Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:19, 30 January 2024

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

Lithuania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rename

This invented name have no support in English sources at all . While, Union of Vilnius has . So I am asking is there any opposition to rename this article from invented name to established one? M.K. (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RM and see. Union of Vilna is not alien to English historiography (ex. ) and is just as popular as Union of Vilnius ().-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Union of Vilna could have hints in English, but current "evidence" which you brought is not about this specific event: replaced the Union of Vilna by the more stringent one of ... Under pressure from the Tatars and the Turks, the two countries in 1499 made another union .... claiming that in this citation Union of Vilna should be applied in this context is yet another ORirsh claim, prokonsul. And if you don't like Union of Vilnius, I can move it to 1499 Union of Vilnius as per English publication or to Union of Vilnius (1499). Oh, and I waiting for evidences which could support current name-invention, could you provide them? M.K. (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move

Union of Kraków and Vilna → Union of Vilnius (1499) — Current title is not present in English sources and reader could face difficulty searching and recognize it. New title used in English academic works, shorter and less confusing —M.K. (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support, as I already presented (see above) current title is alien to English sources . New proposal is shorter and used in EN publication. M.K. (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems more correct for that time period.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why, Piotrus? All the citations from Google Books refer to 1401 or 1919, with one outlier for 1568. (I will check your citation from John Buchan's 1923 book above, but it looks as if it is also 1401, even if Buchan is a reliable source for anything other than the Forieign Office's fantasies. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that we may not need the Cracow/Kraków part, but there is also the issue of disambig with Union of Wilno from 1561.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just how difficult of a problem would creating that disambiguation be? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It might be as proposed, since I do not see the use of Vilnius of GDL times as anachronistic or something.Iulius (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose-the Union was signed between two parties not one. The name of the capital of the other party is included in texts.--Molobo (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Beside any other unresolved issues, the current title is confusing. In English, it implies that there was a union between the two cities. There wasn't a merger of the cities, nor was it the intent of the agreement to unite them. The proposed title is merely an English translation of a Polish variant (unia wileńska), which is simpler and clearer. And Molobo while you're here, what do you think about Vilna vs. Cracow, and Vilnius vs. Kraków (per my comments below)? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Use the single unambiguous EN reference to the event. Novickas (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Union of Vilna. - Darwinek (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek, what would be your objection to using Vilnius? Please note my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problems with Union of Vilna or Union of Vilna (1569); it is indeed used more often than the longer variant with Kraków/Cracow. And there is also Union of Wilno to consider.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Same question to you as to Darwinek. Why is Vilnius inappropriate? Please note my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Two support votes surely indicate you feel strongly about this, but 'one vote one person' is the rule on Wiki :) Striked out per --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'm persuaded to use English names in the English language, and it is policy on Misplaced Pages as well, whether one likes it or not. Charles 07:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support no hits - not even old ones - for the present name. Nor does "Union of Vilna" boast any except for something in the early 1920s, in the 16th century and in 1401, including the cited hit for "Union of Vilna", which really refers to the union in 1401: . Sciurinæ (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Straightforward, as the current name is unknown is English, and suggests a union of two cities far apart. New name is much better, it determines place and time of the act, and is used in English.-- Matthead  DisOuß   11:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Piotrus, it seems it is a correct name for that period. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'll just note that I am ok with Union of Vilna (1499), per discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Piotrus and Molobo. I could go for Kraków and Vilnius, though. Space Cadet (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your vote, there's some progress in your thinking. That gives me hope in reaching an understanding on this matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• oppose Union of Kraków and Vilnius would be much more neutral and i hope that not offending to both Poles and Lithuanians. As there was no other unions of Kraków and Vilnius, there`s no need to give it a date in the name. Mikołajski (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

If the argument is not clarified on what the best toponym to use for Vilna and Cracow on the project should be, this three-ringed circus is not going to stop with this debate. I suggest using Vilnius and Kraków as the simplest solution and compromise on the matter. This should be less confusing and contentious for all parties (and helpful to uninvolved readers). Links and re-directs can fine tune the matter when and if appropriate. One can not logically argue that "Vilna" is the earlier and proper historical toponym in English, and "Cracow" is not. Since both names have evolved into their present names on their respective articles in WP, they are the ones that should be used throughout the entire encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Vilnius used during that time? And if so, by whom? Refs, plz.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Are you inclined to change any mention of Kraków prior to 1960, to the English toponyn "Cracow" on the English Misplaced Pages? Would you oppose or revert such moves? There are plenty of references for the historical usage of Cracow. As I stated above, both names have undergone a metamorphosis, and in the interest of less confusion and contention, those are the ones that should be used. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about Kraków. It's about calling the union with the name it was called back then. Kraków was always called Kraków by its inhabitants; Vilnius was not always known as Vilnius to his.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually city Cracow usually was called Cracovia and there was no Kraków back then; Kraków as such is later invention. And if we go on, first - Cracow should be used per WP:ENGLISH. Second for the month there is not presented any single English academic source, which could justify name-invention Union of Kraków and Vilna, nor any other variant, while Union of Vilnius has such academic support . Per WP:TITLE Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity., therefore proposed new name eliminates ambiguity (impression of union of two cities) and have English usage support. Quite clear case, I just can understand "arguments" like "seems better" and similar. M.K. (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong - inhabitants of Kraków never spoke Latin and thus never called their city Cracovia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Holy See referred to the city as Craccoa (presumably in Latin) in the Dagome iudex. So even the Latin has undergone a metamorphosis. Cheers. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This actually is about the English language, consistency on Misplaced Pages, and the desire on my part to create less confusion. Kraków may be what it's inhabitants called it (although when its inhabitants were speaking German, I'm sure they called it Krakau, and I suspect when they were speaking English they called it Cracow, and probably still do), but what it's inhabitants called it has nothing to do with the historical English toponym, Cracow. Believe it or not, when I'm speaking Polish, I call Vilnius, Wilno. I am assuming good faith on your part and hope to resolve this matter logically, fairly, and with consistency. Consistency and clarity (lack of confusion) for the readers of Misplaced Pages being the final deciding factor. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus that most of its inhabitants did not call Cracow, Cracovia in 1499. How they pronounced it exactly, is any ones guess. Certainly the Polish language has changed from medieval times, as English has from the time of Shakespeare (have watched a lot of Jerzy Hoffman films). I'm not sure where Piotrus gets his certainty of what most the inhabitants of Vilnius (in 1499) called the city. That's probably what he thinks, but really no one can say with certainty what term they used. But that's not the main issue. What the inhabitants of K and V called the city is neither here nor there. English usage and consistency on WP, remain the real issue. And this goes far beyond this article or this specific debate. Either we are going to use the current English versions of Vilnius and Kraków in the articles on Misplaced Pages, for less confusion, or in historical contexts, Vilna and Cracow. Kraków has no uniqueness that would make it an exception. As I have explained before, my personal belief is that using Krakow and Vilnius (with proper links, redirects, and other explanations) is the best solution. Less contentious and less confusing. And another way to make the "internet not suck". Dr. Dan (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached for the move. I've left it at its current title due to the lack of consensus. --Maxim_(talk) 13:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Lithuania articles
• Mid-importance Lithuania articles
• Stub-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles