Talk:Kosovo/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A new modest proposal to acknowledge the 3 ways to spell Prishtina *once* in this article's text.

Is there a salient reason why mentioning all three Prishtina variants *once* in the main text for article "Kosovo" is not a good idea?

I advocate doing so, rather than rely on the infobox alone (it's not there yet, or anywhere in the article, as of now), as I am aware that Wikipedia gets reused in outside mirrors, quasi-mirrors and other engines, whereby anything confined to the infobox gets tossed, as the infobox gets stripped. For example, the Google Desktop Wikipedia widget prints the article lead only. And so on.

This information is basic, not peripheral, and should appear in the lead. Some people don't notice what's in the infobox. Some user agents, such as mobile browsers, might put the infobox far below the article text, or not render it.

I propose including: "The capital of Kosovo and its largest city is Pristina (also spelled in English: Prishtina or Priština)". As for the infobox, only in the first one: "Pristina (Prishtina, Priština)". --Mareklug talk 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

sounds like a compromise. I don't care overmuch for this solution, but I wouldn't oppose it either. dab (𒁳) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that tying the "...Pristina (also spelled in English: Prishtina or Priština)" part to the capital city is good, though the exact sentence reads as ...dull. at least go with '"The largest city and capital of Kosovo is Pristina (also spelled in English: Prishtina or Priština)" so that it's not quite so cumbersome. But putting it all into the article is good. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
also drop the "in English". It isn't spelled Priština in English, that's just the transliteration of the Serbian. "Pristina (also spelled Prishtina or Priština)" will do fine. dab (𒁳) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I will respectfully disagree with the suggestion to drop "in English", as that is the crux of the issue. It is spelled that way in scholarly English language use, whether it is a transliteration or simply correct, the way "naïve" where the i is typeset with twin dots is perceived in some circles as the absolutely correct way to spell it/typeset it in English. Another such case in English is "coöperate". Clearly, the discourse need not pertain to Icelander Björk to see diacritics in English. As evidence of this spelling in English, the current online edition of Encyclopedia Britannica will do nicely: Priština is where Britannica lodges the article about this city, and anyone can verify this, as no subscription is necessary to view the article beginning.
The idea of correcting the sentence to be less dull :) I wholly accept. Thanks. --Mareklug talk 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me :-) But I also think that the addition of "in English" is redundant. The text "Pristina (also spelled Prishtina or Priština)" already indicates that the three forms are used in English-language publications. All article text is supposed to be in English -or reflect English usage- unless specifically indicated otherwise, as in "Pristina (spelled Prishtina in Alb. or Priština in Serb.)"
At the same time, by dropping the "in English" part we avoid the thorny question of whether a specific name/form/spelling is English, and allows us to remain in the much calmer waters of merely reporting English usage :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this information isn't basic or peripheral? What importance is this? In all honesty it's not important. That is besides the point that from most English speaking sources it is spelled Pristina. It's that simple. I disagree that i needs to be in the article itself. It's just clutter. In the infobox is fine though, as I agreed to here. I don't want to be abrasive in stating the facts, so please tell me why you think it's important. I'd like to work on this with you civilly. I have tried to explain my view and why it is that way, why do you think it's important to be in the article? Why isn't an infobox mention good enough? Beam 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because, simply, it appears that other editors feel that the distinctions in spelling are important enough to ensure they appear in the text, instead of an auziliary feature. I can't speak for all people, but I know that I'm not alone in disregarding the infobox if i want to know a lot about a subject; I just start reading the article. Explaining that three spellings represent one city is also important, as sometimes seemingly minor spelling differences can indicate different locations (Kalisz and Kalusz comes to mind in my own experiences). It appears that this is not about whether there is consensus to include or not, but how to include, and consensus to include is fairly well founded. ThuranX (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems you have no reason whatsoever other than "some editors feel".... That's what I honestly thought, but I'm interested to see Markle's reason. Beam 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't need any further reason. This is not a discussion on to include or not, but HOW to include. Consensus, as shown by numerous editors working on the HOW, not the 'whether', shows consensus for inclusion. That's all we need on this particular issue. You can go run to Arbcom, YET AGAIN, if you feel that strongly that we don't need it. I'm sure the Arbers will looooooove dealing with this triviality, and will point you to WP:CONSENSUS, among other policies. Further, dismissing all my commentary out of hand with a slap at consensus ignores the very salient point about clarity and removing potential confusion. But then, that's harder to argue. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a champion of Consensus sir. Please show me the consensus here. And, I've made the argument against. I support the infobox addition. But cluttering the intro (of all places), imho, isn't a good idea. To suggest ARBCOM is pretty ridiculous! We have solved tougher issues at this very article without the need of such things. Beam 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat I object to the "in English", because it seems to imply Pristina is *not* English. See the first line at Pristina: I can accept replicating that. For anything else, go to Talk:Pristina first. "Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština)" is briefest, and doesn't prejudice the question of "English". dab (𒁳) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account discussion to date, I refine my proposed edits like so:
In place of the last paragraph of the lead:

Kosovo borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Macedonia to the south. The capital of Kosovo is Pristina, while other cities include Pec, Prizren, and Mitrovica.

Place the following:

Kosovo borders Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština), while other cities include Peć (Peja), Prizren, and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).

And in place of the first infobox, exchange:

|capital = Pristina

With the line:

|capital = Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština)

Please note direct linking without obfuscating piping was used everywhere, neighboring countries alphabetized to avoid any appearance of POV in that listing, and alternative names were included for all mentioned cities, not just the capital, for consistency. Prizren blessedly has just one name.
Is this satisfactory, or are there further objections? --Mareklug talk 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead :-) Ev (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
fine with me. dab (𒁳) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's retarded to have it in the intro. But the intro is so supremely and blatantly messed up now that it doesn't matter. Beam 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pushing for better citation

This article is missing a lot of citations. I have done most of the politics section, and plan on both bringing its content up to the present and citing it. I'm happy to move for the rest of the article, but more help/review is appreciated. If we can get most of this done then we can try for GA status. RideABicycle | Talk | 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam posted an economy section on my talk page if that helps. BalkanFever 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

lol but I'm getting pretty pissed off about this article so I'm trying to stay away from it, but you know what.... I'll bring it here. brb Beam 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See below :) Beam 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


edits by User:Mike Babic

Its claims are backed up by Russia, India and China.[1] Further, the United States and leading countries in Europe have confirmed that Republic of Kosovo is independent, supporting the declaration.

the usage of the word 'confirm' implies fact, but nationhood is never black or white; especially in this case. the section is best left out. ninety:one 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the term isn't "confirm", the term is "recognize". Recognition of independence is (at least partly) performative. dab (𒁳) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)