Talk:Sack of Sandomierz (1260)

Proposed title change: Sack of Sandomierz
I moved the title to "Sack of Sandomierz", per WP:BOLD. This change was reverted with request for proposal and discussion on the Talk page, and with the stated reason that "'sacking of...' is traditional naming of various sackings; and for a reason, too." - However, I should point out that the reason was not provided. At this time, I would like to propose that the title of the article be moved to Sack of Sandomierz (1260) for the following reasons: Due to these reasons, I propose the title be changed to Sack of Sandomierz (1260). - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Format: The current title uses a gerund (sacking), but as per WP:TITLEFORMAT, "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech"
 * The noun form is sack, see the second definition here.
 * Convention: User:User:Staszek Lem states that "Sacking of..." is the "traditional" way to name such events, but the editor has provided no specific evidence of this. To refute the claim:
 * There is no Warring of Korea, Battling of Britain, or Massacring in Boston.
 * However, there are solid examples of the "Sack of..." Examples follow:
 * Sack of Rome is probably the most famous
 * - for many more examples


 * After two days, there has been no response to this proposal, though judging by the wording of earlier edits, there is almost certainly opposition. I am making a formal move request. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal Move Request - 23 Aug 2014

 * 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: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sacking of Sandomierz (1260) → Sack of Sandomierz (1260) – Two reasons: Format and Convention. As per WP:TITLEFORMAT, "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". The current title uses the gerund "sacking", though the noun is "sack". As for convention, see for many examples of sacks throughout history, such as the Sack of Rome. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . lookfrom is not convincing. Google books gives 189,000 hits for "sacking of", i.e., it is a perfectly scholarly usage. And I oppose "sack of" for the same reason that Google Books gives it 1,400,000 hits: including "sack of gold", sack pf potatoes, and the likes. The word "sack" has numerous meanings, and "sacking" is far from being the first in the row: it is a metaphorical derivation. However I am not a native English speaker, and if it is preferred for native speakers, then no particular objection: I don't think there is a widely used English convention to name this event in the history of Sandomierz Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "sack" has two distinct definitions, seen here, with two etymological language lines. So "sack" (as in "sacking", plundering) is most definitely not a "metaphorical derivation" of "sack" (bag). It has its own origin, it's just spelled the same as "sack" (bag). For another modern use of the term "sack" (plunder), see the term Quarterback sack. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing and self-reverting. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm pleased this could come to an amicable conclusion. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 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.