Talk:Vjosa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article name

The name was Aoos and the predominant name used in scholarship is Aoos, and since antiquity. Vjose is later name.Megistias (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what should be leading in choosing the title for this article is what is most used in English, not which name was used first (which might be debatable, who knows which name the ancient Illyrians used). My guess is that both names (Aoos and Vjosë) are used in English, and that there is no clear preference, but prove me wrong. See WP:NCGN#Multiple local names and WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names for guidelines. Markussep ^Talk 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I get 1500 names with Aoos in google books, and just 500 with Vjose. Also its source is in Greece.Megistias (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I get similar results. I therefore undid the move by User:ObserverFromAbove. Athenean (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't show which name is predominantly used. In google there are 91,400 results for Aoos many of which refer to totally different subjects like the Alaska Ocean Observing System, while for Vjosë there are 196,000 results. We agree to disagree so I think we should ask for other users' opinions.--ObserverFromAbove (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Per ObserverFromAbove reasoning, I am undoing User:Athenean. Indeed Aoos in Google gives results that have nothing to do with the river. Furthermore the river is 71% in Albania and 29% only in Greece, for not talking about the quantity of water found in Albania which is significantly higher than that in Greece and also the basin of water that collects in Albania which also is significantly higher in percentage than 71-29. For all these reasons, Vjose should be the name. This is per wp:names. I recommend that we keep it that way until we reach a consensus, or we put it in RFC. --sulmues (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, river's mouth is in Albania. kedadial 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Rivers_with_multiple_names, I'll quote that if everything is equal, there should be an Albanian name, because per Wikipedia's policy, I'll quote

if everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.

--sulmues (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The arguments about the river's mouth and length and quantity of water are meaningless. The only thing that matter is frequency of usage among reliable sources. A search on Google Books for Aoos river returns 243 hits [2], and for "Aous river (an alternate spelling) 322 hits [3]. On the other hand, Google book searches for Vjosë river, Vjose river, and Vjosa river return 50 [4], 48 [5], and 71 [6], hits respectively. Thus, among reliable sources, Aoos/Aous seems far more prevalent than Vjose/Vjosa. Raw google searches are meaningless because they contain all kinds of junk (hotels, restaurants, nationalist websites). Athenean (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names kedadial 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names:If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name. The results of the Google Books search confirm that "Aoos" is the most commonly used among reliable sources. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the other two rules? kedadial 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about them? The rule I am quoting is the first one, so it takes precedence over the second one. The last rule only applies if "all else is equal", which is clearly not the case here, because "Aoos" is far more common. By the way, pretty hypocritical of you to revert me claiming that I shouldn't edit while a discussion is going on, when in fact that is exactly what you did. You made a number of controversial changes after I explained on the talkpage that Aoos is more common, completely ignoring my talkpage post. Athenean (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, I just restored it to the last stable version (before the discussion and the edit-warring began) and made some improvements to the article (irrelevant to this discussion btw). kedadial 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Love the way you just ignored the evidence in my above posts. Very smooth. Athenean (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since Athenean wants to use Google Books, rather than simply google: Even in Google Books Vjosa and its variants give more than Aoos.

Vjosa: Vjosë: 617 [7]; Vjose: 509 [8]; Vjosa: 639 [9]; Vjosës: 159 [10]; Vjoses: 159 [11]:Sum is 2083.

Aoos: Aoos gives 1582 hits ([12]), so it's an inferior number. In addition even if you look into the first page, NONE of the hits refers to the river. Case closed. --sulmues (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Sulmues has no idea what he is doing. You have to use "Aoos river" and "Vjose river", not plain Aoos and Vjose. Another thing, many of the hits for "Vjose" and "Vjosë" are duplicates. In general, "Vjosë" should not be used, because in English there are no diacritics ("ë"). Case closed indeed. Athenean (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Guess what: "Vjose river" generates 19,200 hits in Google Books ([13]) whereas "Aoos river" generates barely 1,474 ([14]). What can I say more?--sulmues (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting funnier by the minute. Newsflash: You have to use quotes, as in "Vjose river" and "Aoos river" to search for the exact phrase. Otherwise you get all the hits that contain "Vjose" and all the hits that contain "river" (19000 books that mention this mighty river? I mean, come on). But don't bother, I already did it for you above. Why do I bother with people that don't even know how to conduct a proper Google Books search? Athenean (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil everybody, and let's focus on objective arguments. If we can't get to a satisfactory result, the discussion should be announced at WP:RM. Do we agree on the following arguments?

• The river flows through Greece (about 80 km) and Albania (about 190 km)
• The source of the river is in Greece, the mouth is in Albania
• Both "Aoos" and "Vjosë" (in various forms) are used in English
• None of the names is overwhelmingly (e.g. >80%) used in English
• Existing guidelines (WP:NCGN, WP:RIVERS naming conventions) apply

Markussep ^Talk 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. Nobody is mentioning it but before consulting Google Books we have to first consult post 1993 English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta). After that we go to Google Books. --sulmues (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to change the redirect like that Sulmues diff .Megistias (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The redirect wasn't changed, was it? I suggest we leave the article as it is until we've solved this naming problem, uncontroversial changes excepted. Could you comment on my list of arguments? Markussep ^Talk 11:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to follow Markussep and WP:RIVERS to reach a consensusMegistias (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the aforementioned arguments, Aoos is the term used in specialized treatises as well. (Acta hydrochimica et hydrobiologic, 2001)Megistias (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So is Vjosë, see Annales Geophysicae (2003) 21: 345–364. Markussep ^Talk 13:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Vjose comes from the many Aoos based-variances of names. Stephanus of Byzantium is a 6th century AD writer and he mentions it as Boious (Greek: Βοϊούς). 600 years before any Albanians are mentioned in what is now north Albania let alone the southern part. Vjose is the form of the name in the modern Albanian language.Megistias (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Aoos is the most prominent name due to the historicity of the region, it was just Aoos for most of its history, and the rendition of it as Vjose is a recent one. Wikipedia:RIVERS#Rivers_with_multiple_names "If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name."Megistias (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the origin of the names, I'm not so familiar with Albanian history and etymology. The guideline you quote is valid, but I think there is disagreement about whether the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned as "Aoos". WP:NCGN#General guidelines says: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Unless the river is only mentioned in the context of classical antiquity (which isn't true), we should use the modern name for the title. Classical use is not so relevant then. Markussep ^Talk 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Vjosa name comes from Aoos, it would be like not using Danube for the Danube#Name, and using the Romanian: Dunăre, Dunărea because 28,9% of it flows through Romania.Megistias (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Dunăre appear in Encarta? Does it give more than 20% books and articles as compared to Danube? And stop saying that Albanians appeared in the 11th century (read Origin_of_the_Albanians#Written_sources_ --sulmues (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, your searches are wrong Sulmues.(also that section of Origin of the Albanians does not claim what you say....read the article)Megistias (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "Danube" is the most commonly used name in English. There is reasonable doubt that "Aoos" (or "Vjosë") is the most commonly used name in English. Etymology, or "who was first" is really irrelevant, we don't call London Londinium here, or Vienna Vindobona (except in Roman context). Markussep ^Talk 14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjosa river 5,210 hits, Aoos river 10,200Megistias (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjose cannot be used in the searches, as the Spanish name Jose is added to the results. And just "vjose river" gives merely 148 hits vjose .Megistias (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I get different results in Dutch Google: vjose river 491, vjosa river 4890, aoos river 10100, so that's 65% Aoos. Google Books: vjose river 48, vjosa river 71, aoos river 243, so that's 67% Aoos. Britannica has Vjosë in its "Albania" article, and Aóös in its "National park" article (referring to Vikos-Aoos park). Columbia doesn't mention it, Encarta has been discontinued. Markussep ^Talk 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My god, this can't be possible!!! How can someone citing "amounts of water" seriously participate in a discussion about this? This is pretty simple. Vjose or whatever is just the albanian version of the name Aoos and I think it is different enough from 'Aoos' to win itself a mention in the brackets. :) The name Aoos is simply more notable because of the very notable Vikos-Aoos national park.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google Books for Aoos river returns 243 hits [15], and for "Aous river (an alternate spelling) 322 hits [16]. On the other hand, Google book searches for Vjose river, and Vjosa river return 48 [17], and 71 [18], hits respectively. Thus, among reliable sources, Aoos/Aous seems far more prevalent than Vjose/Vjosa. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is because Aoos was used in antiquity, so google books may contain a little bit more because they are taking all the sources of books that were written in the course of 2000 years. Modern English sources have more "Vjose" than "Aoos", and that's what we should be going with per WP:NCGN#General guidelines --sulmues (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, and it's not "little bit more", it's an order of magnitude more. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We go with rivers and Aoos is the name. Someone change the redirect and lets go on with our editing.Megistias (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, please do not continue an edit war on this. --sulmues (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Data shows otherwise and we are not edit warring. Megistias (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not an argument. The case that "Aoos" is more prevalent than Vjose has been backed by Google Books searches. Sulmues has been unable to refute this, and is now left with saying "I disagree". Case closed, sorry. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative, I disagree because you are failing to convince me that those books are modern. --sulmues (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is of course and empty argument, they are modern, but even then it doesn't really matter, what really matters is that Aoos is 2-5 times more common than Vjose in the English literature. But at this point though, I don't think it's possible for me to convince you of anything, at any time, ever. Athenean (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some "modern" books that refer to the river as "Aoos" [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Actually, all 10/10 books from just the first page of hits [28] are "modern" (2nd half of 20th century and 21st century). Probably Sulmues didn't even bother looking at the Google Books search. Athenean (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep looking at all of them. I noticed that the other pages are older. --sulmues (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have. I don't think you have, though, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. For example, page 10 from the Google Book search [29]. You seem to have forgotten (or pretending to have forgotten) that the Aoos flows through Greece as well, and because lots more books have been written about Greece than Albania, that is why most books call it the Aoos. It's not a historical name. It's the actual name of the river in Greece and every single book written about Greece that mentions the river will call it Aoos and never "Vjose". Athenean (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your persistance is not a source or an argument Sulmues.Megistias (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As Markussep said ("There is reasonable doubt that "Aoos" (or "Vjosë") is the most commonly used name in English."), "Aoos" is not the predominant name used in English. So we have to follow WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names. Thank you. kedadial 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Markussep said this [30], 65-67% Aoos. Case closed, no point in discussing with people who pretend not to hear. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That shows that the 80% test doesn't pass. The books write about the river in Greece, not the one in Albania, so they are about the Greek part of the river. This article though refers to the WHOLE RIVER. I still continue to disagree with renaming it--sulmues (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First it was that Aoos is not more common than Vjose, then it was that the sources that call it Aoos are too old. Now it's this "80% test" that you have made up out of thin air. The argument about "the Greek part of the river" is a total joke. It's the same river. And twice as many sources refer that river as "Aoos" than they do as "Vjose". Athenean (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I'm a bit disappointed that Athenaean moved the article when the discussion was clearly not yet finished. But well, back to objective arguments. Note that Google results may well be distorted by the fact that more Greeks than Albanians publish in English, which is understandable given the isolation Albania has experienced until the early 1990s. A 2:1 ratio is not overwhelming IMO, but I don't think we have good definitions of "overwhelming". The Albanian part of the river is longer and more populated than the Greek part, but that not an overwhelmingly convincing argument either. My conclusion is: both names are used and valid, neither one is "bad" as a title. I see no compelling reason to move either way. Markussep ^Talk 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was disappointed too. The discussion is ongoing and I found it arrogant that Megistias and Athenean made edits before reaching a consensus in the talk page. --sulmues (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, a move war. Couldn't we just add {{POV-title}} tags instead?--Ptolion (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues restore the article. What you did was outright vandalism, you removed references and quotes diffMegistias (talk)`

@Markus: The reason I moved it is because to me, if 67% of sources use "Aoos" over "Vjose", that is sufficient grounds for a move. 67% mean twice as many sources use "Aoos" than "Vjose". In my Google Books search, I get 243 and 322 hits for Aoos/Aous and only 48/71 for Vjose/Vjosa. That is an order of magnitude more. If that is only because of Albania's isolation, that is too bad. Anyway, I am happy to discuss this with you, however, I am done discussing with Sulmues. I have no time for people who make up rules as they go along. First he argued that Aoos is not more commonly used than Vjose because he didn't know how to conduct a basic Google Books search. When I showed otherwise, he started arguing that the sources that use "Aoos" are "old". When I showed otherwise, he made up an "80% test" and nonsense about the "Greek part of the river". Clearly, there is no point in discussing with such an individual. Now, where you and I differ is in the definition of overwhelming. To me 243+322 >> 48+71, so I think this is sufficient grounds for a move. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That still does not make up the vast majority. kedadial 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"That still does not make up the vast majority" is a completely empty argument. It's not even an argument. I don't know how you define "vast majority", but it's over 80%, which is the "vast majority" as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

65 != 80 kedadial 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

243+322=565. 48+71=119. 565/(565+119)=82.6%! Athenean (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many variances of Aoos, perhaps more than 10, and Vjose itself is a variance of it. Megistias (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We should also note that the river is within a historically (and for a long period demographically) Greek area (Southern and Northen Epirus). Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

earthquake

Has anyone found anything on the earthquake?Megistias (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can read French or German (or trust automatic translaters), this is interesting: French, German. It's about the ancient city Apollonia (40.7215°N 19.4729°E / 40.7215; 19.4729), that used to have a river port on the river Aoos/Vjosë, but now lies about 7 km from the river. The French article says that there was an earthquake in the 2nd century, one in 345 AD, and that the city was abandoned in the 5th century. On a little map they drew the old course of the river, but they don't say when the course was changed, might be as late as the 5th century. Markussep ^Talk 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the river port reference in already. But can't yet find a complete ref to elaborate the earthquakeMegistias (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd century AD earthquake in the area refMegistias (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That ref is about Oricum, southwest of Vlorë, not far from Apollonia and the Vjosë indeed. This earthquake might have affected the course of the river, not sure. Markussep ^Talk 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Name issue

I believe the best indication in such issues (when a common to two countries river has two different names) is the most common usage in the English language. I think a look in the google hits can solve the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, your revert to my changes is inadequate. It can be done when the article name is Aoos, but it isn't. Right now it's Vjose, and I think it should remain so, based on the discussion above.--sulmues (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But the present name is that because of Sulmues' move warring. I refused move warring and started a discussion. You accuse me for not continuing what Sulmues did? I disagree with the move, but I don't think that an edit war can solve the name issue. Is this the way according to you? To end up all of us banned? Lets discuss it calmly and we will find a solution. --Factuarius (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a series of moves that started with Megistias' move which occurred on 3/2/2010 ([31]). Then Athenean and Megistias moved again before the discussion had ended. Now Athenean is going from 67% to 82% with some sophistic math from google hits. --sulmues (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is exactly why you do not need to be taken seriously anymore. You casually dismiss evidence that proves you wrong as "sophistic math from google hits" (whatever that means). There is no "sophistic math", only evidence from Google Books.

• "Aoos river": 243 hits [32]
• "Aous river": 322 hits [33]
• "Vjose river": 48 hits [34]
• "Vjosa river": 71 hits [35]

When you do the math, that's over 80% in favor of Aoos/Aous. You tried several lines of arguments ("Not the majority", "too old", "the Greek part of the river", "80% test"), and every time you have been proven wrong. Now that you have no arguments left, you are just trolling and being disruptive. Enough. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. If you persist with the trolling and disruption I will report you. Athenean (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You have forgotten the forms

• "Viosa river": 129 hits [36],
• "Viose river": 48 hits [37]

which bring your Aoos percentage at 65%. --sulmues (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when are percentages an argument in Wikipedia? And still, sulmues, they are against you!! Now, you should bring some good arguments and evidence to back your case, or we shouldn't waste time and space in this any more. Vjose or whatever is not interesting, geographically, historically, or even linguistically.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We agreed above with Markussep that 80% is warranted for a redirect. The interest to the name might shift during a period of time that is much shorter than a lifetime and we should follow Wiki policies for redirects. --sulmues (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"We agreed"? As far as I can tell, you are only agreeing with yourself. Can you show me where Markussep agreed to your made-up "80% test"? Athenean (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aoos is more prominent, due to the park in Greek, scholarship, history and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

80% was my suggestion, apparently Sulmues agrees with it. There is no percentage defined above which a name is clearly the most commonly used one, this just seems a clear cutoff to me. My problem with this discussion is that it's leading nowhere as long as it's Greeks vs. Albanians. I don't think any of us are native English speakers, am I right? Markussep ^Talk 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll declare neutral. The 65% advance of "Aoos" in Google books is substantial but not quite strong enough for me to force the issue. The fact that "Aoos"/"-us" will strongly predominate in one important topic domain, discussions of classic antiquity, adds some weight to that side. On the other hand, there's the "longer part" rule of the naming guideline, which clearly favours the Albanian name. To my mind, that's pretty much equal weights. Throw some wiki-dice and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I threw the wiki-dice but equilibrated in the cavity floor. Until someone else will be more lucky or Fut will give us a better solution should we move it into "Vjosë-Aoos"?--Factuarius (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name to Vjosa?

"Vjosa" has 368.000 Google results, "Aoos" has 58.000 results and "Aoös" only 7.500 results. The name Vjosa has about 6 times more usages than the Greek name Aoos. In addition, Vjosa has has a length in Albanian of two times its length in Greece. The Google Scholar arguments above are fabricated because most books naming the river as Aoos are Greek authors writing in English. Concretely, 13 of the top 20 results are Greek authors and this is not an objective metric of what people call the river in English. As such, most arguments are in favor of the name Vjosa (most used in English (Google) and the version called in the country it occurs the longest).

Hey Sulmues, socks of indef blocked users don't get participate in naming disputes on wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj

Shaban Demiraj , this fella is not RS, with his Pelasgians and so on. The name is definetely ancient Greek with no doubt.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the reference that you just deleted includes that Elsie says exactly saying the same. Are you gonna boot Elsie from RS too? --sulmues (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Elsi is not a specialized linguist on Illyrian languages, ancient Greek or in ancient History. He writes about Albanians, most on Folklore and some recent history.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then tough luck, because Demiraj is the best Illyrist in the world right now. Has been studying it since 1955. --sulmues (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The best "Illyrist"? According to who? You? You've been told he's not an RS, drop it. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell me who is a best Illyrist than Demiraj. I'm all ears. --sulmues (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues please, dont add aboutnames again, you did it twice diff, diff. Demiraj is just a negligible with no value or worth.Megistias (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

aboutnames is a reliable source for baby first names, what's wrong with it? --sulmues (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, you have been editing for a long time. You should already know.Its a commercial website. Megistias (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? What are they selling? --sulmues (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They are selling nothing, therefore it is not a commercial website, but a quite reliable database of baby names. Added back. --sulmues (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Added two more sources to show that it is a common female name in Albania. --sulmues (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy guys. Demiraj is as credible and RS as the fellow Greek sources in here. If we would like to put him out, than lets put all Albanian and all Greek sources out and try to find other sources. What makes Demiraj an unreliable source? As far as I know he is well-respected in linguistics. (and generally I have a really bad idea about balkanian historians and lingusts).Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'll strike out all the Greek sources if Demiraj is removed. --sulmues (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous suggestion. Anybody who dabbles with the Pelasgian theory of Albanian descent is a clown and not RS. That is NOT a reason to remove the Greek sources, which will be treated as disruption and dealt with accordingly. Athenean (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Demiraj writing on Pelasgians, but if he has written on them, that doesn't mean he is unreliable source. Are the Pelasgians some sort of tabu, so that once that a scholar writes on them, he becomes unreliable? In addition, Shaban Demiraj has been the President of the Academy of Sciences of Albania for four years, he can't be that foolish. --sulmues (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that says more about the Albanian Academy of Sciences than it does about Demiraj. Athenean (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am re-entering this for Athenean! Actually, I think this says more about you and your POV. You keep editing Albania related articles and try to make Albanian sources unreliable while stressing your 'Greek' scholars as trustful. THIS IS A FACT but I see you don't like facts so you keep removing or editing them! We won't tolerate any greekefication of albanian related articles by you! This is not trolling, but a message for you to keep your hands off the albanian articles because of your POV. And please do not remove this comment! If you have something to say on this regard (you editing so many Albanian articles) just talk below where you can explain your position freely. thank you! Piasoft (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Your comment was and is trolling and I was actually doing you a favor by retracting it. It only makes you look aggressive and bad. But hey, if you don't care about how you come across, don't let me stop you. Athenean (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't readd Demiraj, similar claims, or aboutames again Sulmues.Megistias (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj is, among other things, the author of the "Albanian" chapter in The Indo-European Languages, ed. Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paolo Ramat, Routledge 1997, a top-quality reference work on Indo-European linguistics. This means he is definitely a respected scholar in the field. Megistias, stop talking about things you do not understand. Megistias and Athenean, your remarks about this guy border on the defamatory and might get you blocked for BLP violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have contributed to regular publications, but in this book he does not fail to go into Pelasgians and the such.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do recall we had a similar case with an Albanian historian born in France (in the Pelasgians article, when Dodona user was still editing), that had written normal material on other issues, but when he go to an issue similar at hand, he reverted to a familiar pattern.Megistias (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj doubles in Pelasgians & Etruscans. Epiri, pellazg·et, etrusk·et dhe shqiptar·et, 2008 by Shaban Demiraj

• Epirus, Pelgasgians, Etruscans & Shqiptars?!Megistias (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not for you to judge; you are not among the wikipedians who could have anything to say in a discussion about what is or isn't a reliable linguistic source. As to the matter at hand, Demiraj actually doesn't seem to be saying anything particularly exotic. He just reports that Krahe (the leading authority on ancient river names in older scholarship) classified the name as of Illyrian origin (that would be in Hans Krahe, Die alten balkanillyrischen geographischen Namen: auf Grund von Autoren und Inschriften, Heidelberg: Winter, 1925, which I can check next week); and he then reports other scholars discussing whether the transmission from the ancient name to the present Albanian went directly or via intermediate transmissiont through Slavic, judging that it didn't. Not a revolutionary claim, but I can't assess its details without the full context. Unfortunately, the Demiraj book is given only in very short excerpts in Google books search and I have no access to the print book through my library system. Anybody got the full context? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He seems to just point out that its not Slavic or effected by, that it was Aoos/us in the antiquity and that Vjosa came from Vivosa with some Roman influnece due to colonization.Also that Slavic forms are Vajusa and Vojusa (157 page). Megistias (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Kushtrim123 is aggresively reverting [38]. I don't see Demiraj mentioning the mentioning that the name is Illyrian, nor do I see any references to Elsie. This is just mindless revert-warring. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I added what its stated regarding the name. See the linked refMegistias (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The first ref points to a passage where it says "the ancient Ἀώος survives in the form Vojusa". This is preceded by another sentence that says "The relationship between these two names is not clear". Which two names does that sentence refer to? – the only other thing I can read in the link is the following sentence: "It is possible that the Greeks have denominated it by the proper name Ἀίας, with which the river name /Ἀίαντος/ is identical in declension." – I'll be damned if I know what this is supposed to mean. Without more context, there's no way I could assess what the author wants to say here. – Also, why was the reference to Krahe removed; has nobody yet found out what Demiraj's own conclusion/position regarding that hypothesis is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He does not endorse Krahe, just mentions him, he is more interested in debunking any Slavic influence on the Vjose name (dedicating several pages on this) and thus pointing out that Albanians came before the Slavs. The rest of that part goes on "includes this river name among the Illyrian geographical names. According to this scholar, the following forms are evidenced: (nominative) Aous by Plinius and Livius,". In 153 page, before the Aias part he writes "In a footnote Krahe points out: "The relationship between these two names is not clear. ...". In 154 he gives a list of the variant names in the middle ages to the 19th century, from 1305 to 1888.Megistias (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks so far. (BTW, I assume you too are reading this on Google books. Does anybody know why some of us can see more of the text than others?) – Can I still ask, what "two names" is that sentence referring to? Aoos and Aias? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You can try to "" the text you want to see in the search, and add part of the text found on the page. You can in this way see more of the text and by adding proper words, see most of the page. The two names refers to something that Krahe says at 153, i think its the name change to Vojusa but i can't see it clearly. Its Krahe so you should be able to find it in Krahe's 1925, Die Alten balkaniIllyrischen geographischenMegistias (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Basin section

[39] this will help for some info on the basin. --sulmues (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Entered the map as per rivers policies. --sulmues (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map doesnt fit in the article yet, we 'll do something about that in the futureMegistias (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It fit just fine. It is the map of the basin. Why did you get it out? --sulmues (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought the map of the river's basin back. --sulmues (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"definite form"

I notice Factuarius was also revert-warring recently over the sentence "Vjosa is the definite form in Albanian". This is absurd. How could a brief note explaining a morphological alternation between the two Albanian name forms constitute "POV pushing" [40]? Does Factuarius even understand what "definite form" means? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the policy of Wikipedia in regards to stating all the declination forms of a word when the name of the place stems from case rich languages such as Greek, Albanian, or German. A word is declined in indefinite or definite forms in Albanian, so you have potentially 10 forms (5 cases each). In official Albanain only the indefinite form of the nominative case is used for place names in a dictionary (and aside is stated the definite form), but I noticed that the Greek editors tend to give all forms, and I did the same. Could someone please clarify as to what forms are we supposed to write on an article? --sulmues (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is Factuarius' reverts actually had nothing to do with it. Maybe he thought "X is the definite form in Albanian" was a botched-up way of saying "its name is definitely X in Albanian"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fut never ending terrorizing me, now is in my mind. My mistake. --Factuarius (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Hey what are you doing Kushtrim? diff. Please restore it.Megistias (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just deleted a source for the Kalivac project that did not exist any longer - not only the link, but the entire website was not reachable. Further, I corrected the sentence that the 90 MW Kalivac power plant was generating electricity. I passed by recently and found the construction work still stalled, and local engineers told me that since many years, there is no construction progress. The construction group, though, pretends it, see . No other sources could be found that tell why construction is stopped since so long. -Bjorn, June 6th, 2012

References

Name

Still waiting replies for my proposition of 17/3 about the name. If we have a consensus I am going to move it tomorrow. --Factuarius (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean moving it to a bilingual name, I oppose. See Talk:Soča for a similar case. Markussep ^Talk 16:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From your previous post about the Google hits you suggest Aoos or am I wrong? --Factuarius (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On 4 March I wrote "My conclusion is: both names are used and valid, neither one is "bad" as a title. I see no compelling reason to move either way.", and I still feel that way. Markussep ^Talk 16:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2015

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: not moved. The consensus is that the current title is the most common name (as shown by T*U's ananlysis of the google results and ngram), which conforms with WikiProject Rivers' naming conventions to use the common name. While Resnjari's compromise suggestion of "Vjosë/Aoös" is not a bad one and there are some times when I wish we did things like that to try and break deadlocks, it is ultimately not a naming style that is used on the English Wikipedia (can't speak for any others) even in long-running disputes (Derry, Gdańsk, etc.). Jenks24 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Aoös → Vjosë – Most common names based on Google books results: Overall Vjosë is more commonly used in reference to the River as the third and fourth results include hits for the Aoos national park, meaning the hits for 'Aoos' are exaggerated by this. Ujkrieger (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Aoös River" >> 9 Results, Google Books (English only)
• "Vjosë River" >> 56 Results, Google Books (English only)
• "Aoös" >> 731 Results, Google Books (English only) (Includes hits for the 'Vikos-Aoos National Park')
• "Vjosë" >> 698 Results, Google Books (English only)

Ujkrieger (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vjosa is the internationally recognized name. Given that this river is in Albania, it has to be called like it is called over there. Otherwise it would be like calling Istanbul Constantinople, just because it used to be an old version of its name. (Edvin (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

• Oppose Google Books shows "Aoos" to be at least 5 times more common than the Albanian name [41]. Google Book search above is incompetently conducted, perhaps intentionally so. For example, "Aoos river" gets 999 hits [42] (none of them to national park), whereas "Vjose river" only gets 263 hits [43]. Something fishy is going on. That the Greek name is far more common is not surprising since 1) The river features prominently in antiquity (e.g. Battle of the Aous), 2) it is the main feature of a well-known Greek national park (Vikos-Aoos National Park), 3) Greece is a more visited country, and the Greek language far better known around the world than Albanian language. Athenean (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support. First off how was this article's name changed to Aoos in the first place? I was going through the history editing part of this article and it occurred without consensus last year. Considering that there was a whole discussion and no consensus on changing it (note the whole discussion above about a previous move proposal) to Aoos and in light of that how is it that such a change occurred [[44]] without consensus? I ask administrators to have a look at what has occurred. In a similar article on a mountain Maja Ksulje e Priftit the Albanian name was changed without consensus in 2010 [45]. An experienced editor changed it back [[46]] in 2014 and wrote the reason for undoing that move as "Bobrayner moved page Šerupa to Maja Ksulje e Priftit over redirect: Dubious undiscussed move. Try getting a consensus through WP:RM first". No consensus first of all was done to get it to be changed to Aoos and the article has not been called that for to long. Hence regarding the policy on requested moves it says about non consensual article title changes in the section "Undiscussed moves: Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move." Considering that this page has controversies and the previous move was done without even a discussion, i call on administrators to consider this matter according to policy > [47].Resnjari (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When doing a Google Ngram, the results give a decline regarding usage of Aoos: [48], while Vjosa is substantially high [[49]]. So it depends on what one uses to determine If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.. Those results favour Vjosa. Nonetheless, administrators need to take into account that the name change done last year from Vjosa to Aoos was done without consensus or even a discussion. All of the policy must be taken into account.Resnjari (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I also did a google scholar search of the terms and different results appear. Regarding the term Aoos, spelt Aoös with diacritics as the current article has, only 26 results [50]. As Aoös river only 11 results [51]. Spelt as Aoos river without diacritics 19, 900 results [52]. After going through page by page, the search engine picked hybrid terms from course written as Aoos/Vjosa river and Vjosa/Aoos river [53], [54], [55] while also picking up the word river without the word Aoos next to it [56]. And after page it is this generic pickup of the word river that dominates the results from page 27 onwards with very sparse mention of Aoos, if at all [57]. Instead sources that have the word river cite rivers in Mississippi etc etc [58], [59] etc. Regarding the form Vjosa, on its own it returns 757 results [60]. While in the form Vjosa river, scholar returns 436 results [61]. With diacritics the from Vjosë river returns 75 results [62] while when spelt as Vjose river without diacritics returns 19, 300 results [63] and are problematic just like the Aoos one that returned a similar number. I light of such problematic data administrators need take this into account as the policy on Naming conventions (geographic names) WP:WIAN states that:

"Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage, we are interested in hits which are in English, represent English usage, mean the place in question, and are not duplicates of each other or of Wikipedia. Search engine results can fail on all of these. Google may give unreliable estimates at the onset of a search; it is often preferable to restrict the competing searches to less than 1000 hits, and examine the number of hits on the final page. Google does not return more than 1,000 actual results; hit counts above this are estimates which cannot readily be examined, and are imperfect evidence of actual usage. Adding additional search terms may reduce the number of hits to this range, but adds additional random variance."

Also the policy does cite that:

"Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include:

   *major English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia);
   *widely used atlases (examples: The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, the Oxford Atlas of the World);
   *gazetteers (examples: Cambridge World Gazetteer, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America);
   *databases such as the Geographic Names Information System;
   *maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.
   *Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names, such as the United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below), the Geographical Names Board of Canada, etc.
   *For modern country names, The World Factbook maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated.
   *For spelling of place names, a good reference is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.

English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. However, major global sources are generally reliable, such as major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London) or wire services (examples: Reuters, Associated Press). Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution."

I cite this from the policy as the article title was for one unilaterally changed without even an attempted discussion at least to show good faith (and due in part to some editors who use to keep an eye out on this article no longer being active) and that already there has been previous discussion (see above which was quite contested) about a change of name and no consensus was reached. As the policy does say that google results are to be treated with caution, these other sources of which are used in English publications which also are authoritative would need to be considered.Resnjari (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When undertaking the decision for this article, apart from google search to be treated with caution as they give varying and problematic results awareness needs to also be towards bias as outlined in Wikipedia guidelines: WP:WORLDVIEW. Saying that one language is more commonly known than another around the world (however that is defined)and that should be the basis alongside how many tourists a country gets overall as opposed say to the specific area should also be taken with caution. For instance regarding languages like Greek and its being known, that may be so to editors on Wikipedia from the European and Anglophone countries, but that cannot be substantiated that that reality is so in other parts of the world, say in Africa, Asia, the Middle East etc. Thus WP:BIAS needs to also be taken into account too.Resnjari (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

-T*U analysis of Google searches is inline with Wikipedia policy that's states that google searches need to be taken with caution. The following two names spelled with or without diacritics gives off multiple and varying results as even shown by that editor. Also having both names in a Google Ngram diagram takes in sources that use both names and so on giving different results to ones that are separate. Any of these can be interpreted as being "truth" or "misleading" depending on ones take on the matter. Having them separately shows different results. One can use this or that to advance the argument that this name dominates over the other. As google searches are problematic (as stated in the policy and shown by various editors) Wikipedia has established guidelines that in such circumstances authoritative sources in English should also be taken into consideration when that occurs, as per the policy regarding geographical names. Moreover the unilateral change undertaken last year was done without a discussion nor consensus, and keeping the title Aoos would be contravening Wikipedia rules and legitimizing behavior not done in good faith. Its up to the administrators though whether the policy is upheld or not.Resnjari (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: English Googlehits are in favor of Aoos by a ratio of 5v1: as stated in point #1 in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming: If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Using Google hits requires some care to get relevant countings. To avoid Wikipedia hits it is recommended to use the search string arguments -wikipedia and -llc (the latter refers to books printed directly from Wikipedia). Furthermore, if one wants to search for a string like "river Vjosa", it is necessary to put the string between quotation marks, like "river Vjosa". If they are omitted, the search will find hits that contain the two words, but not necessarily in connection. Then there is the problem of different versions of the names (Aoos, Aoös, Aous and Vjosa, Vjosë, Vjose), which can be solved by using the Boolean operator OR. Also, the phrase could be either "river X" or "X river", giving additional arguments. In a case like this, it is best to search for sites that use either Aoos/Aoös/Aous or Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose, ignoring sites that use both names. That can be achieved using arguments like -Vjosa, -Aous etc. The whole search string for Vjosa will then be

"Vjosa river" OR "Vjosë river" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "river Vjosë" OR "river Vjose" -wikipedia -llc -Aoös -Aoos -Aous

for Aoös

"Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc -Vjosa -Vjosë -Vjose

Finally, the count given by Google on the first result page is not correct. To find the correct number of hits, it is necessary to go to the last result page.

Results in Google:

Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose 369 hits

Aoös/Aoos/Aous 374 hits

Results in Google Books:

Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose 119 hits

Aoös/Aoos/Aous 306 hits

Results in Google Scholar:

Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose 209 hits

Aoös/Aoos/Aous 186 hits

Then a comment to the nGrams of Resnjari. To describe it as "a decline regarding usage of Aoos, while Vjosa is substantially high" is rather misleading. When you show both in the same diagram, the picture is a bit different. Aoos has been dominant and is still in the lead.

To sum up: Google search even, Google Scholar slight advantage Vjosa/Vjosë/Vjose, Google Books and nGram clear advantage Aoös/Aoos/Aous. My conclusion: A not very strong, but still clear Oppose. --T*U (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but you should count these as well:

Viosa river Google Books - 208

Voyusa river Google Books - 91

Viusa river Google Books - 1

Viyusa river Google Books - 1

Viyosa river Google Books - 1

As you can see there is variation in the Albanian name as well. The math changes. Mondiad (talk)

Two fallacies (as I have explained in some detail above):

1) You are showing the first page of the search result, not the last. The numbers would then be 71 hits for "Viosa river" and 42 hits for "Voyusa river".

2) The hits you find in your search are not unique, but includes lots of pages that are already counted, since they contain more than one version of the name. The correct search would then go like this:

"Vjosa river" OR "Vjosë river" OR "Vjose river" OR "Voyusa river" OR "Viosa river" OR "Viusa river" OR "Viyusa river" OR "Viyosa river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "river Vjosë" OR "river Vjose" OR "river Voyusa" OR "river Viosa" OR "river Viusa" OR "river Viyusa" OR "river Viyosa" -wikipedia -llc -Aoös -Aoos -Aous gives 188 hits.

That is still far behind 306 hits for Aoos/Aoös/Aous (and I have not counted "Aius" or "Avos"), so the math does not change. Please avoid using "raw" searches, since they do not give relevant results. --T*U (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per excellent analysis by TU-nor. Dr. K. 16:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Editor Ujkrieger who initiated this RM did not follow wikipedia rules for GBS to present only last page with wikipedia and llc deducted. They did the same thing a couple of days ago, at Talk:Balšić noble family. This kind of false GBS analysis, gives false advantage Vjose (56 instead of 12). Honest approach and correct analysis of TU-nor gives advantage to current title. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

*Strongly Support per excellent analysis by Ujkriger, Vjose has more google hit. Internationel00 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This user has been blocked as a sock of a banned user

• Support - Vjose/Voyusa/Vjosa/Viosa/Viusa/Viyusa/Viyosa has more Google Books hits than what is presented above by TU-nor, though I must admit did a good job. I listed above more than 300 Google Books on variants of the Albanian name. Mondiad (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mondiad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Strongly Oppose Per excellent analysis by TU-nor - plus I feel the necessity to clarify something: The user above claim that the river Aoos is an Albanian river, and he is wrong. People should not forget that Aoos begins in Greece, with its water sources being Pindus, in Greece, and thus, Aoos is a transnational river, and was known internationally by the name Aoos for 2.000 years, long before the Albanian name for it came. I storngly believe that we stick with its historical and international name which was and still is Aoos. --SilentResident (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The name was changed after 1914, actually in the 30s. Same time when Vodena was changed to Edessa, Margellic became Margariti, Yeni Vardar became Gianitsa and so on. I can continue for miles here. The Greek authorities pushed and succeeded in removing all Slavic/Albanian/Turkish/Vlach toponyms and placing ancient ones or new Greek ones where possible. There are articles in Wikipedia with lists of onomastic changes in post-WWI Greece.

And if Aoos or Aous starts in Greece, most of it lays in Albania, which by the way, hasn't changed any toponyms at all. Mondiad (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make, but the name of the river in Greek has always been Aoos. It was never changed. And yes, it does actually start in Greece. So there's no "if". Athenean (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they told you at school. And my point is that you can't pretend that the "Greek" name is older whilst Greeks didn't use that name at all until 1930s. And do you mind telling what Aoos mean in Greek? Mondiad (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if the etymology is established, but this book suggests a connection to "Adonis". That would be well before the 1930s. --T*U (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And one can only imagine what some people were "taught" in "school", but if you actually bothered to read that article (seems like you haven't), the river is mentioned as Aoos by several ancient sources, millennia before any Albanians showed up in the region. Athenean (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this article @Mondiad:, it was moved from its name Vjosa to Aoos last year without discussion nor consensus. A name change should NOT have been initiated by Ujkreiger, but for it to have been taken to the Administrators to have been looked at. Most of these editors here who have voted to keep a move undertaken in bad faith have once not said that what occurred last year was at the very least problematic. Not once ! I have found this most interesting considering that undertaking such a unilateral move on a article that has already had multiple discussions already about name changes, that such a thing would at the very least not have occurred in 2014 before a change occured. Had a Albanian editor done this we would not have heard the end of it and that editor would be hauled over to arbitration with the same lot of editors trying to get that person either sanctioned or banned. I learned with this article that rules by these editors are only employed when it suits their interests. Moreover after a couple of days of this article's name change process being active, a whole host of editors of whom do not edit this article just appeared as if out of no where and to place their vote, and hence "consensus" is being achieved in wanting to keep a sneaky underhanded title move of last year. The administrators are more than likely to keep this Aoos title for now even though the name change was done through bad faith means and problematic google results making the case for its maintenance. For me this process has been to draw out these editors and to see the dynamics, their views and actions as they have done down below. This article is good for Albanian editors to look at as to know what editors they may encounter on a certain article, how to undertake themselves in measured way and this has been my primary aim. News has reached me regarding certain matters and i thank these editors in engaging with me regarding their comments down below. It has been most illuminating. They have been of invaluable assistance without even knowing it. I thank all non-Albanian editors involved. As for Albanian editors, as numbers a very low (and always have been) this should be taken as a template for newbees. Otherwise it takes too long to explain what to be aware of as i have tried many times with few taking heed of such matters. As for Resnjari (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Two accounts (Mondiad, User:Internationel00) showed up here after Resnjari sent them this [[64]][[65]] in their native language. Appears to be a case of disruptive wp:CANVASSing.Alexikoua (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating left and right in every talk page that Resnjari sent me and some others. Who sent you by the way. How is it possible that whenever Athenean is involved in any discussion, you are too, with a likelihood of 100% ? Mondiad (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment:If you have any allegations you want to make please take them to the appropriate forums. Opinions based on conjecture or hunches are just that. Yes messages were sent to those two editors of which you cite. Yes they were sent to them in Albanian. Yes it was in regards to the article on Permet for them to have a look at any spelling and grammar issues and my Albanian (and one can see even on their page is horrible. I live in the diaspora after all. I can speak and read, but cannot not write) not the best. As it was for Albanian Wikiepdia, i sent the message in Albanian and i have received messages in English on Albanian wikipedia which other editors have complained that they cannot understand. Its on my Albanian talk page. Tough luck to them. Anyway I waited and no reply was received from those editors and then went and did the edits myself, though more is needed [[66]],[[67]]. You claim that it was in relation to Vjosa and Aoos. Without basis, just appearances why in my massage have i not cited those two words, but Permet instead. But wait you say, they came to this page. That proves what, that they can see my contributions page like you can. After bad grammer like that one will check what was that editor on about anyway (i though it was clear, but i looks like it was not sadly) -in hindsight i should stick to english. I have done it with other editors to see what's up. My contributions page is full of edits to the Vjosa page. Like you, i do check other editors pages once in a while when sometimes something appears of interest to me to have a further look. Are you somehow inferring that i was canvassing when no mention of Vjosa or Aoos was cited. If you have any further issues take them in the appropriate forums. Otherwise opinions such as "appears to be" are to kept private in the confines of ones person. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

wp:Canvass should also be mentioned here, since the participants have voted here. You also need to respect WP:SPEAKENGLISH. By the way you communicate with the specific editors in English very well apart from this "tiny" exception. No wonder both users removed this "trace" of canvassing immediately. Unfortunately for you the history log can't be deleted.Alexikoua (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, so when people on my Albanian talkpage from English Wikipedia come and write things in English, i should say to speak Albanian. ok will apply the same principles.Resnjari (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Resnjari, this is the appropriate forum. I've made a note below, so the closing admin is aware of your dirty tactics. Athenean (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol ! All in the eye of the beholder and interpretation. Look you can defend a article whose name was in a sneaky manner changed without consensus and discussion in the first place. One can refer to that as "dirty tactics". Or that other editors who support the status quo of this article title (done without discussion and so on) and who barely if at all come to edit this article all "of a sudden" have interest in the matter. The accusation can fall the other way too regarding WP:FALSECON. That there are few Albanian editors on Wikipedia is true and the portal is inactive and why the sneaky article change last year went unnoticed. The administrators can take that on board too if they wish or not. Its most likely that the article will probably for the time being stay as "Aoos" as Ujkreiger should not have brought this on this early but by placing this on the portal and so on. Its like with other editors wanting to make name title changes to Kosovar pages bring the matter to early, knowing that it will almost always be one editor with one view and plenty with an opposing view.Resnjari (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment SilentResident, the river starts in Albania not in Greece it comes from the Adriatic sea and then in from Albania and out to Greece, and the thing is Greece only have like 15-20 procent of the river.Internationel00 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious, Internationel00? Are you basically claiming that the river Aoos starts out at the Adriatic sea(!), climbs the land(!), and is pouring into the mountains of Pindus in Greece(!)? Omg... You don't have any clues of how the Earth's gravity works at all, do you? If you don't know about rivers in general, and especially about Aoos, then, I am afraid that your vote should be considered invalid by the moderators... --SilentResident (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Vardar river starts in Macedonia and empties out in Greece. Most of the Vardar river in in Macedonia, just like the Vjosa is. Three quarters of the river is in one state Albania and is named Vjosa there, not Aoos. Anyway its also similar with the article name on Wikipedia about it being Vardar not Axios, though some Greek editors have "argued" for it to be changed. The arctile's name was Vjosa until last year and was changed without even this process being initiated. Anyway as for "Speak English". Lol ! Then i should not get article requests on my Albanian talkpage in English from people in English Wikipedia. Please write them down in Albanian. Thankyou.Resnjari (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Faulty search hits, which is becoming more and more popular.--Zoupan 21:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like editors to cease and desist any further back and forth accusations of canvassing and other bad behavior as it contributes nothing to help resolve this title discussion. If bad behavior continues and editors are compelled to say something about it, please do so in the appropriate noticeboards, not this RM.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I will call all editor's attention to this naming convention in WikiProject Rivers: Rivers of multiple names in a effort to help resolve this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.
  • If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name.
  • If everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.

Based on what User:TU-nor has listed above, can't say that "Aoös" version is particularly famous. But most of the river lays in Albanian territory, and it dashes in the sea near Selenice in Albania. Mondiad (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:Due to the difficulty to ascertain through various forms of goggle results which is the "predominating" name out there used in literature, i know all editors in here will disagree with this, but to the administrators i suggest that due consideration for a compromise title should be given of the form Vjosë/Aoös. It has been used in some scholarship as a middle way position on the naming matter when it comes up in results [68], [69], [70]. Two thirds of the river is in Albania, while one third and its source is in Greece. As such my proposal should be given some consideration to break the impasse.Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeI think "Aoos" is the most common name. I am not sure if the diacritics are necessary. Alternative names and meaning should, however, be listed. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2015 (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.

Canvassing for !votes by User:Resnjari

Behavioral discussion not relevant to the purpose of the RM

The closing admin should be aware that User:Resnjari went canvassing for !votes by fellow Albanian users [71] [72] [73]. He did so in a roundabout way, avoiding direct mention of the river, but he mentions instead the town through which it flows. Google translate gives a fairly good idea of how he tried to do this [74]. When I ask Resnjari to translate exactly what he wrote on their talkpages [75], he fudges and doges [76] and avoids answering directly. Within minutes of Resnjari posting on the talkpages of these users, the two that are still active (Mondiad and Internationel00) appeared here out of nowhere to cast their !vote almost simultaneously [77] [78]. Athenean (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC) This edit in the Albanian wiki is more explicit when viewed in Google translate. --T*U (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC) If you got something to say, take it to arbitration. Editors in here are arguing for the status quo that was brought about a sneaky name change that occurred last year without discussion or consultation and went against the policy in the first place. Its up to the administrators to do as they wish. Nonetheless, this is not the end of the matter, but the beginning setting the groundwork for future Albanian editors. This will just be added on the Albanian portal for the things to do list. It took over 6 years for the Souliots article to be addressed and so be it with this one. As for your "roundabout" please take it to the usual complaints board. We can talk it out over there in front of many administrators. Looking forward to it. Looking forward to also bringing up the matter of how this article whose name was changed last year without consultation and a change name process and how keeping that sneaky change was argued for knowing full well that there were previous controversial discussions about the name.Resnjari (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC) So when caught canvassing red-handed, your response is not to apologize and say "My bad, won't do it again", but basically to come out guns blazing, threatening and taunting others to report you. As for that "setting the groundwork for future Albanian editors", it sounds very WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, no? Athenean (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Apologize for what when i have done nothing wrong. Moreover i have not threatened anyone and also i do not use violence. I want to make that very clear to everyone here i do not use violence. So do not put words in my mouth. If anyone thinks i broke the rules, go and make a complaint and it will be dealt with in arbitration. Otherwise allegations of "i think" or "it appears" are hollow. As for "Red handed" Lol ! Anyway, I did send a message to the editor cited in the above example on Albanian wikipedia as i have collaborated with him on many Cham related articles on Albanian Wikipedia (mainly grammar, though linking of articles also and some sentence structures) to look at the Vjosa page. He did or did not and that's all as i have yet to hear from him sadly. I also said for it to be removed and have with other messages too. I am not going to have my clutter with no relevance all over the place and i have said this to other editors on Wikipedia many times in the past. I have deleted much from my talk page and other editors have done the same on theirs, as i notice with yours very recently. That editor may have had a look and that is it. I have sought advice on matters from him in the past as to what to do considering his experience. It a shame that nothing came of it this time. This Vjosa issue is complicated and i feel there is much more regarding the case that needs outlining. More experienced Albanians can give me advice if there still are ones out there. Hard to come by them though considering they have been absent for so long or are not one like the rest of the above regulars. Anyway do i see that editor having done anything here due to my messaging him? Please name that editor in here if that is the case? If that editor cannot be named its once again your view. I did not in that message say for him to vote or to partake in any activity here as is very clear since google translate is used. Glad to know that editors are taking the time to learn Albanian. A sea change must be happening. Well i speak, read and write Serbian and Macedonian and can read Greek and string a few sentences in talking. Anyway i do look forward to more of your "redhanded" remarks. As for setting the ground, its going to go on the Albanian portal, like many other articles there on the to do list. This in depth conversation here is my preferance at the moment. The next Albanian editors of the future that will engage with this article will be aware of how to go about unlike Ujkreiger and why the Albania portal needs to be active. Battleground, why battleground? Its an article that needs addressing and of concern and its title is one of those. You are now going to tell people what they can or cannot do? If they initiate a name change it their choice. Last time i checked you where not an administrator.Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Learning different languages is, indeed, a good idea. So I am sure that you will contribute to our illumination by giving a complete and exact translation of this edit. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Why indeed. Should have asked that in the first place. I have always thought it important to learn languages like Serbian and Greek as it comes in handy. A trend might start of others wanting to learn Albanian. Shume mire. (make sure to google translate that too). What i wrote was: "Check the Permet page thoroughly by doing a overview of everything. I need views about grammar matters in relation to the page. Analyze it properly". Like i said i don't write in standard Albanian, but in my dialect. I did not have the privilege of going to Albanian school as i am in the diaspora. If you have any doubts to the sincerity of my translation, since my southern dialect is very similar to Arvanitika, i am sure some Arvanites can assist. Anything else i may assist you with ?Resnjari (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC) It seems that I should try to get the money back from the bookstore in Tirana where I bought my fjalor. It seems to indicate that the last sentence means something like "Hide the letter after reading", but it has to be the book that is wrong. --T*U (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Hmm interesting. While i wrote "check the letters in full". Like i said i wrote in my dialect. I am intrigued here on the interpretation you are placing. My advice to you would be that you need to buy a dictionary which deals with the Prespa dialect. Or find someone who knows a little Arvanitika, they may assist. Who knows some of these editors may speak it. Si jeni, a dini Arberisht? (more for you to check with your "Tirana dictionary"). So how would your dictionary from Tirana put it, or even you yourself ? You have knowledge of Albanian, i take ? Resnjari (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC) No Arvanites in my country, I'm afraid, so I will have to try to make do with my dictionary and Google translate. --T*U (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Ah, that's ok. Your fjalor however does not cover dialects. Enver believed in Standardized Albanian. Much is omitted. And google translate has been proven many a time to be faulty, just like the results above have shown. But its good your learning Standard Albanian from a dictionary. Its the way i am learning standard Albanian too. II use a Oxford dictionary though, cover some dialect stuff as well. I like to stick to quality dictionaries without the Enverian communist edits.Resnjari (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) (I indented your message to make it easier to follow the thread. I suggest you try to learn how indentation in talk pages usually works.) I know my dicionary is quite simple, and I also know that you cannot trust Google translate. However, it is strange that they seem to be in complete agreement here. I come up with this interpretation. Could you make a similar interpretation concluding with "Analyze it properly" or "check the letters in full" or something pointing in that direction. I also find it strange that two different editors, after your message to them about "checking the grammar of the Permet page" and "analyze it properly", both within half an hour cast their support votes at this talk page and delete the message. Could it be that "Reality speaks for itself", as you put it further down? --T*U (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I have though as the discussion is getting quite extensive, putting many of the :::: may be needed.Resnjari (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Not really. Yes i did write for them to delete that. I wrote in that bit to analyze(as shikur for me and my dialect, but shiko in standard Albanian is as the Oxford dictionary says which means look/analsye same root word) at those letters words and after that delete them. And i did write that in relation to Permet. I waited and no replied and i went did the edits myself and made the adjustments on those two pages. You can check. Also i have said to editors on Albanian Wikipedia to delete any of my bad grammar (in case its some kind of surprise to some here) on their talk pages and so on. Why trash their page with my bad grammar. On the other hand i need to communicate. If you want you can do the Albanian spell check and make things very easy for me. I have a huge backlog. And i have been asking many a editor if they can go grammar checks on multiple pages in case one assumes that its a "first" for me. Some Albanian administrators have in the past criticized some of my Albanian as one can go look at my talkpage on Albanian Wikipedia (you can run that through google translate, though i have tried to remedy the situation.Resnjari (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Why yes. I wrote that message to those two editors and it was in relation to Permet. They like you would have been wondering as to what i was on about and like you have access to my contributions page and checked it again like you and there was much activity there by me on this page. Curiosity led them here as did you.Resnjari (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC) (Even if you seem to think that the usual conventions for text page indentation do not apply to you, it would be appreciated if you would try to follow other conventions, like refraining from cutting up other peoples postings with in-between comments, thereby splitting text sections from the signature and making it even more difficult for others to follow the thread.) As for the Albanian interpretation, I just note that you in none of your proposals for a "complete and exact" translation ("analyze it properly", "check the letters in full") seem to mention a word meaning delete/discard/hide or anything similar. Another strange thing: At the time you posted the messages to those three editors, you had never ever done one single edit to the Përmet page. Two hours later, you changed Permet to Përmet twice, and that was that. Hardly something that you would need three editors to check out "in full" or "analyze properly". Even I could have told you that that was OK. --T*U (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Regarding the indented matter as the conversation now is extensive i will reply to you on a per comment basis. Others have done so and i will do that to. One rule for one set of editors while another for the others does not suffice. As for the "delete/discard/hide" i have so. Words in Albanian, like English or other have multiple but interrelated meanings. I am sorry but that is how my ancestral language functions. You may want a on "the dot" translation of what you interpret to be Albanian, and i gave to you the context of what i meant as i wrote in my dialect. My dialect does not adduce to Enver's standard Albanian. The whole sentence related to having a look at the Permet page. And yes i did do the edits two hours later to those pages. In case you missed it, i have said here that i waited for the editors to reply or make edits to the page. They did not and i proceeded.Resnjari (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I am not quite sure why I bother, but I will try one last direct question in hope of a non-evasive answer: Where in your "complete and exact" translation "Check the Permet page thoroughly by doing a overview of everything. I need views about grammar matters in relation to the page. Analyze it properly" is the translation of the Albanian word "fshii"? --T*U (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC) As i have said previously the sentence related that and also was in relation to Permet. The words Vjosa or Aoos are not mentioned. The sent message was for Permet. That more words are required to relay that in a translation is not my fault but the dynamics of the Albanian language when given in English. Words have complex and interrelated meanings. As you learn Albanian you will grasp this. Dialects are complicated as all know and do not confrom to the standard language. One can easily invoke other examples like Dhemb and Dhemb. One means pain the other tooth. Or gjer (southern way of saying over there) and gjera (things). Moreover, i did say to fshi as i said previously about removing bad spelling from a user talk page done by me (and also in relation to the Permet page). Why should i clog up their page (i have already had enough commentary from Albanian administrators about bad Albanian grammar)? I have done this multiple times on Albanian Wikipedia before and i see no reason why not now. I am sorry that the Albanian i wrote in my dialect does not conform to what you consider to be "evasive". Dialects and language are subject to interpretation and assumptions made that a word is "clear cut" without placing it within its whole context can be problematic. For example as you would be aware Quranic studies offer numerous interpretations about what words mean within their whole, partial or even individual contexts and can be shown to mean this or that by people who where not the author. Language is subjective after all.Resnjari (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) No, I thought not! I rest my case. --T*U (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Each unto ones own conjecture regarding me. I have outlined the matter...Resnjari (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC) And of course words like "river", "south", "name" nevered entered the picture... --T*U (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC) I still fail to see what this has to do with this article. I was discussing Permet and it is in the south of Albania. It has rivers that go through it and was known to be a place with threshing floors as it is in a valley. In my dialect threshing floor > loumenjte. Standard Albanian Lemenjte with the e with two dots. They like you have access to my contributions page. If you can see my activities, they can too and looked at the matter further. I cannot restrict them from accessing my contributions or you for that matter. Moreover its why sometimes discussions go in Albanian, English, English, Albanian on my Albanian Wikipedia talkpage, which you can access. Its all out there for all to see. Use that fjalor you have to decipher the hidden meanings of the words if you think there are any. And while your at it correct any mistakes while on the page.Resnjari (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC) (Outdenting to make better width, but still keeping clear of next posting.) Yet I cannot see that you mention anything remotely like "south" and neither "river" nor "threshing floor" in your "complete and exact" translation. --T*U (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) What he wrote in sq.wiki is even more clear. He is basically telling those he canvassed to remove the canvassing note, as clumsy and obvious an attempt at covering his tracks as there could be. Athenean (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC) To the above editor, sorry, but i did not cover my tracks. I did say Vjosa to that editor (and am saying that to you as well) and moreover i did not ask that editor to partake in activities here as is very clear. I needed advice from a experienced editor and someone who knows Wikipedia really well. Canvassing is when you ask that person to actually partake in the debate of a article and influence it. That editor of whom i sent that message with the explicit Vjosa message has not done anything here. Reality speaks for itself, not speculation.Resnjari (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Nice try. You told that editor to come participate at the vote here, which is WP:CANVAS. And then you told him to delete your message to him, which is just plain funny, since like a diamond, a diff is forever. There is no point in denying what you did, no one believes you anymore. Your attempts at evasion and disinformation only serve to diminish your already diminished credibility even further. Athenean (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC) The google translated version says absolutely nothing about that editor coming here to make a contribution. Again it is your interpretation coming from your side of which you wish to keep a article whose name was changed unilaterally by a editor without discussion or even initiating such a process as is done now. Done not in good faith. Moreover I am not here to convince you of anything. My words speak for themselves as do the Albanian ones. You so very much want there to have been in those words something that said, please come to this page and make edits. Yet there was none and as my message when as some have placed it through google translate shows nothing of the sort. All Balkan editors are subject to their opinions and those are yours. I can seek advice from more experienced Albanian editors and you are not my keeper.Resnjari (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true. Nor does filibustering. There had better not be a repeat of this "seeking advice from more experienced Albanian editors" with next request page move, or there will be consequences. I am only willing to let it slide this time on the grounds of inexperience on your part. And please learn to indent your comments properly. Next time you "seek advice from more experienced Albanian editors", you may want to ask them about that. Athenean (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC) You are willing to let "it slide". Interesting, why is that? Due to my "inexperience"? I will admit that there is much policy i am going through. Nonetheless so far all i can see here from editors is "it appears" now or your "repeating a lie" type comments and so on. These are speculative interpretations. That is fine and their view. But it is after all guesswork. I have said forthrightly that if any one of you thinks i have broken rules, please take this to arbitration so the matter can be dealt with accordingly. In a court of law situation which most would be familiar with, concrete evidence, not speculation is brought forth proving or disproving a matter of the individual involved. At arbitration a third party will look at the matter thoroughly and make a decision as such. So far all that has been presented here is speculation. Also I will ask for advice as first off this article's name was changed last year in a dodgy manner. Yet somehow no one did anything about that. Hmm strange, i wonder was that let go because it fits with the views of certain editors. Made me reflect very deeply about good faith matters Athenean. And it is much for the administrators to reflect upon too.Resnjari (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC) This comment by me was in relation to a comment by Athenean that was deleted by him. [79] I have outlined in my above comments and showing the edit of when that occurred. In other cases where unilateral changes to page names were conducted, they where reversed as they were seen contravening good faith (and i cited an example). As for a editor of "good standing" is subject to interpretation especially as this article has had multiple previous discussions about name changes. Unilateral page changes in such circumstances are not then done in good faith thereafter. Also some editors have said that i have done something wrong, yet now you say that administrators don't deal with it. Why, many editors in here have spent mountains of text speculating at my words and behavior. Yet me replying in defense of myself for you constitutes "walls of text". So others can have "walls of text" when saying things about me, but not me. This is the discussion page after all and as of yet Wikipedia does not conduct censorship. I will also remind you to conduct yourself in a measured manner and not to refer to to "conspiracy theories" and my "head". Comments such as these can be seen as offensive. See WP:CIVIL for more as you are a experienced editor after all.Resnjari (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC) It appears someone attempts to canvass in a really childish way. Not to mention excessive wp:gaming the system attempts. As I see, advice on how to evade spi is also available [[80]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC) If there are views in here that i have done something wrong, please take me to the arbitration committee in so this issue can be addressed in front of the administrators in the appropriate manner. Allegations of "it appears" based on personal opinions are that. This goes for all editors here. Please refrain from language such as "childish" as that may be taken as offensive. Wikipedia guidelines does states that name calling is to be refrained from WP:CIVIL. Thank youResnjari (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Actually this is the exact forum where your wp:CANVASSing activity should be first addressed, as you have been already instructed. However, so far not the slightest explanation is given so far.Alexikoua (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I have addressed allegations of "it appears" by you and others based on speculation and guesswork. Like i said if you think that something has occurred and like many editors that have been taken to arbitration when there is the assumption by some editors, please take me there if there is a case. Otherwise, you will speculate in here as will others and that is that. Smear may be the way to go for some, but Wikipedia has due processes. Or is that selective here in my case ?Resnjari (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Vjosa is the internationally recognized name

A simple check on Google will show that the river's name "Vjosa" is the absolute majority of findings from Google about the river. The name Aoos is the name given by Greeks in the first 80 km of the river. Therefore, the Greek name should the secondary and not the primary name. (Edvin (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC))

This has just been extensively discussed in a move request (see just above), where the conclusion was "not moved", since "the current title is the most common name". --T*U (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aoös. 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/20090802225812/http://www.egnatia-ioanninon.gov.gr:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=216 to http://www.egnatia-ioanninon.gov.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=216

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Amid all the argumentation, has it occurred to anyone that, far more salient than the spelling(s), is the pronunciation? Not of Vjose, which I daresay is simple enough, but of Aoös: a simple imitative pronunciation, such as AH-woss, would help enormously.

Nuttyskin (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Local Macedonian?!

What does the sentence 'Local Macedonian name is Vojusha (Vojuša/Војуша)' mean? There is no local Macedonian population in that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatrazustradin (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Name

Why is there the Albanian version second? Its 190km in Albanian territory and 80km in Greek one. We allow the article name to be Aoos let Albanian version be the first in the texts Denissaliaj (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the repeated discussions on this issue above. It is not a matter of "allowing" anything, but of common usage. Constantine ✍ 09:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Vjosa. Multiple analyses of common name have been provided, and they generally show that the Greek(-based) and Albanian names are in similar circulations in English publications, with no clear winner; Aoös/Aous being more used in historical contexts and Vjosa in modern ones. However, WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names in such cases expressly provides a tie breaker favoring "Vjosa", since the Albanian section is the final and much longer than the Greek one. This was the policy-based argument explicitly made and supported by several posters. No such user (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Aoös → Vjosa – Vjosa/Aoos crosses Albania and Greece. About 80km are in Greece, 192km in Albania. The current revision uses a Greek variant. I hope to show that Aoös is the least common of all variants (Albanian and Greek), while Vjosa is the most common form of all other variants, both Albanian and Greek.

Google books trends: [81] Vjosa river has overtaken Aoos river since 2014

Google news trends (2008-2021): [82] Similar results to google books. Google news trends doesn't even recognize as Aoos/Aoös as the correct search for the river, instead it suggests Vjosë, the indefinite form of Vjosa Google scholar (2000-2021): 180 "Aoos river", 414 "Vjosa river", 87 "Vjosë river" Sources about environmentalism which go to depth about the river prefer the use of "Vjosa" and mention Aoos in passing as the name of the river in Greece. [83] [84]

For example, National Geographic mentions the term Vjosa 42 times and the term Aoos only once in the sentence: "The Vjosa has one dam, built in the late 1980s near its origin in the Pindus Mountains across the border in northern Greece, where the river is known as Aoos."

As most of the river travels through Albania, for most people who live in the Vjosa basin it's known as Vjosa.

Vjosa is the name most preferred by journalists, academia, media platforms, environmentalist organizations and most people who live in the Vjosa region. Botushali (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per the proposal. It should be emphasized that much of recent media coverage relates to the fight to preserve the Alb section of the river. It has gained international attention as a result of the campaign's involvement by celebrities such as Leonardo di Caprio. It is often regarded as Europe's last major wild river of significant size. The smaller Greek section, known as Aoos, has been dammed, and no one is advocating for it, or at least not as much as there is for the Alb section. It's another factor which has contributed to the river becoming better known as Vjosa.

[85] [86] [87] [88] Excine (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support as per detailed nomination above. Lorik17 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. TiggerJay (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. In addition, most of maps and GPSes I checked also refer to it as Vjosa.Bes-ARTTalk 08:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: Also a website dedicated to the river, which is funded by the European Union and supported by the countries through which this river passes, and also other organizations for nature protection in Europe refers to it using the name Vjosa / Aoos.Bes-ARTTalk 10:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support International literature and news sources today overwhelmingly refer to the river as Vjosa. From reputable outlets like National Geographic, the World Wildlife Fund and Euronews (green section). Kj1595 (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Properly conducted searches show that "Aoos" (and its alternate spelling ("Aous") is the WP:COMMONNAME. As shown in the previous move request [89] (Scroll down to the comments by TU-nor), properly conducted Google Books searches are:

"Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc -Vjosa -Vjosë -Vjose ([90] 3570 hits) for the Greek variant "Aoos/Aous" and

"Vjosa river" OR "Vjosë river" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "river Vjosë" OR "river Vjose" -wikipedia -llc -Aoös -Aoos -Aous ([91] 1590 hits) for the Albanian variant "Vjose/Vjosa".

These are proper searches, as they a) exclude the other variant when searching (i.e. they only show sources that use one variant and eliminate sources that use both variants, which is common, b) they include "river" to eliminate false positives such as the common Albanian female name "Vjosa", c) include all variants and all possible spellings of the two variants, d) exclude wikipedia, e) exclude the non-RS publisher "Books LLC" which produces autogenerated books based on wikipedia articles. As these properly conducted searches show, these results favor "Aoos" by a margin of 2 to 1, enough to make "Aoos" the WP:COMMONNAME. The evidence presented by the OP (who is relatively inexperienced) is thin, and misleading. For example, the Google Ngram results are very different when one looks at the broad picture [92]. They also appear flawed and nonsensical, since there are huge decreases in the frequency of the search terms over the years. This doesn't make any sense and whereas Google Books is considered a valid search tool in establishing WP:COMMONNAME(When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[7])), Google Ngrams is not, and neither is Google Scholar (because its focus is too narrow and technical and thus misses a big part of the picture, and it is also impossible to exclude non-English language sources). The various cherry-picked examples listed by other users in their !votes are meaningless and are of no use towards establishing WP:COMMONNAME. Khirurg (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yours are not proper searches, because they do not consider 21st century publications and the recent trends of the usage of those names in English sources. On the contrary, nominator's searches are correct. – Βατο (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen you conduct a proper search, so that's a bit rich coming from you. My Google Books search includes everything and it is identical to the search performed by @TU-nor: in the previous move request. That search proved to be the decisive factor in retaining the name. On the other hand, the Ngrams search by the nom is nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The previous move request and TU-nor's search were made in 2015, the trends of the usage of those names in English sources in the last years are clear, Vjosa prevails. – Βατο (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Βατο: It is easy to adjust my "old" searches with restrictions to years. Searcing 21 century only gives 202 hits for Aoos etc., 101 hits for Vjosa etc. Still 2:1. Delimiting to after 2015, we get 46 results for Aoos, 30 results for Vjosa. Your claim about trends of the usage of those names is simply not true. --T*U (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME: the river is now widely known as Vjosa. – Βατο (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's obvious that there are serious problems in the arguments presented by nominator: even google trends shows clearly that Aous+Aoos river is still in favor [[93]], even if we search Aoos+Aous vs Vjosa the results are overwhelming by nearly 5 vs 1: [[94]] Alexikoua (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment about wrong GoogleBooks search Khirurg and Alexikoua include "Aous" in their GB search. The name of the article and the proposed one are not "Aous". "Aous" in English language sources is used almost always in pre-1950 sources and GoogleBooks even returns the query " Did you mean: aoos river". "Aous" is another name and went out of use long ago, so it is not relevant to this article's name. Even in those extremely limited cases when it is used after the mid 20-th century, it is used in the context of ancient history, as Aous was the name in ancient times [95][96][97]. Look at GB results about "Aous" [98]. If we remove "Aous", "Aous river"and "river Aous" from Khirurg's and Alexikoua's search, then Vjosa is the most used name. Botushali (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Advice to all involved editors we should not search "Vjosa" or "Aous" because those words are used not only for the river but also for other things. Instead, we should search for "Vjosa river" and 'Aoos river". Khirurg and Alexikoua use "Vjosa" and "Aous" in their Ngram search. If we use "Vjosa river" and "Aoos river" instead, then Vjosa is the most used name, with the difference becoming more and more apparent since 2015 [99]. Botushali (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Desperation much? Properly conducted searches use all variants of the name, as was done in the previous move request. You are new around here, so try to learn something instead of dishing out "advice" to users with vastly more experience than you. Your Ngrams search is total nonsense. Can you explain why the frequency of both names decreased so significantly between 2000 and 2019? No, you can't because it's a bunch of nonsense. Your cherry picked examples prove nothing. Khirurg (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIVERS says about Rivers of multiple names: Some rivers have names with multiple spellings which vary with the different countries the rivers pass through.

If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.

If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name.

If everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.

In our case, 2/3 of the river is in Albania, and the mouth is in Albania. In Albania "Vjosa" is used. Excine (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

General advice on Aous&Aoos form: "Aous river+Aoos river" vs "Vjosa river": [[100]], it's obvious that the Aoo(u)s form is more popular based on google trends.Alexikoua (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Aous is a classic Latin name which derives from the ancient Greek one. It's not a Greek one, so it's not a variant of Aoos. There is no "Αους" in ancient or modern Greek. They're not meant to be counted together as if they are variants of one language because they're not. As such, they are to be compared to Vjosa independently of each other. Vjosa increasingly has more hits than Latin Aous since since 2014-2015 [101] --Excine (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Greek name is "Αωός". Sometimes it is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as "Aoos", sometimes it is tranliterated as "Aous". This is very common with Greek names, for example "Νικηφόρος" is transliterated variously as "Nikiphoros", "Nicephorus" etc. A proper search includes all variants. Nice try though. Khirurg (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The choice is between Aoös and Vjosa, of the two, Vjosa is the most common name in recent English sources, and is also supported by WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names, as @Excine pointed out above. – Βατο (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeating something that isn't true doesn't make it true by repeating it. Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support data clearly shows that Vjosa has attained prevalence, which is unsurprising and perhaps natural, considering that the majority of the river flows through Albania.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite all attempts to perform strange and unsatisfactory searches to prove that Vjosa has somehow suddenly become more used than the variants of Aoos, there is nothing to show that there has been a significant change (except that Aous seems to have become more used the last years).

"Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc -Vjosa -Vjosë -Vjose (202 hits for Aoos/Aous after year 2000, 46 results after 2015)

"Vjosa river" OR "Vjosë river" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "river Vjosë" OR "river Vjose" -wikipedia -llc -Aoös -Aoos -Aous (101 hits for Vjosa after 2000, 30 results after 2015.

Please also note that searches for "X river" also must contain "river X", see this nGram. --T*U (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Summary of searches. English Only, 21st Century Only.

• "Aoos river" OR "river Aoos" -wikipedia -llc, 903 results
• "Aoös river" OR "river Aoös" -wikipedia -llc, 202 results
• "Aous river" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc, 749 results
• "Vjosë river" OR "river Vjosë" -wikipedia -llc, 181 results
• "Vjose river" OR "river Vjose" -wikipedia -llc, 100 results
• "Vjosa river" OR "river Vjosa" -wikipedia -llc, 1,160 results
• "Vijose river" OR "river Vijose" -wikipedia -llc, 106 results
• "Voiussa river" OR "river Voiussa" -wikipedia -llc, 5 results

The most common individual name is "Vjosa", but when names are combined (3 Greek versions, 4 Albanian versions), the Greek versions win out overall. Not sure what procedure is here, but I do question having the article named "Aoös" instead of the more common "Aoos" or even "Aous". Djks1 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Unlike what User:TU-nor claims, "Aoos" and "Aous" are not the same thing. They are treated as different names in scholarship [102][103]. There are different names: Vjosa, Aoos, Aous, Viossa, Vajuasha, Viousa etc mentioned in scholarship. Between "Vjosa river" and "Aoos river", the former is more widely used, though not with a large margin. Aous is always mentioned while referring to the river in the context of ancient events of the time of ancient Epirus more than 1800 years ago. It is not used in today's context, at least not in English language sources. Furthermore, one the GoogleBooks results for "Aous river" is that 2020 book [104]. It actually does not mention the Aous river, but mentions on the same page "river Seine" and "Rachid Aous". So, if editors can't figure our what the most used name is (if any), then WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names says that:

"Some rivers have names with multiple spellings which vary with the different countries the rivers pass through. An example would be the Cunene River in Angola, which is known as the Kunene River in Namibia. Occasionally, a river can have several genuinely distinct names. For example, the Cuando River not only has the variant spelling Kwando, it's also called the Linyanti and the Chobe. The following rules are suggested for choosing a primary name for such a river:

• If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.
• If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name.
• If everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest."

Just like the guideline treats "Cunene" and "Kunene" as two different things, "Aoos" and "Aous" should be treated as different things too. Editors should try to go beyond the dispute over the common name, and try other solutions. The guideline cited above gives right to "Vjosa". 2/3 of the rivers is in Albania, and so does the river's mouth too. Other arguments beyond "commonname" are welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment about Aoos and Aous @Djks1:The choice is between Vjosa and Aoos. Other users shouldn't bring the Latin Aous into the discussion and add it up with Aoos. Aous is not a "translitetarion" or another spelling, it's the Latin name. The river was known in ancient times in Greek as Aoos and in Latin as Aous [105] (one of the links on Ktrimi's post) Aous is a second-declension noun in Latin [106]. Don't count them as one name. There is no "Aous" in Greek and there is no "Aoos" in Latin. They are two separate languages. Aoos has to stand on its own. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ahmet Q.: Very well. Here is a summary of results:
    • Greek variants (2): "Aoos river" OR "river Aoos" OR "Aoös river" OR "River Aoös" -wikipedia -llc, 1,090 results
    • Albanian variants (3): "Vjosë river" OR "river Vjosë" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjose" OR "Vjosa river" OR "river Vjosa" -wikipedia -llc, 1,290 results
    • Albanian variants (5): "Vjosë river" OR "river Vjosë" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjose" OR "Vjosa river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "Vijose river" OR "river Vijose" OR "Vijosë river" OR "River Vijosë" -wikipedia -llc, 1,650 results
    • Latin variant: "Aous river" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc, 749 results
  • If "Aous" is separated, the Albanian variant is more common. If it is included as a Greek variant, then the Greek variant is more used. So I guess the argument comes down to whether "Aous" is Greek or Latin. If it's Greek, I'd support moving to Aoos (with no dots above the o) or keeping it as is. If it's Latin, I'd support moving to Vjosa. Djks1 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME when compared to other names one v. one Vjosa surpasses all other results. Per WP:NCRIVER If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name Botushali showed that publications like National Geographic refer multiple times to "Vjosa" but "Aoos", the section of the river in Greece is barely mentioned. Also, if the editors do not agree what the most common name is, then WP:RIVER applies, which as already explained says that if the common name is not clear, then the name used by the country with the largest section of the river and the country where the mouth is, should be the name of the article. 2/3 of the river and the mouth are in Albania, where "Vjosa" is used. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Now that the properly conducted search by TU-nor has shown which is the common name ("Aoos"), some people are (unsurprisingly) trying to change the goalposts ("No, that doesn't count, only what I say counts"). While Aous is the Latin name, it also is a variant transliteration of "Αωός", which is very common (e.g. "Νικηφόρος" --> "Nicephorus"), and this can be shown by the fact that it is used in a pre-Roman context in scholarship (e.g. the Hellenistic period [107] or even earlier [108]). As a side note, WP:RIVER makes it clear the "Cunene" and "Kunene" are different spellings, not different names (Some rivers have names with multiple spellings which vary with the different countries the rivers pass through.). Khirurg (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no "pre-Roman" context in the use of Aous. The 2009 source is just using the Latin name in the book, it's not a quote from some ancient book. There is no "Aous" in Greek. Don't add up Latin Aous and Greek Aoos in order to increase the count for Aoos. They're two different languages. The debate is between Aoos and Vjosa. Aous and Vjosa can be compared separately. Vjosa has more hits than Aous too. Vjosa is the most common version. Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? The Oxford Companion (not the "2009 source" as you put it) discusses the Hellenistic period (did you even look at it?). For those who don't know, the Hellenistic period predates the Roman period. Why would a book about the Hellenistic period use the "Latin" name? It doesn't. It simply uses the alternate transliteration of "Aωός". See my above posts about changing the goalposts. There is an air of desperation to this. You can repeat "My preferred name is the most common name" until you're blue in the face, it changes nothing. Khirurg (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The author just prefers to use the Latin Aous throughout the book, they didn't choose it because it's ancient Greek. Where did you even get the idea that Aous is a transliteration because it's used in a book about ancient Greece? The river was known in ancient times in Greek as Aoos and in Latin as Aous [109]. They're different names. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Okayyyyyy, now we have entered mind-reading territory, where we are trying to infer authors' motives (The author just prefers to use...). Not to mention WP:IDHT territory. If you actually bothered to look at the sources, you would see that within an ancient context, they generally use "Aous" instead of "Aoos" regardless of whether they are referring to the Roman period or not, because that is the classical transliteration. Shouting in boldface doesn't change anything. Khirurg (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The author just prefers to use the Latin Aous throughout the book is a fact. The notion that he does so because it's an ancient Greek transliteration is not. Aous and Aoos are different names. He blocked the Straights of Aous, a bottleneck in Chaonia along the valley of the Aoos river (modern Vijose, Voiussa; 32.5.8–13) [110] There is a different context for the use of each term. Don't add them as the same name. Ahmet Q. (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Great example, the source uses Aous and Aoos interchangeably, which is exactly what we would expect to see if the author considered the same name. And if we look at the history of the talkpage and all past name-related discussions, especially the previous move request, "Aoos" and "Aous" are grouped together as being the same name (and correctly so). You can try to change the goalposts all you want, it doesn't change anything. Khirurg (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Aoos is the Greek nominative case, Aous is the Latin nominative case. It does not make any sense to sum the search results of two different names in order to reach a higher number for the Greek one and then consider it as the common name. As shown above also by @Djks1:, in the 21st century sources Vjosa prevails over the Greek and Latin names. Furthermore, you keep ignoring WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names, which clearly indicates the usage of Vjosa. – Βατο (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"Aous" is also an alternate transliteration of "Αωός", and you know that very well. Greek names that end in "-oς" are often transliterated ending in "-us", probably the best example being "Πύρρος" transliterated into "Pyrrhus". By your logic, "Vjosa" and "Vjose" are also "different" names. In every previous name discussion, "Aoos" and "Aous" were considered variants of the same name, and correctly so. And WP:COMMONNAME is not restricted to 21st century sources. Again you are inventing goalposts. Khirurg (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments provided by Khirurg and TU-nor. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems that, considering all variants, Aoös is the more common name. It is also a more inclusive term, covering both the modern and Ancient periods. --Antondimak (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Most of the river is in Albania and increasingly international media, including National Geographic are referring it as the Vjosa River. Vargmali (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This user hasn't edited since June 2021 [111]. Must be a total coincidence. Khirurg (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I have no idea what you are insinuating by this, but Checkuser can confirm that I have been regularly logging in in Wikipedia. Also since June 2021 I also have been active in Albania in activities that have promoted the protection of the rivers from damns. My interest in the Vjosa river is quite strong as I have many contacts with the region. Vargmali (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Djks1: Shaban Demiraj and Robert Elsie say in their respective books that "Aoos" is the Greek name and "Aous" the Latin name. Demiraj page 153 and Elsie page 472. NatioalGeographicThe Telegraph and Deutsche Welle call the river "Vjosa" and say that in Greece it is known as "Aoos". Furthermore, WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names says that apart from the common name, the requirements for the article's name are to be used by the country that has largest section or the country where the mouth is. So even if editors do not agree on what the common name is, "Vjosa" should be the name due to the two other requirements. If you indeed support the requested page move, write support in bold. Excine (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Man, you guys are really going all out pinging the guy. What's that, like the third ping now? "Aous" is also a variant transliteration of "Αοώς", just like "Pyrrhus" is a variant transliteration of "Πύρρος" (which can also be transliterated "Pyrros", "Pyrrhos", etc...). Greek names often have more than one transliteration, and this case is no different. Khirurg (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am just quoting what modern sources and the Wiki page indicate for users who have questions. Aous is the Latin name. -us is a Latin suffix Ahmet Q. mentioned its declension. Aous/Aoi/Aoo/Aoum/Aoo/Aoe --Excine (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That's cool. And I'm just telling you that "Aous" is also an alternate transliteration, like Πύρρος --> Pyrrhus, Νικηφόρος --> Nicephorus, and Αωός--> Aous. Khirurg (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence (other than your transliteration of Αωός, which I accept and I'm sure everyone else does) that when authors use "Aous" in literature that they are transliterating from the Greek and not referring to the Latin name? I have seen evidence posted here of "Aous" being used by authors as the Latinisation of the Greek, and as the ancient name of the river, so can you post evidence of authors using "Aous" because they transliterated directly from Greek rather than because they're referring to the Latin variant? Like I said, I accept your transliteration, but is this what authors in literature are doing when they use "Aous", or are they just using it because it was used in Latin? Djks1 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's two ways to transliterate Greek names: The "direct" way, which is simply replacing the Greek letters with their closest Greek equivalent ("Olympos" not "Olympus"), and the more "classical" way which is latinized (which is where we get "Olympus" and Aous"). Some authors try to be consistent, others switch between the two, as explained in this source [112]. The author describes how he transliterated the names, and makes it clear these are transliterations. While he does not explicitly mention "Aoos/Aous", he mentions similar names, e.g. "Olynthus/Olynthos". Same here [113]. Then we have sources like this [114] that include "Aous" among the list of Greek names. This source here also transliterates Αωός directly into Aous [115]. Khirurg (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Based on [116] (I can't see the others unfortunately) I agree with your assertion that "Aous" is also used as a transliteration directly from Greek, as well as a Latin form. Although I suspect that most of the usage is the Latin transliteration from Ancient Greek rather than the modern Greek transliteration. It also seems that "Aous" is usually used in an ancient rather than modern context. Summary:

English Only, 21st Century

• "Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" -wikipedia -llc, 1,120 results
• "Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc, 1,840 results
• "Vjosë river" OR "river Vjosë" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjose" OR "Vjosa river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "Vijose river" OR "river Vijose" OR "Vijosë river" OR "River Vijosë" -wikipedia -llc, 1,650 results

With the "Aous" included under the Greek variants, the Greek variant does indeed prove slightly more popular. I would say though that the two variants are quite similar in popularity. With the 21st cenutry restriction removed:

• "Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" -wikipedia -llc, 1,530 results
• "Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc, 3,830 results
• "Vjosë river" OR "river Vjosë" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjose" OR "Vjosa river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "Vijose river" OR "river Vijose" OR "Vijosë river" OR "River Vijosë" -wikipedia -llc, 2,730 results

The significant uptick in results for "Aous" when the 21st century restriction is removed suggests it is an older term. What do you make of the other arguments presented here, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Rivers_with_multiple_names? Since both the Greek (with or without Aous) and Albanian variants are popular, criteria 1 (popularity of usage) is fairly even, and hangs on whether authors are using "Aous" because they are transliterating from Greek or because they are using the Latin term transliterated from ancient Greek (I imagine both are true, but to what extent?). It's fair to say criteria 1 is disputed at the moment, whereas criteria 2 (length of river) & 3 (river's mouth) clearly favour Vjosa. Djks1 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true about criteria 2 and 3, but criterion 1 takes precedence, and my own searches (and TU-nor's) seem to favor Aoos/Aous by a margin of 2 to 1 ([117] [118]). I consider that a significant margin, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Khirurg (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment:I urge editors rather than mentioning so often as an excuse WP:COMMONNAME to use more of WP:COMMONSENSE. Just click on the websites dedicated to this river and which are financed and supported by the transition countries themselves (Albania and Greece) and you will see that in all the websites that deal with nature protection such as [119][[120][121], both names are mentioned. The International Union for Conservation of Nature uses both [122] but refers to Albanian side mostly as Vjosa [123], even UNESCO uses only Vjosa. I am not mentioning at all the world's largest media that deal with nature and were cited by other members here, who in the vast majority use Vjosa as the main name. To put it bluntly, practically only Wikipedia is currently using Aoos as the river name. So WP:CommonName does justify keeping this name (although the previous change was completely contrary to the guidelines) because it does not show anything except as it was explained "there are more books that use that name before 1950", not to mention the fact that the search engine itself has its problems and the results are not always accurate in terms of the accuracy of who, where and when one name or another is used.Bes-ARTTalk 00:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. WP:COMMONNAME is not an "excuse", it's the way how we decide these disputes. And we only care what reliable sources say, not random websites. Most sources use both forms, and this is true of even the sources you claim favor the Albanan name. So you show some selected websites that use the Albanian name? I can just as easily do that with the Greek name [124]. But it doesn't matter. What matters is what is more commonly used in reliable sources, hence the Google Books search. It's the best tool we have for deciding WP:COMMONNAME, and in this case it seems to favor the Greek name. Khirurg (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to be as honest as possible and did my research and I really believe that in this case most of the sources that ordinary people today get information use Vjosa/Aoos when talking about the river as a whole, as to say that the writer himself is in doubt as to which one to use and prefers to use both, or in the best case differentiates/combines the two names of the Greek and the Albanian segment in order to be more correct. On the other hand in almost no modern source no author (whether the author of a book, study, newspaper or other reliable media outlets) refers to the Albanian part of the river with the name Aoos. It can also not be ignored that map services (GPS) use Vjosa for the entire length of the river in the Albanian part, such as: Google Maps; OpenStreetMaps (which we often use on wikipedia); Waze; or ViaMichelin. I do not want to give these services more importance than they deserves but by no means nowadays can we say that they are unreliable nor that they can not be taken into consideration. In the world we live in, these are the services or information tools we use on a daily basis.

To be clear, I am trying to give a different perspective so as not to give all the same arguments and then focus only on how many results google books have for one or another. I can very well use the same arguments as others did but I am trying to convince the undecided that Vjosa beyond what is discussed, it exists as a common name even on the website that we use every day. That is why I mentioned WP:COMMONSENSE. Bes-ARTTalk 22:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: There have been many credible sources/websites listed above that prefer the name ‘Vjosa’ - just because they do not follow along with certain editors’ preferences for ‘Aoos’, it does not make said sources any less credible. It is not about selected sources or searches at this point, either, it’s abundantly clear that ‘Vjosa’ on its own has become the most preferred name across the internet, as several different editors on this talk page have accessed a larger variety of sources to prove this than opposing editors have put forward for the contrary. Likewise, just because certain preferences for ‘Aoos’ on its own cannot beat ‘Vjosa’ in a variety of searches/sources, it does not make these searches any less credible. Regardless of how it makes certain editors feel, the fact of the matter is that the most common term used in reliable sources is ‘Vjosa’. There has already been much controversy in regards to grouping ‘Aous’ in with ‘Aoos’, as is clearly seen above, hence why such a controversial action should not be put forth as evidence when it receives so much contention and is used as the Latin term by many authors who use it. ‘Aous’ is described as the Latin term on the Wikipedia page itself. The conglomeration of ‘Aous’ and ‘Aoos’ seems more like a final attempt at defying the fact that ‘Vjosa’ is clearly the favoured term. If there is an editor who wants to put through a move request to change the article to ‘Aous’, then by all means do so, but ‘Vjosa’ still has more widespread usage if these terms are compared alone. Modern literature (let alone social media, travelling/tourism sites, general information sites, nature sites etc.) favours ‘Vjosa’, and this article should reflect such a preference. WP:NCRIVER (overwhelmingly so) and WP:COMMONNAME (In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources - which favour 'Vjosa' as can be seen above) both clearly favour the usage of ‘Vjosa’, too, and this simply cannot be ignored. By all means, ‘Vjosa’ is the most logical name change when this issue is observed with a non-political, non-biased lens. Botushali (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: @Batushali: simply claiming that Vjosa is the most preferred form doesn't make it an argument on itself: even a quick gbooks and gtrends search easily refutes this logic. Please provide consistent arguments by providing also the necessary evidence (urls etc.) and avoid recycling generic comments.Alexikoua (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alexikoua, there have been multiple sources given above, all you have to do is look at them. Furthermore, a quick scan of Google Books also reveals that 'Aoos' refers to things other than the river (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=aoos) - on this first page, there is only a single result there that actually refers to the Aoos River, so 9/10 searches here refer to unrelated topics and it is only the first page. My logic seems to stand very well, here, and it proves my point. Additionally, I am forced to recycle the points of previous comments as those debating them are simply ignoring said points. Botushali (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Botushali You are fighting nonexistent windmills. Of course 'Aoos' can refer to other things than the river, just as 'Vjosa' also can refer to any number of people with that name. That is why no-one has attempted to use plain searches for those terms. The searches are for "Aoos river", "River Aoos", "Vjosa river" etc. Your argument is a strawman, and a rather coarse one at that. --T*U (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Vjosa may be a first name, but as proven above, the use of ‘Vjosa’ in literature is heavily based off of the river. A quick scan of the google books results, which have been referenced to by your compatriots here, will reveal that the term ‘Vjosa’ actually refers to the river within the search results a lot more than ‘Aoos’ refers to the river as was shown above (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Vjosa). According to WP:AT, article names should be precise and recognisable. The term ‘Vjosa’, as proven by the search engine that your cohort has referenced, clearly fits such requirements. ‘Aoos’, however, does not. The argument stands well, as it has been constantly proven during the course of this move request - disagreeing with it purely for political bias is not an efficient way of improving Wikipedia. Furthermore, WP:AT also uses concision as a key to article naming. The title won't be 'Vjosa River' just as it isn't 'Aoos River' now; 'Vjosa' on it's own suffices as a name that meets all requirements of both WP:AT and WP:RIVERS, there is no need to extend the name. Botushali (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you think you are improving Wikipedia by refering to other editors as "compatriots" and "cohorts" of T*U? Cut the WP:BATTLE tactics and the WP:NPAs. By the way, your remarks are silly. T*U is not Greek. Not that it matters in any case. Dr. K. 16:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I am simply using "cohort" and "compatriots" to refer to a group of people with similar ideas or goals, which in this case are those opposing the evidence presented in this move request. Nothing malicious. I do not have any idea what nationality participants in this talk page belong to, nor do I care to know. Botushali (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Botushali:

1) Please look up 'compatriot' in any dictionary. It means a fellow citizen or national of a country or a person born, residing, or holding citizenship in the same country as another, just to cite a couple of definitions. So how can your compatriots not be an allusion to my supposed nationality? Well, nevermind, I have been "accused" of being Greek before. I have also been told that I am Turkish, Serbian and more, not to mention anti-Turkish, anti-Greek, anti-Albanian, anti-Bulgarian, anti-Godknowswhat. I can assure you that none of these epithets are anywhere even close. My nationality is no secret, but I see no reason to flash it, since it is utterly and completely irrelevant.

2) Also, I resent being put into a 'cohort' with anyone (not even with people I often [but not always] agree with) just because I have given my two cents in a formal move discussion. I dare you to bring any evidence that I have been co-operating or colluding improperly with anyone in this or any other discussion in Wikipedia, which is the signal you are sending with your comments, whether you intend to or not. An apology will be accepted. Before you answer, you might read up on WP:NPA.

3) Of course the article should not be called "X river", whatever the result of this discussion is. But searching the web for "Aoos" and/or "Vjosa" without any qualification and then trying to analyse how many of the results are connected to the river and how many are not, is only so much WP:OR that it is equivalent to nonsense. --T*U (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We should also note that it's within a historically Greek area, history is extremely important Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how history has anything to do with how wikipedia should call the river, but for the history of 95% of the population of Vjosa, it's been known as "Vjosa".--Excine (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• oppose Because I agree with the analysis of TU-nor Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Which is the name of the river from ancient times until now?--Fon7 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be "Aoos", of course. Khirurg (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I should have noticed and commented before, but better late than never: Many of the Google search results presented above are not valid. When presenting the result of a Google search, it is necessary to go to the last page of the results in order to get a valid count. I will here give the correct results of some of the searches made by Djks1 (21 century only):

Aoos+Aous: "Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "Aous river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" OR "river Aous" -wikipedia -llc 208 hits

Aoos only: "Aoös river" OR "Aoos river" OR "river Aoös" OR "river Aoos" -wikipedia -llc 140 hits

Vjosa (all variants): "Vjosë river" OR "river Vjosë" OR "Vjose river" OR "river Vjose" OR "Vjosa river" OR "river Vjosa" OR "Vijose river" OR "river Vijose" OR "Vijosë river" OR "River Vijosë" -wikipedia -llc 130 hits

These numbers include books that use both names, with no possibility of knowing which books use one name and only mentions the other. If we exclude books using both names, we get:

Aoos/Aous: 197 hits

Aoos only: 131 hits

Vjosa (all variants): 112 hits

--T*U (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The google books ngram does just the same thing about Vjosa/Aoos and it shows that since 2014, Vjosa is used more often. Shouldn't you be supporting a move based on this change?--Excine (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The Ngram is nonsense, because it shows huge decreases in the frequency of use of both terms, from year to year, which doesn't make sense. It is for this reason that Google Books is mentioned as useful in WP:COMMONNAME, but not Ngrams. @Djks1:: Google Books searches sometimes contain errors, but this is minimized if they are conducted properly, as TU-nor has done. Even if there are errors, these are systemic: They affect both terms equally. There is no reason to assume there is a greater frequency of errors for one term (e.g. Aoos) and a lower frequency for the other term (e.g. Vjosa). But TU-nor's search seems to be properly conducted and largely error-free. Khirurg (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

In regards to my ngrams argument, the fact remains that 'Vjosa' has more results than 'Aoos' for the past 7 years. It does not make sense to me as to why the response to my argument - For 7 years straight, 'Vjosa' is getting more results than 'Aoos' - somehow gets the response "Aoos had more results in 2000". That's two decades ago, it is time for the Wikipedia article to reflect current trends. I am not arguing that 'Vjosa' had more results in 2000; I am arguing that it has had more results since 2015... Botushali (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thanks for pointing that out, was unaware that going to the last page yielded more accurate results, will do so in the future. Your results show that the Vjosa variants and Aoos only variants are quite similar in popularity, meaning that by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Rivers_with_multiple_names it should go down to the next criteria. @Khirurg: I never assumed a greater frequency of errors of one term or the other though, so no idea what you're talking about. I simply said that it appears Aous is a Latin term from the Ancient Greek and was unsure whether is should be included as a Greek variant. With all due respect, your ping was not necessary. @Botushali: This is an interesting argument, what is Wikipedia's official line regarding recency bias? Djks1 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Vjosa is a common name, the largest section of the river uses Vjosa and the the river's mouth is where it is called Vjosa. Even if we do not agree on a common name, the WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names guideline says that the two other conditions still apply in case a common name is not clear and are used to choose the name of the article. Check GoogleBooks, all works that mention Aous are in reference to ancient times when the Latin name or other language names were used. A large part of Aoos usages are in ancient history books, far from the present reality shown by today's largest media outlets that obviously prefer Vjosa. Aous, Viossa, Vioussa, Vajusha etc are different names from Vjosa and Aous. Lake Skadar near Vjosa has been contested for years between Skadar, Scutari and Shkoder - they are not considered the same name though they are names/spellings of the same origin. Agrotqr (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RIVERS#Rivers with multiple names is very clear about this. The guidelines give us no other choice but to name this article Vjosa. Vjosa is the only name that does meet all of its 3 conditions. The guideline even says that if the common name cant be determined (because Aoos too is a common name, though not as common as Vjosa), the other 2 conditions (met only by Vjosa) decide the name of the article of a river. Aoos is largely used in the context of 2000+ years ago . Well-known news sources, such as NationalGeographic, DW, TheTelegraph, Reuters, OceanGeographic (all cited above), that , fundamentally as news sources show the currently preferred names, prefer Vjosa over Aous, Aoos etc. Alltan (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support As pointed out above, according to the requirements listed by WP:RIVERS, the name of the article should be Vjosa. It is a common name, 2/3 of the river's area uses Vjosa and the area of the mouth uses Vjosa. If we can't agree on a common name, then the guideline says that the two other requirements still apply and are used to choose the name of the article. This does not need much discussion. Aous has more use in history books. Vjosa is used in history books and especially in news articles, nature publications and campaigns by famous people such as Leonardo DiCaprio. Durraz0 (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Cinadon36 15:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. What all the competing google counts that have been brought forward show is that the numeric distribution is close. Whatever way you count, the numbers are always within the same order of magnitude, with a proportion of maximally around 2:1 in favor of either candidate, and with the most carefully done searches (by T*U above) much closer to 1:1 than to 2:1. It's worth keeping in mind that what we're after when doing these Google searches is not to simply determine a majority, but to determine whether a "common", conventional English name exists. Where that is genuinely the case, we typically expect numeric prevalence of an entirely higher order – something like 4:1, 5:1, 10:1 or more. A "common English name" is when English writers reliably and regularly use one name as a matter of course, because that's just what the thing is called in English. That's not the case here, whichever way you look at it. – In the absence of a truly conventionalized, common English name, we could of course still go by simple Google majorities as a tie-breaker, if we had no other, stronger criterion to go by, as is frequently done on Wikipedia – but in this case, we do have another, very natural and sensible criterion: the "longer course" and "lower course" rules for rivers. In the absence of a compelling case under WP:COMMONNAME, that rule wins out here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As per [WP:COMMONNAME]] and since it is more inclusive as it is now and it covers ancient and modern periods. In any case, I am curious about users who haven't proposed yet a "slashed" name such as Aoos/Vjosa as they have done in other page moves recently but they follow WP policies in this particular one. Just wondering... Othon I (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Used by English language newsources and organisations (excluding Balkan ones):
  • Reuters: Vjosa [125] [126] [127] [128]. National Geographic: Vjosa [129] (mentions the river is known as Aoos in Greece). IUCN: Vjosa [130], Vjosa/Aoos [131]. Euronews: Vjosa [132]. Channel 4 News: Vjosa [133]. River Watch: Vjosa [134]. WWF: Vjosa [135]. ERN: Vjosa [136]. Associated Press: Vjosa [137]. Yahoo News: Vjosa [138]. Telegraph: Vjosa [139] (Aoos in Greece). keep.eu: Aoos/Vjosa [140]
  • When searching for Aoos I found:
  • Ecomuseum: Vjosa/Aoos [141] (website dedicated to the river). Several Greek sites: Aoos [142] [143] [144]. Pindos ... : Aoos/Vjosa [145] (Greek site). Balkan Rivers: Vjosa [146], Vjosa-Aoos [147] (website dedicated to the river). Incultum: Aoos in Greece [148], Vjosa in Albania [149]. The National Herald: Aoos used 2 times, Vjosa used 33 times [150] (Greek site). Wetmainareas (EU sponsored): Aoos/Vjosa [151]. Re:wild: Vjosa [152] (Aoos in Greece). Alamy: Vjosa [153] (Aoos in Greek). Save our rivers: Vjosa [154] (Aoos in Greece). Med-ina: Aoos/Vjosa [155] (Greek organisation). Huawei: Aoos [156]
  • Aous produced only a few modern day examples, most results were ancient. E.g.: Forth News: Vjosa [157] (pronounced "Aous" in Greek). Yahoo/Reuters: Vjosa in Albania, Aous in Greece [158] (note, the article is from 2015, more recent articles favour Vjosa generally and Aoos in Greece).

  I could go on, but it's clear that major English language media and organisations favour Vjosa over Aoos, and rarely refer to Aoos without Vjosa also being mentioned, usually with a hyphen or slash. Aoos is often limited to the Greek stretch of the river. Additionally, Aous mostly produces books covering ancient history. These facts are important to consider in conjunction with Google Books, which doesn't cover these results, as current usage should be considerd when naming the article. Djks1 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments advanced by Khirurg, T*U et al.--Dr. K. 01:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A full count yields more valid results of the Greek name in the 21st century, per [159]. If there is a long-term trend towards Albanian in the future, the page should be moved eventually, but not on the basis of a purported (and in any case only slight) predominance in the last few years only. Tight counts in such a short period of time are not representative enough of overall language use, particularly since the many variants due to declension (Albanian) and transliteration (Greeek) are skewing the results. Taking the entire 21st century into account is more representative, since this span also coincides fairly well with the rise of the internet as a main means of publishing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCRN and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming (official guideline of WP:NCCS). Since "Aous" is the name in Latin and mostly used in a historical context, it can't be counted as an alternative of Aoos. If it's mostly used as Latin or also as something else, is something which goes far beyond the move Aoos->Vjosa. The heart of the matter is that it's not an alternative but a distinct name. From 1988 to 2004 Vjosa had more results than Aous, from 2005 to 2015 Aous had the upper hand and from 2015 to today Vjosa has more results. In the last 30 plus years Vjosa is more common than Aous which has a context-specific use. The core of the discussion lies in the comparison between Vjosa and Aoos. I suggest searches to be limited to results after 2000. Search for the common name in our times, not in older times. Although it's telling that Aoos after 1980 got a lead over Vjosa only in the 1990s [160] when Albania's economy had collapsed and nobody could conduct research in Vjosa. Vjosa has more results than Aoos [161] overall in the internet era. The difference of use between Vjosa and Aoos is steadily growing in favor of Vjosa. In 2015 Vjosa had 1.13 more results than Aoos. In 2019 Vjosa had 3.4 more results than Aoos. A move from Aoos to Vjosa makes sense in all aspects. WPRIVERS#Naming has three points relevant to this discussion, and they have already been mentioned by Excine. Uniacademic (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support There are two arguments which have been discussed: WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RIVERS/WP:PLACE. WP:PLACE: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it The results show that there is no widely accepted modern English name. Aous is a historical Latin-affiliated name. It's not a modern name and we should use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution Between Vjosa and Aoos, Aoos is less common than Vjosa in recent years, but Vjosa can't lay an absolute claim to a "widely accepted" status which requires for a single name to be 4-5 times more common than all other names combined. The trends indicate that it will become widely accepted (Uniacademic's comparison is interesting). Vjosa is more common than Aoos and it is becoming more and more common than Aoos every year, but it's not a "widely accepted name" for the purpose of satisfying the definition of WP:COMMONNAME. While the current name definitely doesn't come close to WP:COMMONNAME, Vjosa is just slowly approaching it by being more common than Aoos but not the most common name in English. Some editors might argue that a definition of WP:COMMONNAME as increasingly more common can be used, but I think Wikipedia has additional guidelines which allow for determining a river article title when a modern name is more common, but not yet predominant (remarks by Future Perfect at Sunrise are spot on about this issue). Per WP:RIVERS If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name: Vjosa comprises 192 km of a total 272 km and If everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.: the middle and lower course of the river is known as Vjosa and it's the most populated part of the river. Existing guidelines - in complementary ways - support a renaming to Vjosa.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.