Talk:Architecture of Peja

Redirection

23 editor, why are you repeatedly redirecting this article? The topic seems to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bobrayner:: I cringe every time I see the quality of Wiki Academy Kosovo articles and take them for good faith "spam". I've tried redirecting the content elsewhere as opposed to deleting it outright. If you wish to spend hours of your time attempting to make sense of countless paragraphs of broken English and constant violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style then go for it. 23 editor (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken English or violation of WP:MOS does not say anything about the notability of the subject; Article content does not determine notability. They are separate issues that need to be addressed separately. --Λeternus ^(talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2014

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: all moved for consistency with the main article. Number 57 23:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

---

• Architecture of Peja → Architecture of Peć
• School for visually impaired in Peja → School for visually impaired in Peć
• Religion in the Peja region → Religion in the Peć region
• Demographics of Peja → Demographics of Peć
• Events and festivals in Peja → Events and festivals in Peć
• Peja Bath → Peć Bath

– Consistency with main article, Peć. Also, that is COMMONNAME also anyway. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Should have the same name as the parent article. IJA (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose; since when did a RM closed as "no consensus" constitute a mandate to rename dozens of other articles and redirects and categories for "consistency"? bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the main article is still Peć. This is not about this RM, but about main article. This suppose to be done long time ago. You should comment actual article content, as for now your vote does not have any influence, as you comment rm from other page, and not this one. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support for consistency per WP:AT. --Local hero ^talk 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - with same arguments as in the entries of the two previous supporting users, consistency with the main article being the most important one. Also, as stated in the other discussion about this, both Peć and Pejë/Peja are considered official, although Peć appears to be the one that's established itself in English, just like we say Kiev and Gothenburg instead of Kyiv and Göteborg. - Anonimski (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural comment. I have combined the move requests here into a single multimove request, as the rationale is the same and to this point the editors commenting have also overlapped. To the extent that the argument is related to consistency, it seems unnecessary to have six separate move requests that might end with different results were the participating editors to vary from discussion to discussion. (I am an uninvolved editor, but closed the "no consensus" RM mentioned above; I will not be closing this request.) Dekimasuよ! 18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge content wih Peć and Architecture of Kosovo. 23 editor (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. We should keep the consistency with the title of the main article. IF the main article ever moves, those should be moved too. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• NOTE a no-consensus failed move request exists at Talk:Peć -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Pec/Peja is in Kosovo, not Serbia, so should use Albanian, not Serbian. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kosovo has official bilingualism by law. This issue isn't related to the political debate on which government should administrate the region... - Anonimski (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This IP is again here. Its obviousli a sock-puppet of someone else, and that should be checked. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• It might be a sock of User:Lindi29. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lindi29. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.