| Revision as of 18:13, 10 September 2005 editHalibutt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,067 edits →Name← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:23, 19 September 2005 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :::As to the place names - the reply is the same I gave at the Kiev Operation talk page some time ago: it's simply that the sources used by the authors of the campaignbox were Polish and did not mention the original toponyms. Feel free to add them if you know them - or move the articles to new places, in accordance with the contemporrary Ukrainian names of those places. | :::As to the place names - the reply is the same I gave at the Kiev Operation talk page some time ago: it's simply that the sources used by the authors of the campaignbox were Polish and did not mention the original toponyms. Feel free to add them if you know them - or move the articles to new places, in accordance with the contemporrary Ukrainian names of those places. | ||
| As to the name of the entire war - so far there was no consensus to move the article in question to a more apropriate title, so you might want to go on with the changes in other articles. However, as the Polish-Soviet War term is completely inaccurate, I'd suggest waiting with such changes until the naming dispute is ended. ]] 18:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC) | :::As to the name of the entire war - so far there was no consensus to move the article in question to a more apropriate title, so you might want to go on with the changes in other articles. However, as the Polish-Soviet War term is completely inaccurate, I'd suggest waiting with such changes until the naming dispute is ended. ]] 18:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| The way to deal with PBW vs PSW debate is to list this template at ]. If the majority would agree that for the consistensy, the template and the article should use the same name, it will be moved. If not, it will stay. | |||
| As for the place names, as I said earlier, the original toponyms matter less than what's used in Egnlish language war literature. Do you have a Davies' book to check? If I had it, I would have done it myself. I don't mind Wasylkowce if Davies uses it similar to WW2 literature using Belorussia, KharkOv or Rumania. The battle articles should be moved to the names used in the E.L. history literature about this war. --] 03:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:23, 19 September 2005
Name
Please explain if you can, why, 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)
- As to the place names - the reply is the same I gave at the Kiev Operation talk page some time ago: it's simply that the sources used by the authors of the campaignbox were Polish and did not mention the original toponyms. Feel free to add them if you know them - or move the articles to new places, in accordance with the contemporrary Ukrainian names of those places.
- As to the name of the entire war - so far there was no consensus to move the article in question to a more apropriate title, so you might want to go on with the changes in other articles. However, as the Polish-Soviet War term is completely inaccurate, I'd suggest waiting with such changes until the naming dispute is ended. Halibutt 18:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The way to deal with PBW vs PSW debate is to list this template at WP:RM. If the majority would agree that for the consistensy, the template and the article should use the same name, it will be moved. If not, it will stay.
As for the place names, as I said earlier, the original toponyms matter less than what's used in Egnlish language war literature. Do you have a Davies' book to check? If I had it, I would have done it myself. I don't mind Wasylkowce if Davies uses it similar to WW2 literature using Belorussia, KharkOv or Rumania. The battle articles should be moved to the names used in the E.L. history literature about this war. --Irpen 03:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)