Talk:Zebrzydowski Rebellion

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move request to Zebrzydowski Rebellion approved. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Zebrzydowski's Rokosz → Zebrzydowski Rebellion — Bad style of using 's in the first word. Using English word Rebellion for the non-English one Rokosz Irpen 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. My proposal. --Irpen 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. A "no-brainer", confusing and unnecessary as the title in the English version of Wikipedia. Rokosz (with explanation) in the article itself is fine. All redirects and appropriate links are fine with me too. Dr. Dan 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. This is one of those articles with several valid names, but the proposed title is the most common on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appleseed (talk • contribs)
4. Support per my comment below. Explaining Rokosz in the text is another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per above. "Insurrection of Zebrzydowski" would also be fine with me. --Lysy^talk 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Object. Rokosz is a type of Polish rebellion. Here is an English-language source using this term: [1], [2] -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   Both of these sources translate it immediately on first use, one as "insurrection" and the other as "legal rebellion". This strongly implies that native speakers, like myself, are not expected to recognize it at first sight, which is the function of out article names: to communicate with anglophone readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Object. I would support Zebrzydowski Rebellion (no apostrophe), which appears to be the most common term on Google Books. Appleseed (Talk) 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   Actually Zebrzydowski Rebellion is the proposed new name. See here at the RM listing and a note at the top of the page. I simply made a typo at the talk page but the WP:RM listing carries my original proposal. Anyway, I corrected it here as well. --Irpen 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Name Zebrzydowski's Rokosz is OK. LUCPOL 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Dr. Dan 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, much clearer now! Dr. Dan 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Are you proposing moving it to "Zebrzydowski Rebellion" or "Zebrzydowski's Rebellion"? Since it appears to be named after a person and not a group, region, etc, I can support the second (per Bacon's Rebellion or Pontiac's Rebellion) but not the first (per Boxer Rebellion or Red River Rebellion). --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is decided is fine with me. Anglicize it in the most logical way. Where from, and how often, does the title Sandomierz Rebellion appear. The article currently names four other major ring leaders besides MZ. Perhaps Sandomierz Rebellion is better? Dr. Dan 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. "The Zebrzydowski Rebellion" is what Britannica calls it, and gets 2x the ghits as the genitive form -- altho' the total number of hits barely exceeds 300, so it's not a good sample even from a Google perspective. That'll learn me to look things up first before I shoot my mouth off. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that rokosz is a specific type of Polish rebellion (rebellion of szlachta). Here is an English-language source using this term: [3], [4]. That said, I would not object to getting read of the 's. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Most rebellions have a specificity or uniqueness of their own. Rokosz is a Polish term which doesn't lend itself to the English version of EN-WP. It needs to be Anglicized as was Elzbieta Rakuszanka (see her talk page history 04/27/06). Mr. Davies is nice to use the Polish term. I should hope the Encyclopedia Britannica supercedes his use of the term. Dr. Dan 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Britannica: [5], [6]. Thank you for giving me the idea to verify the use of this term in Britannica :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any time, any time. And here's some more Britannica help. Kindly remember the issue at hand is the title, not whether the Polish term can be, or should be included in the article. I thought I had made that clear much earlier. Dr. Dan 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And you can also see that this particular incident is referred to as a "rebellion" by the same Britannica; which only goes to show that EB seems to be rather inconsistent. "Rebellion" is supported by WP:UE; on the other hand, there is its different shade of meaning (moreso even than that discussed in the flap over the word département, I daresay). --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• More confusion? It would seem on the surface that Appleseed's response would better serve the argument to support. The move request is not about an apostrophe. Dr. Dan 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:pollbot}}