Talk:Kosovo/Kosova

From Votes for deletion

Copied here for the record from Votes for Deletion (permalink):

Kosova
Dictionary entry and could never become more then one. All of its contents already exists in Kosovo and Metohia. Not even needed as a redirect as it is not a word of English language. Nikola 09:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The article covers the political context of the use of the name "Kosova", so it is not just a dictionary definition. It already links through to the article on Kosovo and Metohia. Also, voters should be aware that Nikola does not like using Albanian alternative placenames, for apparently nationalist reasons, and has systematically removed from them from Kosovo-related articles; this proposal for deletion should be considered in that light. -- ChrisO 10:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, for the same reasons as ChrisO. Ambivalenthysteria 10:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. In view of the controversy, it would be extremely POV to delete the Albanian spelling completely. The matter of removing the duplicated text (and it is) and/or of making it a redirect is not a VfD issue. Andrewa 11:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, propaganda. Everyking 20:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, valid article, context explained reasonably well. Zoney 02:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with ChrisO. Secretlondon 12:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, valid entry. perhaps merge with Kosovo and Metohia and redirect. --Jiang 22:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Albanian seperatists propaganda. Merge non-propaganda info with Kosovo and Metohia. Possibly redirect, but English name is Kosovo with an O, not an A. — Jor (Darkelf) 16:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Make it a redirect (to those saying there should be no redirect, please notice that there are close to half a million hits on google on this name). Move the contents of the article to a title that better describing the contents. Jor, there is nothing propagandistic about the article, and I take offense at your words (I'm Albanian, though not from Kosovo). Hopefully someday Kosovo will be independent (and perhaps the name changed), but until then the official name should be kept, otherwise we open a whole can of worms. Dori | Talk 16:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect, integrate with Kosovo and Metohija and watch that the content remains there. Alternatively, create a separate article "Names of Kosovo and Metohia", and integrate the content from Kosovo and Metohia and Kosova. No propaganda as it stands. Andres 20:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If it is propaganda, the correct response is more information, not less. Add some more content to explain propaganda issues and the unterlying politics of ALL sides. It is always interesting to watch how an alternative view gets in and how the views then get merged.Kd4ttc 21:59, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisO (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 March 2004 (UTC)

Comments post-VfD

The article is certainly not intended to be propagandistic. Like other contributors to the debate, I'm not sure what in it could be considered propaganda, although I'm grateful to Everyking for providing the following explanation on my talk page:

It is something that can just as easily be stated in a few words on an article on Kosovo or its politics. The existence of this article seems to me to be a subtle attempt to increase the recognition of this alternate spelling as the norm here. Everyking 20:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do accept the point that's been made about the potential redundancy between this article and the main one on Kosovo and Metohia. The purpose of having a separate article entitled Kosova (which was originally a redirect created last July) was to explain the naming controversy. The issue is not unlike that of the Republic of Macedonia. However, I see that that article covers the controversy as part of the article rather than in a separate piece, so I propose to follow the same precedent and merge this article into the main one. A redirect will be left here (which is definitely required, considering that the Albanian version of name is well-used). -- ChrisO 13:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disambig

We don't make disambigs out of the most commonly used terms (when they're so overwhelming in one direction). Perform a search on google, what do you get for like the first 10 pages? Dori | Talk 16:40, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

We don't. I notice, however, that most of the 10 pages are not in English. Another point is that then the article this one would redirect to would have two disambiguations, which is quite unusual (I don't know any page with that). Perhaps this could be a redirect and the ambiguation would be at, say, Kos-. Then again, Bantu tribe probably doesn't have this root.

I have to state that I am willing to accept any decision on this, as long as it's made. Nikola 08:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The two disambigs is very unusual and ugly (I've never seen it either). I would be glad if they were combined under some name (don't know what, and it doesn't matter since the only link to it would probably be from Kosovo). All I know is that 99% of the people who would search or link Kosova would want to go to Kosovo, so this article should be a redirect there. Dori | Talk 13:53, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think that I have seen some similar cases where the name of the article was used for the name of the disambiguation article even though not all articles in the disambiguation article were called that way. Nikola 06:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd be OK with merging "Kosova (disambiguation)" into "Kosovo (disambiguation)" if that's what you're saying. Others may disagree. Dori | Talk 14:00, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

I would support the merge, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I just merged it with Kosovo (disambiguation). I also included Kosova, since it was almost the same as this page. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This is was the best argument of you nationationalists- Hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.110.33 (talk · contribs)- 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is Kosova not Kosovo. You are iderecteng wrong. If ther are multiple Kosova then you must create a Kosova(disambiguation). How ever this explexns evey thing about you serbian propagander in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.208.232.183 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Kosovo

So, let me see... If I want to go to the article about Kosova, Estonia, I first have to go to the Kosovo article, THEN the disambiguation page, and THEN maybe find the article among a bunch of similar looking sentences with the word Kosovo or Kosova in them? Please... --KOCOBO 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, this is the way disambiguation of places normally works. The most important place takes precedence, with less important places being disambiguated from the article on the most important place. For instance, the British city London takes precedence over the other places called London. This is indicated by the article on London stating: This article is about the capital city of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see London (disambiguation). Similarly, the place in Serbia called Kosova takes precedence over the various towns and villages around the world with the same name. -- ChrisO 13:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Londres" may provide a good comparison. Evv 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bit different. "Londres" is not a local name, but "Kosova" is. A better comparison would be Geneva (French name) / Genf (German name) - notice that they both redirect to the same article with a disambiguation provided on that article. -- ChrisO 16:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Wien" then :-) . Evv 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just understood that apparently the decision was already taken to make "Kosova" a simple redirect to "Kosovo", and not a desambiguation page. I didn't understood it the first time I looked at this talk page. Sorry for my last edits...^[1] Feel free to revert me.

Having said that, and for what is worth at this late stage, I would prefer to have it as a disambiguation page, like "Wien". This is NOT to "suppress the Albanian name", but on the contrary to make it more interesting by providing the readers with a broader spectrum of information: I wouldn't like "Morava, Norge, Normandie, Polska, Suomi, Wien" to be a simple redirects either.

However, I respect any previously taken decisions. Once again, sorry for not reading this talk page more carefully. - Regards. Evv 20:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Kosovo, 2008

Although the form "Kosova" is often used in English-language discourse, it's almost only done so in the context of Albanian activism, while the form "Kosovo" remains the standard English usage in virtually all other forms of English discourse.

Under these circumstances, I prefer the current disambiguation page, because I believe it's more usefull to our English-speaking readers -it has more encyclopedic value- than a simple, sterile redirect to "Kosovo". - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The term is used even in by native English speakers to refer to a whole country and it can not be compared with such little villages named Kosova. This should redirect to Kosovo, while another disambiguation page would play the current role.--Getoar (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Turned back into a redirect to Kosovo as per consensus on Talk:Kosovo. This meaning is far and away the predominant one among all the ones listed on the dab page, therefore redirect plus dab notice at the top of Kosovo, as per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)