Talk:Opolje

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kosovo

	Opolje is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Serbia

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Untitled[edit]

Opoja comprises 21 villages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.191.91 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move August 25[edit]

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: No consensus — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opolje → Opoja – The usage pattern in English is rather clear, and we have WP:COMMONNAME. Google, English results only, results:

"Opolje" "Kosovo" -Wikipedia: 20,300 results.
"Opoja" "Kosovo" -Wikipedia: 57,500 results. --Calthinus (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think here is it clear enough that Opoja is the most-common name. ElmedinRKS (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google search is, as always, controversial. It often shows the high number of "results", but the real number of results can only be found out if one goes to the last page of the results. So, "Opolje" "Kosovo" -Wikipedia returns 115 results, while "Opoja" "Kosovo" -Wikipedia returns 127 results. This is very close, not nearly like the ratio claimed by Calthinus. As is usual with Google, those contain many results in other languages, i.e. searching for "Opolje" gives also results in Serbian, while searching for "Opoja" returns results in Albanian and Turkish. When Google Books are searched, Opoja returns 20 pages of results, while Opolje retunrs 22 pages of results. So, there is no evidence of "Opoja" being more common then "Opolje". Vanjagenije (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije it's the best we have. Here's the links [[1]] -- I don't see a single result in Albanian or Turkish here and I scrolled three pages -- my preference is on English only -- and there you have 35,600 results for "Opoja" "Kosovo" -Wikipedia. As for your search, presumably with different preferences... I used your [[[2]] hyperlink and 12, the page your link sends to, is not the last page for me, and it says there 20,800 results in total, -- I do see one Albanian and one Turkish source (weird, I thought the Turks would use their own name). But this is page 12, neither the most relevant nor the last page that's getting displayed. --Calthinus (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, even sources that present arguments that favor Serbian interpretations of Kosovo history... in at least one case are now using Opoja. Here's a discussion of the Slavic substratum of Opoja Albanian which states "Language shift from Slavic to Albanian took place in the late 16th and 17th centuries in Opoja" [[3]] -- obviously idea non grata for Kosovar Albanians and idea very grata for Kosovo Serbs in all the "we were here first" bilateral rants we're all familiar with. But, the name used? Is the Albanized Slavic name, not the Slavic name. --Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no 35,600 results. Just scroll to the last page of the results and you'l see there are ≈120 results. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Used your link again and got 115 results this time. Weird. --Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: A number of search per name can not be a chief argument in a debate. Sadko (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I am not an expert in the field but I bumped into an article [4] saying that ...This paper explains /o/ in Opoja by reference to the Slavic substrate present in that area of Kosovo. Language shift from Slavic to Albanian took place in the late 16th and 17th centuries in Opoja... So, I 'd say Opoja covers criterion Precision (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) since the article discusses a nowadays municipally.Cinadon 36 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Google Books and GoogleScholar research shows that the proposed name is more used in English language sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, Google Books shows more results for "Opolje" as I showed above. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanjgenije, namely that Google Scholar and Google Books show more results for "Opolje" compared to "Opoja". Raw google searches are inappropriate because they contain a lot of junk and spam. Khirurg (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per nominator. The form Opoja outnumbers Opolje. In regards to Turkish forms as it was touched upon, they do not use a J letter for the Y sound and would not come up in those search results under Opoja, the Albanian spelling for the region. Instead in Turkish, its Opoya with a y [5], [6].Resnjari (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Controversial google results alone is a poor argument for move request.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanjagenije's debunking of the WP:COMMONNAME claim for the move. Kudos to them for digging more deeply into the data. Colin M (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, ElmedinRKS, Cinadon, Ktrimi991 and Resnjari. Since Opoja is part of Kosovo, a nation recognized by 100 members of the United Nations, it would be counterintuitive to continue referencing Opoja by its Serbian name, Opolje, when 99.9 percent of its population is Albanian. Unlike Kosovo's capital, Prishtinë, which is known in the English-speaking world by its English exonym, Pristina, Opoja does not have an English exonym and therefore the main title header of its Wikipedia entry should feature its native name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.