Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:31, 16 December 2007 editPiotrus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,784 edits →Survey ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:30, 17 December 2007 edit undoPmanderson (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Survey: whyNext edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	*'''Support''', as I already presented (see above) current title is alien to English sources . New proposal is shorter and used in EN publication. ] (]) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)		*'''Support''', as I already presented (see above) current title is alien to English sources . New proposal is shorter and used in EN publication. ] (]) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. Seems more correct for that time period.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)		*'''Oppose'''. Seems more correct for that time period.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
			**Why, Piotrus? All the citations from refer to 1401 or 1919, with one outlier for 1568. (I will check your citation from ]'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. ;-> ] <small>]</small> 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

	===Discussion===		===Discussion===

Revision as of 05:30, 17 December 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Lithuania Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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)

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)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Categories: