| Revision as of 08:08, 2 September 2005 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 editsm →Name: typos← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:35, 2 September 2005 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →NameNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Name== | ==Name== | ||
| Please explain if you can, why, in view of all earleir discussions, you persist in changing the name of the war at Battlebox to a name different from the main name of the war used |
Please explain if you can, why, in especially in view of all earleir discussions, you persist in changing the name of the war at Battlebox to a name different from the main name of the war used for a WP article itself. PBW is NOT the most commonly used English name and no other encyclopedia uses it. ] and ] both call it "Russo-Polish War" (both have separate articles). ] has no separate article but refers to it as "Polish-Soviet War" in its "History of PL" article. Finally, ], which doesn't have a separate article either, calls it "Russo-Polish War" in ] and ] articles and "Soviet-Polish War" in ] article. Besides, ] also writes "Polish-Soviet War" in the title of his book, while ] uses "Russo-Polish War". | ||
| I could see why "Bolshevik" seems preferable to some Polish historians, but for obvious POV reasons, since just the name itself changes the flavor. I think we have a strong evidence that in accordance with WP policy ("most commonly used English name" and "like you would find in other encyclopedias") we should rename the |
I could see why "Bolshevik" seems preferable to some Polish historians, but for obvious POV reasons, since just the name itself changes the flavor. I think we have a strong evidence that in accordance with WP policy ("most commonly used English name" and "like you would find in other encyclopedias") we should rename the template but I woould like to have text changed first unless you can articulate the reason of your reverts. What you or anyone considers "correct" matters less and is a matter of opinion. What is the "most commonly used name in English" is the name we should use. -] 08:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Also, out of curiosity, why all placenames are Polish but OTOH Kiev and Warsaw. Are all (or most) of the classical |
:Also, out of curiosity, why all placenames are Polish but OTOH Kiev and Warsaw. Are all (or most) of the classical English books on the subject listed in the reference section use "Wasylkowce"? If so, then fine with me. I am just curious. --] 08:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:35, 2 September 2005
Name
Please explain if you can, why, in especially in view of all earleir discussions, you persist in changing the name of the war at Battlebox to a name different from the main name of the war used for a WP article itself. PBW is NOT the most commonly used English name and no other encyclopedia uses it. Britannica and Encarta both call it "Russo-Polish War" (both have separate articles). Encyclopedia Americana has no separate article but refers to it as "Polish-Soviet War" in its "History of PL" article. Finally, Columbia Encyclopedia, which doesn't have a separate article either, calls it "Russo-Polish War" in Tukhachevsky and Weygand articles and "Soviet-Polish War" in Belarus article. Besides, Norman Davies also writes "Polish-Soviet War" in the title of his book, while Robert Himmer uses "Russo-Polish War".
I could see why "Bolshevik" seems preferable to some Polish historians, but for obvious POV reasons, since just the name itself changes the flavor. I think we have a strong evidence that in accordance with WP policy ("most commonly used English name" and "like you would find in other encyclopedias") we should rename the template but I woould like to have text changed first unless you can articulate the reason of your reverts. What you or anyone considers "correct" matters less and is a matter of opinion. What is the "most commonly used name in English" is the name we should use. -Irpen 08:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, out of curiosity, why all placenames are Polish but OTOH Kiev and Warsaw. Are all (or most) of the classical English books on the subject listed in the reference section use "Wasylkowce"? If so, then fine with me. I am just curious. --Irpen 08:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)