Talk:Gundulić family/Archive 2

Image Gallery
The explanation for the removal cited Wikipedia policy, but never explained how the pictures detracted from the article. Perhaps the images need to be dispersed and some removed. But let them stay for the time being. They do pertain to the House of Gundulic/Gondola. Tapered (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) 13:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully resolved Gallery issue. Removed gallery. Put two of the images, which related to information in the article, on right side of article, labeled in accord with their origin & left the rest out of the article. (I assume that because of their title they do pertain the Gondola/Gundulic family). Removed the image labeled "Ivan Gundulic"--the original was simpled titled "Gondola." Tapered (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

External Links: renaming undone
Two of the external links which used the name "Gundulic," turned out to be titled "Gondola." The original names have been inserted. Tapered (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

←==Re: Dispute== To the arbitrators: this article is subject to nationalist editing: in this case Croatian nationalism. A logical reading of the history of the current city of Dubrovnik indicates that the elite of the city named themselves and spoke in a Romance language for most of the last millennium. Of course that would be original research, but attributing Croatian proper names to likely historical Romance usage is equally original research. Until an interested party produces good historical documentation, why not leave the dispute in place. To the Croatian(s): no one is trying to restore Ragusan/Venetian/Italian/Austrian suzerainty to Dubrovnik. It's a Croatian Slavic city. Tapered (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What concerns me the most is the choice to consider prevalent the use in English of the Slavik version of the name according to a criteria of prevalence, but please note that:
 * 1 The use of the slavik version of the name is prevalent on the romance but with a ratio only slightly bigger than 1.
 * 2 Many of the so-called English sources are from Croatian editor, so an implicit conflict exist.
 * 3 The name of Gondola when referring to the noble family is definitely prevalent in English sources. What is prevalent is Gundulic when referring to Ivan Gundulic, but not when referring to the family itself.
 * All these arguments are well developed in this talk page. If someone wants to get involved, I am ready to participate again to the discussion.
 * PS @Tapered, the issue is not of souverignty. The issue is that Croatian history today tries to demonstrate that from an ethnical perspective Croats have populated and contributed to the culture of the country since ever. It's a young country, so they are in a hurry to have a glorious history.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I can see in the sources provided, only one source explicitly uses only the Latin form of the surname. All other sources mention Gundulic as well as Gondola. Now I wonder (I am quite confused to be honest) what exactly is disputed here? Because what you two talk about has nothing to do with the WP:TITLE which explicitly states even on the very top of the page Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. So what we are looking here is the most used name in English language. And from the sources it is obviously clear that is the Slavic form of the name. I will leave the dispute tag for now, however if you two don't supply a valid reason for it in due time, it will be removed. And one more thing...I don't know who added these sources in the article but they are coded so horribly and clumsy making the article look like a total mess....Shokatz (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

-- Director  ( talk )  10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Galleries are discouraged per MoS. Especially weird, disturbing galleries with no connection to the article text introduced only to push some silly POV.
 * Do not insert duplicate coats of arms in black and white, when the colour shield is available right in the infobox (I introduced). I don't see the point of adding the G-G coa here. Ivan Gundulic/Giovanni Gondola is by far the best known member of this family today (per English Google testing), whatever you may think of that; and his most common name, in English and on enWiki, is "Ivan Gundulic". To use any other "label" (you mean "caption") would be POV.


 * 'I don't see the point' isn't a Wikipedian editing criterion.
 * Your POV editing goes back at least to the edit of 12:18, 11 December 2008 when you falsified the titles/contents of 2 external links, changing "Gondola" to "Gundulic." Today I fixed this POV edit. I think this goes to the heart of the challenge to this article having a neutral point of view. That old, dishonest edit is the opposite of neutral. Tapered (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh for gods sake who cares...both names are equally valid. Now while it is established that the variant "Gundulic" is more frequent and thus the title of the article, nothing prevents us from using both versions equally in the article itself. Anyway...I have some other issues with the article....namely the references (which I can fix quickly) but more specifically I am interested in the sources claiming the Romance Dalmatian and Italian (I believe this should have said Latin rather than Italian) variant Gundola and Gundolae. The two sources, besides not being coded properly, don't mention either of those variants at all. Shokatz (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a cleanup of the article: fixed sources, corrected several grammar mistakes, removed certain unsourced content and removed surplus images. Now let's focus on adding something more relevant to the article, like additional references and content. I have left the POV dispute tag however...since I believe the one who added it should be the one to remove it. Shokatz (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Statistical frequency--where, in scholarly articles? There seem to be 2 branches of this family. What's most important is how they named/styled themselves and how they identified. As I said @ your Talk page, my understanding of Ragusa is an Italic-oriented noble class, increasingly effete and insignificant, and an exclusively Croatian/Slavic body politic. And I have lousy access to secondary works that confirm or deny it. Tapered (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, statistical frequency in English language scholarly works as per WP:TITLE. I thought we settled this already. Now regarding the language used in the Republic of Ragusa, it was a bilingual or even tri-lingual area. However the Slavic shtokavian became the dominant both among the common populace and also among the nobility already as early as 15th century, which can be observed by the sheer number of novels, drama, dictionaries, etc. written in that dialect...mostly by the members of the nobility. This fact alone was the reason why the Ragusan senate decided to forbid all discussion in it within the senate and in the official documents, to prevent it from dying out. So it wasn't really a "Italic-dominated" nobility as you stated, the Dalmatian language and Latin were basically lingua franca of the nobility and which made them stand out as the elite, however they most certainly knew and spoke Croatian shtokavian in day-to-day duties. Besides, even Croatia (the kingdom within Habsburg Monarchy) had Latin language as official all up to 1848, which was almost half a century after the Ragusan Republic was already dissolved. Now, would you tell me what exactly do you still find contentious about this article? Be direct please. Shokatz (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Elite was all multilinguial, and the majority of the written documents were probably in Italian and Latin. And there is no such thing as "Croatian" Štokavian - Štokavian dialect has no ethnic affiliation and is equally Bosniak, Serbian and Montenegrin as it is "Croatian". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure there is, otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as Croatian language, referring to the Croatian standard of the Shtokavian dialect. Majority of the official documents were certainly written in Latin or "Italian" since it was the official language. I was referring to the scholarly and literary works which were overwhelmingly written in Croatian Sthokavian. Shokatz (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume for now that using the word "label" instead of "caption" is a common mistake for Italian speakers (even though I know it shouldn't be), and won't become suspicious that certain blocked Italian users editing here made that same error.


 * What exactly is it that you want, Sig. Tapered? You've got my undivided attention. -- Director  ( talk )  08:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Can it be named something like House of Gundulić/Gondola ? That seems as the only NPOV naming scheme to me. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no, completely opposed to such a solution. -- Director  ( talk )  18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:POVNAMING specifically refers and points to the WP:TITLE. So no, according to the sources available it cannot be named "something like that". Shokatz (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The very miserable thing here is to pretend that the House of Gondola should be named Gundulic under the condition that Gundulic is more prevalent trough a research on Google. This is really average (in Italian would be mediocre). Indeed I am astonished that users pretending to be expert on Wikipedia can defend such methodology. Gundulic is more prevalent after a Google research for other reasons.
 * Now, looking things with a little more competent approach, the facts are the following. The noble title Gundulic is not used as much frequently as the noble title Gondola. Indeed, in the official documents where the nobility is awarded the version used is Gondola and not Gundulic. So once again I do not understand the argument (other than nationalism) to insist in using Gundulic for this noble family. Of course when dealing with the individuals the more prevalent used version of the name for that specific person should be used (e.g. there is no context that Gundulic should be preferred for Ivan). The same approach should be used for the House of Cervia. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you think it is "miserable" or "mediocre" but it wasn't me (or anyone here) who made these policies. WP:TITLE is clear, the name of the article should be chosen according to it's use in English-language source...and IMO this especially applies to articles such as this when someone is disputing the title of the article itself. It is the only way of resolving ridiculous disputes such as this. Shokatz (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * House of Gondola has 4 hits on Google Books, and House of Gundlic has 7 hits on Google Books. There is only a single hit on Google Scholar - this paper written in 2002 in English by a Croatian no less, which in its abstract consistently uses dual names, in this case Gondola/Gundulić. So neither name is common, or better said more common than the other, and no Wikipedia policy can be applied. So House of Gondola/Gundulić is the way to go. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So let's recap what you just said: 1. "House of Gundulic" has almost twice the number of uses over "House of Gondola" in English language books but somehow "neither is more common"....hmmm that is an interesting conclusion... 2. "House of Gondola/Gundulic" is supposedly the way to go but what is this family? I don't know any family that had such a surname. It is either "Gondola" or "Gundulic", either it is the Slavic or the Italic variant. Need I point you to WP:TITLE yet again? 3. You claim that "no Wikipedia policy can be applied" which is a ridiculous nonsensical claim...sorry but this article is not some magic wonderland where Wikipedia policies all of a sudden do not apply. Shokatz (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Shokatz. Perhaps a clarification is needed. If House of Gundulic is more relevant according to secondary sources, well the article can stay like it is. Indeed it is not the case and I reported my doubts before (please see the long discussion I had with DIREKTOR). Now, about the decision to name the article House of Gundulik following a mere Google research I can only state again that is average (I did not used the word miserable but average for such method). Miserable is the current way to proceed, because the talk has deviated from the objective. However it is average because:
 * 1) It's just a shortcut making abstraction of the actual content of the "research", I beg your pardon query.
 * 2) It does not make any distinction between the prevalence of Gundulic for individuals and Gundulic for the House.
 * 3) End of 2012 with a Google research I found over 15,000 English-language publications with "Gundulic -Wikipedia". In the 15,000 publications we have an Australian vessel, a source in Cyrillic, a jazz festival organised in Gundulic square by MTV, a story about a Public Health Report on a steamship in 1902, another vessel on Lloyd's register of shipping and God knows what else. When restricting the criteria of research around 3,000 results with Gundulic and around 2,000with Gondola.--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What counts here is to see which version is used when referring to the House. Well, even Ivo Perić (Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti) used in his books the romance variant of the name when referring to Francesco Gondola:
 * http://books.google.hr/books?ei=EJSRUMyEDqmk4gSlxIH4Cw&hl=it&id=UlgdAQAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Ivo+Peri%C4%87%22&q=gondola#search_anchor
 * http://books.google.hr/books?hl=it&id=MSPUAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Ivo+Peri%C4%87%22&q=gondola#search_anchor
 * Or more, at page 47 or this source: we find also "Ghetaldi-Gondola". This document is an official urban plan of the City of Dubrovnik. To test more this fact I have searched on Google "Ljetnikovac Ghetaldi – Gondola" (Mansion Ghetaldi-Gondola) and found 1,980 references, of course with most of them being Croatian. I made the same researcg with "Ljetnikovac Ghetaldic – Gundulic" and found only 1 reference . --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "When restricting the criteria of research around 3,000 results with Gundulic and around 2,000with Gondola." - And that should have been that. Did you miss when I pointed out WP:TITLE? Also Ivo Peric or whoever is not an English language source and is thus irrelevant. Neither does the name of a ljetnikovac (eng. summer house) or any other name of a hotel, motel, summer house, swinger club or whatever bear any significance to this discussion or the issue in general. Shokatz (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that English-language sources have negligible coverage of this topic. Any English speaker with interest in this topic is likely to either know or be intimately familiar with Italian and/or Serbo-Croatian sources as well. The policy that you invoke is inapplicable due to scarce number of hits in English-language books and papers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are not the one who will say what, when and where Wikipedia policies are to be applied and when not. Shokatz (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that the policy that you invoke is most possibly inapplicable due to scarce number of attestations. Resorting to a more cumbersome naming scheme, though inadvisable, seems a better choice from the perspective of neutrality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How and why is it "inapplicable"? Please cite me the section of WP:TITLE which mentions this...I am really curious. Shokatz (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:TITLE is inapplicable because there is no common name. 4 versus 7 Google Books hits is not a satisfactory divergence. Shokatz, your wording of seven as "twice the number" of four simply demonstrates your partisan handling of this issue. And general Google hits of surname Gundulić vs. Gondola don't matter because they do not refer to the specific entity, i.e. the house that is topic of the article, but the surname in general. The two alternatives are 1) Use dual name as I suggested above 2) do more research involving the common usage of surname of the members of House of Gondola/Gundulić. Statistical claims made by User:Silvio1973 should be checked. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not about a common name but about: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. Silvio's claims were already explored as can be seen further above on this page and his claims were already proven to be wrong. The article name is in accordance to the direct citation from WP:TITLE. Shokatz (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But there is no evidence that either House of Gundulić or House of Gondola is "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". Both have too few Google hits. So it's best to stick with the neutral naming scheme. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "neutral naming scheme", titles are decided according to the majority of their use in English language sources. Even if we had 3 sources and two said Gundulic and one said Gondola (or vice versa) it would mean that the one with more hits is prevalent in the English language. It's simple as that. Now I personally don't have a problem with either...I am like one of these sources which use both of them interchangeably. However if you people are unsatisfied with the current title and this entire discussion you can always go for arbitration. Shokatz (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But 7:3 is too little to draw any conclusion. If it were 7,000 vs. 3,000 it would be statistically relevant, but single-digit number of hits proves nothing. The only reason why this topic is notable is due to coverage in non-English sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So you say, I say it is more than enough. As I said if you think this is unsatisfactory you can always ask for arbitration on this issue. Shokatz (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your preferred naming scheme is inherently POV, and your arguments are rather inconclusive. Anyway, I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. Perhaps there is some policy or a precedent somewhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly I am not really interested in your personal assertions or what you think about my arguments. And BTW since you seem so keen on emphasizing the supposed "nationalist" tone, you should know that I am partially Italian...more specifically from Padova (ex-Venetian Republic)....not that it should be of any importance to you anyway... Shokatz (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well good for you. At any case the name House of Gundulić is still a Croatian-centric POV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not according to it's use in English language sources it isn't. Shokatz (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is total 10 English language attestations of both, which is statistically insignificant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok here you go: 14,000 for gundulic ragusa OR dubrovnik -Wikipedia, and 10,700 for Gondola ragusa OR dubrovnik (with the latter also including some hits for actual gondolas). That's why we have "or Gondola" in the first sentence of the lead. Time and again Ivan Gundulic basically swings the balance in favor of 'Gundulic'. Now can you people give it a rest? Lets not open this old can of killer wasps again over some likely-sock account deliberately stirring-up trouble? Surely you're all not that bored? -- Director  ( talk )  17:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ DIREKTOR, the boring thing is that you insist in supporting your choice for Gundulic on the basis of a undetailed / wholesale Google research rather than on analysis of secondary source. Is this a valid method? When it comes to secondary sources referring to the House itself I do not see the difference in quantity. About quality we need an expert in Heraldry. 77.37.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What else kind of search would you suggest to cover 30,000+ sources, Mr. Suspicious Italian IP Probably Belonging to the Probable Sock Up There? And no, we do not need an "expert in heraldry": we need to find the most common name in English sources. Period. Especially because "heraldry" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. --  Director  ( talk )  01:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Asked on WT:AT

 * I've also asked the question here regarding the naming scheme and received an interesting response. I've completely missed the quality-of-sources argument. I urge everyone to objectively asses this issue. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Objectively? How do you propose we do that? I can give you my personal opinion however and it boils down to this: my opinion is that all Dubrovnik or rather Republic of Ragusa noble families should be named after their Italic/Latin variants, based on my experience with sources in my study of heraldry regarding these families. We should follow the same principle used on the Republic of Ragusa article. After all Latin and Italian were proscribed as official language there and this was reflected in various heraldic armorial's and manuscripts where the names have almost exclusively shown with their Italic variants (see here). That however doesn't mean the Slavic/Croatian variants should not be put on the same level as the Latin/Italian variants within the article...again as seen on R.of Ragusa article. However if we go by the WP:TITLE and enforce it strictly then the Slavic/Croatian variant takes precedence which I have stressed here several times. There...you have my "assessment"... Shokatz (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I came here from WT:AT. While "House of Gondola" gets more raw WP:RS Google Book hits since 1990 (which is the benchmark factor normally) the problem is those hits tend to refer to 10th-15th Century, while from 1500-1600 onwards Latin/Italian ceases to be the language of records and Ivan Gundulić comes to the fore. Since the article covers both periods and one of the the WP:CRITERIA is "consistency" there is a reasonable case for House of Gundulić as title. But WP:TITLE only covers title, the name used in the body of the article should probably be Italian/Latin up until the flowering of Croatian-language sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Shokatz et all. This article is relatively minor, although not that when dealing with the history of the Republic of Ragusa. Nevertheless the issue is not minor and is assorted of a nationalist/POV approach that is detrimental to the correct rappresentation of sources. Although DIREKTOR has a different opinion (and perhaps the time has come that he learns to deal with the others owning them more respect) this is also an heraldic issue, but what is more important it is not possible to decide for an article of this small relevance trough a Google research. Indeed we should go trough secondary sources (that I reported several times before and I would be pleased if they are checked and after acquired as facts in this discussion). Now, in the few sources available in English the Romance (and please let's stop using the word Italian because Italy did not even existed) form is used and everytime it is dealt with the name of the noble family the romance version is used. Indeed this is the same issues as for the House of Cervia or the House of Bona and in this last case the romance version was preferred. In a nutshell what I suggest to everyone is to list and (and possibly link) English secondary sources treating this House) and we will decide on the basis of quality/quantity and denifinitely with priority to those more recent. Please do not hesitate to comment. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets be blunt: Silvio is an Italian-nationalist POV-pusher who goes around the project searching for areas where he believes Italy has been "wronged" and then posts masses of posts in bad grammar that ignore most of Wikipedia's policies ("heraldry expert"?) in pushing a pro-Italian bias. His English skills are such that eventually he doesn't bother reading user responses, and just continues to post his views (e.g. here I already pointed out to him that "heraldry" has nothing to do with this, yet on he goes..). Imo as a serious discussion is now unfolding, users ought to be aware of this editing pattern, all of which is all too easily corroborated with diffs and specific examples (indeed - even on this talkpage alone).


 * Silvio, under no circumstances will I acquiesce to turning this into some absurd link dropping contest. If you want to play - you will have to play with yourself. Just try not to clog this talkpage with your useless sections as you do everywhere you show up. Play on your talkpage or your sandbox if you must, please, and then link us the results of your (completely unbiased) search. -- Director  ( talk )  12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Imo its a mistake to regard only the hits that use "House of" Gondola/Gundulic, as that does not reflect the actual usage of the family name. The current title uses that format solely for consistency with other Ragusan noble family articles, and its questionable whether it should remain at all (I just couldn't think of anything better). The point is that, as far as I can tell, "Gundulic" is consistently more common when referring to this family or its members . -- Director  ( talk )  11:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR, why you do not try to concentrate more on the edits rather than on the editor? I do not understand why you are so aggressive, but really this does not help things moving forward. Here we try to understand trough analysis of secondary sources what is the title that should be given to the article. This sound a much more constructive way to decide than a Google research. And your contribution is welcome. So far, what I caould find is that three very recent sources, all edited by English/American universities, prefer (or indeed use exclusively) the romance version of the name. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean I should "learn" not to comment on users? Like you?


 * The issue is that your refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia naming policy is disruptive. That there are tens of thousands of references to this family in published sources. And that you are (very transparently) trying to push some alternate "method" of determining the commonname that might allow you to skirt the fact that the term you're pushing is consistently less common in every SET. Any method ("heraldry experts", link-posting contests, etc..). Please stop it, its annoying more than anything else. -- Director  ( talk )  12:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR, you cannot remove from the talk page any part of the discussion just because you do not like it. And by the way other people already contributed. Can you explain the reason of your this violence? We are trying to move things forward. I do not understand why you are so aggressive, but really this does not help things moving forward. If you think that I am disruptive report me and leave things follow their flow, but please understand you cannot make justice by yourself. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not a part of the discussion, its just you insulting everyone's intelligence by assuming people can't see through what you're doing. Let me guess! In a while, you will conclude that there are obviously more sources in favor of Gondola, because you posted more? Well of course! Obviously this title is just a nationalist conspiracy, and your brilliant method has revealed to us how stupid we were to research tens of thousands of sources by any other method than linking them here, one by one by one...
 * Take the nonsense to your talkpage, please... At least try to avoid messing up the discussion with useless sections, for once. Because if you can post sections - so can I. -- Director  ( talk )  12:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, firstly stop offending me because I have always been polite to you. And please moderate yourself. Speaking of nationalist conspiracy because I am trying to put the secondary sources on the table rather than using on a "wholesale" Google research is highly inappropriate, to say the less. The second one is not so much a request. And of course you can post sections, but name it correctly. It is not my context. Already two users already participated and I hope more will do it.--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but to see you after all these months still pushing for the same individual ref posting contest is, to me personally - beyond annoying. Its WP:ICANTHEARYOU. -- Director  ( talk )  14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is very clear.  → Call me  Hahc  21  02:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

House of Gundulić → House of Gondola – I am posting this to bring it to a wider and more neutral audience. I am neutral on the move. Participants are reminded to abide by WP:NPA and note WP:ARBEE. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is our long-standing title for a reason. The Italian form, so far as I have been able to tell, is consistently less common in published sources. Every SET that's been attempted indicates the family name appears more often in the "Gundulic" form in modern secondary literature. Gundulic -Wikipedia gives us 72,300 hits. For further example:
 * Gundulic Dubrovnik OR Ragusa: 13,900 Google Books hits
 * Gondola Dubrovnik OR Ragusa: 10,700 GB hits
 * Gundulic family Ragusa OR Dubrovnik 529 hits
 * Gondola family Ragusa OR Dubrovnik 485 hits
 * This will, I believe, become further obvious as long-standing proponents of the Italian format begin to advocate various other home-cooked "methods" besides serious research as the "obvious" way to go.. Its usually close, but that's why we have "or Gondola" right up there in the first sentence of the lead, and in the infobox. Yes, SETs are not supreme, but I'd say its certainly inappropriate to go with the less known term when there's no reason to do so. -- Director  ( talk )  13:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. How can be qualified of "Home-cooked method" the decision to read the available secondary sources rather than deciding after a mere Google research? Have you forget that one of the principle of Wikipedia is to go for quality not for quantity? Is it possible to claim that a Google research taking a few minutes is more appropriate that an extensive reading of secondary sources? And by the way, it is possible that the analysis of secondary sources will confirm the current name of the article. But the fact that at least 4 reputable English/American universities use the romance version of the name in books edited in the last 15 years justifies a more careful analysis of the matter. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for careful research and reading and in-depth analysis and so forth - when there's something to analyze. Pls explain to me what is it that you're "analyzing"? Why would we need to read the entire reference, when the question is simply whether the source uses the Italian form or "Gundulic"?


 * As I said, I will be honest - to me this looks like you're just trying to somehow continue pushing for the Italian name without any real indication that its more common. Its like you're proposing we should just start posting refs here in some sort of pointtless "contest". Here, pick any one of these 72,000 sources (or these 38,000) and imagine I just posted it alongside your two or three. When you reach 72,001 we will perhaps have something relevant. -- Director  ( talk )  13:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: To have only English-languge results in Google Books search add &lr=lang_en' in the URL. The resulting figures are very different. However, the exact number of results in that case (at least in my browser) cannot be seen in the web page, but has to be looked up in HTML code: Right click->View source, then search for the string results (or rezultata in Croatian). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I encountered that problem when trying to do an exclusively English-language search (as per usual). I thought of searching the code but frankly I can't make heads or tails of it (ctrl+f gives me 16 matches for "results"). I will see if I can't figure it out. Strangely, though, Google's language filter excludes a lot of publications but still includes at least several Serbo-Croatian and Italian sources. I remember, though, that previously when we could do a simple language-filtered search the ratio was about the same (see previous discussions). -- Director  ( talk )  16:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. 9,290 for Gundulic -Wikipedia. When introducing the 'Dubrovik OR Ragusa' parameter its 2,230 for Gondola and 3,170 for Gundulic (at least as far as I can make it out in the source). Mind you, that's actually a larger relative advantage. -- Director  ( talk )  16:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's 4:1 in favor of Gundulić when filtering for English-only books, so I must oppose as well. Perhaps Gondola is more common in specific types of documents (e.g. of a legal character), but overall Gundulić seems to be too frequent. My ideal solution would be Gundulić/Gondola everywhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That was in place for some time, I think I actually participated then.. or something, maybe I even pushed it through. The thing is, that's really a bad idea with no basis in policy at all. -- Director  ( talk )  17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am also neutral on this matter as per my opinion I expressed several times and most explicitly over here. Either is equally valid IMO and has it's valid arguments. Shokatz (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to your linked comment I will point out that the "principle used on the RoR article" is WP:COMMONAME, none other. -- Director  ( talk )  20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The current issue is exactly the same encountered with House of Bona and I guess the same methodology should be followed. In this respect,if Google has to be used to take a decision, this should be done instructing correctly the search engine (indeed searching House of Gondola/Gundulic because the article is about this). Silvio1973 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, what? Silvio, this is enWiki. -- Director  ( talk )  00:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed the article House of Bona is in enwiki. What is your problem?--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I find different results (and I could not find anything wrong with the settings of the search engine).
 * Gundulic Ragusa OR Dubrovnik -Wikipedia: 13,900 results
 * Gondola Ragusa OR Dubrovnik -Wikipedia : 10,700 results
 * The ratio Gundulic/Gondola is 1.299. This is too little to make abstraction of the actual quality of the sources, and actually even smaller than the already relative 3170/2230 = 1.422 of DIREKTOR's search. But this is not the only issue. I checked the first 30 results of each search. For Gundulic, 19 of the 30 results make reference to Ivan Gundulic, 2 are unrelated (name of a square in Dubrovnik and name of a vessel), 3 sources are in Serbo-Croatian and the others related to other members of the House. For Gondola, 26 of the 30 make reference to different members the House, 2 to gondolas (the venetian boat) and 2 are in French and Italian.
 * Conclusion: the overall (slight) prevalence of Gundulic is due to Ivan Gundulic and not to the actual usage of Gundulic for the Noble House. Also the actual quality of the results does not give enough confidence that the ratio 1.299 (already a very tiny advantage) can be used for any decision. IMO I think that when dealing with Ivan Gundulic the romance version of the name should not be used at all (the overall majority of the English books use exclusively the slavik version of the name, indeed the actual name). Conversely when dealing with the family the usage of the romance version of the name is prevalent. Please go trough the results of my or any search posted in this Talk page to be convinced. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is you are not paying enough attention to at least make your posts intelligible. None of what you wrote re Bona is understandable. And you are again not reading user posts. Its incredible that you would say you have "different results" when the exact same ones have been posted twice already, and in this very thread. And then we moved on and found more refined search results that use only English-language hits, and then I mention the difference ratios, etc. Wow. I have to be honest here, since I'm sick and tired of writing these sort of posts whenever you arrive: if reading and writing in English is too much trouble - you should not be editing and discussing on enWiki. Though, come to think of it - we at least have the same numbers.


 * Ivan Gundulic is the most prominent member of this family in sources, without whom we could even discuss whether this entire article meets NOTE criteria. He is not a member of some other "Gundulic" family that you might classify hits for him as "false". What's next? We scrap all hits for individual family members? Your position makes no sense at all - esp because many "Gondola" hits are predominantly for family members as well (which is kind of natural when talking about a family!). Names of squares etc. named after this family - are also hits for this family. All you're doing is making it clear you're just trying to have your Italian name by any means necessary, constantly shifting your argument.. The end justifies the means, eh? Even when you have to switch them up constantly until you find the right ones? What makes this stranger is that even if you had your way and eliminated 90% of the hits, you still would not be able to find a permutation of search parameters that would have "Gondola" as more prevalent.


 * You've made your position (and motives imo) clear enough, and so have I. Signing off. -- Director  ( talk )  14:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Direktor, my English is certainly not good as yours. But from there to affirm that my posts are not intelligible there is a long shot. However, our positions are clear enough and we also posted the Google searchs (indeed I also provided extracts from secondary sources edited from some of the most English speaking Universities). Now to the community to decide. In the mean time I will appreciate if you concentrate on the edits and not on the editor. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. The number of citations as a criterion for the naming of the article is absurd on the face of it. This is an article about history. The question ought to be, "What did the people of this house/family call themselves, and in what language did they customarily converse?" I don't know the answer to this question. I propose that until someone can cite secondary sources with the answer to this question, that the title remain as it is, and that this discussion remain open. The number of 'itches' in literature confirms only that people writing on the subject prefer the suffix ic. I hope that Wikipedia is mature enough to reject an absurdly mechanical criterion for the naming of historical articles. Tapered (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that more needs be said for coherence. Based on my limited knowledge of the history of the area and the since deleted gallery, including headstones and 19th century correspondence, it seems that these people named themselves "Gondola," for the most part. However as Louis Armstrong said, "But, I can't prove it." So, my agreement is provisional, "Until the Real Thing Comes Along." (I love to use American popular song references for illustration!) Tapered (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Satirical Commentary on Issue Fr/ 'L Osservatoric Romanic:


 * Recently Il Papic Francescic I criticized the Italik regions of Venetic and Istric and the cities of Venezic and Triestic for their overly commercial and ruthlessly capitalist lifestyle and outlook.


 * In an unrelated announcement the Pontiff announced that he would not summer at Castel Gondolfic this year; rather, he'll visit the resort of Dubrovnia (formerly known as Ragusic).


 * At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this is a satire on the sort of revisionist linguistic history which I believe is practiced on this page—instead of attempting find out what happended and when. Tapered (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Banner
@DIREKTOR, I also want to remove this POV banner but only after an agreement is reached. However, apart a doubtful Google search (that I cannot reproduce) I have seen so far no evidence justifying that the Slavik variant of the name should be used for this House. Opposed to that search I have reported citations from reputable secondary English sources. Again: we need to compare the quality of secondary sources and not just operating with Google. I am nowhere accepting the dominance of a Google search over the analysis of secondary sources. This would be against a basic principles of Wikipedia. Please also note that Wikipedia has become so popular on the web that Google search (even trough Google books) are at big risk of WP:CIRCULAR. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how tags work. As I already explained to you several times, tags are not there to stay until everyone agrees. They are there to denote an actual dispute. When a POV dispute is not ongoing, the tag is not justified. Otherwise practically every article on Wikipedia would be tagged...


 * As for the rest, it doesn't warrant a response at this point. You "analyze" nothing, you merely list sources which mention the name you support. Nor is it necessary to "analyze" anything here, when all we're looking at - is simply the prevalence of one term over another in published sources. To suggest that we should compete over who can list more sources here is laughable and absurd, as is the idea that SETs are "against basic principles of Wikipedia" or whatever. Do not restore the tag. -- Director  ( talk )  14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR, fortunately not on each article on Wikipedia there are disputes such as this one. I am sorry but you cannot pretend to have the article your way, just because you like it. Other people in this Talk page have expressed doubts about your methodology. I am reverting the tag not because I like it, but merely because the discussion is not over. I believe at this stage we should enter a 3O or a RfC (better because more than two parties were involved in the discussion). --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is the way it is because the "Slavik" name is more common in English-language sources. As long as that remains the case, this will be the title. The Republic of Ragusa article uses the Latin/Italian variant because its more common. Should I post six sources that use "Republic of Dubrovnik" and demand the article be moved? No. Because I'm not a rabid nationalist POV-pusher who wants his own language to supersede other languages because he likes it more. Also its because I don't want to be laughed at as a silly person who doesn't understand the policies and rules of the project he's a part of. -- Director  ( talk )  20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: House of Gundulić / House of Gondola, which version of the name is more prevalent in English sources?
There is an ongoing discussion on House of Gundulić. The House of Gondola/Gundulić are a noble House from the Republic of Ragusa. Gundulić is the slavik version of the name, Gondola is the romance. Currently the article is named according to the slavik variant of the name of this noble family. It is indeed true that a search on Google Books shows the slavik version (Gundulić) prevalent over the romance (Gondola), but the advantage is very tiny (13,900 / 10,700 = 1.299).
 * Gundulic Ragusa OR Dubrovnik -Wikipedia: 13,900 results
 * Gondola Ragusa OR Dubrovnik -Wikipedia : 10,700 results

Such a tiny advantage justifies to check the consistency of the secondary sources (Indeed this should be always the preferred criterion). I could find at list four very recent (less than 15 years old) English sources from English/American scholars and edited by English/American universities preferring the romance version of the name.
 * Virgina Cox, The Prodigious Muse 2011 John Hopkins University Press - Page 15
 * David Rheubottom, Marriage and Politics in 14th century Ragusa 2010 - Oxford University Press - Page 73
 * Fernand Braudel, The Mediterrean World in the age of Philip II - Volume II 1995 - University of California Press - Page 1332
 * Norman M. Naimark, Holly Case, Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s 2006 - Stanford Univerity Press - Page 56 "

The sources supporting the slavik variant of the name does not seem such as good in quality, although I am not sure because very simplistically the discussion was more about Google search vs. secondary sources, rather than secondary sources vs. secondary sources. Other users have participated to the discussion but a majority in favour of one side did not arise, NOR consensus did. I hope this RfC will help to find a solution.

The whole discussion is available at Talk:House of Gundulić Silvio1973 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is WP:STICK disruption, Silvio. No one will respond. Do not restore the tag. -- Director  ( talk )  19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is no discussion here in a couple days, I'm removing the tag. Its the wrong tag anyway. The very idea of posting an RfC after an RM has failed is ridiculous. -- Director  ( talk )  00:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello DIREKTOR, I also think no-one will respond. Even on matter of bigger importance such as the Istrian Exodus it was difficult to have some participation. Very simplistically because there is on Wikipedia a major disproportion between users and active contributors. However, qualifying my edits of disruptive and nationalist conspiracy is really excessive. Perhpas you do not really think what you write, but your wording is not appropriate.
 * It is indeed very possible that I am wrong, but you cannot pretend that a Google search is more valuable than quality English secondary sources. I remember that Wikipedia is not a dictature of the majority. And it's not a Google dictature neither. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are both wrong, because I will respond. Sorry Silvio1973, but this is not the right way to overturn a requested move. This is. Your other option is to wait a while (I would give it a couple of months at least) and see if consensus has changed. If you do bring it up again I would recommend bringing some new arguments/data to the table. AIR corn (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Aircorn, we are both wrong, but you just wrote why I am wrong. What you have done is fair. You could at least write why DIREKTOR is wrong. Perhaps because he pretends that a google search is more valuable than the analysis of the secondary sources? Silvio1973 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He did say why I was wrong. And, to my surprise, I have to admit I was. Still, its been a month now. -- Director  ( talk )  22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When I have time I will follow Aircon's recommendation. Direktor, for me the issue goes beyond this article. It's of principle. 'Wholesale' Google searchs cannot be valuable than analysis of secondary sources. And yes, one month was enough. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not "analyze" anything, Silvio, you just list them here on the talkpage instead of linking to them. You can think and do whatever you like, but you will not overturn Wikipedia policy. By the way, you do not appear to understand what I meant above, nor what Aircorn meant when he said I was wrong. -- Director  ( talk )  09:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it is still better than just making a Google count. However, I still do not understand why you are so aggressive. If you were not from the Balkans I would be offended by the way you talk to others (not just to me). But looking to the last 70 years of former Yugoslavia I understand why you do not find peace. Basically, because you do not need it.
 * Now I am busy but as soon as possible I will ask for a Move review. In the meantime Dear Direktor, take a break. Wikipedia is not Vukovar. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A thread has been posted on WP:ANI about the above comment. -- Director  ( talk )  12:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Article name
First of all, Republic of Ragusa was officially Romance-speaking (with varieties). For conciseness, all patrician Venetian and Ragusan families should be named according to this, let's call it, official standard. "Gundulic" is a Slavizication and neologism.

Gbook hits for those who stress such (-llc -wikipedia):


 * "Gondola" "Ragusa" - 242
 * "Gundulic" "Ragusa" - 103

alternatively


 * "Gondola" "Ragusan" - 128
 * "Gundulic" "Ragusan" - 87

alternatively


 * "Gondola" "Dubrovnik" - 226
 * "Gundulic" "Dubrovnik" - 202

and note that "de Gondola" gets 258 hits, while "Gundulic" gets 293; and if we would have deciphered (due to ambiguity) what "Gondola" would have gotten, once again, it would be much higher that "Gundulic".--Z oupan 07:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure it was, but that is not the question I've asked you...my question was: do you see the discussions and requests to move this page and how it ended up before? While Wikipedia is encouraging bold moves (and this is certainly one) in this case where the history shows the delicate nature of status quo, you should have first made an enquiry with all participating parties above and then act accordingly. Now you have potentially opened a can of worms. I support the move...as I do with all Dubrovnik families (my opinion is that they all should indeed be under their latinized variants due to official language) but this is just asking for trouble. Don't say I didn't warn you... Shokatz (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)