Misplaced Pages

Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr. Dan (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 18 December 2007 (→Discussion: Good faith proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:38, 18 December 2007 by Dr. Dan (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: Good faith proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

WikiProject iconLithuania Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis 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

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.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

If the argument is not clarified on what the best toponym to use for Vilna and Cracow on the project should be, this three-ringed circus is not going to stop with this debate. I suggest using Vilnius and Kraków as the simplest solution and compromise on the matter. This should be less confusing and contentious for all parties (and helpful to uninvolved readers). Links and re-directs can fine tune the matter when and if appropriate. One can not logically argue that "Vilna" is the earlier and proper historical toponym in English, and "Cracow" is not. Since both names have evolved into their present names on their articles in WP, they are the ones that should be used throughout the entire encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: