Talk:Malisheva/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The Name

If sombody have UN acceptit evidence that the name of the city is not Malishevë but is Mališevo, then this articel must be unter the name: Malishevë and the page named "Mališevo" must be redirect. My evidence you kann see in UNMIK oficiale page. Plase dont talk withaot UN acceptit evidence. --Hipi Zhdripi 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It can be very much disputed as to how relevant your request is. Given the special circumstances in the Kosovo conflict, different metrics for the determination of the proper name should be used. The vast majority of the Kosovan population identifies as Albanian. According to this page 99.8% of inhabitants of this town identify as Albanians and themselves use the Albanian version of the name. Showing the Serbian name first, in my view, only tries to enforce the legitimacy of Serbian rule over Kosovo. Historically it was a Serbian-speaking country and the use of the Serbian version first might have been warranted. (Although, personally, I think in an town of one ethnic majority, that name should come first.) It is not my intent to start a political discussion, but I firmly believe showing the Serbian name of the town first only serves political purposes. As such, the appropriate name of the town is the one its inhabitants use. Does Wikipedia serve the people or legal documents? Opinions are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diell95 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 June 2020 (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 presented 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 21:00, 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 05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mališevo Massacre

I re-added the sources and sentences about the Mališevo Massacre. It was vandlized some time ago by someone that doesn't want to show that war crimes were committed on all sides in the war. Whoever did it, please don't do it again. I added the category War crimes because Mališevo Massacre is one of the redirects--Thomas.macmillan 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo and Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 1 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: No move. Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mališevo → Malisheve – WP:COMMONNAME Resnjari (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mališevo-->Malisheve- official name [1] Name of the city in English is Malisheve. Also majority of the population calls it Malisheve and not Mališevo. Google searches for Malisheve and mališevo produce a similar account of results. Mališevo is only the official name in Serbian language whereas Malisheve is the official name in English language and albania language.GBS shows that word 'mališevo' appeared more times in 166 than word Malisheve' did in 175 books; how ever 'malisheve' appeared in more books (175)[2] Than 'mališevo' (166)[3] Therefore proving that 'malisheve' is the common name because it appeared in more books then 'mališevo'. The fact that 'malisheve' appeared in more books the 'mališevo' show that 'malisheve' is more widely news. Also as shown below 'malisheve' get more hits then 'mališevo' in google scholar and it was used more journals. 'Malisheve' was used in (622)[4] Whereas 'mališevo' was used in (148)[5] 'Malisheve' is the most WP:COMMONNAME in the English language and it is the official name in the English language. Admin reviewing this please take into account the WP:CANVASSING on wikiproject:serbia(shown below) and please take into account That severals of those opposed are Serbs/ native speakers of the Serbian language; therefore are likely opposed to this WP:RM due to personal interest.Internationel00 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Internationel00—Confirmed sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kadribistrica

Oppose. Those results are misleading. In both Google Books and Google Scholar searches, the nominator searched for "Malisheva" instead of "Malisheve" (the proposed title). That gives many false positive results because of the large number of Russian women with the last name Malisheva. Google Ngram viewer clearly shows that Mališevo is more common than Malisheve [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
U can't use ngram from 1980 to 2008 it doesn't make any sense. Of course it shows mališevo that's what the town was known in Yugoslavia and after Serbia until it became a own state in 2008, why don't you make Google ngram from 2008 and forward and se what will happens? And the thing is that there are no Serbs in mališevo as you can see in the articel. So I don't know why this articel have a Serbian name. There are 65,000 Albanians in mališevo and no Serbs.Internationel00 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)—Confirmed sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kadribistrica
Google Ngram Viewer is limited to 2008, so you can't search for books written after 2008. The article does not have Serbian title, it has English title as per WP:COMMONNAME. It is clear that Mališevo (or Malisevo, for sources that do not use diacritics) is the most common English name. Google Books search returns 171 results for "Mliševo" and 73 results for "Malisheve". Google News Search similarly returns 42 results for "Mališevo" and 10 results for "Malisheve". Your search results are wrong because you searched for "Malisheva" instead of "Malisheve". Whether there are Serbs in Mališevo or not is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia uses the name that is most commonly used in sources, no matter if there are Serbs in the town or not. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Support. However, the proposal should not be for Malisheve but Malishevë, like in article on Korçë. The term using the Albanian schwa letter ë returns in a google search over 339,000 [2] results for the town in Kosovo. In Albanian, the name Malishevë pertains to a locality and its municipality in Kosovo and the subsequent examination of the pages that come up in the google search allude to this when contents are analysed. In contrast to the form Mališevo which in a google search returns only 68,100 results [3] and also the form Malisevo, the s without diacritics with once again 68,100 [4] results. Malishevë is clearly the most common name in use for the town and its municipality. Also regarding when one does a Google Ngram search, the form Malisevo without diacritics shows little use until the 1990s with a sharp spike during the Kosovo crisis years of 1999 and then a sharp decline [5]. It must also be noted that a Google Ngram search does not take into account the Serbian š[6] or the Albanian ë[7] and as such nominal results would need to taken with caution, as it omits common spellings of the place which mainly contain these letters used in publications that are not Serbian or Albanian.Resnjari (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Faulty Google search hits review.--Zoupan 02:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - For several reasons:

  • 1). Flawed google books search.
  • 2). Google books favours Mališevo/Malisevo over Malisheve/Malishevë/Malisheva, both historically and since Kosovo's independence.
  • 3). The nominator has nicked my argument from a previous RM and just changed the place names, the majority of the nominator's argument isn't relevant to this particular RM.
  • 4). The correct Albanian version of the name is Malishevë not Malisheve. Missing out/ omitting diacritics in place names is just plain lazy, regardless if they're Albanian or Serbo-Croatian diacritics (with the exception of Pristina).
  • 5). The nominator canvassed me (check my talk page for further details) and then mentions canvassing in their argument for some bizarre reason (see number 3 as to why the nominator most likely did that).
  • 6). If it was the common name, don't you think I would have done an RM already?

All in all, there is no evidence to suggest that "Malisheve" is the common name for the place in the English language. Regards IJA (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Relisting Comment: Notifying a WikiProject of a requested move is not CANVASSING, however failure to notify ALL relevant projects as was done here does stink a little. I've notified the Kosovo Project of this RM which should have been done at the beginning. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mike Cline: And that is why you notified just one WikiProject? (Wikiproject Serbia is not notified at all). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject Serbia Wikipedia:WikiProject_Serbia was notified via Article Alerts on Nov 1, 2015. See project front page. I didn't think a second notice was necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Cline: You are right. Sorry, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - As user IJA said, this request is wrong on several levels, and user who started it is yet another sockpuppet. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The nominator is now blocked as a sockpuppet of blocked user. I think this RM can now be closed, as it was started in violation of the block. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm probably recused from closing this, but I would suggest it should be closed – there is clearly no consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://kk.rks-gov.net/malisheve/default.aspx?lang=en-US
  2. ^ https://www.google.se/search?q=malisheva&biw=414&bih=696&tbm=bks&prmd=imvn&ei=fhc1VqKiL6f-ygP42ajgDA&start=160&sa=N&dpr=3
  3. ^ https://www.google.se/search?q=mali%C5%A1evo&safe=active&biw=414&bih=696&tbm=bks&prmd=mivn&ei=xBY1Vq-0CqOeygPY-LjQCg&start=150&sa=N&dpr=3
  4. ^ https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=malisheva&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
  5. ^ https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=mali%C5%A1evo&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Mališevo. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. With the comments evenly split between the current name and the proposed name, with accusations of canvassing on both sides, there's simply no way to declare a consensus here. – bradv🍁 05:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mališevo → Malisheva – This move is requested in coordination with WP:Common Name and WP:Place#Multiple_local_names.

Background: Since Kosovo has two official languages (Albanian and Serbian) every place in Kosovo has an Albanian and a Serbian name. We have no official name and no name where both languages are commonly included like Biel/Bienne. Based on the policies presented above we have to choose either the Albanian or the Serbian name based on common usage in English sources. Until now we have the Serbian version which should be changed. Some search engine results:

Google Books Ngram Viewer 2008-2019:

  • [8] Here we can see that Malisheva was always more used than Mališevo. After 2016 we can also see that Malisheva even took over Malisevo without the "š".

Google search analysis:

  • [9] 445,000 results for Malisheva +Kosovo -Wikipedia
  • [10] 50,500 results for Malisevo +Kosovo -Wikipedia
  • [11] 200,000 results Mališevo +Kosovo -Wikipedia

Google scholar 2015-2019:

  • [12] 73 results for Malisheva Kosovo
  • [13] 21 results for Malisevo Kosovo
  • [14] 21 results for Mališevo Kosovo

Conclusion: The search engine results clearly show us that Malisheva is the common English name.

Some side facts:

  • The population of Kosovo is of 92 % Albanian and 4 % Serbian ethnicity.
  • The municipality of Malisheva (according to the census of 2011) [15] has a poulation of 54,631 of which 54,501 (99,8 %) decleared themselves as Albanians and literally not a single person decleared himself a Serb. Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. As I explained many times, the number of "results" in Google search is always wrong unless you scroll to the last page of the results. Only then you can see the actual number of hits. So, there are 78 hits for "Malisheva" Kosovo -wikipedia, 93 hits for "Malisevo" Kosovo -wikipedia and 8 hits for "Mališevo" Kosovo -wikipedia. This shows that Mališevo/Malisevo is more common in English sources then Malisheva. Also, as I explained above in the previous move succession, the Google Books Ngram is misleading becaouse of the inclusion of the Russian/Ukrainian female last name "Malisheva". Ukrainian Wikipedia, for expample has five people with that last name (see uk:Малишева). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: It is undoubtedly that the Albanian version (definite or indefinite) took over. You responded with Ngram beeing misleading because of an Ukrainian name even though the Ukrainian names you linked are like complete nonames in English media. What shows more that Ngram is not misleading but clearly talks about the city in Kosovo is the peak in 1999 (Kosovo War when Malishevë was an UÇK stronghold and a big topic) and the constant decrease of usage after 2008 (decleration of independence of Kosovo) after which nobody would use the Serbian version. The romanization of Малишева would even be Mališeva and not Malisheva. So no misleading Ngram result.Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It's actually not per WP:Common Name and a random search results are not as important as you might think. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sadko: well according to WP:Place#Multiple_local_names. random search results are important. Also the presented links were definitely not random and a big part of what we should take as an source.Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Support we should use the prevalent name in academia. Malishevë (the indefinite variant of Malisheva has a query result of 74 on Google Scholar [16]. That as a total gives a 147 to 42 result, more than a 3/1 ration between the proposed and the current version. Also, as in other toponyms in Kosovo like Gjakova, wikipedia should move on with the times. This place is not called Mališevo in most of the recently (last 10-15 years) published papers. The simple google search for Malishevë gives 108 total results, so that ends any point of support for Mališevo on the basis of google search. @Crazydude1912: as the results indicate, Malishevë is the top result - so maybe you should start a new move discussion with that as the proposed change.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maleschreiber: Hello there, i will have a look on this.Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that the article will be moved then because really there is no reason for this to remain under Mališevo. Nobody uses it locally and very few use it internationally. You should also search for the most used name in big publishers like Springer (9 for Malishevë, 0 for Mališevo, Malisheva, Kosovo)--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose "Malisevo Kosovo -wikipedia" [17] and "Malisheve Kosovo -wikipedia" [18] return about 200 hits each on Google Books. Since the names occur roughly equally in frequency, status quo stays, there is no overwhelming case to move the page. The name is also clearly Serbian in origin, and that carries weight too. Khirurg (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg: Misleading search results. Spelling the name without the umlauts makes no sense. The search results You made show a big use until 1999. Do some recent searches from 2015 to 2019 for example in which the Serbian name has no chance at all or come back when You got better arguments.Crazydude1912 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Like Vanjagenije said, the serach results are influeced by the last name Malisheva. Also, in this interpretation, the results of bilingual and Cyrillic names are ignored. The population of Kosovo is of 92 % Albanian and 4 % Serbian ethnicity. - It is wrong to cite this as an argument, especially because the current demographic picture is the result of the ethnic cleansing campaign.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@WEBDuB: I clearly showed that the search results are absolutely not influenced by the Ukrainian name because the Ukrainian name would be spelled romanized as Mališeva and not Malisheva. If You think the Ukrainian name does have an affect, than You should be able to prove it. If not it's just a statement without weight. The linked persons by Vanjagenije are all nonames in English media and non of them have WP articles in other languages beside Ukrainian or Russian. You simply just ignored my response for Vanjagenije and all the presented facts in support of my proposition so far. Crazydude1912 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crazydude1912: As for your comment because the Ukrainian name would be spelled romanized as Mališeva and not Malisheva, here are just a few counterexamples: T.A. Malisheva, Julia Malisheva, Kristina Malisheva, Olga Malisheva, Nara Malisheva. Need more? --T*U (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Addition: All three books from 2019 in the nGram/Google Books search are false positives: "Mrs. Malisheva", "N.A. Malisheva", "D.P. Malisheva". --T*U (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Great work @TU-nor: for presenting some individual examples. Now show me please how the key moments of Malisheva (Ngram) (1999,2008) stand in connection with the Ukrainian name Malisheva and why the usage heavily increased/decreased in those periods. Also the Ukrainian argument clearly doesen't work for simple google results since we filtered them out and the Albanian version is clearly more used. Crazydude1912 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crazydude1912: (By the way, your ping did not work. It only works if you save the correct ping at the same time as your signature. If you make a correction to the ping, you will have to re-sign the message.
I am not quite sure I understand what you ask me to show you, but I can expand on my findings: I have checked all 23 books containing "Malisheva" published from 2008 to 2019. Of these 23, fourteen hits are various persons named Malisheva, one hit is about the Malisheva mine in Ural and eight are about the Kosovo town. Those eight books are published in 2009, 2010 (2x), 2011 (2x), 2014, 2015, 2016. In the same period there are nine hits for "Mališevo" including the diacritic: 2008 (2x), 2009, 2010 (2x), 2011, 2013, 2014 (2x). I have also found seven hits for "Malishevë" and sixteen for "Malisevo" without the diacritic, plus five for "Malishevo". Some of them will of course use more than one name, as in "Malishevë/Mališevo". Make whatever you want of it. My point was that the nGram search you made is valueless. --T*U (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor: Thank You for Your contributions so far. You have put Your nickname on pupose for me to fail to ping it ;) I was just going through the Google Books results and saw that Malisheva is at least mentioned nine times. There are probably more books but Google simply doesn't allow me to have a look into the books. Comparing to Mališevo i have to admit that there is no clear result. Clear is that most books reffer to the war in 1999 a time when Mališevo was mainly used by official authorities. If we look at more present books (2015-2020) the results are quite clear. Four results for Malisheva, five results for Malishevë, three for Malisevo and not a single one for Mališevo. The further we move away from the time when Kosovo was a part of Serbia the Albanian version seems to takes over as we can see here.Crazydude1912 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crazydude1912: I wonder how you can get zero results for Mališevo. I will give my results with links, only English-language books published after 1 Jan 2015. Quote marks make sure that the search goes for the exact spelling. I have also noticed that some books use the forms "Malisheve" and "Malishevo", so I will include those, too.
One book shows up in two of the searches, so there are 12 unique hits.
No overlap here, so there are 12 unique hits.
These searches are not foolproof. I have found books including "Mališevo" and books including "Malisevo" that does not show up in the searches, and there will probably be examples going the other way. But there is certainly no clear tendency towards the Albanian names even after 2015. --T*U (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor: I still don't get it why there were no results shown for Mališevo in my latest search. Probably screwed something up. What I'm more curious of is that in your search results for "Malishevo" there was a hit for a book named "The Moravian Night: A Story" which refers to a settlement named Malisheva that was earlier known as Malishevo. The book mentioned "Malisheva" in the same sentence. So basically this book should be a hit if we search for "Malisheva" However this didn't happen.Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crazydude1912: Yes, that is exactly what I predicted just above. I found "Mališevo" mentioned in this book (see here) and in this book (see here) without showing up in the Mališevo search, and I found "Malisevo" beside "Malisheve" in both of the CIA editions without showing up in that search. As I said, these searches are not foolproof. But they show that your argument based on nGram/Google Books is useless, don't you think? --T*U (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor: Shouldn't we treat "Malisevo" also as an overlap since it's the same author, the same topic and the same copy and pasted part in all three published books? I'm not denying Your question.Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crazydude1912: By all means, just as we could do with the two CIA editions in this search.. It does not change the conclusion. --T*U (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor: There is still a lot of value that we can give these Google Books result. Looking through the hits i noticed that there are eight books which use both the Albanian and the Serbian version. We can use this information to have a a look and a direct comparison of how both names are treated in English sources/books. Seven books use the Albanian version as the dominant/first one. One book uses the Serbian one.
Respectively the fourth book from
uses The Serbian Version as the dominant version.Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Crazydude1912: Your 7–1 count is a gross misrepresentation of the search results. Firstly, four of the seven were already counted only in the "Malisheva"/"Malishevë"/"Malisheve" numbers and not in the "Mališevo"/"Malishevo"/"Malisevo" numbers (Bradt, IBP, CIA1 and CIA2). Furthermore, in this book, the village is shown on two maps. On page 234 are used the names Malisheve and Maisevo(!), on page 201 it is Mališevo only. How that can be construed as "Albanian dominant version" is a mystery. Also, being placed in left or right column in one single mention (like here) or before or after a slash can hardly be an argument for "dominant version". Then we are deep into WP:OR.
The bottom line stands: Google Books does not show any tendency towards the Albanian name even after 2015. --T*U (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor:I was actually just looking for how the two versions if mentioned together are treated by English books and was comparing the usage of the two versions only if used under the same circumstances. It has nothing to do with where they were already counted and where not. Doesn't it make You curious that the Albanian version is beside one book always used first. Please lets not act as if dominant is a complete wrong term for this case. There are probably better words that we could use but this was the term i thought in the first place. I'm not sure why You consider me as false interpretating the results. If English books tend to use the Albanian version first and the Serbian version second than we should also do it. What do You think about that? Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I explained the misreprentatition for five of the seven "Albanian dominant versions". And, no thanks, I will not go deeper into WP:OR now. I have said my piece. --T*U (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support- as per Crazydude1912's valid points.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment Looking on the opinions given so far I can't see any counter arguments against the fact that in the 2011 census 99,8 % of the municipality's population refferd themselve as Albanians and literally not a single person decleared himself a Serb. It seems to be incredible that we still use a name for a city that is not preferred by anyone in the whole municipality, and is somehow an insult for 99,8 % of the local population and authorities. Looking on several RM's for this kind of topics done so far this was one of the more important points recognized by administrators and other neutral editors who gave this point a big value if there was no common English name for this place.Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maleschreiber: Another flawed search: Of the 9 hits here, 6 are different chapters from the same book by the same author (Cocozzelli) and 2 others the same for another author (Drançolli). That means 3 unique hits. You also conveniently have ignored
  • Malishevo 5 hits, of which 3 in English
  • Malisevo 9 hits, of which 4 in English, with two hits in same book, leaving 3 unique hits
To be fair, we also should include "Malisheve":
  • Malisheve 1 hit that is not already covered in the "Malishevë" search
This gives us
  • Malisheva/Malishevë/Malisheve: 2+3+1=6 unique hits in English
  • Mališevo/Malishevo/Malisevo: 0+3+3=6 unique hits in English
As an aside, the Springer search does not find any hits for Mališevo even if that form is present in at least one of the books in the "Malisevo" search. This may be because of the "š" not being implemented in the search engine. It does not really matter, though, since the "Malisevo" search also finds these versions, just like the "Malisheve" search also finds Malishevë. The conclusion is still sound. --T*U (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Malisevo parts are also from sources that mostly use Malisheva/evë - but mention Malisevo as a reference point too. And they also include chapters from the same book, so there are less Malisevo results.
  • Side comment about results in journalism:
    • BalkanInsight/BIRN the largest regional agency: Malishevë/Malisheva/Malisheve: 48, Malisevo/Mališevo 30 (the search bar is a frame, so I can't link it, use the website: https://balkaninsight.com/ ) --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maleschreiber: You say about my Malisevo/Springer search that the Malisevo parts are also from sources that mostly use Malisheva/evë. There are only two books that turn up in both sets of searches, Pavković and Cocozzelli. In Pavković the name only shows up on a map (page 186), showing both names Mališevo and Malishevë (in that order). Cocozzelli&Chung uses consistently "Malishevë/Malisevo" throughout the book, except in Chapter 4, where they start the chapter by introducing "Skenderaj/Srbica" and "Malishevë/Malisevo" as the two villages to be discussed in the chapter, followed by a note: "Skenderaj and Malishevë are the Albanian spellings. Srbica and Malisevo are the Serbian spellings. For the sake of convenience, and because these were the names in common use among locals and expatriots while I was conducting my research, I use the Albanian spellings. See the Introduction for a more complete discussion of the use of Serbian and Albanian place names." I have hardly seen a more explicit explanation from authors about not giving priority to one spelling. This is certainly more than mention Malisevo as a reference point.
You also say that they also include chapters from the same book, so there are less Malisevo results. This is false, since I had already subtracted the single double hit (Cocozzelli): 9 hits, of which 4 in English, with two hits in same book, leaving 3 unique hits.
The Springer search results are still standing at 6-6, or 6-53⁄4 if you insist. --T*U (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per points of Crazydude and MS Alltan (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards oppose. I have been a bit hung-up in details about Google searches, so I have more or less forgotten to give my !vote. Actually, I do not care very much about whether the article is called one or the other. Both names of the village are valid, and as long as the other name versions are properly redirected, people will find it. I am, however, fed up with improper use of flawed Google searches, and especially with their interpretation, but I am sorry to say that in my quest for "clean" searches, I have contributed to making the issue even more focussed on Google. As this RfC has been presented, I am not convinced that there has been any real change towards use of the Albanian name of the village, so for the time being I will oppose the change. --T*U (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@TU-nor: See the change towards the use of the Albanian version on Google Scholar
1999-2014
85 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo
109 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo
109 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo
2015-today
81 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo
21 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo
21 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Google serch results have little merit, the current name is stable, common and well-known.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per great points raised by Vanjagenije and WEBDuB, I honestly do not see that the article would get better with the proposed change. --Ранко Николић (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons pointed out by Crazydude. N.Hoxha (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Sadko. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The evidence presented by Vanjagenije proves that the current title is WP:COMMONAME.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comparison
If we check on Google news which includes only recently happening events, we get this results in English news:
30 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo of which 3 hits use double names. Malisheva/Malisevo was used twice and Malisheva/Malishevo once.
0 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo but six English hits for Malisevo.
6 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo of which 3 hits use the double name Malisheva/Malisevo (notice the Albanian version first) Crazydude1912 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I see the Anti-Kosovo Brigade (TM) is out in full force. Closer, do not be deceived by numbers, but arguments. Red Slash 03:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"Anti-Kosovo Brigade" is WP:ASPERSIONS and not an argument. --Griboski (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A city in Kosovo. We must respect an official name. Mikola22 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Since online results are "equal", then the offical name should be the name of the article. Not all people who come to search the settlement on Wikipedia will do online research on other websites before. Hence in this case the offical name has priority. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
What is the official name? The town is located in the disputed territory, while Albanian and Serbian languages ​​are official in both the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. The United Nations administration usually uses bilingual names.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
UNMIK hasn't been around since 2008. The reality on the ground as it is and is recognized by almost all of the English-speaking is that of Malishevë/Malisheva (official site of the municipality), regardless of whether someone from Serbia accepts Kosovo's independece or not - if you want to engage with the municipal authorities in this town, you will be referring to Malishevë/Malisheva. Wikipedia needs to reflect the reality on the ground.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
WEBDuB, we are not here to settle how the UN organizations call it. The disputed territory is a country, and has its official names. The town is a small one, and those few English speakers who would take the time to search it on Wikipedia are no doubt mostly either its citizens who live or work abroad or tourists. Its citizens abroad are clearly almost all Albanians, so they use the Albanian name Malisheva. Tourists who want to visit Kosovo and seek to get information and guide on Kosovo, will need to find it in line with the names used by the country that controls the territory and local people, not by a country that lost control over the town decades ago. Facts on the ground and daily reality shape how ordinary people, Wikipedia's moat loyal readers, search around. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not a debate on the Kosovo disputed status, nor is Wikipedia a tourist promotion. I just answered the argument about the official name. That disputed territory (country, if you wsh) has official names in two languages. The UN is one of the most relevant international organizations and it has been in Kosovo for a long time. Their administration are neutral on this issue. Also, the demographic picture is the result of ethnic cleansing, it is not polite to cite “reality on the ground” as an argument. --WEBDuB (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@WEBDuB: Even if we refer to how UNMIK calls this town we can see that they always use the Albanian name first [19].
(In Malisheva, police were present in health house and police headquarters.) Information from 19 Oct 1998, at that time "Primary country Serbia"[20] Mikola22 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
( 1999 5 March: Elife Istref Gashi (3) suffered a heart attack due to the noise of the flat flight plane over Vërmica (Malisheva)). Information from Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms - PHDN [21] Mikola22 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(The police questioned Fetah Rudi, who was in a wheelchair after being wounded in an ambush near Malisheva) Information from Serbian journalist(Author: Jelena L. Petković 30. 04. 2018.)[22] Mikola22 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
WEBDuB This settlement which now is a town was once a small village. In probably the first Yugoslav census to properly include the village, it was was 99.2% Albanian and had around 640 inhabitants[23]. So, when you casually put forward the idea "that the demographic picture is the result of ethnic cleansing" you are being extremely disruptive because you are perpetuating a myth that doesn't belong in the 21st century. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support The GB and the similar do not bring a clear conclusion. Someone in the "real world" ie not based on online search will be more likely to search the place by its official name, Malisheva. Sadsadas (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Vanjagenije explained, also not per WP:Common Name. Peervalaa (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately is every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. As a matter of fact, only two editors (Ortizesp and Red Slash) that have participated in this discussion so far, are not Balkan-focused. More input from non-Balkan editors would be welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - as per arguments made above. Krelana (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by @Crazydude1912. – Βατο (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As Vanjagenije correctly noticed: the nominator is using google search engine in a completely wrong way to support his POV.Alexikoua (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No, CD1912's results from Google Scholar were very clear about current use and how Malisheva is the dominant form in bibliography.
2015-today
81 hits for Malisheva, Kosovo
21 hits for Mališevo, Kosovo
21 hits for Malisevo, Kosovo --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Google Books clarification As i already mentioned the town is known as an UÇK stronghold in the 90s by its Serbian name, used until 1999 and shortly after the war. Just like the city of Volgograd is in bibliography known as Stalingrad. If we look at the Google Books results this Volgograd/Stalingrad situation seems to be more or less the case here. Most of the sources which use the Serbian version refer to the time when it was known officially by the Serbian name (98,99,00). I tried to get a result from the books released from 2015-today, counted all hits known so far which refer to the town (no Ukrainian name), are not biased in any form and are refering to the current situation of the town and not the one from the 90s. This is the result i get:
10 hits for the Albanian version 1 23 45678 9 and 10 which is basically addressing the subject of the debate we're holding here stating earlier called Malishevo, but meanwhile, under the reorganisation, Malisheva.
7 hits for the Serbian version 12 and the hits that were not recognised as hits by Google Books pointed out by TU-nor 34 also from 56 7 notice always used second after the Albanian version.
This is the best we can get out of Google Books. Crazydude1912 (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding 8 (in your listings only included in Albanian list), 9, 10. Apart from that, your criteria for counting / not counting hits based on the theme of the books is your opinion and WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Your 9 and 10 are from 2001 and written by Serbian authors who call the country Kosovo and Metohija. Per WP:Common Name Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations which i excluded here, since random hits on google books atleast in this case show nothing. You can make whatever You want out of this.Crazydude1912 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, a new WP:OR criterion: Serbian authors... of course have to be removed. Good grief! --T*U (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Not just Serbian authors who call the country "Kosovo and Metohija" but also Albanian authors like for example in this book here were removed to provide a neutral result. You can accuse me of WP:OR. But look for instance at the last RM on the Peja/Pec article in 2019 which was not moved because of potential biases from authors even though the hits were clearly on the Albanian side. That's actually what i tried to exclude here. Lets leave it to an administrator whether or not the analysis i have presented can be taken into account. Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WEBDuB. I don't think it makes sense to repeat the same thing anymore. @Maleschreiber: Before disputing ethnic cleansing, please read this section. Thank you. Again, I think the arguments presented are weak. --Aca (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aca: Maleschreiber was quite clear about non existing ethnic cleansing campaigns in Malisheva. In probably the first Yugoslav census to properly include the village, it was was 99.2% Albanian and had around 640 inhabitants[24]. Crazydude1912 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note Sorry to say this, but as one can see from their editing history, Aca rarely edits enwiki. They come from srwiki out of the blue once in a while to support with "votes" or reverts user Sadko. If one removes all Balkan-focused editors, the move is supported by everyone else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    And the same work also for certain editors from sq wiki who from time to time invite offwiki other albanian editors in order to use wikipedia as their political propaganda tool. Therefor this attempts of changing commonname of articles into albanian ones with attempts to present those as english. Not going to pass this time... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note Most admins and bureaucrats from sr.wiki follow up WikiProject Serbia here and requested moves are fully listed there. Now - you know. What we have above is yet another tactic which has the goal to sway or influence closing admin with the idea that the voting and arguments given from people who are opposed are somehow "corrupt" and that they mean less. That is just another form of blunt discrimination and manipulation in order to achieve the wanted result, without little care for the general behaviour and civility, which also includes making blind accusations about other senior editors and the nature of their editing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The move is also supported if the closing admin only removes from the end picture all accounts with few edits apart from !votes in 2020. It's revealing of the situation that so many accounts with the same consecutive !votes in the same discussions/AfD have appeared in the last days. It highlights a greater need: in future discussions, strict admin oversight will be needed to prevent such disruption. The same problem of canvassing from sr wiki has been noted by an admin at an AfD I started a few days ago [25], so this might help the closing admin get a clearer picture of the widespread vote stacking across wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
In that case, the admins should equally deal with canvassing and the violation of policies and by other groups of editors. Many are focused only on nationalist and anti-Serbian WP:POVPUSH and WP:CFORK. Moreover, I've experienced personal insults, disclosure of private information and long-term abuse, so no one reacted despite the reporting. Some things are obviously pretentiously ignored. That is why I beg everyone to stop creating such an atmosphere of tension and division. Also, we should not open a large number of similar RfCs and RMs at short intervals. Especially if there is an unresolved one with a heated atmosphere.---WEBDuB (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That is the way how traveling circus work in order to use wikipedia as propaganda tool. Create confusion and chaos and therefor, something may change from proper common name while a lot is happening. Everything is tempered here... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Admins should deal with every single violation of policy - that much we can agree.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Based on T*U's analysis of Google results which shows how unreliable they can be and as one of the few editors here without a vested interest in one side or the other. In the absence of demonstrable data that supports Malisheva being more widely used than Mališevo, I would prefer the status quo remain. --Griboski (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As of 21:52, 24 August 2020, this discussion has been relisted. I ran the search on google scholar with Boolean operators for all variants of the two proposed names in a post-2000 setting. I checked for any false Malishevë, Gjilan results - there weren't any as is expected for a small village compared to a town/municipality. I included "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" in order to include results which use the variant "Kosova" (they are excluded in a search of only + "Kosovo"). A + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" search removes any irrelevant Malisheva/Malisev name results and I rechecked it manually. On google scholar, the correct results are printed on the first page so it has increased reliability compared to google books. The results:
"Malisheva" OR "Malishevë" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 380
"Mališevo" OR "Malisevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 177
A "Malisheva-only" or "Mališevo-only" search results in:
"Malisheva" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 215
"Mališevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 81 --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, Maleschreiber, Resnjari, Ortizesp, Alltan, N.Hoxha, Red Slash, Mikola22, Ktrimi991, Sadsadas, Krelana and Βατο. The key point for me is international recognition. For example, the city of Girne in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has an entirely Turkish-speaking population, but the main title header of its English Wikipedia entry still retains the city's Anglicized Greek name, Kyrenia, because the Turkish occupation has not been internationally recognized. On the other hand, 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 for English Wikipedia to continue using the former name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support These discussions really create headaches. I do not understand why all this debate, despite the fact that at the end of the day is better. In any country of Europe a similar change would not have been discussed at all because there is no evidence that the name of the city has anything to do with Serbo-Croatian or if it is WP:COMMONNAME in English, while history shows that the city was always with an overwhelming Albanian majority and as such is presumed to use the name used by the locals. This most likely happened in the time of Yugoslavia where local names were probably taken and adapted to the official language of the federation than adopted by English... this is happening now that Kosovo is an independent state, although not recognized by all states, where have adapted the names in its official language, resulting in English adopting it as well. In my opinion in this cases it is better to use the WP:OFFICIALNAMES of the municipality because anyone (except maybe only Serbs) who will read this article will probably use the name in the local language, maybe because someone from that area told him, maybe because he has read in a tourist brochure etc etc. Surely if this city in the future will ever appear in a famous newspaper for a local event with a global impact, the newspaper would, without doubt, be referred to it by its local name. No one will ask for it in Serbo-Croatian because there is no reason to do so..Bes-ARTTalk 20:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Vanjagenije and WEBduB comments. Google hits are tempered and questionable, and therefor not valid. Griboski alsi have great comment. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Nobody cited raw google hits, your comment is unsubstantiated. I cited use of the two terms in bibliography (google scholar). Note to the closing admin: this account with very little activity in English wikipedia logged in and basically made the same exact comment in three different discussions (within 4 minutes) without any regard for actual policies[26] and the arguments which were presented. Wikipedia is not a democracy and !vote comments which blatantly disregard how bibliography perceives use of terms are discouraged.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
It would be nice not to lie and mislead. I opened account in 2013, unlike most of support editors, including you. Many users cited google hits, from books and search, all of those are google hits. The question of sources are more important then number of hits, as most of the books mentioned are published by either RoK or in Albanian language. So please, stop with false misrepresentation of users whose comments fail your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As User:Vanjagenije explained, this request is incorrect and i can say, tempered with. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Wikipedia. It is obvious that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors again, as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by WP:ARBMAC. Therefor this coordinated list of renaming of established article name with attempt to rename them to Albanian language, that should be presented as new "commonname". And this is happening on at least 4 articles at the moment. Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The results are from google scholar, a tool whose database contains papers and books published in peer-reviewed journals and academic publishing hourses. They are not "google hits" and they haven't been published by the Kosovo government. You shouldn't argue for narratives that can be very easily verified for their accuracy. You've essentially copy/pasted the same widespread accusation about paid political advocacy against ~30 editors of wildly different backgrounds across 3 different move discussions [27][28]. This editing attitude is not acceptable in any cooperative environment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Vanjagenije's excellent analysis. I had no idea Malisheva was a common Albanian surname (the more you know!) Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how you were lead to infer that Malisheva is a common Albanian surname, but it's not. The results from google scholar include no Malisheva (surname) results. They're not a raw google search like the one which Vanjagenije correctly assessed before the relisting. You shouldn't argue for narratives that can be very easily verified for their accuracy. It has been highlighted in many discussions: Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:DEMOCRACY). We don't !vote, we !argue on the basis of real, quantifiable and verifiable bibliographical information. If you choose to argue for or against a name, do the grunt work and get the relevant bibliographical information to support it. The results (for the purpose of not getting lost in the TL;DR relisting):

"Malisheva" OR "Malishevë" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 380

"Mališevo" OR "Malisevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 177
A "Malisheva-only" or "Mališevo-only" search results in:
"Malisheva" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 215
"Mališevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" 81 --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support The current spelling is the least common in English sources. Historically Malisheva has been and still is the most common, although Malisevo (without the diacritic) between 1990 and 2010. Bermicourt (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Support Clear WP:Common Name in both reliable sources and common use blindlynx (talk) 12:02, 17 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.

Requested move 19 April 2021

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.

Mališevo → Malishevë – The official name is different based on the official municipality website: http://kk.rks-gov.net/malisheve Dren (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not necessarily follow official naming. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Based on the official municipality website, both Malishevë and Mališevo are official names. Please, speedy close this. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Let me understand this correctly. You want to keep a name of a city in a different language just because why? People living there call it Malishevë. What is there to discuss? Dren (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
        • I want to keep a name of a city because it is the most WP:COMMON name in English language sources. And, I don't know what you mean by "different language". Every language other then English is different from English. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. According to the article itself, the town has 3,395 inhabitants and the municipality has 54,613 inhabitants, 99.8 percent of whom are Albanian speakers. Furthermore, 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 intuitive for English Wikipedia to use the town and municipality's Albanian name as the article's main title header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Roman Spinner—blindlynx (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mališevo is still the WP:COMMONNAME in English sources. See [29]. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Adding comments to nomination Even based on WP:COMMONNAME in English sources Malishevë/Malisheva (Malisheva - is the other form when referring to a name) has more hits - [30]. @Vanjagenije when you try adding search results please add correct search terms too. Dren (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Note: This is the nominator repeating their support. According to the instructions at WP:RM, Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. They have even given a third !vote further down. --T*U (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    As explained in previous discussion, "Malisheva" returns large number of false positives because of the Russian and Ukrainian people last-named "Malisheva". Vanjagenije (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:NAMECHANGES does not apply here because the name of the town has never been changed. The official name has always been Mališevo in Serbian and Malishevë in Albanian, there has been no change. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      The same rationale was used in the move from Pec to Peja, another town in Kosovo. The (official) name of this place was Malisevo before Kosovo declared independence from Yugoslavia/Serbia. Malisheve at the time was used as an Albanian translation. After that the official name is Malisheve, with Malisevo used as a Serbian language version in some offical documents etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      Check the link to the official website of the municipality placed in the infobox of this article. The English version of the website says "Malisheve" [31]. As said above, Malisevo was the official name before the independence declaration and Malisheve was the Albanian translation. Now, since the independence declaration, Malisheve is the official name and Malisevo is the Serbian translation. If there are some official documents that use both, it is because Serbian is official in Kosovo, and for that reason Serbian translations of official names are often provided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
      If both languages were official before and both languages are official now, what is your source for the one name being official and the other just a translation? (Apart from WP:OR, of course). --T*U (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
      Instead of calling it "WP:OR", find me a single official Yugoslav document in English that calls the town "Malisheve". A single one. After doing that, find a single official document of Kosovo in English that uses "Malisevo" without it being a translation next to "Malisheve". I can find you many, including the one above, official documents in English that use only "Malisheve". For comparison, Albanian is official in Skopje and "Shkupi" is used in some official documents next to "Skopje", but "Shkupi" is not an official name of Skopje, just a translation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
      Excuse me, but how is it possible not to call your analysis original research? --T*U (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      What I said is supported by facts (WP:BLUESKY). Now, since you are interested in WP:OR, where are the sources that back your claim? Not to mention that you did not bring any Yugoslav document that referred to the place as "Malisheve". The idea that Yugoslavia used as official name an Albanian one is funny, to say the least. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      However, for anyone interested, the Albanisation of names article says that "After the Kosovo War and entrance of the NATO forces to Kosovo in June 1999 a sweeping Albanization of place-names, organizations, street-names and business took place". Its source, Rajic, says that "When NATO forces came to Kosovo in June 1999 a thorough “Albanization” of the names of the streets, squares, settlements, businesses and other organizations was carried out in order to define Kosovo as an Albanian region". In other words, the official names during the Yugoslavia period were different, hence the "Albanisation". An OSCE report on Kosovo titled "Kosovo/Kosova as seen as told" (you can easily find a PDF copy online) on page 24 says that "During the period covered by this report, the practice of the FRY authorities was to employ the Serbian language in official correspondence in Kosovo. Where known, the authors of this report have employed a convention used by many international organizations operating in Kosovo by citing both the Serbian and Albanian language place names in the first mention within chapters, and subsequently wherever helpful; Serbian place names are used thereafter in the text. The decision to employ the Serbian language as the primary reference was made partly due to the fact that during the time of the OSCE-KVM, the official Serbian names were widely available, whereas the spelling in Albanian of place names was not standardized". Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in English sources as Vanja stated above. Elserbio00 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME in English sources as Dren stated above. Vanjagenije's source excludes the definite form Malisheva, which makes it an unfair comparison. In any case Mališevo is used less than any other version of the name and there is no reason for it to remain as the name of the article. Uniacademic (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose official website features both Albanian and Serbian languages (Malishevë and Mališevo), including the government of Kosovo's data and documents that can be found on the internet. Both Dreniqiqi and Vanjagenije gave great points for using Google NGRAMS, however you have to keep in mind that "Malisheva" is also a Georgian and Russian surname that can be found in Eastern Europe and in Kosovo too. It seems like Mališevo has more hits than Malishevë, however, if we also include Malisheva then we get a different situation. Previously, there were two proposals to change the article's name to Malishevë but in the end, it didn't get moved. I would leave this as being disputed in some way or another and because of it I'm opposing this move, I agree with Vanjagenije's comment above regarding surname "Malisheva". Vacant0 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Everything has already been sourced, established and enough proofs have been provided to the point no further discussion needs to be made. БојанЦвјетковић (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. Malishevë/a is the official name used in most occasions and for most people its the only form of the name they will ever encounter. Alltan (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As mentioned by several editors above, WP:NAMECHANGES applies. There are some Malisheva results which aren't about the settlement in Kosovo but they're few. If you run the search on google scholar in a way which eliminates false results it becomes clear. In last year's move request, the ratio between "Malisheva" OR "Malishevë" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" to "Mališevo" OR "Malisevo" + "Kosovo" OR "Kosova" was 380 to 177 in favor of Malishevë/a. After one year, it's 448 to 197 There are twice as many results for Malishevë/a and the gap is getting bigger by the year. So WP:COMMONNAME applies too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Roman Spinner on one hand, and Ktrimi991 on the other. Arguments that Mališevo (sorry, my keyboard doesn't have that exact s, so <s̀́> will have to do) remains COMMONNAME fall flat in light of the data which shows Malesheva-variants winning by a factor of well over 2, but, even so, the town really has no "common" name -- it is practically unknown to speakers of English. I would add -- what name is someone visiting the region likely to encounter and want to look up, or be expected to say? The answer to that is that it's much more likely Malisheva. So what do we prefer: being useful, or making everyone happy? Clearly, someone is going to be unhappy either way, so, useful it is. --Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nomination. "Mališevo" OR "Malisevo" got a head start in 1999 based on Serbian maps and considering Serbian control of Kosovo at the time. Things have changed since then and insistence for using Serbian place names in Kosovo even in places with 99% Albanian populations looks rather ridiculous. --Arianit (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mališevo or Malishevo is the best-known form in English language, which has been proven. Demographics are less relevant if we know for a fact that the government based in Priština is officially using Mališevo as well. Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Malisevo" is still the more common form, both per the Ngrams viewer data by Vanjagenije, and also Google Books 1440 hits for "Malisevo" vs. 718 hits for "Malisheve. Results restricted to English-language sources from the last thirty years, and the results are comfortably 2 to 1 in favor of "Malisevo". This becomes even more lopsided if we expand the results to include earlier publication dates. Khirurg (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Calthinus. There is no WP:COMMONNAME and first page gbooks results can be misleading. There aren't 1440 Malisevo results on gbooks. Results end at page 14 (~140 hits) and some are false hits. Google scholar is more reliable. Ktrimi991 highlighted that once you eliminate results which aren't linked to the settlement the ratio is 448 to 197 Side comment: Serbian is co-official in Kosovo in areas where a sizeable Serb community lives but this municipality is 99.8% Albanian. --Maleschreiber (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    You forgot to mention that the Google Book hits for "Malisheve" stop on page 5, so according to your argument, the results are even more in favor of "Malisevo" (14 pages to 5). As for Google Scholar, not only is it excessively narrow in scope as a search engine, but I note that the overwhelming majority of sources that use "Malisheve" are from within Kosovo itself, whereas the sources that use "Malisevo" are far more diverse and thus more representative of usage outside Kosovo. Khirurg (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Few results for both Malishevë/a and Mališevo are local publications and they don't change the ratio between them. Of the 140 Malisevo hits, 110 are linked to the settlement in Kosovo. Some of those 110 results are republications of US Congress reports. About 30 results are false hits. Many of the books which were published after 2000 are included in the google scholar search. The move can't be opposed per WP:COMMONNAME.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Actually the overwhelming majority of the Google Scholar results are by authors from within Kosovo. And of the only 50 Google Books hits for "Malisheve", there are also quite a few false hits, e.g. [32]. So Google Books is comfortably more than two to one in favor of Malisevo. And when one looks at Google Scholar results from outside Kosovo, the same is true as well. Khirurg (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Google books valid hits are included at google scholar. False hits aren't part of the total number of results. There are far fewer results at google books in comparison to google scholar. People who are related to a region will write about it. What matters is if they're publishing their papers on international journals. Most papers by both Albanian and Serb authors are published on international journals. You used the same google books argument at Talk:Peja#Requested move 18 August 2020 to oppose it but google books is not a good index for what we're trying to find out..--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Google Books hist are not always included in Google Scholar. From WP:COMMONNAME: When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources. So Google Books is considered a valid search engine. No mention of Google Scholar in WP:COMMONNAME though. Probably because it is too narrowly focused as a search engine.Khirurg (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously per WP:COMMONNAME as explained by Vanjagenije.Alexikoua (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Macedonian (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support considering the official name of the area is in Albanian and the majority of its inhabitants are Albanians I think its reasonable to have the name in Albanian instead of Serbian. the argument made by Vangjagenije is rendered obsolete considering it does not use the Slavic š which this article uses.Durraz0 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME --MareBG (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The town it being majority inhabited by Albanians shows more than enough evidence of it being Malishevë instead, in agreement with Maleschreiber It being in the midst of an Albanian community and population should be self explanatory enough. Excine
  • Leaning towards oppose as before. I cannot see that anything has changed since the last discussion less than a year ago. --T*U (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    @TU-nor:Since last year the ratio between Malishevë/a-Mališevo went from 380-177 (in favor of Malishevë/a) to 448-197. In 2021-2022 the gap will grow even more. 11 papers use Malishevë/a and none use Mališevo/Malisevo so far in 2021. There is a growing trend in favor of Malishevë/a. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Same reason. Kizule (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per both Ktrimi991 and Roman Spinner.--Lorik17 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --Ранко Николић (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the discussion should be relisted. Only four non-Balkan editors have participated (3 support, 1 leaning towards oppose)--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Profiling users based on their background are you now? Khirurg (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    It's a situation which emerges at every AfD/Move/RfC about the Balkans and it's always solved by relisting the discussion and attracting more "outside" participation. The move about Peja (Talk:Peja#Requested move 18 August 2020) had equal support/oppose among editors from the Balkans. Most !oppose were "per WP:COMMONNAME" despite the fact that raw data didn't suggest WP:COMMONNAME [33]. After the relist more editors joined the conversation. Among non-Balkan editors it ended as 9-3 in favor of !support and it was moved. In theory, there shouldn't be such a difference as we're all reading and interpreting the same policy articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, indeed Maleschreiber. The WP:COMMONNAME argument, despite how hackneyed it is at this point, is based on statistics that have already been demonstrated to be misleading, but even if they weren't, it's ignoring the original purpose of WPːCOMMONNAME. There is no "common name" in English for this settlement, which is completely irrelevant to 99.99%+ of English speakers, who have never uttered and will never utter any name for the town, whether its the Albanian one, the Serbian one, or the Martian one -- none of them are, as the policy page of WP:COMMONNAME stipulates, actually commonly recognizable names, because the concept they refer to is totally alien in the first place. Essentially, it's a meaningless argument that translates to a simple "Oppose", sans policy. --Calthinus (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Khirurg: your claim seems hypocritical given that you pointed to concerns of “ethnic voting blocks” whoch do indeed happen on Balkan RfCs unfortunately. Anger can cloud memory some times. See here and here. @Calthinus: you had stood against the voting block theory before, please see what you said here . I personally won’t vote as I don’t know to much about this naming topic other than seeing the frenzy on here so wanted to comment about it. Also keep in mind that such behavior on Balkan articles is more noticed by admins since the last major ANI topic bans not too long ago. OyMosby (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    What "behavior"? Voting the wrong way? Because the only questionable "behavior" I see is not-so-subtle threats from you and not-so-subtle insults ("Anger can cloud memory some time"). Do not lecture me, and do not presume to tell me what I'm feeling. As for "ethnic block voting", perhaps you can explain this [34], on a topic you don't usually seem...to edit very often (to put i mildly). And don't ping me. I don't like being pinged. Khirurg (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Oh no I am so scared. I surely won’t ping you again Boss-man-sir! I threatened you? Oh God spare me the pearl-clutching. I’m not an admin. I am telling you two that this behavior will only land you in trouble, but not by my hands. I don’t care much for your emotional instability here. So I agree one time with people you make obvious that you dislike and now I am “One of them”. This “us vs them” attitude was noticed in the Sadko/Mikola22 ANI when an admin had specced you out. Notice I pinged you and your “rival ethic voter” but you take it as only about you. You have been insulting people everywhere I see you. And I naturally expected nothing different in your response. Notice how I didn’t vote here as I don’t have a concrete opinion about it? Like I said, ever since the ANI, the admins are watching, and noticing. Even this. This is also the first time I have seen someone get so worked up over a ping. Had I not pinged you, you would accuse me of going behind your back. Hard to please, eh? ;) Again, such a predictable response. Good luck with staying the same way. I’m sure it will work out great for you. And just try to remember, I don’t forget things. I remember how many different editors carry themselves and how they treat others. I know I caught you off-guard but saying you see this place as Serb/Greek Orthodoxy vs Catholics or whatever primitive nonsense isn’t great for ones resume. Every Serb related article I see you. Yah can’t accuse me of the same chief. Hey, you don’t have to take my advice. I sleep fine either way. <3 All I gotta say. :) OyMosby (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Great response, I'm sure it will come in handy someday. Btw, you didn't answer my question. What was this about? Khirurg (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME too. Jingiby (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yours will be even more handy. As I had already said I will remember this exchange just as I remember those diffs of yours about this “us vs them” me approach. I answered your question. I agreed that there didn’t seem like a conspiracy to Illyrianize anything. And looking over that page I felt those two made a convincing case. The sources, when looking into them, I felt backed up my choice for option B. The link you keep posting answers your question already “ Option B' Taking a quick skim of the talk page and reading the debate going on I’m leaning B, going by the sources that seem clearly explained and arguments presented by fellow editors Βατο and Ahmet Q.. I think some are reading between the lines when nothing is there. I don’t see Illyrian domination being pushed intentionally or unintentionally as a narrative. Cheers. ”. Not sure how my one time vote with evidence to back is controversial. Or why this stuck out to you all this time. You may use intimidation to use this “one day” but you may want to worry more of the boomerang effect. As I said I am not the only one to notice. And again you were one of two I warned in my comment. Yet only yourself is responding in this way. It says it all. I simply warned you two that admins are getting more strict about this. Not sure why the attitude you are carrying wouldn’t be met with negative feedback. I know I am sarcastic but really? Good luck with whatever your intentions are against me again in the future. Oh well, I tried to strongly advise you guys. Have a nice day. You can have the final word. :) OyMosby (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Adding comments to nomination I am seeing people opposing per WP:COMMONNAME, but, based on search results proved by me and Ktrimi991 they should be supporting it. The other angle of supporting this move is based on names regarding location. The war in Kosovo was finished in 1999 (22 years ago). Names change. Since English language doesn't have a specific name for every town/city in the world the official one should be used. The official name is based on what the locals call it, how are signs written, how are official documents written. It's as simple as that. I don't understand what more proof do we need, except that the name in Serbian is not used since 1999. I would like to give a very vague example with Istanbul here. If Wikipedia existed when the name of Constantinople was changed to Istanbul, would they wait 22 years to move the page to Istanbul?! Dren (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note:This is a duplicate !vote. You already !voted here [35]. Strike your vote. Khirurg (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note: Not only a second, but a third !vote. This is the nominator repeating their support for the second time. According to the instructions at WP:RM, Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. --T*U (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note: I didn't know this meant votes so I have edited them. Dren (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    There is always something new to learn for us all, and your clean-up is quite recommendable. Thank you for that! Just a small point: We do not really count votes here, we often use the term !vote, which is supposed to be read as "not-vote", see WP:!VOTE. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    Constantinople/Istanbul is probably not the best analogy here, imo. On many levels. Perhaps a better one would be things like Leninske becoming Bohdanivka in Ukraine, etc. --Calthinus (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as per Calthinus' valid arguments. – Βατο (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support it is an Albanian majority district and it should have the Albanian nameGliderMMs (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note: The above !vote is literally this account's first and only contrib as of this writing [36]. Khirurg (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME too. Acaalexaca (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing editor This is just the next Balkan dicussion that is plagued by suspicious !votes. Alexacaalex has made just two edits so far: One last year to welcome another editor, and the one here to !vote. Kizule came to !vote here after 3 months of not editing on enwiki. GliderMMs created their account and immediately came to !vote here - their only edit so far. Drenqiqi has !voted twice. A large number of editors, including many coming from the Serbian language Wiki, have just written "Per WP:COMMONNAME". It seems that editors from both sides are wrong in mentioning WP:COMMONNAME, as there seems to be none in English -obscure town after all. The closing editor should evaluate other reasons, such as how this stands against WP:NAMECHANGES and the name in the language of the local population. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all above. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As people have mentioned earlier. Search results presented above clearly show that there are no real arguments in favour of the newly proposed name. Вукан Ц (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Google Ngram [37] indicates that neither name really scores much except during the period from 1960 to 2010, when they were both in use at a low level. During the period 1986 to 2012, Malsevo was in higher use than Malisheva, but this peaked in 1999 and rapidly fell so that by 2012 they were on a par. Since 2012, Malisheva has pulled ahead to the extent that it was almost twice as common in 2019. Added to that, Malishevë is the official name and in the language used by the vast majority of people living in the municipality. This should be closed by an admin, and the rationales (or lack thereof) and obvious ethnic piling-on needs to be taken into account in the close. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, Argument from the nomogram just above, is quite strong. Official name and language used by majority of population, adds to it.Cinadon36 13:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC) May I also add, the arguement from COMMONNAME, used by both sides, seems to me it doesnt apply here, since, judging from the examples given at the policy page, and the rationale of the policy (as I get it), there has to be huge difference among the two option to talk about common name. If there is a ration 1:2, that does not qualify as common name, but as "more used page". If there is a ration 1:100, that changes things. See some examples from the nomogram.North Korea, Germany, Great pyramid of Giza. Cinadon36 04:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - as per arguments made above. Krelana (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — MarinaSimic (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments presented by Roman Spinner and Peacemaker. I would also like to empathize on the obvious !votes piling on that are directly coming from Serbian Wiki. This has occurred on various similar Rfc's related to Kosovo cities' name changes and I believe sufficient proof can be collected from them for admins to take disciplinary actions against such distribute behavior. Ahmet Q. (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2021 (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.

Requested move 28 May 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Usage data, in this case Google Scholar comparisons, makes it more likely that the Albanian name is more common in English and thus should be used here. Even if the data's advantage is disputed (as what happened on Rahovec), WP:NCGN would still prefer the Albanian name anyway, as it says that if no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name, and this town is predominantly Albanian-speaking. As such we should use the Albanian name. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mališevo → Malisheva – Malisheva 265 Mališevo 97. The name Malisheva is clearly the most common name and it is also the name used by virtually all of its citizens. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as per the reasoning provided by nom.Alltan (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: the proposed title is more common. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support There is no common name in the English language, yet one is far more prevalent than the other. These matters are addressed by WP:NCGN. : "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name" The local population is almost entirely Albanian. In addition, there are WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The official name used by local authorities in all official papers is Malishevë in Albanian (the Serbian one Mališevo is used only in some documents). This is how prior Kosovo disputes were resolved. The majority-Albanian localities have Albanian names, whereas the majority-Serbian places have Serbian names. Excine (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Relister comment Relisting due to a mistake in my signature (I erroneously wrote the date as May 3 instead of May 28) that accidentally placed this request in the backlog. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support its the native and the most common name Truthseeker2006 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, Alltan, Iaof2017, Excine and Truthseeker2006. According to the article itself, the town has 3,395 inhabitants and the municipality has 54,613 inhabitants, 99.8 percent of whom are Albanian speakers. Furthermore, 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 intuitive for English Wikipedia to use the town and municipality's Albanian name as the article's main title header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 May 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malisheva/Archive_1&oldid=1142339179"