Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka

Treaty of Polyanov
I would like to move this article to Treaty of Polyanov. It doesn't require a vote but if anyone has any objections, please raise them here. Please do not create a reverse redirect from this red link in bad faith which would just make things more cumbersone. We are all reasonable people and can discuss this if we have to. Thanks, --Irpen 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is Polyanov the most common English spelling? I would like to apply rules from Naming_conventions/Geographic_names to this, so maybe we should wait for them to be ready? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The river of Polyanovka is obscure enough to not have "any modern most common English spelling". So, we should just check for the usage in the context of the treaty. For example, Britannica uses Polyanov spelling in two articles: "Wladyslaw IV Vasa" and "Thirty Years War" and doesn't use Polanów or Polanow in any. --Irpen 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a quick check on Google books, with the following results:


 * "treaty of polyanov" 1
 * "treaty of polyanovka" 1
 * "treaty of polanow" 1
 * "treaty of polanowo" 3
 * "treaty of polanov" 1
 * Thoughts? Appleseed (Talk) 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it would appear the original name (Treaty of Polanów) may be the best. Also, articles should not be moved when the name is discussed on talk (like here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why "Treaty of Polanów" and not "Treaty of Polanowo", which had the most hits? Appleseed (Talk) 15:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the Polanów/Polanow/Polanov variants are more common than owo/ovo, when taken together. Not that I strongly prefer any of the variatns - just something to think about...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a pity to see you both back to polonization of the Russian place-names. Any attempt to stir up shitfest on this harmless article will be promptly reported. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo, instead of threatening other editors, would like to comment on the Google Books results or on Piotrus' suggestion? Appleseed (Talk) 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I view any attempt to spell the names of Russian locations in Polish as deliberate provocation. Only a child may not understand that a Latin-script search will yield more results for the Polish language (which employs Latin script) rather than Russian (which employs Cyrillic script). Case closed. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case please amend your view to assume good faith. All of the books in the Google Books search results were English texts (i.e. neither Polish nor Russian), so your observation that Polish uses Latin and Russian uses Cyrillic is beside the point. Appleseed (Talk) 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All books (except the Polyanovka one) were Polish in origin. "Historical dictionary of Poland", ... --Pan Gerwazy 22:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirla, please, nobody is trying to polonize Russian place-name here of 'provoke' you. We are only trying to figure out what is the most common spelling of Polyanovka as used in the context of this historical treaty in English sources - and it doesn't seem to be 'Polyanovka' in such context. Perhaps you could try to write a stub about Polyanovka?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, if the river is called Polyanovka, then the treaty should be that of Polyanovka. Unless the river was renamed to the Polyanovo/wo/whatevo River. KNewman 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NC(GN), we are not discussing how the river is naming now (when its article is created, I am sure nobody will dispute it should be at Polyanovka); what we are asking is how is the treaty reffered to in English literature - and it seems it is not reffered to as 'Treaty of Polyanovka'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirla once wrote we should stick to historical names. What was the name of Polyanovka at the time? --Brand спойт 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * English name of Polyanovka at the time? Good question. It would appear the few English sources which refer to that issue use different names (per Apple's count above). So, which one should we chose? Certainly not the one not used by a single source, right?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Google book search is of course that because you are looking at Latin letters it is very easy to miss alternatives. "i" or "j" in stead of "y". And to make matters worse, I found that in German and Dutch this treaty is usually called the "peace" of Poljanovka. Which must have influenced Russian texts from Peter the Great's time. That led me to have a closer look. I hope I haven't forgotten any alternative:
 * * "Treaty of Polianovka" 9
 * * "Treaty of Polianov" 1
 * * "Treaty of Poljanov" 1
 * * "Peace of Polyanovka" 6
 * * "Peace of Polianovka" 4
 * * "Peace of Polanovo" 3
 * Two asides: "Поляновка" is found four times in Google books and "Treaty of Polanowo" has since reached 4. Having a look at the books' titles and authors I doubt whether they can really be used as an argument. It looks more like a race between Poland and Russia for how many books get translated into English. Only "Peace of Polyanovka" seems like books written by English-speaking people, but they are discussing Russian history, so there may be some bias there as well.--Pan Gerwazy 22:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so Treaty of Polianovka then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But my figures give a Russia-Poland score of 10-9 on "Treaty of ..." but 10-3 on "Peace of". So, I am not sure that it should not be "Peace of Polyanovka". Only when including the Polish forms, does "Treaty" seem more popular. I do not know whether there is a convention on English Wikipedia concerning "Treaty/Peace" but there definitely is one on romanizing Russian names:. That convention says we must have "ya" here. Of course, there have been many occasions when this convention was not followed, particularly with people who got famous in French-speaking countries, and who speak Russian but do not live in Russia. Tour de France cyclists, but also Ludmilla Tourischeva, who now lives in Ukraine. It's usually sports enthusiasts who start to google and then object to the proper transliteration. Do not expect me to object to "ya" - I (unsuccessfully) tried to get Tourischeva's "French" name Ukrainized, and have just been asked to design a conversion or transliteration table for Russian into West-Vlams. --Pan Gerwazy 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing by Ghirlandajo
This is so dispiriting. The discussion of the topic just started today, no one has yet made any edits to the article, so far everything is being discussed reasonably and rationally (for the most part), but already User:Ghirlandajo has mentioned this article in the Urgent Announcement section of the Portal:Russia/New article announcements, under the divisive heading: Polish editors propose a new name for the article. Talk about an overreaction. What next, any edit by a "Polish editor" in the discussion space of a "Russian article" will cause Ghirlandajo to ring the alarm bell on the Russian noticeboard? Balcer 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're being generous to Ghirlandajo when you say that everything so far has been handled reasonably and rationally. During this short discussion he has already managed to make a condescending comment ("Only a child may not understand"), assume bad faith ("deliberate provocation" and "It's a pity to see you both back to polonization of the Russian place-names"), make threats to report other editors, and use a vulgarity. Appleseed (Talk) 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I guess you are right. Maybe I am getting so used to Ghirlandajo's debating tactics that I sometimes forget how inappropriate they are. Still, by being boorish he is only undermining the very arguments he is making, so I am not even sure I want him to stop :). Balcer 20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that the mentioned annoucement on the Russian new articles section is civil; I have no problem with annoucing renaming issues or other interesting discussions on a wider forum, if done in a civil manner. Thus why one may criticize Ghirla for his uncivil comments above, I am afraid I cannot see anything wrong with this annouement on the noticeboard.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree with you here. Making a notice on a regional noticeboard presenting some discussion as a "us vs them" fight is hugely counterproductive. Balcer 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with you in theory I am not sure it is the case here. Is it really 'us versus them fight'? The note is just saying 'Polish editors propose a new name for the article. Please opine.'. There is no mention of 'polonization' or anything that would be right out offensive or combatant. It is mostly correct (if missing to state that it was Ghirla who changed the name without any discussion in the first place). Sure, if I were to nitpick I'd say there is no reason to stress the nationality of editors involved, but let's not overinterpret the note; I see no harm in it. The comments above are another thing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this annoucement by Ghirlandajo is much more civil than his other annoucements (like this one). Still, what would prevent him from simply announcing that a renaming debate is in progress, without adding this "Polish editors" bit?  Would it be so hard for him? I for one don't appreciate being reduced to a simplistic national category.  Really, I am just a Wikipedia Editor, period, and not a Polish, Canadian, Catholic, Atheist or Republican Editor.Balcer 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per above: I agree it was uncessary and possibly disruptive, but I think it is a minor infraction not worth that much comments as we already wrote :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My biggest concern right now is being able to contribute without being insulted by Ghirlandajo every time our paths cross. Appleseed (Talk) 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ghirlandajo's interaction with other editors often leaves a lot to be desired. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but he apparently believes that he is the expert and any discussion of his edits with others is a waste of time.  Thus, it would also be nice it he did not make announced, unilateral edits to important article cycles, like his changes (and attempted undiscussed move) of Muscovy to Grand Duchy of Moscow and his completely unilateral creation of a brand new article Tsardom of Russia (to illustrate with an example from today). Interestingly, I am sure there will be plenty to work on in those two articles, once Ghirlandajo's inserts his point of view there. Balcer 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that's a messy fork/move, the history of that article seems to be messed up. But we are going OT - let me suggest we EOT the issues in this thread for now (as Ghirla doesn't seem to reply to our concerns of his behaviour, and other issues are more relevant to other articles). I do agree with Irpen that there is no point in beating a dead horse (i.e. our criticism of Ghirla's behaviour) on the talk of this article anymore, especially as no incivil comments have appreared since this thread was started.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: please don't remove comments by others. And read up on what 'ad hominen' means before using it in edit summary. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)