Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 14 May 2011

Rethra is already covered in the article Lutici. Radagosc does not appear to be a commonly used name (no hits at google books except 7 unrelated results , cf. "Rethra" >10.000 results). I redirected this article to Lutici as an unsourced content fork under a wrong title. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Radagosc was a TOWN. Lutici were a PEOPLE. See the difference? Stop. Your. Stalking. And Harassment. Now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And since I just started the article a few minutes ago, don't even TRY to pull any of this "unsourced" crap. It will get sourced in due time. If I can work on it without having to put up with this vindictive disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rethra is covered at length in the Lutici article. Whether it was a Lutician town, temple, deity, or all of it at the same time is not even clear, the respective dispute is covered in the Lutici article. This is merely a content fork under a non-used title, Radagosc (now moved to a nearly non-used title, Radgosc, which yields 47 mentions on google books, most of them unrelated, compared to >10.000 hits for Rethra.

None of the claims here are sourced, in contrast to the coverage of Rethra in the Lutici article. The one source added is not a dedicated source, but a book about economic history mentioning a "Radgosc" in passing.

Please explain why this article should not be speedily deleted under A10 or redirected to the article where Rethra is already covered. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop squabbling, both of you. Some comments:

1. A10 speedy is not an option ("This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material.")
2. The topic of this place seems objectively distinct enough from that of the tribe that it can be usefully factored out into a spin-off article. I don't think the existence of this as a separate page should be an issue of contention.
3. At the same time, it's pretty obvious that the existing coverage of the topic in the Lutici article is vastly superior to what we currently have here. If you want a separate page, you'd fare much better doing a proper attributed spin-off on the basis of that material.
4. Please stop the accusations. The "stalking" accusation seems unjustified: Skäpperöd is the principal author of the existing, extensive coverage of this topic in the other article, so it's obviously legitimate that he should take an interest in how a fork/spinoff should be treated.
5. The naming needs to be worked out. Going by what I've seen on Google books so far, it does seem that a case for "Rethra" might be stronger than that for any of the "Rad-" versions.
6. There was already a bit of relevant article history at Rethra. In terms of article history it might have been better to restart the page on that basis, as we might need a histmerge of the two at some point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to FS@P

1. Yup
2. Yup
3. Yes, BUT. Skapperod turned this article into a redirect less than two hours after it was created (which is equivalent for all practical purposes to deleting it, without going through an AfD). Obviously, I was not finished with this article. And yes, of course text from the Lutici article can and will be incorporated here. The problem here was with how quickly he jumped in.
4. Well, here I disagree. If Skapperod had come to this talk page and raised his concerns in a civil manner then we wouldn't have a problem. The fact that his actions were to delete/redirect this article suggests some kind of retaliation for... me simply asking him to stop using my former username. The problem is not that he's taking an interest in an article I created, that's fine (and yes, we both have an interest in this topic area). The problem is with how he's acting on this and other articles - blind reverts, etc. So I think any reasonable person could legitimately feel stalked/harassed in a case like this. But I'm willing to drop it here, though I want this worked out on the AN/I page (which shouldn't really be that hard since my request is very very simple)
5. How about we leave the naming issue alone for now, until the article is expanded. However, let me just point out that the google books searches for "Rethra" includes a whole host of German works (majority of the hits?), includes a whole host of medical works on the part of a Urethra (you know, the little hole in your body that pee comes out of - somehow I don't think that's related to this article), it was a Slavic town so they used a Slavic name, the early chroniclers used Radgosc as well, due to clumsiness of Western authors with Slavic spelling "Radgosc" has a lot of slight variations in spelling etc.
6. See #3.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

name and google books

The "Rethra" name hits (>10,000!!! apparently) includes things like:

• "Rethra Der Name dieser geheimnisvollen Stadt beruht auf einem Missverständnis ."
• "Dor hebben se de Schatze vergraben twischen Rethra un Willenso - oewer de Schatze sall Water fleeten."29 Da von wuBten um die Jahrhundertwende offenbar viele zu berichten: "Wenn Festtiden wiren, seten se tosaam ... un vertell"
• "Das Bistum Havelberg"
• "Die Slaven: ihr Name, ihre Wanderung nach Europa und die Anfänge"
• "Der Anfang vom Ende der Ottonen: Konstitutionsbedingungen"
• "Die kollektive Balett-Oper "Mlada"
• "Der tempel zu Rethra und seine zeit "
• "Rethra: das Heiligtum der Lutizen als Heiden-Metropole"

and so on and so forth

and

• "Mend ironom odadiu rethra. gochae sidium scellan Mono ironom odadiu rethra. gochae sidium "- Saga\ ironom odadiu rethra. gochae ndium scellan"

and that's just off the first couple pages.

And from a different barrel:

• The International journal of surgery: "The floor of this pace is formed by the triangular ligament of the rethra ... Jomposed of two layers, an anterior and a posterior, he former, dense, is prolonged forward around the rethra ; the latter connected with the fibrous invest-"
• Medical record (beware, pictures of scary looking instruments in there)
• A System of surgery :theoretical and practical: "Milton conceives the mechanism of chordee to be due to mm of the muscular fibres , described by Mr. Hancock and rofessor Kolliker as surrounding the whole course of the rethra. "
• A general system of surgery in three parts: "Shews the Manner in which the Catheter is to be introduced into the U- rethra, and afterwards pasted into the Bladder. A denotes the Surgeon's left Hand elevating the Penis, B his right Hand thrusting the Catheter into the Urethra"
• The philosophical transactions and collections: "The Excretory Duct of the last mention'd Glands, before it passes under the Bulb of the Cavernous Bxiy of the Urethra. I, The Bulb of the Cavernous Body of the I rethra, partly Distended with Wind, and Divested of the Acceltrat"

and so on and so forth.

In creating this article I followed the name used in the Cambridge Economic History series. This source has the benefits of:

• Being in English
• Not being about a part of the penis
• Being obviously reliable
• Being authored by specialists in the field
• Being widely recognized as authoritative.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Though thinking of it some more, if this article was in fact named 'Rethra', there's some great DYK hooks I can think of that are sure to get lots of page views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please make at least an effort at discussing reasonably. Your tone is not okay. BTW, I'm still saying this as an uninvolved administrator; I do not consider my small interjection above as constituting "involvement" in this dispute.

Now to the Google results: Try a Googlebooks search for "rethra + Slavic" to get English-language results by preference. You'll need to sidestep Google's helpful attempt at correcting your search and offer you the anatomical details instead, but if you insist you'll get this , with plenty of pertinent and reliable sources. The same search with "Radgosc" gives only three apparently pertinent results, the "Cambridge History" being one among them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing reasonably and there's nothing wrong with my tone. Also I haven't brought up any "involvement" issues here.

In regard to the google book search, you need to click through to the last page and also actually look at the entries. The number of hits given on the first page is incorrect. Looking at pages 11, 12, 13 of the search also shows that they're almost entirely composed of non-English sources. Adding "Slavic" eliminates (most) the medical works but it doesn't eliminate non-English works.

It's possible that a third name like "Radegost" or "Radigost" or similar would probably be the most appropriate. But like I already said above here we run aground of minor spelling variations used by Western authors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)