Revision as of 11:57, 24 November 2007 editIulius (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,142 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 11:59, 24 November 2007 edit undoM.K (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers13,165 edits →Rename: replyNext edit → |
Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
Current tile is alien to English historiography. Even silly google game proves that there is no single hint on this so called ''Ostrów Agreement'', , while '''Treaty of Astravas''' quite well established . So my question is there any opposition to speedy rename this article to '''Treaty of Astravas'''? ] (]) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
Current tile is alien to English historiography. Even silly google game proves that there is no single hint on this so called ''Ostrów Agreement'', , while '''Treaty of Astravas''' quite well established . So my question is there any opposition to speedy rename this article to '''Treaty of Astravas'''? ] (]) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
:I agree that either Belarusian either Lithuanian spelling shoul be used.] (]) 11:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
:I agree that either Belarusian either Lithuanian spelling shoul be used.] (]) 11:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yes, Belarussian name is good too. I have no problems with it. ] (]) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
Current tile is alien to English historiography. Even silly google game proves that there is no single hint on this so called Ostrów Agreement, , while Treaty of Astravas quite well established . So my question is there any opposition to speedy rename this article to Treaty of Astravas? M.K. (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)