Talk:Bar Confederation

message: Would it not make sense to change "Confederation of Bar" to "Bar Confederation," by analogy with "Targowica Confederation" and "Warsaw Confederation"?  I tried to, but was unable.  
In general, in English names, where possible, it's best to avoid using "of" and similar superfluous words.  It's a practical matter:  "Prayer of the Bar Confederates" loses in gracefulness if it's forced to become "Prayer of the Confederates of Bar."  logologist 09:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and move it, I think it is a good idea. Same with those three communist-era events we talked about, there seem to be nobody else interested in this anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: In most literature, "Bar Confederation" means "War of the Bar Confederation". Google Print shows 8 books using the term "War of the Bar Confederation"' and more than a hundred using the term "Bar Confederation". Confereration was about the war, what else an the "Bar Confederation" describe if not the war? The history of the BC was the history of the war... it's organization? A section in the war article, probably along the "line of battle" section, at best. If you look at the pl article, and the existing BC article, you can see that the history of the war is the history of the BC. As such, the article on the " War of the Bar Confederation" is a confusing (if well meant) content fork, and should be merged into the main BC article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel both articles should be merged.  As for the name could possibly be changed too: "Bar Confederation War (War Years here)". I'll see if I can someone else to have input with the merger. Adamdaley (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no dramas with this being merged, although as a caveat I don't have any content knowledge, but your reasoning seems sound to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking after my first message, that it could be named: "Bar Confederation War" without the years. Put the years of the war in the article instead. I am the same as User:AustralianRupert, cannot contribute to the article at all, just a possible idea of a new name to call the two merged articles. Adamdaley (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[War of the Bar Confederation]] 

message: With regards to this edit, I agree that the Bar Confederation was related to the war, but not "a part of" it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to [[Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774)]] 

message: Comments were requested at the Milhist B-class request page. There are a few places (and two of them are entire paragraphs) that lack citations, which is the issue preventing this article from meeting B-class requirements. I have highlighted them with  tags. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I addressed some and expanded the article, but in doing so, I do not think the article meets B-class criteria after all. It needs further expansion and clarifications, as well as citations indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milhist assessment 

message: At "Background", it is related how the Russo-Turkish War of 1768 strengthened Russia. Yet at "Civil war" it relates that this war started influenced by the Bar Confederation. It cannot be that the context of the creation of the Bar Confederation includes this war when it started only after the Bar Confederation had been created. Similarly, the narration seems to confuse cause and effect with the partitions of Poland and the Bar Confederation. Seems confusing at best, missleading at worst (i.e. minimizing the internal infighting in Poland by mixing up foreign interventions that did happen after that fight had started).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.205.14 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilogical narration