Talk:Patriarchate of Peć (monastery)

Peć/Peja

Peja is clearly used in English outside the Wikipedia usage, and Pec is much more common than Peć is. Gene Nygaard 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Google	hits
Peja Patriarch OR Patriarchate	614
Peja Patriarch OR Patriarchate -Wikipedia	547
Peja Patriarch OR Patriarchate -Wikipedia -Pec -Peć	672
Peć Patriarch OR Patriarchate -Wikipedia -Peja -Pec	297
Pec Patriarch OR Patriarchate -Wikipedia -Peja -Peć	28,200

Sure, texts written in English by Albanians would at least some times use Peja, in the very same way as Kosova and Prishtina can be found too :-) But, are those names used in UK, US, Australian, Canadian reliable sources too ?

Although I almost always favour diacritics, there's a strong case for using Pec instead of Peć (even Britannica does). However, this issue should be discussed in Talk:Peć.

Regards, Evv 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The four issues of this dispute

The current edit war among Estavisti, Mig11, myself (Evv) & Gene Nygaard is centered on four issues:

1. Whether to use "Pec" or "Peć": this should be discussed in Talk:Peć.
2. Whether to include Peja or not: this should probably be discussed in Talk:Peć also.
3. Whether to use "Kosovo" or Kosova: this should be discussed in Talk:Kosovo.
4. Whether to include the Albanian name Patrikana e Pejës or not: this should be discussed here (in "On inclusion").

So, on the issue of the Albanian name Patrikana e Pejës, I understand that a case could be made on the Serbian-only nature of the monastic institution. But even in this case the Patriarchate of Peć appears to refer not only to the institution, but to the buildings themselves, the complex of churches placed on the World Heritage List. Since these buildings are referred to by the local Albanian population as Patrikana e Pejës, the inclusion of this name is relevant to the article. Besides, it's interesting to know the Albanian name :-)

Please, keep in mind that the choice of names used in the article is by no means an assertion of sovereignty, a way of laying claim over this institution, these buildings or Kosovo itself. It's merely a reflection of common English usage and a desire to give interesting information to the readers. - Best regards, Evv 18:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Badly framed. Variant spellings should be mentioned. You might use one spelling most of the time, but you need to take into consideration not only the "human eye" but also the machine's eye.

There is never any good reason to hide information by not including the variant spellings that would make it more likely for someone searching for information about this to be able to find information which does exist. Gene Nygaard 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard: I agree with you. Unfortunately there are users, who just don’t want to see the facts. The most important thing for them is just to use the Serbian names in every article that has to do anything with any city or institution in Kosova. Peć is in Serbian and Peja in Albanian, none of them is the English name of the city. Of course it is easy to say Peć is the English name, because the Serbian government had the power to spread everywhere just the names in Serbian and did everything possible to erase any Albanian name from the international usage. Nowadays Peja is under the UN administration and the official name of the city is also Peja. In the official documents for the Serbian minority in Kosova is also being used the Serbian name. But fact is: more than 90% of the people there use Peja as the name of the city.

And to you Eww: I didn’t put the Albanian name Patrikana e Pejës, because it’s "interesting" (a very ironic reaction from your side) but because more than 90 % of people living in Peja (an also in Kosova) call it like that. I am sorry for you if you a problem to accept it as a fact.

Best regards, --Mig11 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mig11, you're right: the Serbian form "Peć/Pec" was probably adopted in English because of Yugoslav/Serbian influence. In the future English usage may switch from "Peć/Pec" to "Peja". The very moment the NGS turns to any form other than "Peć", I will be the first to propose adopting the change in Talk:Peć.

And, if you read my above comment again, you will notice that I said: "Since these buildings are referred to by the local Albanian population as Patrikana e Pejës, the inclusion of this name is relevant to the article". The name being interesting was only a side issue, and carried no irony.

Regards, Evv 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects make sure that no information is hidden from the machine's eye by not including variant spellings. Googling for "Pristina" gives the Wikipedia article on Priština, with the "(Redirected from Pristina)" label on top. :-)

Regards, Evv 19:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

False. Try, for example the find on this page function on your browser, and look for either Peja Pec in this article as it stands now. If you haven't set it for the exact capitalization, you might get a hit on the "Special pages" link outside the article itself, but that is all.

Furthermore, not all search engines will find Peć if you search for Pec, and those which do will weight them differently depending on many factors including appearance in the article itself and where that appearance takes place.

Googling for Pristina gets

But furthermore, the Google algorithms keep changing depending on various factors including the number of different search terms, whether a basic or advanced search is used, and many other factors. Furthermore

Priština -Pristina 1,470,000 hits

Pristina -Priština 3,990,000 hits

both of which would be zero if Google always treated them the same, and the former would be zero and the latter not zero if Google included the š spelling with the s, but did not include s or other diacritics with š.

So, no, redirects do not necessarily keep information from being hidden. Gene Nygaard 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, Google finds more hits for Priština standing alone (3,920,000) than it finds for Pristina standing alone (3,500,000). Hardly what one would expect, especially considering those "not" searches above. So more is involved than just including š and other diacritics with s; if that were the case, there would be more with s than with š. Perhaps it involves assigning other synonyms (which might be spelled completely differently, e.g. "Ulpiana") to the spelling with the diacritic than to the spelling without it. Gene Nygaard 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[back to margin]
Now, here's something more relevant to the fact that redirects certainly do not keep information from being hidden. Suppose "Priština" were used in this article, and not just in the discussion here on the talk page. What would happen then? Could the information on this page be hidden from someone who searches for "Pristina"? That certainly could happen.

Let me change your example to something less commonly used than "Priština", so it is easier to see because of fewer hits to wade through. The principle is still the same. So let's try "Skýcov" instead. Then

1. Go look in List of villages and municipalities in Slovakia. You can find "Skýcov" mentioned there, can't you.
2. Now go to the box on your Wikipedia page, enter "Skycov" and click the "Search" box. Does "List of villages and municipalities in Slovakia" show up on that list? No, it does not.
3. Now go to the box on your Wikipedia page, enter "Skýcov" and click the "Search" box. Does "List of villages and municipalities in Slovakia" show up on that list? Yes, it does (unless, of course, you hit one of those times when the service is down so you don't get any results).

Clearly, the existence of the redirect at Skycov did not keep this information from being hidden from that particular search, a type of search very common search for anybody using Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... you're right: some details may become "hidden by diacritics" (as in the "find on this page" function). But not the important things, not the main articles, which are located by redirects or disambiguations.

Searching for Priština or Pristina will get you there. Searching for Peć or Pec too. Sometimes it may require one extra step (going trough the "Pec" dismabiguation, finding out the correct form of "Skýcov" and then searching again, or reading a few paragraphs instead of conducting a quick "find on this page"), but you'll get there :-) And that little extra step is a small price to pay for having a richer, more perfectionist and educative way to display these names.

The alternative, to eliminate non-English characters altogether, although it would make some searches easier and completely eliminate some minor problems, would also leave us with a much poorer encyclopedia. Or at least that's my personal opinion :-) - Regards, Evv 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On the use of "Patrikana e Pejës"

On format

Mig11, Patrikana e Pejës should be italicized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type, for the very simple reason that it's a foreign language (i.e. not English). There's no further agenda here. Even the Albanian Wikipedia does the same thing:

• in Firenca the Italian Firenze is italicized.
• in Venediku the Italian Venezia is italicized.
• in Parisi the French rive droite & rive gauche are italicized.

This version feels like an "International Wikipedia", but its written in English. - Regards, Evv 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbian is a foreign language too, of course, and should be italicized too when written using the Latin alphabet (Manastir Pećka patrijaršija); but italicizing Cyrillics is unnecessary (at least in this particular context), and only makes it harder for us (not used to such scripts) to read it.

Only for comparision, you should notice that the Albanian Wikipedia doesn't always italicize non-Latin script either:

• in Qabeja the Arabic الكعبة is not italicized.
• in Beogradi the Serbian Беoград is not italicized.

I must stress that italicizing Patrikana e Pejës (or Manastir Pećka patrijaršija) while leaving Пећка патријаршија un-italicized doesn't make any of those forms more relevant or less "foreign". Nor does it support any political, ideological or cultural claim whatsoever. It's just a matter of style and readability :-) . Best regards, Evv 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On inclusion

Whether to include the Albanian name Patrikana e Pejës or not: this should be discussed here.

I understand that a case could be made on the Serbian-only nature of the monastic institution. But even in this case the Patriarchate of Peć appears to refer not only to the institution, but to the buildings themselves, the complex of churches placed on the World Heritage List. Since these buildings are referred to by the local Albanian population as Patrikana e Pejës, the inclusion of this name is relevant to the article. Besides, it's interesting to know the Albanian name :-)

Please, keep in mind that the choice of names used in the article is by no means an assertion of sovereignty, a way of laying claim over this institution, these buildings or Kosovo itself. It's merely a reflection of common English usage and a desire to give interesting information to the readers. - Best regards, Evv 18:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should this be discussed?? Maybe you forgot, but this is an English Encyclopedia. Racial and nationalistic POV are not welcomed in Wikipedia. And removing the Albanian name of a monastery that is located in the city of Peja, where 90 % of people knows and calls this institution with this name is a clear nationalistic POV! This is nothing to discus about. Albanian name must be in this article like the Serbian one! If it will be removed in the future, it will be reported as a vandalism.--just a happy girl :) 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with those 90% of Albanians... Unless intensity of hatred towards Serbs serves to connect them to the Serb Patriarchate. Is that monastery Albanian? No. Was it built by Albanians? No. Are any of the monks Albanian? No. Are the services in Albanian? No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Albanians, Albanian culture, or the Albanian language. It's not even IN Peć, which just shows all you know about the subject of the article is how to translate "Patriarchate of Peć" into Albanian. I won't revert it, but your stance doesn't make any logical sense. --estavisti 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive reaction, Estavisti :-) _ Evv 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I try, I try... (apologies if that wasn't sarcasm :-))--estavisti 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

lol It wasn't on the substance (not reverting)... there was a little on the form ("nothing to do", "No. No. No. No.", "doesn't make any sense" :-). - Regards, Evv 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The "other side" now claims the Albanian name is "official", amid the the usual personal attacks. I don't know where they got this information. I searched the two sites of the the Bishopric of Raška and Prizren (to which the monastery belongs)(Kosovo site, official website of the whole bishopric) and found no results for "patrikana". That was also the case for the official site of the Serb Orthodox Church. So, according to whom is it "official"? --estavisti 15:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't we already agreed on this ? Regardless of its official nature or not, the Albanian name Patrikana e Pejës is relevant and informative, because today Kosovo has an Albanian-speaking majority.

I understand that this may be an emotional issue to you, Estavisti, and Mig11's unwillingness to discuss isn't particularly helpfull either, but can't we just take a step back, get some perspective, and include Patrikana e Pejës for the sake of all of those who, like me, are neither Serb, nor Albanian, and would like this article to be informative about something far far away ? - Regards, Evv 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But why is it appropriate? I of course fully support listing the different language names of towns, where appropriate. That's because many towns have had a history which involves many language groups. However, listing the Albanian name is not appropriate, and not relevant. I suppose the next step is to start listing the Hungarian names of institutions like Matica srpska, simply because there is Magyar minority in the area? Like I noted above, this monastery has nothing to do with Albanian culture or the Albanian language. I suppose we should list the French name of the V&A (le Musée du V&A :P) because there are masses of French people in Kensington and Chelsea? Gimme me a break. I suppose I should spam all the Kosovo mosque articles with the Serbian, because, after all, Serbian is official, and Kosovo is still a part of Serbia? --estavisti 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and when did "we" agree. My objections were bulldozered by a 2-1 majority... --estavisti 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

lol Actually, I do think that Kosovo's mosques should present their Albanian, Serbian and historical Turkish names :-) Not for any political reason or to "be fair and NPOV", but simply because I find that information interesting and worth knowing.

Regarding the Matica srpska, I find the name very interesting, and would love to see a "Name" section explaining precedents for such a name and details about how it was referred to by Germans and Hungarians at least, French, English & Italians if possible. In fact, every single article of Wikipedia should have a "Name" section :-)

And please, accept my sincere apologies if I gave you the impression of wanting to impose one solution by revert-warring. It was not my intention. I find it ok "to bulldoze" policy violations, but all other issues are to be rationally discussed, not imposed.

When you said "I won't revert it" (22:53, 24 Oct), I misinterpreted it as your acceptance to include Patrikana e Pejës, and as such I praised it an hour later.

How about this possible solution, eliminating brackets, creating a second paragraph on names only:

The Patriarchate of Peć is a Serbian Orthodox monastery located near Peć, Kosovo, a Serbian province under UN administration. The complex of churches is the spiritual seat and mausoleum of the Serbian archbishops and patriarchs.

Its Serbian name is Пећка патријаршија or Pećka Patrijaršija, and it's called Patrikana e Pejës in Albanian.

Regards, Evv 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. All that was needed was a little willingness to compromise. :-) --estavisti 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that :-) I did a similar edit in Peć (diff.) that was swiftly reverted by the "other side" :-) Evv 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

lol You changed it ! Adding "native" isn't really necessary, since there's no possibility of mistaking it for "foreign/new/adopted", and only hints at "Albanian foreignness". Then, the reading flows easier when keeping it as a single sentence, articulated by a comma. Can I revert to the original, supposedly agreed version ? - Evv 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti, you're adding "native" here (diff.) while simultaneously removing the word in Peć (diff.). I'm reverting to the supposedly agreed version. - Evv 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Words can mean different things in different contexts, yeah? :-) --estavisti 03:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But the rationale being applied on both these cases for using the word or not is the same: the "legitimacy" connotation of the word, the implication that some groups are original/permanent while others are foreign, newcomers.

Furthermore, regarding this article, as you mentioned in your 22:53, 24 Oct comment, this institution is 99% Serbian, with no ambiguity whatsoever: there's no need to over-emphasize it in the "name" paragraph.

In fact, there're good reasons not to do it, because in this politically charged field such unnecessary emphasis is (probably rightly) percieved as hostile and offensive.

Besides, anyone reading the article and considering the cultural and historical afiliation of the institution as ambiguous because of the "name" paragraph would be too functionally illiterate to understand any article of any sort anyway.

So, please, let's restore the proposed sentence. - Regards, Evv 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your last version (diff.) much more than my original proposal. Good job :-) And I honestly didn't know that "it's" was informal... thanks for mentioning that important fact. - Regards, Evv 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mig11's unwillingness to discuss"??? Ew: Very “interesting”! Estavisti was really “willing to discuss”. His only concern was to remove the Albanian name. I never removed the Serbian one, because I respect it as much as I do respect the Albanian name of this Patriarchate. I said all I had to say and I was really trying not to use the Wiki as a chat room. I don’t understand why the same things should be repeated a 1000 times!

I don’t see where is the difference and why are you complicating such a simple thing: (Serbian: Пећка патријаршија or Pećka Patrijaršija; Albanian: Patrikana e Pejës) with a new long sentence?! I will write back the simplified version because it has the absolutely same meaning. It sounds to me that you think, the readers of this article don’t understand it and the new sentence looks like „explanation of the patriarchate names for dummies”! Regards --just a happy girl :) 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change it back. As you can see, it has been agreed on through a relatively long discussion (given the weight of the subject matter) between Evv and myself. Also, it's so nice you profess such a high level of tolerance: you respect the Serbian name of the Serbian patriarchate as much as the Albanian name! Amazing! So yeah, don't change back what was agreed on. We can continue the discussion (not the "chat") here. --estavisti 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Other side", I never said that Estavisti was very willing to discuss (he wasn't), but you simply refused to talk:

• 21:54, 24 Oct 2006: nothing to discuss about & Why should this be discussed?? This is nothing to discus about.
• 12:25, 29 Oct 2006: I dont reply to obviously frustrated and nationalistic comments!
• 14:03, 30 Oct 2006: I already said all I had to say in the talk.No need for an endless discussion.

I'm fine with both version: I find that the separate sentence improves readability, but I'm ok with the brackets. Now, please, everyone, stop reverting each other and talk. - Regards, Evv 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with either version. Mig11, if, as you say, "it has the absolutely same meaning", then why persistently revert it? At least one editor clearly prefers it, others are seemingly neutral, so why not leave the version everyone is happy with there, and focus on more important matters? Or is there some hidden agenda in this edit war that I'm missing? -- int19h 11:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Int19! I am actually taking a break, but just dropped by to see what happened in the last days. Frankly I didn’t knew, that we are here to make Estavisti happy. If you could take a look at the history of the article you would see that Estavistis only concern was to remove the Albanian name of this Kosovarian patriarchate. And also in the history you can see that I was not the only user who kept bring in it back. OK, in the last time it was then mainly just me, who did that. Yes, the new version is maybe the same thing, but again a try from Estavisti to put as down as possible the Albanian name. I don`t agrre with it. I would be happy if we leave the simplified version.

You must ask Estavisti why is he doing , what is he doing, not just here but everywhere else, that has to do anything with Albanians (or even with Illyrians!). He seems to think that Serbian people have the exclusive right on everything in Kosova or that has to do with this country. At the one hand I understand him anyway: it is hard to grow up under the influence of the brainwashing media machinery that Serbia had and sadly still has. But on the other side: this is an encyclopaedia, and not some kind of wish box.

You know the problem with names that have to do with everything from or in Kosova is a big problem in this Wiki. Just take a look at this. People voted oppose just because they think, the Serbian name should be everywhere. It seems that they didn’t even saw the official homepage of that airport. The article doesn’t change the reality: the official name of the airport is Pristina International Airport and not Priština International Airport. It is just one of the examples how the reality and this encyclopaedia are so far away from each other.

And to you Ew: You seem to think I have some kind of amnesia! I know what I already wrote; please don’t waste time with it. I am glad that you agree with both versions, but I don’t agree with Estavistis version. The simplified version is absolutely readable. --just a happy girl :) 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Except this isn't an Albanian monument, it isn't in Albania, and the Albanian name isn't official (as is the case with the airport, where I did not get involved). Just because the Albanian population is high in the area, that doesn't mean anything for the name of the patriarchate. --estavisti 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is rather amusing. I attempted to compromise with you for weeks, you ignored my requests for a discussion, then accused me(!) of rejecting compromise. I'll leave your precious Albanian there, though with the quiet satisfaction that you're claiming this as a "Kosovarian" monument as there are no significant traces of a medieval Albanian culture or presence in Metohia (the actual location of the Pećka Patrijaršija). Have a nice day, and try not to get too frustrated with your situation. :-) --estavisti 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems we finally have an agreement on something here - way to go :) We sure could use more of that on other Kosovo-related articles. And yes, I know that naming is one of the bigger issues, and I've been trying to do little that I can to help with that, coming (hopefully) from a more neutral side. Speaking of which, we'll see what can be done about the article on the airport - it's obviously not under the proper title at the moment. -- int19h 08:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not have an agreement. Mig has simply prevailed by refusing to compromise and invariably reverting whatever I suggested/agreed with other users. --estavisti 10:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Language(s)

@Zoupan: I don't agree with you here (example [1]). Serbian monasteries on Kosovo have existed for centuries, and they, of course, also have names in Albanian language. Albanian is one of the official languages of Kosovo, even from the Serbian point of view. We need reliable sources that show Albanian name, I know, but it is very easy to find a lot of sources that show that Patriarchate of Peć is "Patrikana e Pejës" in Albanian. What do you mean when you say "the Albanian name is close to non-existant"? Patriarchate of Peć has an established name in Alabanian language because Albanians have lived in the area around the monastery for centuries. What Albanians think about the monastery is irrelevant here. Albanian is one of the official languages of Kosovo, and the language of the majority of the people living around the monastery. What is the reason not to include Albanian name? See WP:PLACE which is relevant here: "Relevant foreign language names ([...] used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted". Albanians certainly inhabit the area around the monastery, and we have sources to show Albanian name, so why not including it? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Including term Monastery into the page title

Since term "Patriarchate of Peć" in historiography and other scholarly literature primarily designates the historical Serbian Patriarchate with its seat in the Monastery of Peć, we should find some solution for including the term Monastery in the title of this page. This page is only about the Patriarchal Monastery of Peć and that fact should be reflected in the title. Mirror pages in following languages contain the term Monastery in the title of this page: Bulgarian, Dutch, Finnish, German, Russian, Ukrainian and Serbian. Simplest solution would be to rename page as "Monastery of Peć" or "Patriarchal Monastery of Peć". Lets talk about this. Sorabino (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sorabino: Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME principle. If you want to rename the pages, you have to prove that the proposed title is more common in English language reliable sources than the current name. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• That is easy then, because one just have to type "Patriarchate of Peć" in Google Books search and look at the use of the phrase. It is clear from the vast majority of relevant sources that phrase "Patriarchate of Peć" designates the actual Patriarchate of Peć (1346-1464 and 1557-1766). It is also used for the Monastery of Peć, but always wit clear additional use of the term Monastery. So, common sense and data from the sources are in accordance here. Sorabino (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorting out some redirects

Since we have page on Serbian Patriarchate of Peć (1346-1766) it would be wise to reconsider some former redirects to this page. This page is about the Monastery of Peć, not about the Patriarchate of Peć. So, to avoid confusion, all redirects that do not include the term "monastery" (like Patriarchate of Peć, Patriarchate of Pec, Patriarchate of pec, Pec Patriarchate) should be redirected to the actual page about the Patriarchate (Serbian Patriarchate of Peć). There was some confusion about that, quite unnecessary, because in English language, term Patriarchate refers to the office and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of a patriarch, and therefore should not be used as a designation for a monastery. So lets sort out that, and avoid any future confusion. Sorabino (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As I already explain to you, Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME. The most commonly used name for this monastery is "Patriarchate of Peć" (compare [2] vs. [3]). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: OK, I understand that, but there are two separate questions here. In English language term "Patriarchate of Peć" is primarily used to designate Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć that existed from 1346 to 1766. It is true that Monastery of Peć is often called simply "Patriarchate" of Peć, because it was the seat of the Patriarchate. In order to avoid confusion, English scholarly literature uses terms "Monastery of Peć" or "Peć Monastery" as can be seen here: Peć Monastery on Google Books search and Peć Monastery on Google Scholar search and Monastery of Peć on Google Books search. Therefore, I still think that the is no need to use the term "Patriarchate" in the title of this page, since page is just about the Monastery. The best solution, in my opinion, would be: Patriarchal Monastery of Peć, since that term is used quite often and it is not confusing: Patriarchal Monastery of Peć on Google search. Sorabino (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to prove that the proposed title is more common in English literature than the current title. You are showing Google search results to prove that the proposed title is commonly used, but that is not enough evidence to prove that it is more commonly used than the current title. We need some kind of comparison, to see which title is more common. Also, we need to see what title is used by other encyclopedias and respected sources. I recommend you to start the formal WP:move request and seek comment from other users. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: I dont think that would be necessary now, since it seems that you found quite good solution with page Patriarchate of Peć that will serve now as a useful disambiguation page. You fixed all relevant redirects too. I think that any danger of confusion is now reduced to a minimum. Thanks for that solution :) Sorabino (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Patriarchate of Peć (monastery). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016131355/http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2006/November_14/4.html to http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2006/November_14/4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005115659/http://www.suc.org/culture/history/Serb_History/Monasteries/Pec/index.html to http://www.suc.org/culture/history/Serb_History/Monasteries/Pec/index.html

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) 12:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfair...

It is unfair to almost always put only the Albanian name of the city. I think that there should be the original name, in Serbian too... Bruno Romanin (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I invite all of you, Wikipedia users, to reflect on the fact that Kosovo is historically "the heart of Serbia"… Bruno Romanin (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the way a page is named, you have to take it up on the talk page of the page in question. Page names for localities in Kosovo are only changed through a consensus or a vote on the respective talk page. If you want to enjoy your experience on Wikipedia, please check out WP:CONDUCT. You have gotten involved in a contentious topic on your first few edits which isn't the best start to be honest. If you follow the Wikipedia code of conduct and ease your way into contentious topics, then you shouldn't run into trouble in the future. ElderZamzam (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)