Talk:Lipjan

message: :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: The discussion shows that those who support the move to Lipjan have the stronger argument. Allow me a few notes:
*"It is a corruption of [x]" (or, "it's a poorly pronounced version") is not an argument: "corruption" is a loaded term and meaningless for linguists. No one should favor Amsteldam over Amsterdam. Likewise, the presumed etymology of a name is one thing; actual usage is another.
*Google is not the end-all of everything, but there is more coverage for Lipjan as there is for Lipljan in Google Scholar results, and that means something.
*Comparing usage of Serbian vs. Albanian authors is probably an impossible analysis, and at any rate that alone wouldn't make us decide for one over the other per COMMONNAME: we need to look for a preponderance in English-language sources. Invoking Wikipedia:Official names only strengthens the case for Lipjan, as many supporters of the move note.
*Yes, naming conventions may change--so is the nature of the world. 
*Khirurg's point about Google Book hits is well-taken (and the n-grams confirm that), but a. that is a much smaller pond to fish from, compared to Google Scholar, and b. Maleschreiber's rebuttal via Google Scholar shows that. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lipljan →  – I am proposing that the current name of the article be changed to 'Lipjan' - despite the fact that the government of Kosovo and the vast majority of Kosovo's people refer to it as 'Lipjan', 'Lipjan' is also the common name. See the Google Scholar results below:
* https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lipjan&btnG= - "Lipjan" 1,400 results
* https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Lipljan%22&btnG= - "Lipljan" 988 results
* https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Lipjan%22+%22Kosovo%22&btnG= - "Lipjan" + "Kosovo" 1,320 results
* https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Lipljan%22+%22Kosovo%22&btnG= - "Lipljan" + "Kosovo" 677 results
Furthermore, an analysis of the Google Scholar results for the years since 2018 indicates the fact that 'Lipjan' is, by far, the common name:
* https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2018&q=%22Lipjan%22&btnG= - "Lipjan" 773 results
* https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2018&q=%22Lipljan%22&btnG= - "Lipljan" 153 results
It is evidently clear that 'Lipjan' is the more suitable name as it is the most common. Arguments could also obviously be made based on the government and international organisations' use of 'Lipjan' over 'Lipljan', but when the Google Scholar results are so heavily skewed towards 'Lipjan' it really isn't that necessary. Botushali (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 January 2022 

message: The scholar who first developed this argument also noted that, in the area dividing the early Serbs from the Bulgarians, many Latin place-names survived long enough to be adapted eventually into Slav ones, from Naissus (Nish), down through the Kosovo town of Lypenion (Lipljan) to Scupi (Skopje): this contrasts strongly with most of northern Serbia,
So Lipjan was a pre-Slavic placename , alongside Scupi and Naissus that survived and possibly existed prior to the Slavic expansion into the area. So I changed that. TheCreatorOne (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is where the source mentions it