Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna

message: This invented name have no support in English sources at all  . While, Union of Vilnius has . So I am asking is there any opposition to rename this article from invented name to established one?  M.K. (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:RM and see. Union of Vilna is not alien to English historiography (ex. ) and is just as popular as Union of Vilnius ().-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not doubt that Union of Vilna could have hints in English, but current "evidence" which you brought is not about this specific event: replaced the Union of Vilna by the more stringent one of ... Under pressure from the Tatars and the Turks, the two countries in 1499 made another union .... claiming that in this citation Union of Vilna should be applied in this context is yet another ORirsh claim, prokonsul. And if you don't like Union of Vilnius, I can move it to 1499 Union of Vilnius as per English publication or to  Union of Vilnius (1499). Oh, and I waiting for evidences which could support current name-invention, could you provide them? M.K. (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: Union of Kraków and Vilna → Union of Vilnius (1499) — Current title is not present in English sources and reader could face difficulty searching and recognize it. New title used in English academic works, shorter and less confusing —M.K. (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support, as I already presented (see above) current title is alien to English sources . New proposal is shorter and used in EN publication. M.K. (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just how difficult of a problem would creating that disambiguation be? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Beside any other unresolved issues, the current title is confusing. In English, it implies that there was a union between the two cities. There wasn't a merger of the cities, nor was it the intent of the agreement to unite them. The proposed title is merely an English translation of a Polish variant (unia wileńska), which is simpler and clearer. And Molobo while you're here, what do you think about Vilna vs. Cracow, and Vilnius vs. Kraków (per my comments below)? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Darwinek, what would be your objection to using Vilnius? Please note my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I have no problems with Union of Vilna or Union of Vilna (1569); it is indeed used more often than the longer variant with Kraków/Cracow. And there is also Union of Wilno to consider.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same question to you as to Darwinek. Why is Vilnius inappropriate? Please note my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'll just note that I am ok with Union of Vilna (1499), per discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I disagree with your vote, there's some progress in your thinking. That gives me hope in reaching an understanding on this matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
If the argument is not clarified on what the best toponym to use for Vilna and Cracow on the project should be, this three-ringed circus is not going to stop with this debate. I suggest using Vilnius and Kraków as the simplest solution and compromise on the matter. This should be less confusing and contentious for all parties (and helpful to uninvolved readers). Links and re-directs can fine tune the matter when and if appropriate. One can not logically argue that "Vilna" is the earlier and proper historical toponym in English, and "Cracow" is not. Since both names have evolved into their present names on their respective articles in WP, they are the ones that should be used throughout the entire encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Was Vilnius used during that time? And if so, by whom? Refs, plz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not about Kraków. It's about calling the union with the name it was called back then. Kraków was always called Kraków by its inhabitants; Vilnius was not always known as Vilnius to his.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually city Cracow usually was called Cracovia and there was no Kraków back then; Kraków as such is later invention. And if we go on, first - Cracow should be used per WP:ENGLISH. Second for the month there is not presented any single English academic source, which could justify name-invention Union of Kraków and Vilna, nor any other variant, while Union of Vilnius has such academic support . Per WP:TITLE Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity., therefore proposed new name eliminates ambiguity (impression of union of two cities) and have English usage support. Quite clear case, I just can understand "arguments" like "seems better" and similar. M.K. (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are wrong - inhabitants of Kraków never spoke Latin and thus never called their city Cracovia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Holy See referred to the city as Craccoa (presumably in Latin) in the Dagome iudex. So even the Latin has undergone a metamorphosis. Cheers. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This actually is about the English language, consistency on Wikipedia, and the desire on my part to create less confusion. Kraków may be what it's inhabitants called it (although when its inhabitants were speaking German, I'm sure they called it Krakau, and I suspect when they were speaking English they called it Cracow, and probably still do), but what it's inhabitants called it has nothing to do with the historical English toponym, Cracow. Believe it or not, when I'm speaking Polish, I call Vilnius, Wilno. I am assuming good faith on your part and hope to resolve this matter logically, fairly, and with consistency. Consistency and clarity (lack of confusion) for the readers of Wikipedia being the final deciding factor. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no consensus reached for the move. I've left it at its current title due to the lack of consensus. --Maxim(talk) 13:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support, as I already presented (see above) current title is alien to English sources . New proposal is shorter and used in EN publication. M.K. (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just how difficult of a problem would creating that disambiguation be? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Beside any other unresolved issues, the current title is confusing. In English, it implies that there was a union between the two cities. There wasn't a merger of the cities, nor was it the intent of the agreement to unite them. The proposed title is merely an English translation of a Polish variant (unia wileńska), which is simpler and clearer. And Molobo while you're here, what do you think about Vilna vs. Cracow, and Vilnius vs. Kraków (per my comments below)? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Darwinek, what would be your objection to using Vilnius? Please note my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I have no problems with Union of Vilna or Union of Vilna (1569); it is indeed used more often than the longer variant with Kraków/Cracow. And there is also Union of Wilno to consider.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same question to you as to Darwinek. Why is Vilnius inappropriate? Please note my comment below. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'll just note that I am ok with Union of Vilna (1499), per discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I disagree with your vote, there's some progress in your thinking. That gives me hope in reaching an understanding on this matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
If the argument is not clarified on what the best toponym to use for Vilna and Cracow on the project should be, this three-ringed circus is not going to stop with this debate. I suggest using Vilnius and Kraków as the simplest solution and compromise on the matter. This should be less confusing and contentious for all parties (and helpful to uninvolved readers). Links and re-directs can fine tune the matter when and if appropriate. One can not logically argue that "Vilna" is the earlier and proper historical toponym in English, and "Cracow" is not. Since both names have evolved into their present names on their respective articles in WP, they are the ones that should be used throughout the entire encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Vilnius used during that time? And if so, by whom? Refs, plz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not about Kraków. It's about calling the union with the name it was called back then. Kraków was always called Kraków by its inhabitants; Vilnius was not always known as Vilnius to his.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually city Cracow usually was called Cracovia and there was no Kraków back then; Kraków as such is later invention. And if we go on, first - Cracow should be used per WP:ENGLISH. Second for the month there is not presented any single English academic source, which could justify name-invention Union of Kraków and Vilna, nor any other variant, while Union of Vilnius has such academic support . Per WP:TITLE Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity., therefore proposed new name eliminates ambiguity (impression of union of two cities) and have English usage support. Quite clear case, I just can understand "arguments" like "seems better" and similar. M.K. (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are wrong - inhabitants of Kraków never spoke Latin and thus never called their city Cracovia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Holy See referred to the city as Craccoa (presumably in Latin) in the Dagome iudex. So even the Latin has undergone a metamorphosis. Cheers. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This actually is about the English language, consistency on Wikipedia, and the desire on my part to create less confusion. Kraków may be what it's inhabitants called it (although when its inhabitants were speaking German, I'm sure they called it Krakau, and I suspect when they were speaking English they called it Cracow, and probably still do), but what it's inhabitants called it has nothing to do with the historical English toponym, Cracow. Believe it or not, when I'm speaking Polish, I call Vilnius, Wilno. I am assuming good faith on your part and hope to resolve this matter logically, fairly, and with consistency. Consistency and clarity (lack of confusion) for the readers of Wikipedia being the final deciding factor. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no consensus reached for the move. I've left it at its current title due to the lack of consensus. --Maxim(talk) 13:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion