Talk:Clan of Ostoja

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


Importance[edit]

Sorry for the delay but I have personal/work commitments making editing Wikipedia impossible for the last week and difficult for the next two weeks.

Wikipedia only has four levels making it difficult to reflect importance. There are less than 400 articles which have been classified top or high out over 47,000 accessed. It seems like it warrants a higher level but if it was applied here then hundreds of other articles would have to reassessed. If you disagree then I suggest you raised it at WikiProject Poland talk page

In terms of quality then feel free to change it as you improve the article. Jniech (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have raised this article at WikiPoland Porject. Sorry but in catch up mode Jniech (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for taking time to reply! I appreciate that!
I understand the importance classification problem. I think its good to leave it on Medium importance as it is. Maybe later on when more article will link and we see much bigger picture, we could consider to lvl it up?
As for the quality i would prefer someone else to do that since I would then receive relevant feedback on the article so i can improve it...
I posted the info about the article on WikiPoland project but I doubt that anything will happen...

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checked B1 to B6 and it should match the quality reference given. The C-class was given on 8th of february (when the article was most a Start class article) and the article had changed considerably since then so its on B now. Help needed to improve the article to GA class.

B class[edit]

During the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, I determined that the article seems to me to meet the criteria for the B-class. A WP:GA nomination could be considered. Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[edit]

Article appears to need some input to improve readabilty. I may need some help with fact confirmation as I proceed, as the language is a little confusing in several places. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Started a little work, at this point on the lede. Please confirm that I have not introduced unintended fact errors in the first 2 paragraphs of the article. I am going to work on this bit by bit with you, in tiny chunks.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Additional edits that I should be obliged if you would check.FeatherPluma (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The chronology of the article seems to weave about alarmingly and quite distractingly, and the spelling conventions to abruptly change from one paragraph to the next. I am working on these issues slowly and methodically.FeatherPluma (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I have spent quite some time with this article now, and I have done some substantial but preliminary external reading. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the article would benefit from a fairly major overhaul, with redaction of large meandering sections, some of which (e.g. the testament of the Stibors) is duplicative, as well as devolving many accumulated layerings to the respective Main Articles. I will continue to edit the numerous smaller issues for now, as there are numerous spelling, typographical, and grammtical mistakes, but ultimately more radical correction is going to be necessary.FeatherPluma (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Clearly the lengthy section on Stibor of Stiboricz needs to be consolidated to that Main Article, with a brief outline to remain here. Moreover, the section on his son, Stibor of Beckov, should eventually go to its own new Main Article.FeatherPluma (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Haplogroup crap...[edit]

...does it really need to be here and how exactly does it help the average reader? Volunteer Marek 02:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, this "crap" help to understand how the Clan was formed. If You have other suggestions how to do, You are very welcome to tell. This is only way to prove early origin of the Clan because there are no publications in the subject. The DNA tests are used all over the world and make significant progress in understanding how it really was before. What we prove here is that the Clan is not only of slavic origin and that it match overall picture of Clans in Poland - so there is nothing special about it but it is important as reference. Yes, You are right that we could use this section only as reference but some avarage readers might be interested in DNA science and history that actually now rewrite history written in books. Also, as new tests are incomming, this section will be more developed to give reader a clue of how it really was in the past in contrast to nationalistic propaganda since all nations are writing their own history - but DNA do not lie and together with what we know, we can add a lot to the quality of this article.camdan 12:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
IMO, it's an outstandingly interesting component of the article. I edited the section lightly to improve readability and clarity. The article would be enhanced if there are any additional updates: are there additional published references? FeatherPluma (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Additional published references? There aren't any published references, just somebody's web page. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DNA results of the Ostoja Clan updated. More than 20 samples are done now and the results go hand in hand with other research. Very interested indications. There will be much more info when the DNA results of Piast dynasty and west slavic population in Greater Poland will be presented, might give some answers on west slavic group in Ostoja. Indications tell that they merged with mercenaries comming from south (celtic-roman), bringing sarmatian tamga and Draco with them. However, there are also some other paths that come up and necessary to investigate. Here Danish and Norwegian sources tell about Kiev Russia - that there where two ruling families. One of ugro-finish origin (N1) and that is linked to legendary "Rurik" and the other one to slavic/ sarmatian ruler. This sarmatian/ slavic ruler used exactly same tamga as early Ostoja, in the time before heraldry - matching exactly all elements of the proto crest. Maybe all of this tell some about the Mig Migration period, where most of the cultures in Europe meet (and fight) some 1400 years ago when Rome was falling. In any case, the DNA project of Piast and west slavs will give some revolutionary input as we already see part of the results based on archaeological findings. It will most probably rewrite history of Poland and start era of new publications. camdan (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being entirely speculative on your part, the haplogroup info is all without a WP:RS (no, a self-published crowd-sourced web page doesn't count - read the policy), except for the source indicating a Piast project has been undertaken, but this about the Piasts and not Clan Ostoja, and any wild speculation about what it will reveal is WP:CRYSTAL. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is ongoing scientific research all over the Europe where archeologists provide with samples for DNA analysis. There are big projects and smaller one. The DNA of Ostoja is supervised by phd Lukasz Lapinski, that also run several other, much bigger, DNA projects. Thsoe projects are important in order to establish more correct history. Ostoja is small project but it is part of bigger. Published results are not examined by Lukkasz Lapinski and other researchers and whe issue is to examine how the Clan was formed since there are no written records before 12th century. It is also linked to the DNA of Piast project because that project wish to establish polutation in Greater Poland during time of first Piast's so its not just about DNA of Piast but also the aristocracy and common people. There are few very good samples in Ostoja project that are included in other, bigger project in order to help. The results are not any speculations but facts. Instead of checking out DNA projects and understand the issue, you could for example contact phd Lukasz Lapinski or other researcher, professor or any University that deal with such project, you just delete DNA sectionAgricolae. Please, lets discuss matter to improve art., not delete work that is done. camdan (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic family Ostoja → Clan of Ostoja – Article Clan of Ostoja have been renamed to Heraldic family Ostoja without previouse consultation or discussion and it should be reverted back to "Clan of Ostoja". Reason of that is complete missunderstanding in the subject when renaming. "Heraldic families" never existed, "Heraldic Clan" did since 18th century but not before (pl: Ród heraldyczny). "Heraldic Clan" is specific term used in Poland that refere to families using same CoA but not releted to each other. There is no source or single publication to refer using term "Heraldic family". Not even in Polish language since it would be "Herladic Clans" that refere to issue of families that have been included as persons that have right to use CoA, without being members of a Clan that use such CoA. Although "Heraldic Clan" is correct interpretation, there is still no single publications or sources that use such term. In Polish, "Ród heraldyczny" means "Heraldic Clan". Term "Heraldic family" should be translated to "Heraldyczna rodzina" where rodzina=family. And Ród=Clan. Also, there is a term "Klan" in polish that refere to "Clan" and that is commonly understanded by historians and in publications as "Ród" untill end of 17th century. Usage of "Heraldic Clan" in polish become popular under and specially after the Partitions of Poland. But never "Heraldic family". Also, most of references in the article Heraldic family that should be renamed to "Heraldic Clans" or Heraldic Clans in Poland" are not acceptable as references but simple personal opinions. (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC) camdan (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

To underline. Difference between art. "Clan of Ostoja" and "Ostoja CoA". Art about the Clan forward Clan history. Art. about CoA list all families that are verified using CoA and where not all families are part of the Clan, they just use same CoA - here it is possible to apply term "Heraldic Clan" inside art. In that way we can separate subjects. Research about Clan is of completely different nature than research about "Heraldic Clan". In case of Clans, we research origin, links forming, adopting, Clan structure, integration between families through centuries, nests, georgafical settlements in groups, moving from one group to other group and so on. In case of "Heraldic Clan" we research 17-19th century documents, look for errors, define why and how they signed CoA not being Clan members. When Clan members add Ostoja to their names today like for ex. Profesor Ostoja-Zagorski, Profesor Ostoja-Starzewski, Profesor Ostoja-Lniski and so on, it define their Clan identity and not CoA. To define CoA, they would have to write "Zagorski herbu Ostoja" or "Starzewski h. Ostoja". So, necessary to clearly separate Ostoja Clan history from "Heraldic family" and Ostoja CoA.
Question: "English word order"? Then, in English-speaking Scotland, is it "Campbell clan" or "Clan Campbell"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slovakia[edit]

"Lord of Slovakia", "King Stibor" of Slovakia, "he was also the first to receive land in Slovakia", Lord of Slovakian Counties etc. What?? This article is full of absurd formulations and factual errors. What's next? Leif Erikson reached the United States by 1075. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What?? Norden1990? What are You talking about? Please post exact position for what You claim! Otherwise its like claiming that Donald Duck was a frog. After reading the article, I found this:
  • "King Stibor" with citation 71 - it is written that he was - by some - called "King Stibor" or "petty King" - its does not mean that he was a King. Maybe necessary to add more sources to the article. It is written that he was styled as King and thats huge differnce from being a King. In publications, Upper Hungary is sometimes called Slovakia, more to refer to present-day Slovakia. There was of course no "King of Slovakia" - but somtimes Stibors have been styled in that way.
  • Stibor stiled himself “Lord of whole Vah” - I can not find "Lord of Slovakia" - where is it???
  • "he was the first to receive land in Slovakia" - thats about Abel Biel. Correct, I replaced SLovakia with Upper Hungary
  • "Lord of Slovakian counties" - where exact? I see "head of Slovakian counties" - correct, it should be "Upper Hungary there" and not head but Ispan. Changing that.
  • etc what? - please be more specific on this "etc."
Your style of writing is very sloppy Norden1990, and also nonchalant, sarcastic. What You wish forward is that accoring to Hungarian narration, there was no Slovakia but Upper Hungary and using "Slovakia" is not correct? camdan (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because there was no Slovakia in the 15th century, that territory was the integral part of Hungary (even it was not a separate administrative unit within the kingdom, in contrast to Transylvania or Slavonia). So I can believe that contemporaries called Stibor as king, but I am sure that they never claimed him as "King of Slovakia". This phrase (Slovakia) only appeared in contemporary records since late 16th century. "Lord of the whole Váh" (or Vág, in Hungarian or Waag in German, or Wag in Polish), yes this will be the correct (albeit unofficial) "title". This article is full of false Slovak narratives. There were no "Slovakian counties", there was Upper Hungary or Northern Hungary. "he was the first to receive land in Slovakia" --> same anachronistic formulation (correct: [Upper] Hungary). Slovakia is a modern country. We do not say either that "Pope Agapetus I appointed Vigilius papal representative (apocrisiary) at Istanbul". It was Constantinople then. Bratislava is the same situation. Even Slovaks called this town as "Prešporok" before 1919. Modern terms are used in this article with retroactive effect. Anyway, your cynicism is quite shocking: Is it only a "Hungarian narration" that there was no Slovakia in the 15th century? Just look at a map. I am sure that Stibor II never spoke Slovakian language. It was Czech with possibly some dialects (if at all it is authentic information). The formation of a separate Slovakian language is a centuries-long process, lasted until the early 19th century (Ľudovít Štúr). --Norden1990 (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Norden1990. True, there was no Slovakia a the time but Upper Hungary. See my changes on article. Please forward if You see more errors. Sometimes I got Slovak narraion and You are right that historical facts tell Hungary. Actually, "Slovak" language was used before Stibor II in administration but his document in Czech-inspired-"Slovak" language, is the earliest one that exist. Mostly, documents of that time where otherwise in Latin or German. So without sarcams or cunism, please check if You see something more to change. Thank You for Your last input. camdan talk) 13:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. I still doubt he was called "petty Slovak King" (not the title king itself). A Slovak tourist page is not a reliable reference here. Is there any source for this? --Norden1990 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im looking for the sources to add. True, source that is used is poor. I found other but its still not good or reliable. I saw this expression "petty King" in different sources, also german, need to find them. If I dont find it, I will remove that expression. And of course, he was not Slovak King since there was no Slovakia. I see Slovak narration in the art. History of Slovakia refering to the time of King Sigismund and I see that thye avoid "Hungary" or "Upper Hungary2 and instead use "present-day Slovakia". I changed in the article so both "Upper Hungary" and "present-day Slovakia are used because otherwise there will be someone that will tag this art. again claiming wrong narration and this will be never ending story. When I wrote "Hungarian narration" I was not so cynical as You think because I see the problems with for example Polish-Russian narrations, not mentioned Lithauanian-Polish! In any case, I appreciate any input from Your side. It was also good for me to check the art. again, I see some other issues to work on there. camdan talk) 14:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found that narration here - "petty Slovak King", but there are no sources presented in this so its useless. I think its just expression some use to describe Stibor as "independed duke" although he was depended of Kings Sigismund. But it still need reliable source. camdan talk) 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reliable academic source. Just some examples: "for example the Slovak palatine of Historic Hungary, Leustach of JelĹĄava" --> Leustach Jolsvai, came from the Hungarian Clan of Rátót of Italian origin. "Slovak noble BlaĹžej ForgĂĄch (Forgáč), a supporter of queen Maria, attacks Charles II" --> Blaise Forgách, also came from a Hungarian family (Clan of Hont-Pázmány). This is a tipical pseudoscientific Slovak work: if a person came from/lived in the territory of today's Slovakia, he definitely had to be an ethnic Slovak. It's similar case: retrospective effect. Interestingly, Matthew Csák and John Zápolya are also referred to as "Slovak king" in some Slovak works. However already reliable Slovak academics argue that e.g. Matthew Csák ("Matúš Čák III Trenčiansky"), anyway an ethnic Hungarian, was not a ruler of an independent Slovak state in early 14th century. So I doubt that Stibor was called as "petty Slovak king" by his contemporaries. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that its not academic source and it should be. Maybe in Daniela Dvorakova's book? Its translated to Hungarian language but not to Polish or English. I got it partly translated to English and it seems that she put Stibor on similar level as a "King". However, I dont know if she use term "petty King" - also, even if its a PhD work, it still contain some errors. Agree, I also doubt that Stibor was called by contemporaries as "King" although he could be placed on similar level. This expression seems to be much older to describe his position. Intersting that You write Clan of Rátót - we are just discussing such spelling, "Clan of XXX" - no consensus jet. I asked highly skilled experts of Polish Nobility Association and they say that for Polish clans its Clan XXX, before Clan of XXX and...in the case You presented as it refer to a "family"/ dynasty - they prefere "House of XXX" that refer to Polish "Dom XXX"...is it similar in Hugarian narration? We have similar problem in Poland - publications with lot of errors, misspelling, even Professors using poor sources, bad latin translations etc. So for example, I can't change art. on pl:wiki that is FA (gold) article (that I co-created) knowing exactly what is wrong and what errors simply because we dont have any modern publications on subject jet. So You have good point here, that old publications and narration is someetimes not so correct so we need new publications to remove errors and "nationalistic" narration camdan talk) 15:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Hungary, there is no consensus too. Several nobles until the 14th century appeared in records with their clan origin, e.g. Stephanus de genere Rathold. In Hungarian, it's called nemzetség which can be translate as clan, kindred or genus (gens in Latin). Most of the noble families since the 14th century evolved from these clans (or kindreds), by adopting local names to distuingish themselves. For example the Báthory family (which had three major branches too) came from the Clan Gutkeled. The ancetor of the family, Briccius received land donation in Bátor (archaically Báthor, today Nyírbátor). Báthory (or Bátori in today's grammar) means "of Bátor". --Norden1990 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! But did all Clan families of Clan Gutkeled belong to same family or was it different families that formed a Clan? In Poland, many Clans origin from one family but not all of them. Thats why we push on DNA projects to find out what the composition is of old Clan families (old = noted in court documents before year 1400). So far the results give me depression. camdan talk) 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Clans (or kindreds) during the Árpád era (according to Simon of Kéza, 108 native clans participated in the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin) gradually disintegrated and split in separate noble families by the 14th century. Fos instance, both Báthory and Ország de Guth families came from the Gutkeled kindred. There were no clans after the end of the 14th century. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clan Ostoja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 September 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Hadal (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Ostoja → Clan of Ostoja – the original name Clan of Ostoja have been moved to Clan Ostoja several years ago. However, in the Cathegory list of Polish Heraldic Clan's here once can see that almost all Clans are named "Clan of...". I therefore kindly ask to move to original spelling "Clan of Ostoja" camdan (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. "Ostoja" is the name of the coat of the arms. (and "clan" is a clumsy attempt to squeeze purely Polish concept of ród heraldyczny approximately translated as "heraldic clan" into the english worldview) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmmm. It has been a long time since I looked into this field. Ping User:Oliszydlowski. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment - Support for either "Clan of Ostoja" or "Ostoja Clan". Current version is not grammatically correct. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request move 7 august 2022[edit]

MOVED
This is a malformed RM, so I have waited for the applicable time period of the well-formed discussion below, and closed it accordingly. This discussion is now moot in lieu of that closure.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clan Ostoja → Clan of Ostoja - consensus about moving to original name of the art. was reached 27th of September 2020. This because of other consensus regarding spelling Polish Clans, see here. Name have been redirected back to "Clan Ostoja" without any further discussion and disregarding earlier agreements. Please redirect art. back to original spelling "Clan of Ostoja". Camdan (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong technical support. This was the consensus from two years ago, and no move should be made without a RM to the other direction. That said, I do wonder if Ostoja Clan wouldn't sound better? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against Ostoja Clan but we should then rename all the other Polish Clans as well and all art. that are linked to category "Clan of XXX? There was a lot of discussions about how to spell Polish Clans before and many years ago. Consensus (I did not take part of this consensus) was to spell "Clan of XXX". I just follow guidelines and what others agree on due to respect for previous decisions. Regards, Camdan (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There were no herb "clans" in Poland, in the sense in which "clan" is understood in Scotland ('a traditional social unit in the Scottish Highlands, consisting of a number of families claiming a common ancestor and following the same hereditary chieftain").

I don't see any point to articles on supposed Polish herb-based "clans," as opposed to the existing individual coat-of-arms articles. But at least, if there is some putative ground for such "Polish-clan" miscellanea, the proper English wording, analogous to that of the Scottish clans, would be "Clan X," not "Clan of X." Nihil novi (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong technical support for moving as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here stated. Consensus was made in 27th of September 2020, then Nihil novi (talk) changed it without any notice and disregaring consensus and renamed back to "Clan Ostoja" 31th of december 2020 which was same day reverted by other editor that also reminded about consensus. Then, in June 2022 Nihil novi (talk) changed again to "Clan Ostoja" without any discussion and disregarding consensus - that is according to administrators of Wikipedia "disruptive editing" and also might be issue on WP:AN. This is not a matter of spelling (Clan of Ostoja or Clan Ostoja) but behaviour and lack of respect for consensus done by Wikipedia community that was also signed by administrator Hadal (talk. As for me, "Clan Ostoja" is fine and correct but since after 2016 other editors made consensus to call all Polish Clans as "Clan of XXX), here, i felt that I have to respect that decision and that is why WP:RM was posted 27th of September 2020.
Furtheremore, Nihil novi (talk, renamed art. name already in 2016 without aby notice or publishing suggestion on talk page. Here, it does not matter how art. name is written - its not the issue, what matter is that there is consensus made 27th of September 2002 and that renaming was approved/ decided by Wiki administrator and even then, Nihil novi still tryed to change without any notice and that Nihil Novi did it again in June 2022. This i clearly disruptive editingCamdan (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to oficials to the Ostoja that is registered Association in Polish Court, they will publish a book this year and that will be supported with ISBN from National Library of Sweden (Kungliga (Royal) Biblioteket. There will be summary in English and we then will know what the official Clan backed up with professors and other scholars will say about spelling. Untill then, we honor consensus and in this, nobody have right to change in the way as Nihil Novi try to do. We do have rules on Wikipedia or not?Camdan (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 August 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per consensus of the editors here weighing in. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Ostoja → Clan of Ostoja – This is a technical move made on behalf of User:Camdan, as the discussion just above was malformatted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My support for this per above is purely technical. An individual article should not have been moved in a way that is contrary to a prior RM and the naming as as seen in Category:Polish heraldic clans. However, I would support a larger WP:RFC for the entire category and set of articles. The Polish term is "ród heraldyczny" (pl:Kategoria:Polskie rody heraldyczne). We currently use Category:Polish heraldic clans, with Heraldic clan being wikilinked to pl:Ród herbowy. Any related discussion should focus on whether translation of "ród herbowy" to "heraldic clan" is correct or not. (For what its worth, Google translate goes with "Heraldic family", while pl:Ród goes to Lineage (anthropology), and English clan is pl:Klan (antropologia), sigh). On a separate note, it is strange that pl wiki doesn't have an article correspondign to Clan (of) Ostoja, only for Clan Ostoja (Moscics) (pl:Ród Ostojów (Mościców) - note that pl:Ród Ostojów never even existsed on pl wiki; interested editors may want to consider a merge perhaps). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Piotrus rationale Marcelus (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question raised is easy to understand. Consensus was made to call all Polish Clan as "Clan of XXX" - I did not participate in this although I earlier proposed "Clan of XXX". Because of that, art. was renamed back to "Clan of" - accordiding to consensus. However, Nihil novi (talk renamed without any discussion twice, not respecting consensus. And that is the matter here. That someone disrespect consensus over and over again. Then, Piotrus raised some good questions and I will here answer them shortly. First, "Clan Ostoja" is way better than "Clan of Ostoja" so we need consensus to change all Clans and remove "off" I think that Nihil novi (talk would agree? As of Polish spelling (pl:Ród Ostojów (Mościców) its because to underline that (according to all present scholars and on basis of Court records) Moscic is same as Ostoja, just that one line of Ostoja called themselves Moscic and nothing else. Author of the art. wished to underline this, please contact him for further information on pl:wiki. Its not complicated to write a line to him and get contact info to best scholars in Poland if necessary and of course publications, Court records from medieval time. There is English translation of the art. on pl:wiki and its just exact copy and of polish version an of course question of merging - someone need time to do that and I thought that I could spend some time om this subject but instead i need to deal with disruptive editing of Nihil novi (talk. Its now seven years of that kind of editing from Nihil (disrespecting consensus, changing without discussion). How many more years?Camdan (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If, at the time, I had been aware of the earlier debates over wording of the names of the Polish "clans" (a misnomer, given the history of the English term), I might have argued for the wholesale renaming of all these Polish "clans". Instead, I was periodically reminded of this particular (Ostoja) "clan", and the name "Clan of Ostoja" jarred on me as an English-speaker. I am not aware of having consciously attempted to contravene an ill-advised broader consensus.
Respectfully,
Nihil novi (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to remind Nihil novi (talk that consensus about spelling Clan Ostoja was reached on 20th of September 2020 and that despite that, You renamed art. name 31th of december same year and that same day it was redirected back with following text: "Agricolae moved page Clan Ostoja to Clan of Ostoja over redirect: undoing unilateral page move in the face of consensus move just months ago". Then again, you do same redirect 16th of June 2022 and again despite consensus reached on this talk page. There is explanation why to move to "Clan of" in the discussion as of 20th of September 2020. You constanty change, rename, redirect without any discussion and this is the issue here. Yes, it would be better to rename all Polish Clans by removing "of" but to do this, its necessary to start discussion and reach new consensus about spelling all Polish Clans, not just Ostoja. Thats the way to go.Camdan (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And better yet, scrap the expression "clan", in this Polish context. In contrast to Scottish clans, most of the Polish "rody heraldyczne" could not even notionally claim descent from a common ancestor, or a common ród chief.
Also, since unrelated people were often inducted into a "ród heraldyczny", it may be well to review the utility of most articles on rody heraldyczne which include miscellaneous individuals and families inducted into the rody. This feature of induction differentiates Polish nobility membership from nobility structures in other European countries.
In some cases, the articles seem to arise as showcases for their authors' own pride in claimed ród membership, and thus share something in the nature of advertisements, which are proscribed on Wikipedia.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask You Nihil novi (talk) to stick with the issue and avoid to walk on the Moon. If You wish to discuss any matter with me, You are most welcome. Its not so difficult, I dont bite. I cant even if I wished to do that. Regards,Camdan (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge from Clan Ostoja (Moscics)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the likely need to rename that, it is unclear why we split those two articles; further, it is strange that Polish Wikipedia has an article on the latter but not the former. pl:Ród Ostojów (Mościców) exists but not pl:Ród Ostojów. In general, I also want to caution about notability, in some cases, such article are family genealogical fancruft, and we need to be careful to avoid WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Nihil novi (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Piotrus: With over a year to comment, it appears that this discussion has run its course and can be closed as merge. I will leave it to editors to perform the merge. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Is there a template to use to indicate that merge should be carried out, post-discussion? Similar to {{Afd-merge to}}? {{Being merged}} seems right the right one to use, could you add it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The "being merged" template seems to be the correct template. I am not going to add the template because I am not going to perform the merge (I have no interest in doing so.) Whoever starts the merge is encouraged to add that template themselves when merging the articles. If anyone is looking for the instructions, they are located at WP:PROMERGE. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I'll add it, although I am not going to merge this. But the tempalte I think is needed to indicate this needs to be done, just like with AfD merge one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clan_of_Ostoja&oldid=1206707917"