Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania/Archive 7

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Front of Albania
Do you accept the Communist text? Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RM
Your project banner is present, so you are all invited to join the discussion at Talk:Aleksandër Moisiu University.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Right National Front
It's a registered party. Does it make it encyclopedic? The page is of poor quality.Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What belongs on the pages of municipal capitals
There was a disagreement involving myself, and  on Talk:Përmet regarding the placement of Stath Melani on the page which led me to realize we need a unified policy regarding this question: what is considered to be in the topical realm of a city that happens to be the capital of a municipal unit, or was formerly one? I see three options here:

A) Only material within the city itself is topical. This means, for example, that individuals born within say, Fterra or Nivica, cannot be placed on the article for Himara (post-2015 mun. capital) unless they have a specific relevance to Himara, nor can they for Lukova (same as Himara but it is the pre-2015 capital).

B) Material within the pre-2015 municipal unit of a city that was a municipal capital pre-2015 is topical. So in the example I gave, people from Fterra and Nivica could be placed as notable people in Lukove.

C) Material within the post-2015 municipal unit of a city that is a municipal capital post-2015 is topical. So in the example I gave, people from Fterra and Nivica could be placed as notable people in Himare.

On Talk:Permet, Alexikoua has also brought up the case of Mycenaean ruins that are about 750-800 m from Korca. The previous discussion on that beside myself, and Alexikoua can be found here -- Talk:Korçë. For the record, although the reason it was eventually removed by Resnjari was that it was outside of the city of Korca, this was not my argument -- instead, I argued that because Korca began its history as a city in the Middle Ages as a Slavic settlement, discussion of Mycenaean times is anachronistic and thus off-topic for chronological rather than geographical reasons, and in addition I was concerned that inclusion could give a unsupported impression that Korcha "comes from" the unrelated prior Mycenaean settlement. --Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have been following the discussion between the three of you the editors and I want to drop my two cents on this - if the Mycenean ruins were really that far away, 750-800 m away from Korca, then they couldn't even relate to Albania at all, since this distance can fall within italian, Greek, Bulgarian, Montenegrin, Bosnian or Serbian territory. Since I remember the past discussion, I assume you meant "750-800 m", (less than 1 kilometer away) which is a big difference in my opinion and the reason why Alexikoua's argument is valid. When the ruins are barely away from the city's centre, then I am afraid it does relates to the place's history, even if the later settlement build on top of it, is unrelated to the previous one. This can easily be highlighted in the article and the readers be informed accordingly, without risking any confusions or whatsoever. Just my two cents.
 * Additionally, about the municipalities - there are bound to be problems in Wikipedia, unless caution is used, because information not related to an old region, suddenly relates to the new region due to administrative juristictions and regional border changes. For this reason, an ideal solution is to create separate articles reflecting the new changes, while maintaining the history of these places prior to these drastic administrative changes. To merge articles just to reflect these changes, only is bound to cause more mess - mixing info about provinces that were not the same in the past, the old provinces of different boundaries and territories, with the new ones is not a common practice in Wikipedia and is best to be avoided. In Wikipedia, the best practice is to create separate articles reflecting the different administrative regions at different time periods, unless these changes are subtle. Take for example Macedonia (theme), and Macedonia (Roman province), because, although both were administrative regions of the Roman Empire, their articles are kept separate, because they covered different areas at different periods, reflecting the different administrative reforms. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 21:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My preference (here and in Alb. wiki) is that city/town related content be for the city/town and municipal related stuff separate for that. In reference to Mycenaean related stuff (the finds where in the village of Barc, not the city of Korca), i wanted all that demographic info on the Korca district in the Korca article, then one of the non-Albanian editors who is not commenting here removed it and insisted that the article be about Korca. He moved it to the district of Korca article. As that editor set a precedent, then it is only fair that other content (i.e Mycenaean stuff) of a similar nature that is not directly about a topic be removed and sent to other relevant articles. The main issue here is that back in the day when these articles where started, both city/town were combined with the municipal article when editors on such material were few. This has caused issues in the present, not only here but in Albanian Wikipedia (Kosovo related articles which i have been in the process of cleaning up -thing is it takes a lot of time). Now unless someone wants to split these articles into being city/town only (some have had that done, i.e Korca) then i areas where its still mixed city/town and municipality then maybe a mix of both regarding notable people, but where the split has occurred like in Korca, only to add people that relate directly to that city/town/settlement being from there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your personal preferences, there is nothing wrong about that. But this is not the best approach I am afraid, and certainly not what is usually done in English Wikipedia. Although your suggestion is logical, it is bound to create more questions and problems than it solves, i.e. under which criteria could you define that a previous settlement on the spot of a newer settlement couldn't be mentioned on the article about that place? The common practice in Wikipedia wants the historic information predating the current settlements being mentioned in the history section of the settlement's article, even if it is not really related to it besides sharing the same spot. Some examples of this are the metropolitan articles of Athens and Istanbul, as well as the town articles of Kayseri, Antakya, and even Igoumenitsa which is located just south of the Greek-Albanian border. As you can see, information about the previous inhabitation of these areas prior to the founding of the current settlements near or on top of them has been inlcuded in their History sections. The information is usually accompanied with the archeological findings and chronological evidences of the area's inhabitation (i.e. if it was an organized inhabitation in the form of settlements or not, and at which period, such as neolithic or prehistoric, etc). This is done even if the previous inhabitatants of these places are, technically speaking, unrelated to the later settlers who founded the current settlements. This is obvious to do, given how a town article can't be solely and exclusively about the current town but also about the town's environs. This is the common practice here in the English Wikipedia as far as I am aware (well, at least outside of the Albanian topic articles). -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 12:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SR your examples are not good analogies here. Basing on what it says on the page, Igoumenitsa actually does have continuity with "Titani", Kayseri does have continuity with "Mazaka" and was continuously inhabited since 3000 BC, and Athens has been continuously inhabited for at least 7000 years. These are all quite unlike Korce which, although there was a Mycenaean settlement nearby, does not have any connection to it as Korce (or should I say Gorica) is much younger with Slavic Medieval origins. Antakya's ancient history section is a mess with no cites and enormous chronological gaps so I would not use that as a positive example. Istanbul unlike how Korce was clearly specifies that the history of the city proper begins around 660 BCE so that the Neolithic and Thracian settlements are not confused with the modern city. None of these demonstrate that what previously was on Korce's page was acceptable-- not for Resnjari's problem with it, but for mine which concerns the problematic conclusions a reader would mistakenly come to. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course Igoumenitsa wasn't inhabited continously. When Gitanae (finally I have found the article), which is 10 kilometers away from where Igoumenitsa is located today, was destroyed, the area wasn't immediatelly rebuild as Igoumenitsa. At a later time, Igoumenitsa was founded by the coast but there are very few records about whether the inhabitation of the area was continuous prior to this, unfortunately. Seeing how this has mislead you, I will gladly clarify the History section in the next couple of days, but still you are getting my point, I hope. As for Kayseri, I am afraid you are again wrong, as Mazaca was not exactly on the same side of the mountain from today's city. Yet, it is (rightfully) regarded to be part of the area's history. As for Istanbul, the article quite correctly states that "Neolithic artifacts, uncovered by archeologists at the beginning of the 21st century, indicate that Istanbul's historic peninsula was settled as far back as the 6th millennium BCE". Of course, no one claims that "the peninsula's environs are Istanbul", yet they are mentioned in the History Section of that metropolitan article for obvious reasons, Calinthus. Because we can not go with such narrow senses and logics like how you are trying to force on Korce by excluding information about previous inhabitation of the same area in the past.


 * Calthinus, you may disagree with me if you want, but, like it or not, your argument that the previous settlement which existed where Korce now stands should not be mentioned in Korce's article for the A or B reason, either due to being less than 1km away, or not continuously inhabited, goes abit too far and I simply can not disgest it. I highly recommend that you rethink about insisting on this, because if we start removing mentions about previous inhabitations of places from their articles, then a good chunk of the entire Wikipedia project will have to be rewritten and cleaned up, which I am certain is not your intention and will find everyone opposing it. Including me. This just makes no sense. Sorry. If you really want to convince us, you better come with stronger arguments, otherwise it could be more ideal to shift focus on more glaring issues the Balkan topic articles are suffering from than this. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 22:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is true that those settlements were not continuous, you should change the respective pages as they give quite the opposite impression. It is not I who is wrong-- I directly quoted what each of the pages said. Incidentally if such things are not true, this is a perfect example about how such trivia can lead readers to incorrect conclusions... In fact, if Mazaca is not Kayseri, then the page is even worse than Korce was as it says this : As Mazaca, the city served as the residence of the kings of Cappadocia. If Mazaca != Kayseri, then this is just flagrantly false. Perhaps this was once an Anatolianist POV push?--Calthinus (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are right on something, then is about how the trivia, if not accurately written, can lead to unintented impressions. True that. But the whole point here is that even if article is about an inhabited place known by a certain name, it can not be peculiar about the inhabitants/owners of that place who lived/ruled there at earlier periods. I don't know if you know that, but many places and cities across the globe were something else before the current settlements were founded. It is scary, but many modern American towns were originally something entirely different, such as Indian graveyards or lumberjack camps, many modern European cities were once farms or castles known by different names, many villages have today totally different populations unrelated to the original settlers of these areas, and obviously, many towns were destroyed forever by famines and wars and then re-settled at a later time under a different name (and which disqualify under the continuous inhabitation criteria).
 * Separate articles MAY exist about the same places for various historiographical or technical reasons, but the information about the different inhabitants of that place is not excepted from the current article about it. It may be strange to some, but history of an area is not beginning abrubtly, with the arrival/change of its inhabitants. A place has its history, no matter if the inhabitants are the same, different, or dead. People come and go, the places however remain. The ideal is to add the information, but have it written carefully as to not give any false impressions. That is what I'd recommend about Korce. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * and also I suppose -- my sincere apologies. Sometimes it's hard to admit it, but I was at least a bit wrong regarding the info about the Mycenaean ruins at Barc. It is not wrong for it to be discussed on Korce, as long as, as SR says, it is written carefully as to not give any false impressions (and preferably not so long as to dominate the section). Sorry for some of the previous obtuseness. I can agree to SR's proposal.--Calthinus (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its all right. There is nothing wrong in holding and supporting a different opinion. And I hope whatever disagreements you are having, will be worked out at the relevant article talk pages. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SR sorry the km was an error. Fixed. --Calthinus (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Silent Resident, ok if we do that then all the data about Korca and surrounding areas would also count to be within the article, as its standard practise on may other articles to have such info. Also that demographic data specifically has the word Korce in it, while the bit on Mycenaeans does not, it has Barc. The editor (who is not commenting on this thread) created precedent on the Korca article when he removed that demographic content citing that it does not belong on the Korca page due to it being about the city and not municipality. Likewise the logical end of that is other content not about the city also getting treated the same. If the ancient stuff goes back all the other stuff goes back in to. Otherwise its a double standard and going on the hypocritical side of my preferred stuff, yes but other stuff, no. That then does not create good faith. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the local population on the article, is something we do on all town articles, regardless of what opinions the other editors may have about that. Such vital information can not be excempted from it. However local Korce population and municipal Korce population are two different things. The local Korce one is the population which does live, or had lived in the town, while the municipal Korce population does not.
 * Now, if what you want to include is the entire municipal population data about the entire 806 km2-long Korce municipality into the article of the town, then you are taking away from the article's purpose, which is to inform the readers about the particular area, its past and its present. I just went now to Municipalities of Albania and I realized that the entire 806 km-long municipality is missing its own article. Shouldn't such an article be created, given how large of an area does it cover? I assume the reason such an article is not created yet, is because the administrative reform is a very recent one. Sorry for the delayed response, I was checking now on example Greek articles just to avoid suggesting things that may be perceived as double standards - for example the article of the town of Igoumenitsa does not list the population of every village, town and city in the Igoumenitsa Municipality, only the local one. The population of Igoumenitsa's neighboring towns and villages (which according to this article are part of the Igoumenitsa Municipality) such as Syvota and Perdika, have their populations listed only on their respective articles instead. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 01:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, but the same then relates to other data. Having the Mycenaean stuff which was found in Barc( a village in Korce municipality) and not Korce city is the same thing, not applicable to the article on Korce as it was found in another place, however close or not it is to the administrative centre. We can't shift standards for one thing that we may like, but then throw the book on something that we might not prefer. The standard for the Korce article was set by a previous (non-Albanian) editor who has not participated in this current discussion and hence all other information was treated in the same light for that page. You can look at the page history of the Korce article and identify from where it started and have that discussion with that editor if so wish. Anyway the mess that exits with Albania related articles was that both city and municipality were combined and this requires one big time consuming option to remedy the situation. I.e they all get split into city and municipality separate articles over time. Absent that sadly then its maybe a draining article by article discussion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Resnjari, I do not doubt the Mycenean ruins are close to Barc enough so that they could be referred from Barc's article, but you do not really expect me to take this absolutistic aproach when it comes to ancient ruins, do you? C'mon. Barc is such a small and unimportant village situated between much more notable areas in Albania, including the namesake municipal capital Korce. And frankly, most of us have never heard of that village of Barc before you started mentioning it. No wonder why it it dosen't even have its own article in the English Wikipedia.


 * Hypothetically speaking, even if you were to create an article about this unimportant village, it could still fall short of Wikipedia's standards for notability of places and people, as it is preferable for the English Wikipedia to not create articles for people and places unless they are noteworthy to the project. This is preferable to having to maintain a load of stub or underdeveloped articles, a pretty common sight in the localized Wikipedias, such as the Albanian Wikipedia.


 * I do remember how you have complained, these days, about double standards, yet I can't help but note how your position about the Mycenean ruins are too double standards. Just above, I told Calthinus about the case of the archeological ruins of Gitanae and their proximity to Igoumenitsa, the most notable town in the archeological site's viccinity. As you can see on Greece's map, Gitanae (or Titani), is approximately much closer to the townlets of New Seleukia or Mauroudi than to the municipal capital Igoumenitsa, yet, we let them stay at Igoumenitsa's article instead of calling persistently for them to be moved to the articles about these unimportant townlets, which could be created just for the sake of keeping the ruins away from Igoumenitsa's article at all costs. Which is exactly what you are trying now to tell us do about the Mycenean ruins and Korce. Just this goes too far. I am sorry to say this, but I think what the others have proposed about the Mycenean ruins is way more reaosnable than this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 23:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't go by doubt or what feels to be the case, but by the scholarship and it states Barc, not Korce. Other editors were Greek ones insisting on the Mycenaean thing and one can make the point and say that other editors wanted the demographic material citing the municipality of Korce in the article that they found reasonable (as per other articles: Prizren, Ferizaj, Gjilan and i could go on here). Whether or not a village is unimportant is not an issue and a personal view, i have created multiple village articles (here and especially Alb wiki) and anyone can. There are no rules saying that one cannot do so, provided the place actually exits. As i said previously we can't have one set of standards for one piece of information because we may like it but then disbar other information because we might not like it. It has to be the same to keep good faith. As i have said, both city and town articles would be best separate, doing it requires time and effort. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't go by doubt or what feels to be the case, but by the scholarship and it states Barc, not Korce. It has become quite clear to me from the rest of your responses to me and the others that your motivations are not scholarship-driven, Resnjari. Please like how the administrators in the past have warned you to not hide behind the argument, that, just because scholarship says X or Y thing we should definitely do things the way we prefer in Wikipedia. Now, this is the second time you have been warned on this. Do not make me repeat this again and again in the future, I don't like. The other editors have patiently tried to reason with you on where this content fits best, yet you are insisting on your POV which reduces the prospects for a resolution of the dispute. Other editors were Greek ones insisting on the Mycenaean thing Again, Resnjari, I have told you in the past you can not point out to other editor's race/ethnicity/religion to advance your arguments. If ethnicity plays a role in promoting certain POV, may be true, and I too have assumed it in the past, but I regretted it, and I hope you will do the same, as it goes against the project's principles which require the editors to comment on content, not on other editors's characteristics or idendity. I will simply not respond to this and ignore it. Whether or not a village is unimportant is not an issue and a personal view, i have created multiple village articles (here and especially Alb wiki) That is up to you if you will eventually create these articles. But like it or not, Wikipedia requires that an article is created, not for the purposes of serving as population information hub (which should added to articles dedicated to the matter instead), but for sourced matterial that could support the article's substainability which frankly is not what you have done in some of the village articles you have created such as Elevci and Dolgaš. I am sorry Resnjari, that there are some settlements that host population, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There is a Notability guide which you can check when you have some time so as to avoid creating articles that lack any notable information, besides just population figures. Certainly, as you can see, Wikipedia's rules and norms are not "my view" but something you should learn instead of just dismissing other editor's concerns and advices on this disagreement. As i said previously we can't have one set of standards for one piece of information because we may like it but then disbar other information because we might not like it. It has to be the same to keep good faith. Are you sure you do believe in fair standards? Because my impression is that you are turning deaf ears to what others are saying, and instead are emphasizing on how anyone who does not agree with you, as having double standards. No wonder why you aren't convincing. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 09:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well i am sticking to the subject matter. In the end no double standards. The scholarship notes Barc, not Korce. Very clear, the scholarship speaks for itself. Look if you think that a village is not notable about there being an article, please place it up for deletion. Elevci and Dolgaš. Turkish, Macedonian and other Wikipedians may have a different view to yours. Wikipedia is full of geographical articles about villages that over time get expanded, this is the first i am hearing that creating such articles are not notable and would mean that so many of them would have to be deleted using your criteria. Place a delete tag and we can test this out. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to add the Mycenaean stuff, this is the article that deals with Barc, > Qendër Bulgarec -create a history section and add that info. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Resnjari, if I were you, I couldn't be so certain. :-) I will recall our discussion when the time comes for my additions to Korce's article (do not worry, the sources do no mention Barc). Then I hope we won't have to remind you what you wrote here, ok? Happy holidays everyone! -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 02:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also,, in your response that "Wikipedia is full of geographical articles about villages that over time get expanded, this is the first i am hearing that creating such articles are not notable and would mean that so many of them would have to be deleted using your criteria. I shall point out that adding non-notable villages or people that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, is rather going against the project's purpose which is to inform readers on notable content, not on content that has-yet-to-become-notable. For example, to add info about a tiny village that although it is expected to grow someday but at this point does not appear on any online sources besides just population figure sources, is as much as to add, lets say creating an article about a very young Jimbo Wales who although is destined to become the founder of Wikipedia, has yet to start his career and gain any notability. Wikipedia is not a database where we just create articles about EVERY village in the planet, just for the sake of having articles about them. This is not an administrative database, this is an encyclopedia. I highly recommend that Resnjari halts the creation of articles about such tiny villages without consulting with other editors rather than creating them and then intimidate/taunting the other editors into deleting them articles. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 17:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

We'll something similar happened last year on that kind of issue when editors said content must apply direct to the article like in Konitsa, remember that whole thing. I added something which refered to why there were still Muslims in Epirus post 1923, to explain the current existence of the local Muslim community there, and almost all other editors said no, must relate to direct to Konitsa by citing the towns name it. So i said ok then. A reader though still has no idea how those Muslims managed to stay post 1923. It means i just have to keep an eye out for something within scholarship in future when it does get published. If something has been discovered in Korce then add it using the proper sources. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The purpose of this discussion here can only serve to resolve dispute on Talk:Përmet regarding the placement of Stath Melani into list of notable people. Any attempt to reach consensus which should be aplicable to other articles as well needs wider audience, i.e. at village pump. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The concept is to avoid selective addition of information which doesn't belong to the specific municipal unit. For example if the Barc antiquities have no place in Korce because they belong to another muncipal unit then the same standards should be applied for notable personalities. I also wonder why S.Melani's death should be part of Permet (he wasn't born & his death didn't happen there) &.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On this i am toward more or less in alignment with your position. These articles, when created in the first place by having both municipality and city/town together is the problem. Splitting them up into separate ones is a best solution, thing is who can be bothered doing it for all Albania related pages -there is heaps and the process is mind numbingly boring. Maybe doing it for the south first might be the best option as those pages get more attention by editors, and it could be done on a case by case basis like with Permet when issues like this (cited in the above talkpage thread) arises. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it won't be tough job to create separate articles for the 61 Municipalities_of_Albania. In fact the creation of such administrative regions is warranted since they deal with completely different regions. However, some of the recently established municipalities geographically coincide with the older districts (rrethi): Devoll & Kolonjë for example. Thus there is no need to create a new article for each of the 61 municipalities.Alexikoua (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that there is already one article about the new municipalities: Devoll, Korçë which geographically coincides with the former Devoll District.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yeah i agree, in instances where warranted and which ever editor wants to devote time and effort to a mind numbing exercise (i am doing so currently with Kosovo village articles on Alb wiki -not fun at all but needs to be done) then yeah go for it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Albania

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 12:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Both articles in this case are about the very same region: same history, geography and economy. A merging seems reasonable.Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrica
I wrote this page really hastily. If someone wants to have a look and correct my errors, many of which I'm sure I will miss, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers all. --Calthinus (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Origin Hypotheses of the Albanians
Could someone from this project please review Draft:Origin Hypotheses of the Albanians? It's quite lengthy and absurdly densely referenced (314 references, often lifting full paragraphs from sources) and I think it would benefit from someone with more knowledge of the subject and our own coverage of it. Mortee (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Are there any active editors available to check the Leci name spelling at WP:RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Focus on Albania at Women in Red
In May 2018, in conjunction with m:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/Article Lists, Women in Red is focusing on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We hope there will be contributions on Albanian women.

Wiki4MediaFreedom
Hi. If you have time, please take a look on meta at this page m:Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. It's an event organized by Rossella Vignola (OBC), there is a list of articles to improve also on English wikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I will place a comment on the Albanian Wikipedia to notify interested editors on this. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ktrimi991. I think some user group were informed by them. I also left a message at sqwiki embassy. I did in so many place I am not 90% sure, but I think I did. --Alexmar983 (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * here... but this kind of request usually takes a while to be processed.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * is a good place for notifications. You might place a notification there too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I used to leave comments in English on some pages Ktrimi991 but some wikis do not like it, so I use the embassy, but it rarely works. i will do it next time. Do you want to write there or should I do?--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I placed a notification there . Feel free to do so in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mesopotam Monastery
I have visited the monastery of Mesopotam, taken many photos, and edited the Wiki page for Mesopotam Monastery to include these photos. I know many people in Mespotam and the community are unanimous in their belief that this monastery is built on the walls of a temple dating from the reign of King Pyrrhus. Having seen this evidence first hand (please review my photographs) this Wiki page should be elevated in importance in WikiProject Albania, please. Whereas an orthodox monastery dating rom 12th or 13th century may not be of prime importance, the preservation of the original temple walls dating to about 297 BC is of prime importance and is worthy of elevated status.

Rob Sherratt (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you uploaded any of your pics on WikiCommons? It would be great to have some of them avaiable for enriching this and other related articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am rather new at finding my way here. Everything is more complex than I at first imagined, even "chatting" is way more difficult than e.g. Facebook and Messenger, and I think Wiki's user interface needs to be made much more user-friendly and more intuitive, especially for newbs like me.  I have no objection at all to any of my pics being used on any Wiki site, feel free to grab copies and use them wherever you wish.  I have a long term project to both film and photograph all sites in Albania of historical interest, because little is known about the amazing places in Albania. If you feel able to help me with about WikiCommons maybe I can be more helpful?  Rob Sherratt (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wiki uses a rather complicated script, which makes it rather difficult for new editors. However, every edit on Wikipedia is an experience gain, and soon everyone starts feeling comfortable while editing and navigating. On WikiCommons, what excatly do you need help with? If you need advice, continuing this discussion on my own talk page would be preferable . Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks R. Sherratt. The monastery of Saint Nicholas is of unique architectural importance.Alexikoua (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , in your travels do have pictures of mosques as well ? I've been looking at sources to greatly expand this area to cover Albania's extensive Muslim heritage which has been little addressed on Wikipedia. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ktrimi991@ and @Resnjari@. I am meeting Reshat Gega tomorrow (Tuesday 29th May) who is Director of the Albanian Heritage Foundation. He and I will be collaborating together to improve many Wiki pages in Albania covering history and archaeology in the periods up to and including the Turkish period. If you have specific requests, let me know? Rob Sherratt (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , my reply was a bit late as work and family and taken my attention these few days. With Gega, whatever pictures he has ask if he gives permission, or the organisation he belongs too for use on Wikipedia (with the proviso that attribution would be given to the image's author/organisation). Your efforts are much appreciated. :) Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way the article should be renamed to "Katholikon of Saint Nicholas (Mesopotamon)", the term "monastery church" is non-existent in Christian tradition.Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Archaeology and Ancient History Sites in Albania
I note that some aspects of Albania's historical heritage are not current priorities for Wiki Project Albania. Please consider adding these topics as priorities, and if so I will provide significant input:


 * Archaeological Sites in Albania
 * Pre-Roman and Roman Sites in Albania
 * Byzantine Sites in Albania
 * Turkish Period in Albania

Rob Sherratt (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * On the Ottoman period i have greatly expanded the Islam in Albania (further links to other articles from the main one) articles (organised by time period. Currently I've been concentrating on updating articles of Albanian personalities from the Ottoman period which have been neglected. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a highly neglected subject. R.Sherratt I will be happy if we concentrate our efforts in the non-Islamic (which is already expanded thanks to Resnjari) tradition.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Articles relating to the Islamic tradition are still underdeveloped (i.e Sufi Bektashism) which is a major faith in southern Albania. R.Sherratt, anything relating to that aspect would be highly appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)