Template talk:Campaignbox Polish–Soviet War

message: Please explain if you can, why, especially in view of all earleir discussions, you persist in changing the name of the war at Battlebox to a name different from the main name of the war used for a WP article itself. PBW is NOT the most commonly used English name and no other encyclopedia uses it.  Britannica and Encarta both call it "Russo-Polish War" (both have separate articles). Encyclopedia Americana has no separate article but refers to it as "Polish-Soviet War" in its "History of PL" article. Finally, Columbia Encyclopedia, which doesn't have a separate article either, calls it "Russo-Polish War" in Tukhachevsky and Weygand articles and "Soviet-Polish War" in Belarus article. Besides, Norman Davies also writes "Polish-Soviet War" in the title of his book, while Robert Himmer uses "Russo-Polish War". 
I could see why "Bolshevik" seems preferable to some Polish historians, but for obvious POV reasons, since just the name itself changes the flavor. I think we have a strong evidence that in accordance with WP policy ("most commonly used English name" and "like you would find in other encyclopedias") we should rename the template but I woould like to have text changed first unless you can articulate the reason of your reverts. What you or anyone considers "correct" matters less and is a matter of opinion. What is the "most commonly used name in English" is the name we should use. -Irpen 08:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Also, out of curiosity, why all placenames are Polish but OTOH Kiev and Warsaw. Are all (or most) of the classical English books on the subject listed in the reference section use "Wasylkowce"? If so, then fine with me. I am just curious. --Irpen 08:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::As to the place names - the reply is the same I gave at the Kiev Operation talk page some time ago: it's simply that the sources used by the authors of the campaignbox were Polish and did not mention the original toponyms. Feel free to add them if you know them - or move the articles to new places, in accordance with the contemporrary Ukrainian names of those places. 
:::As to the name of the entire war - so far there was no consensus to move the article in question to a more apropriate title, so you might want to go on with the changes in other articles. However, as the Polish-Soviet War term is completely inaccurate, I'd suggest waiting with such changes until the naming dispute is ended. Halibutt 18:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The way to deal with PBW vs PSW debate is to list this template at WP:RM. If the majority would agree that for the consistensy, the template and the article should use the same name, it will be moved. If not, it will stay. 
As for the place names, as I said earlier, the original toponyms matter less than what's used in Egnlish language war literature. Do you have a Davies' book to check? If I had it, I would have done it myself. I don't mind Wasylkowce if Davies uses it similar to WW2 literature using Belorussia, KharkOv or Rumania. The battle articles should be moved to the names used in the E.L. history literature about this war. --Irpen 03:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I have only the Polish translation of Davies' book at hand. But the problem with him might be that in some of his books (Warsaw Rising, for instance) he used a strange manner of translating personal names so that they sounded more pleasantly to an English ear. While this might've been a nice move that let the Brits or the Americans remember the personalities and places mentioned without having to break their tongues on Polish or Russian names, it also gets the names quite far from being accurate. You know, I mean the General BearCub instead of Leopold Okulicki, Barley Street instead of Chmielna Street and so on. Anyway, if I have time, I try to dig out the English edition of White Eagle, Red Star and check the names. However, if they turn out to be invented by Davies himself, I doubt we should adopt them here. Halibutt 06:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they have one huge advantage over Russian/Ukrainian names for the time being: at least we are sure that these were the names used by one of the sides of the conflict. The names used by the other side or by the locals are not so certain so far. Halibutt 01:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, frankly speaking, the names used by the Polish commanders were quite special. After the French Military Mission came to Poland and started training Polish officers, they realised that the Polish Army was using different set of maps for different areas. So, a new, standarized set of maps was prepared and copied for all the units. It consisted of a mixture of Polish, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and even French maps, each with different naming scheme. At the same time order was issued that in all written orders all the placenames are to be put down the way they are on the map. Of course, some maps were in Cyrillic, unknown to many officers of Greater Poland, who either barbarized the names or simply used the Polish names instead. That is why some of the orders preserved in Polish archives are extremely hard to identify. So, in other words, many of Ukrainian placenames used by the Polish officers were neither Polish, Russian or Ukrainian, but rather some sort of approximation. Confusing, isn't it. OTOH I guess that the Red Army had even greater cartographic difficulties... Halibutt 08:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And while you are at it, please check the name for the whole war. We have now a strange collision with the war article and the template calling the war by different names. Thanks, --Irpen 02:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name