Talk:Pskov Land

Rulers table
I suggest to remove unreferenced and misleading vassalage and overlordship columns. Even when princes from elsewhere (Smolensk, Tver or Lithunia) ruled in Pskov, it did not automatically make Pskov the vassal of that principality. I think the consensus is that Pskov was part of Novgorod land at the beginning of 13th century, then starting from Dovmont's reign it gradually asserted its independence from Novgorod which culminated in 1348 when the Bolotovo treaty was signed. At the same time, the Lithuanian influence grew led to some kind of vassalage or dependency by mid-14th century, which in turn lasted until Pskov accepted Muscovy's sovereignty in 1397 (see for example The Emergence of Moscow, 1304-1359, p. 270 by John Fennell and the articles on Daumantas and the Treaty of Bolotovo).

My point is that these processes were gradual and it makes more sense to talk about waning and waxing influence of various entities, rather than of exact dates when Pskov switched from Novgorodian to Lithuanian sovereignty, which makes the current table misleading. Also, since the titles are identical, I don't see why we need them.

Here's what I propose:

Alaexis¿question? 20:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename to 'History of Pskov'
I don't think that a separate Principality of Pskov article is needed as there is already an article about Pskov Republic and for the most part it describes the same entity which always had a prince (or later viceroy). As the article now deals almost exclusively with the history of Pskov, I propose to rename it to History of Pskov. Alaexis¿question? 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm thinking about it, I think renaming it to Pskov Land is a better idea, similar to the existing Novgorod Land article, as the article has a geography section as well. Alaexis¿question? 07:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)