Talk:Oleg

message: Guys, if you need to list here all the guys named Oleg, you should persuade us that your edits should not be classified as another sample of Wikilistmania. What's the point? Do you think someone will search for Oleg Tabakov or Oleg Yankovsky as "Oleg"? Please take a look at John or Mary to see how such things are arranged in other articles. Besides, I still wonder who assigned those numbers to the rulers of Ancient Rus. If it's your own invention, then we should classify it as original research. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your pattern of personal attacks and attempts at intimidation are tiresome in the extreme. Having "six times as much edits" [sic] as another user does not give you ownership of Wikipedia or any of its articles; and does not entitle you to arbitrarily dictate naming policy. As I have told you, you are welcome to bring whatever proceedings you feel appropriate against me; I am prepared to both defend my actions here and to chronicle your lengthy history of abuse. The remainder of your comments about me here and elsewhere are without the barest scintilla of merit and I will not respond to them in the future, except to make a note of them where appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: User:Briangotts has requested that I come take a look at what's going on on this page, and from what I can see, it looks like there is a disagreement between two users that needs to be worked out here on the talk page.  I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone involved that edit warring is not only not constructive, it is actually destructive.  I'll come back and check whether or not any progress has been made in 24 hours, and consider taking off the protection at that time depending on what's happened here in the interim.  Thanks, and be nice to each other! :-)  Cheers, Tomertalk 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, if you and your buddy Briangotts stick together on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, it doesn't follow from this that you have authority to protect any page he requested. In case you don't know, we have WP:RFP for discussing such matters. Since you two decided to settle the matter by protecting the page in the spirit of cronyism and collusion, I'm going to raise the issue of admin abuses on WP:ANI. I'm not going to suffer Briangott's attempts at bullying and intimidation any more. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? I am also on WP:JEW. Big deal!? Are you suggesting that this is conspiracy against the goyim? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? everything else is. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I just want to say that calling a buddy to protect the challenged page, rather than nominate it on WP:RP, is against the spirit and letter of WP. Such underhand tactics should not be tolerated by the community. It's a pity that they are. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: **For the record, I contacted two well-respected admins and asked them to look at the discussion and history. I did not ask for protection of the article. One of them happened to agree with you, so you have very little room to complain of me "calling in a buddy". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not opposed to removing the list of nonroyals for the most part. I do think that a few particularly notable individuals (Penkovsky, Antonov, Kalugin, to name a few) should be kept but the other less notable types I don't mind removing if consensus says that they should go. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-royals are not ambiguous, anyway. Either this is a disambig or it's an article about the name, but it's not a list of people first-named Oleg. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at the page Ivan, which I think is instructive here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not object to reasoned discussion and a consensus-based conclusion that (a) the nonroyals should stay or (b) they should go or (c) some should stay and some should go. If a consensus develops I would of course respect that. What I object to is one user, in this case Ghirla, imposing his will by first insisting that the page be a redirect to the "one true Oleg", erasing the hard work of other users, and then unilaterally moving the page; all the while failing at any point to justify his actions rationally and accusing others of vandalism and being "trolls". And now, of course, he has leveled threats against me of de-sysoping, which I intend to contest vigorously. -Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to note for the record that Ghirla erased two comments of mine from this talk page; it is difficult for me to assume good faith. I have restored my comments and re-inserted a comment of his which was lost in the reversion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that people first-named Oleg are misplaced here, only rulers named Oleg should remain. Indeed, disambig by first name should IMHO only be used for ancient characters, when the very concept of last name was not widespread in Europe, or for kings where it was not used for etiquette reasons. Just my $.02. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I find this a reasonable position to take. I disagree with it, given the treatment of other given names on Wikipedia, but it has a logic to it as far as the various nonroyals go. However, to remove the various royals from the page is incomprehensible to me and seems like a very bad move. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, what's the thought here?  I see Ghirlandajo, who was deeply involved in this conflict from the outset, hasn't seen fit to contribute to its resolution at all.  Are we ready to unprotect w/o his input?  Lemme know.  Cheers, Tomertalk 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe consensus is to leave it as a list of the various royals and to remove the rest. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One concern I have is that I wish there was a better way to refer to the royals than by number, which is a bit of an artificial convention. Perhaps patronymics? I don't have info on their full names though. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite the primary sources mentioning the 4th and 5th Olegs (according to your terminology). --Ghirla -трёп- 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Are you denying that there was a fourth and fifth prince of Chernigov named Oleg? There doesn't have to be a primary source identifying a number for a ruler who ruled before numbering schemes were used to identify royalty. Rameses II and Darius III didn't refer to them by Roman numeral; it is an artificial convention used by modern scholars. What is your objection to the inclusion of Oleg "IV" and Oleg "V"? If you have an alternate way of identifying them, that you feel is more appropriate, I have invited you REPEATEDLY to use it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I find such lists unsustainable. Given the sparse record of the Chernigov Principality after 1240, there is some probability that there were numerous other princes, some of them named Oleg, which have not been attested by extant sources at all. In my opinion, the page should be moved to Oleg (name), redirect to the Oleg restored, and Oleg (name) linked from Oleg of Novgorod through Template:Redirect. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as stated above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: *It is entirely inappropriate for "Oleg" to redirect to Oleg of Novgorod. The reader could be looking for any of a number of Russian rulers by that name and it behooves Wikipedia to make it easier for them to navigate to the one they want.
*As noted above, many pages exist on Wikipedia to disambiguate given names such as Frederick, Michael, Robert, etc., which may refer to any number of different rulers and other people.
*Oleg of Novgorod cannot be definitively said to be the first person to ever have this name. If you have a source that says he is the earliest recorded individual, then say that and cite it. Otherwise it's like saying that everyone who's named John is named after John the Baptist, which is absurd on its face.
*The numbering scheme is not original research, because it derives from well-documented scholarly sources. If you have sources that give a different numbering scheme or you have a better way to refer to these people (by patronymics, for instance), then by all means, let's do that. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Briangotts' position

message: I generally agree with the article been protected to prevent the edit war. I think that action was entirely appropriate. Regarding the page. I think the page should be a disambig to the Royalty. I am ignorant in the genealogy but if the numbering of Olegs of Chernigov is an OR then the years of rule could be used. The long list of non-Royal people with the first name of Oleg is unusable and difficult to maintain, on the other hand I do not see much harm in this list either. I would remove it, but if it dear to somebody then lets keep it, both ways are OK with me abakharev 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to removing the list of nonroyals for the most part. I do think that a few particularly notable individuals (Penkovsky, Antonov, Kalugin, to name a few) should be kept but the other less notable types I don't mind removing if consensus says that they should go. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-royals are not ambiguous, anyway. Either this is a disambig or it's an article about the name, but it's not a list of people first-named Oleg. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at the page Ivan, which I think is instructive here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not object to reasoned discussion and a consensus-based conclusion that (a) the nonroyals should stay or (b) they should go or (c) some should stay and some should go. If a consensus develops I would of course respect that. What I object to is one user, in this case Ghirla, imposing his will by first insisting that the page be a redirect to the "one true Oleg", erasing the hard work of other users, and then unilaterally moving the page; all the while failing at any point to justify his actions rationally and accusing others of vandalism and being "trolls". And now, of course, he has leveled threats against me of de-sysoping, which I intend to contest vigorously. -Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to note for the record that Ghirla erased two comments of mine from this talk page; it is difficult for me to assume good faith. I have restored my comments and re-inserted a comment of his which was lost in the reversion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that people first-named Oleg are misplaced here, only rulers named Oleg should remain. Indeed, disambig by first name should IMHO only be used for ancient characters, when the very concept of last name was not widespread in Europe, or for kings where it was not used for etiquette reasons. Just my $.02. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I find this a reasonable position to take. I disagree with it, given the treatment of other given names on Wikipedia, but it has a logic to it as far as the various nonroyals go. However, to remove the various royals from the page is incomprehensible to me and seems like a very bad move. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, what's the thought here?  I see Ghirlandajo, who was deeply involved in this conflict from the outset, hasn't seen fit to contribute to its resolution at all.  Are we ready to unprotect w/o his input?  Lemme know.  Cheers, Tomertalk 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe consensus is to leave it as a list of the various royals and to remove the rest. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One concern I have is that I wish there was a better way to refer to the royals than by number, which is a bit of an artificial convention. Perhaps patronymics? I don't have info on their full names though. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite the primary sources mentioning the 4th and 5th Olegs (according to your terminology). --Ghirla -трёп- 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Are you denying that there was a fourth and fifth prince of Chernigov named Oleg? There doesn't have to be a primary source identifying a number for a ruler who ruled before numbering schemes were used to identify royalty. Rameses II and Darius III didn't refer to them by Roman numeral; it is an artificial convention used by modern scholars. What is your objection to the inclusion of Oleg "IV" and Oleg "V"? If you have an alternate way of identifying them, that you feel is more appropriate, I have invited you REPEATEDLY to use it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I find such lists unsustainable. Given the sparse record of the Chernigov Principality after 1240, there is some probability that there were numerous other princes, some of them named Oleg, which have not been attested by extant sources at all. In my opinion, the page should be moved to Oleg (name), redirect to the Oleg restored, and Oleg (name) linked from Oleg of Novgorod through Template:Redirect. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as stated above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other positions

message: I've unprotected the article.  Hopefully the issues that led to the edit war, if not resolved, at the very least won't result in another.  Happy editing, folks!  Tomertalk 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprot

message: Is the correct short form of Oleg Alya? Is there a better alternative?--89.13.8.114 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Form? 

message: An informal sentence [in bold italics], "Thus, rather than 'Oh-leg', the proper pronunciation of Oleg in English most closely resembles the name Alec. But you should be careful since such pronunciation is valid only when you are referring to Russian guys with the name 'Oleg'.", has been part of the text since July 2016. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just fix it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal sentence

message: Some mention should also be given to it being used as equivalent to Alex[ander]/Alec, even if it ultimately derived instead from Helgi.  There are many parallel cases of things like this; see e.g. Geoffrey (name)#See also and everything in it, including not just other derivatives of Guðfriðr like Gottfried, Godfrey, and Galfrid, but even Gruffudd being used as synonymous with it despite having no etymological relation (Celtic not Germanic), and Goraidh being treated likewise despite having a more similar though still different origin (from Guðrøðr, i.e. Godred).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
Gottfried is NOT a derivative of Guðfriðr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.245.196 (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex[ander]