 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name
edit- "Matejić Monastery" (15), "Matejić church" (5)
- "Matejče monastery" (14), "Matejče church" (3)
- "Žegligovo Monastery" (0)
Hits favour Matejić, which is the name that the locals also use for the village.--Zoupan 23:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- What 'hits' are those? I already noticed you might be getting something with google searches wrong, but I did not receive an answer elsewhere. --Laveol T 21:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This monastery is located in Macedonia in the village of Matejče in ethnographic region of Žegligovo. So, the monastery is named after those names. Zoupan, you are trying to use a serbian name (i think) and use the therm serbian monastery. In Macedonia all orthodox churches and monasteries are under jurisdiction od Macedonian orthodox church. I pls the admins to redirect the article in proper name. This building is located in Macedonia and must be respectet the macedonian toponym.--R ašo
19:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- These are Gbooks hits, as usual. The most common name is Matejić, which is also the historical name for both the monastery and village, still used by the Serb community in the village (the village is inhabited by ethnic Serbs, and not ethnic Macedonians). The fact that the village is in Macedonia obviously doesn't mean that it is under Macedonian Church-jurisdiction, that is like saying that all churches in Ukraine belongs to one Church organization. This breaches NPOV. See Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric.--Zoupan 23:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the village is in Macedonia and had official name Matejče. So this name is in use for every purpose and in english also. Second the article in this wiki about Novi Sad is Újvidék (hungarian) or we use the serbian name? After your logic Novi Sad was since ever hungarian, then come on, we should rename the article. In your mother wiki this article use the name Matejče ([1] look).--R ašo 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It would be much easier if you provided links to those searches. It makes it hard to trust you, given the way you misinterpreted the numbers elsewhere. It would also help if you discussed moves prior to performing them. I understand that this makes it harder for other users to overturn your decision, giving you more power over them, but it is hardly wiki-worthy behaviour. I do believe that the Matejce version, being the one that is native to the country, should be used, given the practically non-existent discrepancy in the number of mentions they get. --Laveol T 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Show me one instance of misinterpreting numbers elsewhere (fail, as you refuse to understand what I'm saying there). I don't have time listing each result, btw, you haven't refuted my results yet. Robert G. Ousterhout (1987). The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. Dumbarton Oaks. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-88402-165-0.
Matejić Monastery church
, Cecil Stewart (1959). Serbian Legacy. George Allen and Unwin. p. 134.Matejic' (monastery)
, Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales) (January 1977). Youth hosteler's guide to Europe. Collier Books.7 miles W. among mountains is remote Matejic Monastery
, Abstracts of Papers - Byzantine Studies Conference. Byzantine Studies Conference. 2003.Byzantine foundations - the imperial church at Matejic monastery
, etc, over 40 results using Matejić.--Zoupan 19:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)- A link to the search page. As I said above It would be much easier if you provided links to those searches. I did not ask for a detailed list of sources, but for a link to the searches your performed. And you, for some reason (can't imagine what), feel reluctant to share them. The numbers you provided are hardly telling of having one predominant version. And hence, none of them is predominant, why not use the native one?--Laveol T 11:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Show me one instance of misinterpreting numbers elsewhere (fail, as you refuse to understand what I'm saying there). I don't have time listing each result, btw, you haven't refuted my results yet. Robert G. Ousterhout (1987). The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. Dumbarton Oaks. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-88402-165-0.
- It would be much easier if you provided links to those searches. It makes it hard to trust you, given the way you misinterpreted the numbers elsewhere. It would also help if you discussed moves prior to performing them. I understand that this makes it harder for other users to overturn your decision, giving you more power over them, but it is hardly wiki-worthy behaviour. I do believe that the Matejce version, being the one that is native to the country, should be used, given the practically non-existent discrepancy in the number of mentions they get. --Laveol T 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Matejić Monastery (15), Matejce Monastery (14), Matejić church (5), Matejce church (4). What does native in this respect mean? The name of the village in official Macedonian, or the historical name of the village and church still used by the native community (which is Serb)? If we disregard the hits, since the subject is not the village but the monastery, which is indeed part of Serbian heritage, I would prefer "Matejić", from a cultural POV, still having Matejče in the introduction (as is now the case). However, I am willing to move to "Matejče Monastery" based on consistency with the village.--Zoupan 13:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- So we have consensus to move it back, then? Especially, given that 4 of the 15 mentions of Matejić monastery are basically one and the same. --Laveol T 14:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)