Talk:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507–1795)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Uh-oh, I have to play a Solomon here. Basically, I hope we'd agree that we're looking for a prevalent English name in historical context (regardless if it comes as a Polish, Ruthenian or Russian borrowing). Metrica/Ruthenian names seem to have a certain level of support here. So, I checked the Google books myself, majority of those being in English, and the results are relatively compelling:

• Novgorodok 54:Nowogródek 855(!):Navahrudak 220
• Polock 1003 (many unrelated!):Polotsk 1079:Polatsk 261
• Witebsk 963:Vitebsk 1482

So, the latter two will be moved to Ruthenian/Metrica name, which also matches the most common historical English one. Taking into account the significant prevalence of Nowogrodek, it will stay here. The consistence argument is appealing, but since English usage is not consistent, and Wikipedia is not as well... Duja► 08:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507-1795) → Navahrudak Voivodeship
  • Połock Voivodeship → Polatsk Voivodeship
  • Witebsk Voivodeship → Vitebsk Voivodeship

Current articles names do not find any support among English academic works, nor even in Google print nor in Google scholar [9] [10] [11] [12]. All these names are Polonized ones used in preference on established Belarusian place names, which English equivalents are further used in WP. -- M.K. 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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.

[edit] Survey - Support

1. Support, there are no reasons why use Polonized names. M.K. 10:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. These administrative units were named for Belarusian cities, which have their own quite stable articles (Vitebsk, Navahrudak, Polatsk). As a courtesy, this proposed Polish naming convention should have been mentioned/discussed at those talk pages, as well as at History of Belarus. Novickas 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. This proposal, although IMO not as good as names from Metrica, is still more true to the Wikipedia rules than the current solution. Yury Tarasievich 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, per Novickas --Lokyz 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per Yury. Metrica name would be even better choice in this case. M0RD00R 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, Ironically all of the opposing votes seem to oppose using Cracow, on English WP, belying a illogical inconsistency which truly demonstrates an "agenda", rather than trying to inform readers. Dr. Dan 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose

1. Oppose, there are no reasons to use incorrect names not used in English literature at all ([13], [14], [15]). The city in that time was called Nowogródek; hence this name is also in line with WP:NCGN. See also my arguments at Talk:Witebsk Voivodeship#Name and Talk:Połock Voivodeship#Name where I show that in fact those names are more popular in English literature than the proposed alternatives.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

   Could you please provide English academic sources to support current name? M.K. 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

   Can you provide any for yours? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. It's a historical entity that had the Nowogródek name at the time it existed, and has no widely accepted english name. It is highly unlikely to be widely mentioned in english academic sources at all. Hence by the guidelines in WP:NCGN, it should keep the historical name. Furthermore, have a look at Category:Former voivodeships of Poland (14th century–1795) and Category:Former voivodeships of Lithuania -- almost all retain their original name in polish, except for a few which are named after things with commonly used english equivalents. The naming should be kept consistent. Deuar 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

   Exactly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Deuar. - Darwinek 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per all above.--Molobo 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The translit from the Modern Belarusian version seems somewhat un-wise, of course. However, the notion that the place was named in Polish "then" is, at best, gross oversimplification.

The Ruthenian remained the official language well into 17th cent. E.g., just off my bookshelf, the re-published Metrica book 523/1 (Grand Duchy Army Register of 1528) gives the mentioned places' names as Новгородок, Витебск, Полоцк, which wouldn't be too hard to translit, e.g. by the translit of Old Church Slavonic.

The google hits we were offered show only that Polish authors continue to use Polish spellings even when publishing in English. What a surprise.

Well, just had to say that. Much good will it do. Yury Tarasievich 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As I asked above, what names would be correct with Ruthenian transliteration? I do agree that Ruthenian language was popular in those regions, albeit whether it was more popular than Polish among nobles and in official documents is another issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Those three names in their 1528 Metrica form are quoted in my Oct 18, 18:43 entry, 2nd paragraph, italicised. I'm not aware of any WP policy on Old Church Slavonic (which was orthographically close), but my guess would be Novgorodok, Vitebsk, Polock. Polish, Belarusian etc. variants may, of course, exist as redirects. Yury Tarasievich 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a potentially useful reference; among other things, it mentions that state documents in the Grand Duchy were generally written in Belarussian. [16] Novickas 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Novickas 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, user: Deuar, thank for your vote even though we are in dissagreement here. I look forward to improving W.P. with you in the future. In the meantime, I have to ask you about your user page. You claim to be a native speaker of English, yet you use Warszawa instead of Warsaw. Has Warsaw become obsolete, just like Cracow, too? Dr. Dan 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do note that Polish was being used in GDL since before Union of Lublin (1569); it was one of the official languages - along with Ruthenian - since the Union and it has replaced Ruthenian as the official language in GDL in 1697 ([17]). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Current names are clearly unacceptable. Would those who object to the proposed names also object to the names mentioned by Yuri Tarasievich? --Irpen 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...All of the usual suspects have switched sides on this one. I appreciate this nomination and am bookmarking it for future use. It shows the pitfalls of imposing nationalist notions of possession to polities of the pre-national era. Use of names as seen in Metrica might work but they look uncomfortably like the names of the evil Russian imperialists or the non-Slavic Latin-aping West. — AjaxSmack 03:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.