Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Removing the name "Peć" from the lead section

Please can we compromise? Is there any reason that the page cannot have two names? Peć / Peja? It is very confusing otherwise. A tourist just needs to know that they may see the city called by EITHER name. ````

Some editors (Lindi29[1] and some IPs [2][3][4]) are repeatedly removing the word "Peć" from the lead section and from the infobox, although that is the title of the article. If you think that the article should be renamed, then removing one name from the lead is not a good way to do it. There is an open discussion above about renaming the article. Even if the article gets renamed, alternative names should be listed in the lead section and in the infobox per Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names. Those editors even changed the "otheruses" hatnote from "Pec (disambiguation)" to "Peja (disambiguation)" although the title of the article is "Peć". I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but those edits are clearly contrary to the policies and guidelines. So, I call those editors to stop reverting, and to come her and discuss this issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29, please come here and discuss your edits before reverting. In the last two days, you made three identical edits ([5][6][7]). In those edits, you replaced the word "Peć" with "Peja" in many instances in the article. Some of those are technically OK. For example, you replaced "Peć Bath" with "Peja Bath" because that is the current title of the article, and that's ok. But, you also replaced the caption of the photo "The view of Rugova Mountains from Peć City" to "The view of Rugova Mountains from Peja City". This is not OK. The title of the article is Peć. It is true that we do not have strong consensus about the page title, but we do have a pretty strong consensus about keeping consistency in articles. If the title of the article is "Peć", than the city needs to be called "Peć" throughout the article for consistency. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije the page name is still disputed,and we cant add them without reaching a strong consensus.I didnt replace pec with peja i just rv back how it was beacause it was not disucssed without reaching consensus.Lindi29 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but there is a consensus reached. It is established consensus in Wikipedia to use the same name for the subject throughout the whole article to keep the internal consistency, and to avoid confusion (see: WP:MOS: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article..."). Naming the article "Peć", and then calling the city "Peja" in the article adds to the confusion. So, please do not change words "Peć" in the article to "Peja" as long as the title of the article is "Peć". Vanjagenije (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related requested move

FYI, the district article has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Pejë District -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And few more, for consistency with this main article
Talk:Architecture of Peja
Talk:School for visually impaired in Peja
Talk:Peja Bath
Talk:Demographics of Peja
Talk:Events and festivals in Peja
Talk:Religion in the Peja region
i moved two that didnt have article, if anyone have any question about this, please restore articles, so we can talk about it, that is normal. Someone should add Category:Peja back to redirect, i dont know to add request at that category for discussion page. It was like that, but user Bobrayner removed it without agreement. --13:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastan (talk • contribs)

Dispute resolution

I provided sources that the town name in english is spelld Peja and offical mission use this word in english.

224,000 osce rks.Lindi29 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support a move to Peja on the grounds of all that is said in the abve two headings. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had a Request Move very recently. Lets leave it a year or two before we look into this again. This is only fair. IJA (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a decade or a century even better ? The matter of the fact is very simple , the town is internationally recognized as Peja , and there is a plethora of sources backing this up . Keeping Peć ( which is not even written in latin characters ) is a nationalistic WP:POV pushing , and actually misleading , inaccurate , and totally against the fundamental 'laws' of Wikipedia . This page should be moved asap . As per WP:COMMONNAME , per official Name , and also for the simple reason that the town is recognized internationally ( and also domestically ) as Peja .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources amongst the myriad of sources proving that Peja besides being the official name is also the common name as per WP:COMMONNAME Kosovo By Gail Warrander, Verena Knaus , Page 151 , Historical Dictionary of Kosova By Robert Elsie , Western Balkans , Albanian Literature: A Short History By Robert Elsie Gjirokastra15 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, please explain how Peć is "not written in latin characters"? What characters are those if not latin? And, also, if "Peć" is not latin, than "Gjirokastër" is not latin neither. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For you convenience .... Latin alphabet , it is pretty self obvious actually , the bold part of the name Peć which is in cyrillic alphabet . As for "Gjirokastër" as per wp:otherstuffexists i am not here to give you explanations for the work of other people , but yes it should be written as Gjirokaster as per its official name ( in english ) and also wp:commonname (in english) , the articles being in the English version of Wikipedia Gjirokastra15 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gjirokastra15:For your convenience, there is no "ć" in Cyrillic alphabet. The letter "ć" is part of the Gaj's Latin alphabet, which is, as the name suggests, a form of Latin alphabet. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per your link : Gaj's Latin alphabet is the form of the Latin script used for Serbo-Croatian . To be more precise in order to avoid this game of words , the name should be in English characters , or in standard latin Gjirokastra15 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, there is no policy that says only English language letters should be used. We use Latin script in all its different forms (see: Korçë, Niš, São Paulo, Łódź, Chūō, etc. etc.). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to focus too much on this issue , yet you (on purpose?) ignore the greater one . To be even more precise this script of serbo croatian is used in a city of a country that is neither Serbian nor Croatian . In addition its official name is Peja , and its common name is Peja as well ( which is written in standard latin btw) . You keep going back to wp:otherstuffexists , yet what you fail to understand is that there is a myriad of other towns/villages/counties in a multitude of countries that use the standard latin alphabet as a title of the article . Yet this is not of that great importance , let me repeat what is of importance is that this city's common name is Peja , and its official name is Peja , thus this article should be moved to Peja . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who raised the script issue. As you probably know, Kosovo has two official languages: Albanian and Serbian (see the Constitution of Kosovo). So, the official names of the city are both Peć and Peja/Peje (see [8] and [9]). But, you should also be aware that per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not use official names for titles, but most commonly used names in English sources. And, for the common name, it was discussed at length above in the "#Requested move 15 December 2014" section. You can see clearly that it was not proved that "Peja" is the most commonly used name in English sources. So, unless you have some new evidence, there is no sense to bother other users with an issue that was closed just a month ago. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet 90 % plus of the population is of Albanian ethnicity , Albanian being the official language and Serbian a minority one . Second you have misunderstood the whole situation here , YOU have to prove that Peja is NOT the common name and not the other way around , simply because Peja is the official name . In conclusion , there is a plethora of new evidence .... in fact i just brought a very small fraction of the percentage of authority sources showing Peja ... as being Peja , yet you seem to have missed it . Thus this is an ongoing topic , which in case of failure to be resolved will be forwarded to A.N.I . As you can see there is not only me objecting the outcome , but 3 other users which were not a part of that Request move . P.S The script issue was only one of the issues and in fact the one with the smallest value , and it still is an issue because of the concers that have been repeatedly raised above...Gjirokastra15 (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Peć. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peja&oldid=703899630

Leave a Reply