Talk:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507–1795)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gloger, Geografia historyczna[edit]

Zygmunt Gloger, Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. W tekście 63 autentycznych rycin, Kraków 1903

I removed a lengthy non-English quote someone copy/pasted from elsewhere. Those interested can find it here. Please do not clutter talk pages with kilobytes of external material and post links instead. Cluttered pages prevent normal discussions and editor's posts get lost in tons of text. If you need to post something as a memo, use your userspace. --Irpen 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian name?[edit]

Hi this is Tymek 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I just want to mention one thing It is about counties of this Voivodeship Why someone put down names of their seats in ther Belorussian spelling? Back when this adiministrative unit existed, it was part of Poland so we should stick to Polish names o the counties[reply]

Split and rename[edit]

I suggested to split section into new article, as Grand Duchy of Lithuania voivodeship and Poland's 20th century voivodship should not be confused. Also then the split is done I suggest to rename this article under proper English: Navahrudak Voivodeship. M.K. 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, M.K. 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with split, I disagree with naming: Navahrudak is a modern name for a city thas was known as Nowogrodek; hence while English works use term Nowogrodek Voivod(e)ship ([1], [2]) they don't use a term Navahrudak Voivod(e)ship ([3], [4]). Hence the article should be split into Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507-1795) and Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919-1939).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no single hints in you presented links [5]. M.K. 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching without quotes. Certainly since no publication uses words Navahrudak and Voivod(e)ship, your variant is OR.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? Quotes are for precise search match, which clearly shows that there are no such names, under which you renamed this article. I would love to find there did you found name Nowogródek Voivodeship in these publications [6] or in this one and rest one. Please familiarize how to conduct proper search and that "" means in the search. Without proper arguments, why such name should stay I will move this page to its pre-move name.M.K. 11:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean your 0 hits original invention? Please try that via WP:RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to present any English academic works which support you personal claims, therefore initiated procedure. M.K. 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you intent to show any English sources from above, which according to you English works use term Nowogrodek Voivod(e)ship. please provide exact pages and quotes, and please do not limit your self with only this one, as you did the same "search" on number of other Belarussian names [7][8]. M.K. 12:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely enough, Google is not a proof. So, the unilateral naming of the Grand Duchy territorials in Polish manner is better going to have some better justification to it, than this.

On the other hand, Navahrudak by the same token may also be considered a dubious choice, as the modern respelling.

Now, Old Belarusian, or Old Ruthenian, whatever's one's preference of interpretation, was the language of office in Grand Duchy. Possibly, contemp. OByel/ORuth version, then, BGN'ed by the Old Church Slavonic rules? The appropr. spellings of the names of significant geographical entities are usually well known. Yury Tarasievich 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In PLC context, English literature seems to use Polish (dominant language) terminology often; also the literate inahabitants (szlachta) used Polish language; hence it fits WP:NCGN. But I welcome alternative suggestions, particularly backed up by proof that such a name is being used.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, let's just drop the matter of "literate inahabitants". Now, to the policy you quote.
In case of historical names, when there's no established English orthography, historical context goes first, and Google hits go second. And you should "look at the hits, not just count them".
Looking at the hits you suggested recently, we see that these are either Polish language books, or by Polish authors with English summary, or books pertaining to the 1921-1939 Poland. There is one book (Dembkowski) formally English, using Polish terms in parentheses. From this I infer there's no established English orthography for the historical name.
This leaves us with the "historical context" kind of names, which may be taken from Metrica books. Yury Tarasievich 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do Novogrodek and Novogrudek and the like refer to the same place? And if so, why is one red, and why are both actual English usage spellings being ignored and English disregarded in this discussion. What other English spellings exist? Gene Nygaard 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be none "native English" tradition for this. I'm suggesting transliteration of historical contextual names (Cyrillic script). Yury Tarasievich 12:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would those transliterations be? And wouldn't a polonized name be more correct for the most of the period (PLC), where Polish was the dominat language (of nobility, documents, towns...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's false in any case. One of the links takes you to an English map dating from that time, and it uses "Palatinate of Nowogrodek", spelled differently from the current name of the article, too. Gene Nygaard 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, it is just unfair when articles about the GDL Voivodships located in current Lithuania use Lithuanian placenames (Trakai, Vilnius) and those located in current Belarus use Polish placenames. Firstly, Lithuanian names such as "Trakai Voivodship" regarding the GDL times is just a historical non-sense as Lithuanian language had not had any official status there. Secondly, Belarusian aka Ruthenian was the official language of the GDL prior to 1696 when it was replaced by Polish. Nevertheless, Belarusian remained lingua franca in the GDL (see Mathias Niendorf Das Großfürstentum Litauen: Studien zur Nationsbildung in der Frühen Neuzeit (1569 - 1795). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006, p.118 - I can provide the exact quotation(s) upon request). I would call to alter the titles of the articles about all Belarusian-located Voivodships of the GDL according to the Belarusian placenames if the Lithuanian variants are kept. I would also suggest to reactivate the debate regarding the name of the article about Troki Voivodship of the GDL. CityElefant (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Lithuanian name is least applicable. We should use either Polish or Ruthenian (Belarusian) names, as those were the official languages in those times/periods.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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.

Survey - Support[edit]

  1. Support, there are no reasons why use Polonized names. M.K. 10:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Support, per Novickas --Lokyz 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Yury. Metrica name would be even better choice in this case. M0RD00R 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Survey - Oppose[edit]

  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)[reply]
    Could you please provide English academic sources to support current name? M.K. 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide any for yours? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Exactly.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Deuar. - Darwinek 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per all above.--Molobo 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Some remarks[edit]

By looking deeper in Google books we can see that name Nowogródek yields 856, also comparing Nowogrodek the same result occurs -856, however looking deeper and comparing the same sources we see no Nowogródek, but Nowogrodek, not Nowogródek, but Nowogrodek etc. Why use polonization? M.K. 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... compare it with 214 for Navahrudak and 60 for Naugardukas. //Halibutt 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and compare it to Cracow vs. Kraków. Or is that OT, and therefore an invalid question? Dr. Dan 03:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I'd remind the need of the "looking on the results, not just counting them". Nowogródek hits have lots of material relating to the 1921-1939 issues (cf. the September's portion of discussion).
BTW, Nowogrodek (no accents) was the 17th cent. early Polonisation of the name (changed/corrupted in the process), as found on, e.g., map of Grand Duchy (1613). Yury Tarasievich 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion, zero hits in Google[edit]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nowogródek_Voivodeship_(1507–1795)&oldid=1209446195"