Talk:Badovc Lake

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lakes

	articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Move

Why was this article moved outside of the channels of

WP:RM? IJA (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Why not? None of the previous names are the common name.--Zoupan 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my search results below which differ with your argument. IJA (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False results.--Zoupan 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2016

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: No consensus to move after nearly 4 weeks. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gračanica Lake → Badovac Lake – This article was controversially and unilaterally moved without consensus or evidence for being the common name. This article should moved moved back to its original name. IJA (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Support - the article was renamed without consensus on the first place. For the reason given by the nominator, plus the fact that the user who moved the article is going on a spree of renaming and deleting articles without providing any reasonable rationale.--Mondiad (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nominator rationale is false. "Controversially and unilaterally" how? Do you have proof that the previous name is better? No. "Badovac lake" 0 hits.--Zoupan 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was "controversial" because the move was made without a consensus. It was "Unilateral" because it was moved on the user's own accord without a discussion or agreement first. IJA (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a google books search and got four old books for "Gračanica Lake" and no books for "Badovac Lake". However a google search got 354,000 results for "Badovac Lake" -Wikipedia and I got 430 results for "Gracanica Lake" -Wikipedia and the same for "Gračanica Lake" -Wikipedia. That is 823.25 times many search results for Badovac Lake than Grač(c)anica Lake. IJA (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not controversial. False hits. Have you still not learnt how to get to the real numbers after all these years? I get "Gračanica Lake" (59) and "Badovac Lake" (88) on Google, which is nowhere near "823.25 times". The Gbooks hits still 4 versus 0, plus "lake of Gračanica" (1).--Zoupan 19:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect it says at the top "About 354,000 results (0.57 seconds)" and "About 430 results (0.48 seconds)". IJA (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...go to the last page?--Zoupan 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got to page 83 and I can't be bothered going any further. IJA (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible. Search ["Badovac Lake" -wikipedia] and go to the last page. What do you get? I now got 84 for "Badovac Lake" and 57 for "Gracanica Lake". --Zoupan 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well on page 83 of the google search it showed me the 821st result to the 830th result and I like I said I don't have the time or the effort to go any further. IJA (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Search exactly as I put it, ["Badovac Lake" -wikipedia].--Zoupan 03:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Badovac Lake" -wikipedia That is what I have exactly been searching. IJA (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Badovac lake is not commonname, while Gračanica is. 4 results on GBooks, with only one result for Badovac, and that is wiki mirror. And 400 search on Gračanica Lake, without over 2200 on Gračaničko jezero. It is obvious it is commonname, and i dont understand how you had that strange false hits... --Axiomus (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Badovac Lake has many more google hits than "Gračanica Lake". Also the number of google hits for "Gračaničko jezero" is irrelevant as it uses the Serbo-Croatian word "jezero" which in English is "Lake". This is English Wikipedia not Serbian or Croatian Wikipedia, we use the English Language not the Serbo-Croatian Language. Google Searches in the Serbo-Croatian Language are irrelevant when trying to establish the common name in the English Language. IJA (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The search results discussion above is confusing so here it is from Google books: "badovac lake" -wikipedia - 0; "gracanica lake" - wikipedia - 4. The unilateral and undiscussed move was not the best way to go about it, but it appears the Gračanica name has use while the other doesn't. --Local hero ^talk 15:42, 24 February 2016 (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.