kosovo vs. Kosova, regardless of your opinion about trends.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in what you predict. I can show you how the page of the municipality, in English says Gjakova. I showed you how Gjakova gives more hits in Googlebooks and Googletrends, which are what the policy recommends for naming. If you can't see what I showed, then please let me know how I can help you see it better. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No. You showed diacritics only version. No doubt you know that. Correct GBS hits presented show that relation is around 2:1 in favor of Đakovica in both all time and recent period searches. If your opinion about trends is correct it will be obvious somewhere in future. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I showed you above that Gjakova's GBH is 124 whereas the total of Dakovica (with our without diacritics) yields only 50, a number way smaller. And I didn't even consider the other forms in the Albanian language, which would bring the 124 number way higher. Now let's keep this conversation above, and not talk in two different places for the same topic. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On usage alone, the shift from Đakovica/Djakovica to Gjakova is close to tipping definitively toward Gjakova but it's not there yet. (See this Google nGram for a graphic representation of book usage.) An additional reason to wait is that such a naming shift should be done Kosovo-wide rather than piecemeal. —  AjaxSmack  00:59, 17 January 2014 (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."

Usage may be shifting since 1999 and 2008, but from everything I see I don't think we have yet reached a tipping point that invalidates what these books state. Especially so in the case of this city, specifically mentioned in Judah's book. - Regards,--Ev (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Ev Nice to see you for the first time in over a year (29 January 2013 to be exact), back from the dead? Did someone resurrect you via email? I smell WP:MEAT. IJA (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see you too, IJA. It's been a while :-) As I already said to Nikswerdhond, nobody contacted me. I just happened to look at requested moves yesterday, as I do from time to time. - Best, Ev (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You continue to rely on five handpicked sources, one of which isn't even English, all from before Kosovo declared independence; other editors have found far more sources which support a move and which are more recent. bobrayner (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Preserving the old Gjakova article

When I carried out the requested move (see the #3 discussion above) it turned out there was an article at Gjakova under the redirect. To keep that edit history from being lost I moved it to Talk:Gjakova/Old Gjakova article. I've no idea whether any of this is valuable, but a histmerge is unlikely, so it's being kept. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the close of RM 3

In principle they should give the same results, but in reality they do not. They give, however, roughly the same results with no significant bias either way, so I agree that the use of google.rs it not a valid argument. On the other hand, the closure is not made on that assumption alone. On the contrary, it is just listed more or less "by the way" together with several other and stronger arguments, so there is no basis for claiming that the closure is invalid. --T*U (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That mistake was a basis for another more important mistakes "Opponents of the move often supplied search results that did not limit themselves to English sources or did not screen out pre-2010 references.". Although only post 2010 results were clearly presented (diff and give more than double advantage for Đakovica in post 2010 English language sources. The closure is definitively invalid.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Antidiskriminator You claimed to produce sources which only showed English language sources, but when you click on them, they showed books of all languages. I made sure my settings when correct too. Your links from Serbian Google Books produced results of all languages despite claiming otherwise. Serbian Google books produced different results to google books from English language sites, just like French google books produced different results. IJA (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. The extension of google does not affect number of hit results (link to google.rs results) (link to google.com) link to google.fr results. All of them are set to present only English language books.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect
9,700 for google.rs, 11,300 for google.com and 11,200 for google.fr
What is it you're trying to prove exactly? Because you're not doing a very good job of it.
Not to mention that the Serbian version brings up books like [17] [18][19][20] Not useful when we're dealing with ENGLISH Wikipedia. IJA (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
* English language GoogleBooks searches always contain some non-English sources. Google is not perfect, but it is equally imperfect both for Đakovica and Gjakova. (link, link, link, ...)
* In my above comment I presented evidence that rs googlebooks extension used in this discussion did not affect number of hits. Several editors who supported renaming this article used Googlebooks.fr or Googlebooks.ca extension. Googlebooks extension was invalid argument for renaming.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Googlebooks extension was invalid argument for renaming" Well thankfully, no-one has used that as an argument then.
EdJohnston stated "In at least one case search results were offered that came from google.sr (Serbian Google)". He has commented that international versions of google have been used; he has not stated that international versions of google are invalid, he just raised a comment. IJA (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What EdJohnston also stated is much worse: "I found IIO's Google Books results to be convincing." Every editor can easily see what IIO presented as evidence (diff).
Conclusion: The article is renamed based on invalid arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Your arguments are invalid because your links/ evidence didn't produce the results you said they did. It is fairly obvious what the common name is [21] IJA (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to open a request at WP:Move review. In move reviews, it is usual to comment on any errors that you think were made in reading the consensus, and not use the move review thread as a second chance to argue the original proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston, WP:MR says "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." I hope you don't mind me using this talkpage to present my concerns? Does your pointing to WP:MR mean that you do not want to address my concerns that you made mistake:
  1. when believed "IIO's Google Books results to be convincing" although IIO:
    1. searched Dakovica instead of Đakovica (that has 3 times more results than Dakovica and more than two times more results than Gjakova)
    2. did not exclude wikipedia
    3. did not present only the last page
  2. with wrong assumption that GB search I presented shows incorrect results because of sr extension although:
    1. nobody presented any evidence for such opinion
    2. I explained that such assumption is wrong and later, in my above comment presented evidence that such assumption is wrong
    3. many editors who supported renaming this article used Googlebooks.fr or Googlebooks.ca extension
  3. when you stated "Opponents of the move often supplied search results that did not limit themselves to English sources or did not screen out pre-2010 references.". Although only post 2010 results were clearly presented and give more than double advantage for Đakovica in post 2010 English language sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What mistakes? You mean it didn't go in your favour? 444,000 for Đakovica/ 768,000 for Dakovica and 1,750,000 for Gjakova Common Name! IJA (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. Gjakova appears in more English books than Ðakovica on google books from 2008 to 2014.
    2. Gjakova appears in more English journals than Ðakovica on google scholar from 2008 to 2014.
    3. No-one has said that sr extension of google books is invalid so please stop going on about that fallacy which you created out of thin air.
    4. Your search results did not prove that and you have continued to ignore this. Your links do not show what you say they do.
    5. Google Books Ngram viewer shows that Gjakova has overtaken Ðakovica in useage.
    6. Google searches produce more results for Gjakova than Ðakovica.
    7. The name used on the municiplaties's website in English is Gjakova and not Ðakovica.
    8. Major English Language Media and Newspapers from English Speaking countries use Gjakova over Ðakovica.
    9. The article was moved because "the overall trend was clear".
Yawn IJA (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Antidiskriminator, why did you revert my assessment of this article? I followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Assessment quite carefully. Gjakova fails the "mid" importance criterion, mainly because it's not "within Serbia". Obviously this merits a lower level of importance than for WikiProject Kosovo; because Gjakova is in Kosovo, not in Serbia. This seems like deliberately WP:POINTy editing. bobrayner (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a note in the text of the article which text contradicts to what you say. No doubt you know it. Please keep in mind that this talkpage serves to discuss the text of this article, so the right place for the discussion about the individual assessments is Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're pov-pushing on this article, the talkpage seems like an ideal place to discuss the problem. That is what talkpages are for. Of course, if the problem recurs over many different pages, then it's best to discuss the problem in a different namespace. bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting how you didn't assess this article's importance to WikiProject Albania in the same way... --Local hero talk 21:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a non sequiteur. I'm not a member of wikiproject Albania. If you are, perhaps you'd like to assess this article against the scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania/Assessment...?bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you didn't strike me as someone who'd be a member of it. No, I'm not in the Albanian WikiProject.
I actually disagree with your assessment, but, since I haven't written my username in the Members section of WikiProject Serbia either, I guess I'm not warranted. Based on the timing of your edit and your super clever edit summary, it just seemed that you mostly wanted to get a reaction out of Antidiskriminator, who seems to be the chief antagonist of your Kosovo talkpage adventures. That's all, I'll leave now. --Local hero talk 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not take a bait.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

name of the city

it isnt posible that the name of the city comes from serbian language because gjakova was founded in XVI century and in this time kosovo was under the otoman empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedamara (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbs lived there long before XVI century, and Ottoman conquest. Greetings! Tadija (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Serbs are recent arrivals to the city. I fixed city name to reflect that used by by the majority population and Government of Kosovo, UN, OSCE, etc. Arianit (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finally sourced and expanded the name section. You're welcome.--Zoupan 04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


Gjakova → Djakovica –

  • Google search: Đakovica (240), Gjakova (262), Djakovica (371)
  • Google Books: Đakovica (93), Gjakova (201), Djakovica (217)

The previous name request was faulty. Always go to the last page. Note that Đakovica is spelled Djakovica in Romanization (which would mean that Đakovica/Djakovica has almost double hits). Gbooks hits since 1965: "Đakovica" (44), "Gjakova" (70), "Djakovica" (75). Since 2010, I got "Đakovica" (36), "Djakovica" (38), "Gjakova" (41). No huge gap, which was erraneously claimed previously. "Djakovica" has been suggested by some in the discussions, and indeed is the most popular and neutral version. Zoupan 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • On the face of it, oppose Sorry, but in a 93% Albanian town we really should use the Albanian name - and sources in the 2010-2015 quality newspapers like Guardian appear to be doing so too. As regards Djakovica that is the old Gaj's Latin alphabet, here on en.wp we exclusively use modern Serbian, so Đakovica, Đ. Note I am not sure that this use of modern Đ is covered by WikiProject Serbia MOS. Personal names are covered, see WP:SERBIANNAMES, (note the current discussion at the one exception at Talk:Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović) but not clear what the link is for place names WP:SERBIA?, but if anything it would be Đakovica, not Dj. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use of Google search is far from an accurate science, but used properly it can give some good answers, especially in Google Books and Google Scholar. Some points here: 1) Zoupan's point about always going to the last page of the search results is absolutely vital (except for Google Scholar, which shows the correct number even on page 1); 2) Making separate searches for alternative spellings and then adding them is not valid. A text saying "... Đakovica (also written Djakovica) ..." will then be counted twice. Better to use the Boolean operator OR, like Đakovica OR Djakovica; 3) What is most interesting here, is to find the sites using only one of the options, either Đakovica/Djakovica/Dakovica or Gjakova/Gjakovë, ignoring sites that use both versions. That can be achieved by adding -Gjakova etc. in the search string; 4) Finally, to avoid Wikipedia hits it is recommended to use the search string arguments -wikipedia and -llc (the latter refers to books printed directly from Wikipedia). The whole search string for Djakovica will then be
Djakovica OR Dakovica OR Đakovica -wikipedia -llc -Gjakova -Gjakovë
for Gjakova
Gjakova OR Gjakovë -wikipedia -llc -Djakovica -Dakovica -Đakovica
Remembering that the count given by Google on the first result page is not correct, we have to go to the last result page.
Results in Google:
Đakovica/Djakovica/Dakovica 394 hits
Gjakova/Gjakovë 320 hits
Results in Google Books:
Đakovica/Djakovica/Dakovica 168 hits.
Gjakova/Gjakovë 257 hits.
Results in Google Scholar:
Đakovica/Djakovica/Dakovica 1100 hits, of these 195 since 2011.
Gjakova/Gjakovë 1180 hits, of those 397 since 2011.
Finally there is the nGram graph showing the use over time (unfortunately without the possibility of using Boolean operators or diacritics). While Djakovica dominated inthe 1990's and up to 2004, there is from 2006 a clear majority for Gjakova, even over the combined numbers of Djakovica and Dakovica.
Even if a plain Google search gives a small advantage to Djakovica, both Books and Scholar show a clear majority for the current name, especially Google Scholar in the last few years. --T*U (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks like the numbers from the above rationale go for Gjakova. If we stick to the Google hits, we have to do it for all, not only certain articles. Therefore Gjakova goes before Djakovica. --Mondiad (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Nominator's comment: "Gjakova" seems determined. Close.--Zoupan 07:41, 27 November 2015 (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.

Gjakova

Whether is Gjakova name on English or Albanian language? -- MilanKovacevic (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no specific English language name for the city. As per WP:CommonName we use the most commonly used name in the English language for the city. As two RMs have established above, "Gjakova" is the most commonly used name for the city in the English language. IJA (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gjakova. 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) 05:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gjakova. 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) 23:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gjakova/Archive_1&oldid=1249729064"