This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 24 April 2013 (→Scope of the dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:49, 24 April 2013 by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) (→Scope of the dispute)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Hello, nice to meet you Skäpperöd and Volunteer Marek — I'm Feezo. I've taken a brief look at the background, and will be ready to start the next step (focused discussion) by tomorrow night. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Feezo.Volunteer Marek 22:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Scope of the dispute
Would it be correct to say that the first primary issue is confined to this addition and File:Wrymouth expedition pomerania lutici.png? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sure.Volunteer Marek 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Or not quite. The original map was this one: . The way I understood Skapperod's initial complaint was that the name "Stralsund" did not exist in 1121. Which is true enough, the actual name was not recorded until 1234. I had included the name "Stralsund" just as a geographical marker/for sake of informativeness (without it a person looking at the map might not realize that this was the area of later Stralsund). As I've mentioned in the other threads (DR I think, thought it might have been RSN), the name "Stralsund" is actually not included in the original source, although the author does include it in the same book for later periods - which suggests that he is aware that this wasn't "Stralsund" yet.
- Basically, on the one hand you want to include "Stralsund" for the sake of clarity, but on the other, it is true that this name did not exist yet in the period that the map covers.Volunteer Marek 22:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
