Wikipedia

Talk:Lipjan

Latest comment: 26 days ago by TheCreatorOne in topic Here is where the source mentions it
Learn more about this page

Requested move 15 January 2022 edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago37 comments27 people in discussion
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: The discussion shows that those who support the move to Lipjan have the stronger argument. Allow me a few notes:

  • "It is a corruption of [x]" (or, "it's a poorly pronounced version") is not an argument: "corruption" is a loaded term and meaningless for linguists. No one should favor Amsteldam over Amsterdam. Likewise, the presumed etymology of a name is one thing; actual usage is another.
  • Google is not the end-all of everything, but there is more coverage for Lipjan as there is for Lipljan in Google Scholar results, and that means something.
  • Comparing usage of Serbian vs. Albanian authors is probably an impossible analysis, and at any rate that alone wouldn't make us decide for one over the other per COMMONNAME: we need to look for a preponderance in English-language sources. Invoking Wikipedia:Official names only strengthens the case for Lipjan, as many supporters of the move note.
  • Yes, naming conventions may change--so is the nature of the world.
  • Khirurg's point about Google Book hits is well-taken (and the n-grams confirm that), but a. that is a much smaller pond to fish from, compared to Google Scholar, and b. Maleschreiber's rebuttal via Google Scholar shows that. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lipljan → Lipjan – I am proposing that the current name of the article be changed to 'Lipjan' - despite the fact that the government of Kosovo and the vast majority of Kosovo's people refer to it as 'Lipjan', 'Lipjan' is also the common name. See the Google Scholar results below:

Furthermore, an analysis of the Google Scholar results for the years since 2018 indicates the fact that 'Lipjan' is, by far, the common name:

It is evidently clear that 'Lipjan' is the more suitable name as it is the most common. Arguments could also obviously be made based on the government and international organisations' use of 'Lipjan' over 'Lipljan', but when the Google Scholar results are so heavily skewed towards 'Lipjan' it really isn't that necessary. Botushali (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Lipjan's inhabitants are more than 80% Albanian I fail to see a reason to use the Serbian name instead. The Albanian name also appears to be the most common name in English as per analysis above. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as the Albanian name is more common. Super Ψ Dro 17:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support per nom, the "official" language of the region is Albanian.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support. Lipjan's inhabitants are predominantly Albanian, and Lipjan is now more commonly used in English sources. That should suffice. On a sienote, the Albanian version is also more similar to the old Roman placename "Ulpiana". Çerçok (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Good note, Çerçok. It's also significant to note that the toponym 'Lipjan' is actually derived from 'Ulpiana'. Thus, 'Lipjan' is the original form of the modern name, anyways.
  • Strong oppose. Google Search results are not that much of an argument, nor does it mean that it is "common". Lipjan is just a poorly pronounced version of Slavic and Serbian Lipljan and the etymology of the place can only be understood with Lipljan. As far as I am considered, it is also the common name of the place. Folks, check the non-English names in the USA toponyms. Please, stop historical revisionism! Ничим неизазван (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • As I have previously mentioned on a TP for Vushtrri, this is not ‘historical revisionism’, but an attempt at updating Wikipedia to reflect current trends and realities. Your “check this page” point is also an insufficient counter-argument in this case too. Furthermore, your understanding of this situation seems to be extremely limited - ‘Lipjan’, as has been stated by multiple scholars, derives from ‘Ulpiana’, the ancient name of the city. ‘Lipljan’ could very well be a Slavic rendition of the Albanian name, considering multiple scholars have cited ‘Lipjan’ as the form that has been derived from ‘Ulpiana’. The common name of the place is also ‘Lipjan’, both on scholarly articles and also in Kosovo itself. Please, before inserting yourself into move requests, ensure that you become fully aware of the situation and that you familiarise yourself with the context. Incorrect comments such as this are unproductive. Botushali (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as per nomination. Uniacademic (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Looking at the Google Scholar diffs, the nationality of the scholar dictates the naming convention with those who are Serbian using Lipljan and those who are Albanian using Lipjan. There are hardly any non-Balkan scholars and their usage alternates without a common pattern. The diffs only demonstrate the common name is common amongst ethnic Albanian scholars and not worldwide. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Google trends shows the same result for worldwide non-academic use: [1] Most searches concern 'Lipjan' not 'Lipljan'. Botushali (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Like I have explained here at: the other RM initiated by the same OP on the same day I am not exactly convinced by these RMs. Trying to change articles into Albanian names, while failing to accurately present all the evidence (missing statistics about the overall trends), concerns me as it may suggest that there is an attempt to make a narrative where the proposed name is more commonly used, while it isn't. I can't exactly say that this is really helpful for the readers, nor for the WP:BALKANS topic area which politically remains sensitive. And no. That a town has more residents of <X> origin, doesn't concern Wikipedia I am afraid. Wikipedia, as an English project, reflects on international usage which is determined by the majority of the sources, not local usage as evidenced by local people of certain ethnicity which may favor the one or the other more. For example, the Corfiots refer to their island as "Kerkyra", not as "Corfu" (which is the article's name as well). Yet, as one can see, Wikipedia calls the island "Corfu" because it reflects on international usage in sources, not what the local populaces and scholars may actually be using. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. This is Wikipedia in English language. It makes no sense that names of cities in English language should change every time when political situation on Balkans changes (which happens very often, as we all know). Of course that Albanian version of the name is going to be more present on recent Google results, having in mind that it is officially in use currently (and as a result - there are many official documents mentioning it). But I don't see that as a valid reason for name change in English language. If Kosovo was not renamed to Kosova (Albanian version of the name) on Wikipedia, I don't see justification for this change either. Tresnjevo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • If common use in English changed to Kosova then we would change the name. For that reason, Lipjan is the title which reflects reality on the ground.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:NCGN The Albanian version of the name is the one most used in bibliography and in everyday life. Wikipedia titles are designed to help readers who are looking for information. We change or keep a toponym because it'll help or won't help readers. Lipljan doesn't help readers because it's a name which they are not likely to encounter online and they won't encounter it if they visit Lipjan, a town inhabited by Albanians (95%).--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The search results are inconclusive. All they show is that Serbian authors use "Lipljan" and Albanian authors use "Lipjan". The burden on proof is on the side proposing the move to demonstrate significantly higher coverage for the proposed name change. For smaller towns such as this, it is practically impossible to do so. Hence status quo stays.
    By the way, I've always thought that Google Scholar results are too narrow in focus. Google Books results from the 21st century shows about 3700 results for "Lipljan" [2] and 1700 for "Lipjan" [3]. Also, Google Earth and Google Maps both use "Lipljan". Interestingly, while Google Earth and Google Maps use the Albanian name for most places in Kosovo, except for Vucitrn and Lipljan. Khirurg (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • The results are not inconclusive because we judge title use/language not the ethnicity of authors. If more Albanians are writing about this town, it is because over 95% are Albanians in Lipjan. That's an argument for the move, not against it. All that one needs to do to remove papers in Albanian is to add Lipjan + Kosovo (Papers in Albanian have Kosovë/Kosova): 1326 vs. Lipljan + Kosovo 678 --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Per WP:NCGN: The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the modern local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects. When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. No matter how one approaches the discussion, the article should be moved. The current title doesn't reflect bibliographical and everyday use in any way, shape or manner.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Lipljan > Lipjan (corrupt or badly written version of Lipjan which is more prominent only in Kosovo Albanian population). God bless you all. 94.189.219.186 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Once again, multiple scholars have cited ‘Lipjan’ as the version that derived from Ulpiana. Wiki editors are not supposed to ignore the respectable sources of an article and interpret our own meanings. Such comments are unproductive and only interfere with this process. Clearly biased votes are not improving this article. Botushali (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support The results show the clear lead for Lipjan versus Lipljan. some users say that the results are not trustworthy because they contain results in Albanian, but results about piljan include results in serbian. even if results are restricted to just English lipjan has a clear lead. the counter-argument about results is a bad one because if it was argued that most Lipjan are in Albanian, and most lipljan are in Serbian then we get to the same result, that of a local language whose use is predominant for the most searches for lipjan. this by itself would mean that there is no common English name and that the most used local name should be used for the title per nplace. Durraz0 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support I have the same opinion that I expressed about Vushtrri. The results which we can't decipher entirely about the language they're in although the majority are in English/German/French show way more hits for Lipjan. If there is an English WP:COMMONNAME, it is Lipjan. If there is no English WP:COMMONNAME, then the most frequent local name (Lipjan) gets to be the title of the article. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support WP:NCGN: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the modern local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used. None of the names is really common in English, as GB/GS show. None of the names in used by a considerable margin compared to the other. This way the official and the name used by the local population of the city should be used as per the cited policy above. Albanian is the first official language of the municipality and the name used by the local population. Serbian is the second official language but not used in all of the municipality's documents and not used by over 98% of the local people (who are ethnic Albanians).Alltan (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Support Since none of the names (both seems to be derived from an older name, i.e "Ulpiana") is common in English, and also seeing the growing trend in the recent 20 years of the Albanian form, I am in favor of WP:OFFICIALNAMES. In addition, WP:NCGN says that when a common English name does not exist, the official name should be used. Lipjan was always used by the municipality institutions as official, since also the demographics of the city was always in vast majority ethnic Albanian, this gives even more priority to the official/local name. --Bes-ARTTalk 17:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support There is no "common English name" for this municipality and town. The two names are used in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar results without a large margin compared to each other. Such cases are solved by WP:NCGN where it says that "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name". The local population is almost 100% Albanian. Apart from this, the first official name used by the local authorities is the Albanian one. The only name used in every single document of the local authorities. Generally speaking, the articles of Kosovo municipalities with an Albanian majority should use the Albanian name, and the others the Serbian one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Lipljan is the native name and not Lipjan. It is quite clear that Lipljan as a word variant has its roots (the way we construct word) in Slavic languages. The results of some Google search hold no water. MareBG (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • It seems wiki editors are contesting the common belief of scholars and experts - that ‘Lipjan’ comes from ‘Ulpiana’ - in order to try and wrongfully claim that ‘Lipjan’ holds “no water” - I wasn’t aware that it was within our abilities as wiki editors to ignore the scholarly consensus of a certain toponym in order to post clearly biased votes. Botushali (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. A peculiar history... the article seems to have moved to the current name following an RM that was opposed and reached no consensus, but was closed as unopposed and is now cited as reflecting consensus. And it has bounced around a bit since then. Common name in English does appear to be that now proposed by nom. As noted above, many of the arguments presented above have no particular relevance according to our article naming conventions. But there's an irony there that I'm sure others will note without my pointing it out. Most curious. Andrewa (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Each country in the Balkans, some time after its creation, imposes its own names on most of the geographical objects on its territory, sooner or later. For better or for worse, but this is the real situation. Jingiby (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nominator and WP:NCGN. – Βατο (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - per nomination by @Botushali and @Andrewa's informative comments which are spot on.Resnjari (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Per previous informative comments which do prove that there is no need for this change. Kosovo, not KosovA, or just take a look at numerous Greek cities or islands which are not named per the standard in Greek language, which is just proving my point, not to mention that Google search results are not completely relevant, only a part of the human population is regullary using Google. Вукан Ц (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Google search results from intro. post are too narrow and selective. Redirect could work much better. 178.237.216.149 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Notice - many people really really really really really don't like Albanians, which has taken place at many, many move requests throughout Kosovo. Please discredit comments that come from a place of ethnic... angst. I support this move because if a city has no common name in English, we should call it what the local people call it. Also, if you really needed it, it's also more WP:CONCISE Red Slash 19:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
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.

Here is where the source mentions it edit

Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The scholar who first developed this argument also noted that, in the area dividing the early Serbs from the Bulgarians, many Latin place-names survived long enough to be adapted eventually into Slav ones, from Naissus (Nish), down through the Kosovo town of Lypenion (Lipljan) to Scupi (Skopje): this contrasts strongly with most of northern Serbia,

So Lipjan was a pre-Slavic placename , alongside Scupi and Naissus that survived and possibly existed prior to the Slavic expansion into the area. So I changed that. TheCreatorOne (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lipjan&oldid=1219636863"