This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jafeluv (talk | contribs) at 10:15, 4 April 2009 (→Survey: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:15, 4 April 2009 by Jafeluv (talk | contribs) (→Survey: support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Lithuania Stub‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Military history Stub‑class  | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Part of
Was this part of the Chmielnicki Uprising or the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667)? In either case, it should be included in the relevant infoboxes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Name
Almost all English works use Wilno instead of Vilnius in this context: , , , , , , , , , , . Fewer use Vilna: , . I can't find a single good English work that uses Vilnius in 1655 context (update: I found one). Hence, please stop moving this article to articles per "I like the modern name better" and please respect WP:V. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are plenty reputable academic books using Vilnius in this context, contrary to your claims. Like: , even such source as The Cambridge History of Russia ISBN 0521812275, 2006 p.502 uses Vilnius, as well as Warfare, state and society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700 ISBN 0415239869 2007, p.115-121; Historical Dictionary of Lithuania, ISBN 0810833352 1997, p. 200. Of course German publication uses Vilnius in such context as well . So original name of article is used in dozens of sources, if you have a problem with it - use WP:RM instead of your move warring. M.K. (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, Breastfeeding Is Lovemaking Between Mother & Child is a very relevant and academic source... Wilno sources outweight Vilnius by 2:1 or more. It's quite clear which version is more popular in English.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, opposition to your move Piotrus was inevitable. The best thing to do is avoid edit-warring and take it to an WP:RM, where the matter will get the broader input that should prevent the debate becoming another Polish-Lithuanian dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- The best thing is to stop personal comments Deacon. Piotrus provided a handful of sources, so please take care of these sources instead of yet another personal attack. Tymek (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Personal comments? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Piotrus has presented sources which support his point. Somehow you have failed to notice them. Tymek (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
Battle of Vilnius (1655) → Battle of Wilno (1655) — Keeping it short and simple: 1) most sources (as presented in the section above) use Wilno, not Vilnius, in this context and 2) Lithuanian was not a popular nor official language in that historical context, Polish and Ruthenian were (see Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics). Since none of the English sources use the Ruthenian variant, but most use Polish, so should we. This also confirms to WP:NCGN (battle of Stalingrad, not "battle of Volgograd" logic. — Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:05, 4 April 2009 (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.
- Nominator support per above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per historical accuracy and sources presented by Piotrus. Battle of Vilna (1655) could be a reasonable compromise solution IMHO, but the sources are all for Wilno. //Halibutt 09:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support though the compromise mentioned by Halibutt would be fine too. Sources use Wilno and this would be just following standard Wiki naming conventions. We have Siege of Breslau rather than Siege of Wroclaw and I think that's the appropriate title there (and I say this as a Wroclawiak), so similar logic applies here. Breastfeeding is Lovemaking between... what the f...?radek (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. These are not different names. These are variations of one and the same name. In this context, it makes more sense to use the common historic name rather than attempt to "normalise" the name into the present. If somebody still has any lingering concerns that some reader might not make the connection between Wilno and Vilnius (which I believe is unlikely), I would recommend that he should read the very first sentence of the article. If, to the contrary, we would assume that our readers don't read our articles, why then do we write them in the first place? Narcissism? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Instead of insisting on the "modern" name of the city, the article title should follow the usage in the sources. Also, there's already a Battle of Wilno (1939) that uses the Polish name because the city was then a part of Poland. Jafeluv (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments: