Talk:Ostrogski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Iconic figures for modern UA nationalists?

aticle says: "This made them iconic figures for modern Ukrainian nationalists."

Ostrogsky's were highly praised by, say, Kostomarov. "modern Ukrainian nationalists" needs to be rephrased. -Irpen 02:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

If we are talking about plural family name, shouldn't it be 'Ostrogscy'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should keep the names in singular form. After all someone might want to seek info on the family of, say, Konstanty Ostrogski and he/she will have no clue that the proper Polish plural form ends with -scy and not with, let's say, -s. Also, I believe that in English surnames are rarely pluralized. Thus we have Ostrogski family rather than Ostrogskis family, as it would be according to Polisg grammar. Halibutt 10:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There are always redirects. But I admit I don't care if we chose singular or plurar, as long as the redirects are there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced?

Please explain at talk what in particular is doubted by "underefenced" tag? Entire article? Something particular? Thanks! --Irpen 23:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no response, I will remove the unref tag. Please provide n explanation if restoring it. --Irpen 03:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. External links are not references, see Wikipedia:Cite sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, is there a reason behind listing the same internet sources both as external links and as references? Halibutt 15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. We are aware about the need of references without wanton throwing of tags here and there. But on Piotr's request, I'll add the tags to Warsaw and Krakow later today. --Ghirlandajo 16:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite sources clearly states that external links are webpages whose content was NOT used in the article. So there is an important difference between external links and references, which most of our editors seem to be unaware of. If what is now marked as external links was used as references, that it is a simple matter of changing the headings and adding 'last accessed on...'. But since I was not a contributor to this article, I cannot do this without checking the external links myself (assuming they are in language I can understand). And sure, I can do this in this article, and many others, but it will take my time, which I'd prefer to use on something else (like adding new content) - while the contributor to this article, already knowing the external links (which he has added), and notified by my edit that the question of references vs. external links has arisen, can do this much quicker. See my point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)