Talk:Assembly of Kosovo

Requested move 15 September 2017

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: moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• Parliament Assembly of Kosovo → Assembly of Kosovo

– Revert move to WP:COMMONNAME ref official site, etc ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ping @Iaof2017, Dardn2015, Eurovision 14, and Hakuli: ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - When I did a search for Assembly of Kosovo, I could not find any results in the first two pages of Google Search results which had "Parliament" before it. Thus, to best follow WP:COMMONNAME, we should remove "Parliament" from the title. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:20, 26 September 2017 (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.

Alternativa

What's the source for Alternativa having one seat? I couldn't find a source anywhere.--Aréat (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Serbian name

If Serbian is co-official along Albanian then why is the Serbian name not indicated in the infobox? ~2025-35216-66 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

parliament file

It needs updating since PDK and LDK won 22 and 15 seats respectively not 23 and 14. Venis067067067 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Easter egg

Hellp BalkanianActuality. I see no valid reason why you are opposing a reasonable change. Just because other articles have it wrong is not a good reason to retain it here too. Readers should know what to expect when they are clicking on a link. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that the consensus to remove the easter egg is new. So, yes, it has not yet been implemented universally. However, it has been implemented in numerous articles, such as House of Representatives (Netherlands), Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and Parliament of India (which actually predates the formal consensus discussion).

I am not sure what "the discussion occurred without being fully concluded" concern is about. Are you saying there is no consensus for undoing the easter egg? Do you disagree with the conclusion there? If you do disagree, please raise your objections there (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Easteregg:_link_to_specific_cabinet_behind_"Government"). If you do not disagree, please restore the change made by two other editors.

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 and Butwhatdoiknow, I do not find the decision based on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Easteregg:link_to_specific_cabinet_behind"Government" to be well-justified. However, in order to avoid an edit conflict, I am undoing the edit. BalkanianActuality (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)