This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
OK, let's first see what he uses. Maybe Piotrus has an English book... In the meanwhile, I am sure already about some names here. There is little doubt about Volodarka. I am less sure about Myronivka/Mironovka, Vasylkiv/Vasilkov, Novofastov/Novofastiv/New Fastov. And some others. Modern names of these places are Ukrainian ones. But contemporary names of some were probably Russian. In any case, to have the narrow Polish names for those is definetely strange. Please, no flames. -- Irpen 20:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
We can be fairly certain that the locals used Ukrainian names, at least for the small places in the area. What the commanders used probably differed from unit to unit. But as I said it matters less than historic literature. I am absolutely sure Davies doesn't use Wasylkowce and most other names. I am not that impatient. We can wait until someone gets a hold of his book in English. -- Irpen 04:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I should be able to get my hands on English orginal of his book fairly easily - just let me know chapters and preferably paragraphs. Note, however, that Google Print gives you access to indexes and even some random pages of many books - maybe it can solve your dilemma? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This revert war with Voyevoda could have been prevented should my request above been addressed. Too bad. I will try to get my hands on the book myself but it is more difficult for me now than it used to be. -- Irpen 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
OK, let's first see what he uses. Maybe Piotrus has an English book... In the meanwhile, I am sure already about some names here. There is little doubt about Volodarka. I am less sure about Myronivka/Mironovka, Vasylkiv/Vasilkov, Novofastov/Novofastiv/New Fastov. And some others. Modern names of these places are Ukrainian ones. But contemporary names of some were probably Russian. In any case, to have the narrow Polish names for those is definetely strange. Please, no flames. -- Irpen 20:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
We can be fairly certain that the locals used Ukrainian names, at least for the small places in the area. What the commanders used probably differed from unit to unit. But as I said it matters less than historic literature. I am absolutely sure Davies doesn't use Wasylkowce and most other names. I am not that impatient. We can wait until someone gets a hold of his book in English. -- Irpen 04:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I should be able to get my hands on English orginal of his book fairly easily - just let me know chapters and preferably paragraphs. Note, however, that Google Print gives you access to indexes and even some random pages of many books - maybe it can solve your dilemma? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This revert war with Voyevoda could have been prevented should my request above been addressed. Too bad. I will try to get my hands on the book myself but it is more difficult for me now than it used to be. -- Irpen 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)