Talk:Llapusha

Requested move 23 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

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

Prekoruplje 25

Llapusha 27

Llapushë 23

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

Llapusha 26

Prekoruplje 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "shallow statistics" are the use of the two terms in bibliography in the period 2000-2020. It includes every academic paper or book published in that period. That is the definitive criterion in wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The Google Scholar searches presented by Maleschreiber are not restricted to English language sources. These are the results for English language sources (still with a few false hits):
  • "Llapusha" OR "Llapushë" 17 (14 after 2010, 4 after 2016)
  • "Prekoruplje" 10 (7 after 2010, 3 after 2016)

The numbers are so small that they can hardly be used as arguments for WP:COMMONNAME. As for the argument of Sadko about scientific works used in the article, it seems to me that exactly zero sources in the article are in English, so that can definitely not be used as an argument for WP:COMMONNAME. --T*U (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no WP:COMMONNAME in English as this is essentially a microregion outside of the Balkan context and has seen very little coverage. So, the search necessarily can't be about English use only but about the general evolution of terminology in bibliography in the post-2000 situation in all languages. In trying to restrict it to English you have to also take into account the fact that the English results of Prekoruplje are translations of similar articles that have been published in Serbian journals [2]. But I chose not to do that because I would be adding my own arbitrary criteria for inclusion in the overall result, so I used all results since 2000.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seriously? This simultaneous campaign of pressure is already serious evidence of WP:POVPUSH and WP:CFORK that should be considered at the ANI. We should not open a large number of similar RfCs and RMs at short intervals. We really need to wait to find a constructive solution for one case, and only then to start new ones. This is not an atmosphere in which editors can vote rationally.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Modern google scholar searches use the name "Llapusha" more than the current one. Furthermore, the official name of the region is also Llapusha and the vast majority of its citizens refer to this location by this name. N.Hoxha (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.