Category talk:Ragusan noble families

Article names of Ragusan noble families
All articles on Ragusan noble families should have their original attested names. A quick review shows that:
 * "Binciola" (86) vs. "Binčola" (8)
 * "Caboga" (100) vs. "Kabužić" (14)
 * "Bobali" (192), "Bobalio" (103), vs. "Bobaljević" (99)
 * "Zamagna" (240), vs. "Džamanjić" (55)

The original names prevail. I boldly moved articles to their proper names, but was massively reverted by on 11 November. This confuses me greatly. Is there a concensus to use Croatian neologisms for the titles for these families? Note that the official language in the Republic of Ragusa was Latin (until 1492) and then Italian, and that in all official documents only Latin-Italian spellings were used. As per consistency, all article names should use the same basis.--Z oupan 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The undisputable titles of most of the families, such as Binciola, Caboga and Zamagna should be moved right away. Which of the noble families should have the Croatian spelling, in your opinion? In that way we could list the disputable articles. --Z oupan  15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A few preliminary points with regard to search engine testing (WP:SET). #1 be sure that hits are solely in English. #2 there is no need for parentheses, e.g.: be careful not to exclude "Dzamanjic" when searching for "Džamanjić", they refer to the same name. Also exclude Wiki results by adding "-Wikipedia". -- Director  ( talk )  15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Did a few searches for Binciola/Bincola... Ugh.. Nothing has changed. This is the problem with these articles. I assure you the issue would long have been settled in that way if it was as straightforward as you think... There are very few to no English-language hits that I can find. A laughably small number of hits (such as e.g. "14 vs 11" in either direction) removes the whole point of SETing and invalidates that method. In fact, it actually means the article should probably be deleted per WP:N. Which if I recall is precisely why we agreed, back at the dawn of time, to just use the Croatian with Italian in the lede right next to it.. basically because the city is in Croatia. (Granted, a few Italian users had at the time recently been community-banned for massive sockpuppeteering, but that's their fault and no one else's.) -- Director  ( talk )  15:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One cannot base deletion of an article on the SETing of one spelling in English-language hits, obviously. No reason to hold by that specific guideline. Is there really a problem in best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness, and NPOV, not using neologisms. I see no problem in adding the Croatian variant, beside the main Italian, if popular, in the introduction. Note that many Croatian sources use the Italian name. Here are some refs:



Let's get to the point. For starters, do we agree on Binciola and Caboga? These are two of the given examples.--Z oupan 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Wait - on what grounds? Obviously there are "English-language refs dealing with Ragusan history" as a whole, but talking about Binciola specifically, you've not presented any reason to consider one name more prominent than the other in English-language use. My own research indicates that either spelling of the name is virtually unused in English-language sources.


 * Re WP:N, I'm not talking about "one spelling", obviously, - I'm talking about any spelling. There's so little mention of families like that in English-language sources they almost certainly fail WP:NRV for the English Wikipedia. Rest assured of that...


 * -- Director  ( talk )  08:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Did I not say "Let's get to the point"? Binciola and Caboga, Yes or No? --Z oupan 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is getting nowhere, I will request moves at each one.--Z oupan 19:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)