Talk:Maritime republics

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

Name of article[edit]

Obviously this article should use whatever name is commonly used in English-language history books. I would guess that it would not be Repubbliche Marinare. (My limited bookshelves have failed in this instance.) In the absence of an existing term we should invent one: perhaps ‘Maritime Republics of Italy and Dalmatia’, though it’s a bit clumsy. If any decently sourced proposal to move the page is made, please copy the following into it:

If any poorly sourced proposal to move the page is made—even if an otherwise apparently sensible one—, please copy the following into it:

Oppose —Ian Spackman 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

;) —Ian Spackman 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Oppose — Not for a precise reason, we should make a bit more international this too Anglophone encyclopedia.--Attilios 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Holy Roman Empire or Catholic Church[edit]

Are you sure all the rest of Europe was actually subjected to either the Empire or the Catholic Church ? I think for example of England, France, Sweden, Russia... and even Spain, Portugal or Hungary were quite free from them ! 150.237.47.3 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusa or Dubrovnik[edit]

It's a mistake use the toponym Dubrovnik here, it, wasn't used yet that time. The name to use in this article is only Ragusa, due to historical reason.
The first line of the section about Ragusa says:
"In the first half of the 7th century Ragusa began to develop an active trade in the East Mediterranean."
I must underline that the name Dubrovnik has began to be used only several century later (cfr. Republic of Ragusa) and is not proper to be used in this article.

No, the name Dubrovnik was used and recorded in documents from early 14th century. Kebeta (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]
I'm sorry your information are really wrong.
I cite for your use and information from the articles of en.wikipedia "Dubrovnik":
«With the fall of Austria-Hungary in 1918, the city was incorporated into the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The name of the city was officially changed from Ragusa to Dubrovnik.»
Look here. So, please do not perseverate in your edit-war. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Let's talk about it ;)[edit]

The pleasure is bilaterally, but your changes are flippant. Dubrovnik was originally not one place, but two, divided by what's now the main street called Stradun. One on the seaward side was called Ragusa, populated by people of Roman origin. On the landward side it was Dubrovnik, populated by Slavs. So, from the beginig of the city the name of Dubrovnik was used, although officiall name was Ragusa, derived from it's historical Greek name. The treaty with Bosnian Ban Kulin in 12th century is the first official document where the city is referred to as Dubrovnik (on paper).

Here are some references for you to see (note that I didn't put any Croatian sources):
  • Francis W. Carter: Dubrovnik (Ragusa): a classic city-state, p.45
  • Peter F. Sugar: Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule: 1354 - 1804, p.171
  • Piers Letcher,Robin McKelvie,Jenny McKelvie: Dubrovnik, 2nd: The Bradt City Guide, p.3
But all this is not an isue here. The consensus on wikipedia is that the city itself is called Dubrovnik, and the republic is called Republic of Ragusa. If you don't think this is correct, you can ask on the article talk page for moving the name from Dubrovnik to Ragusa. Until than I must ask you to stick to this consensus, and not to change Dubrovnik to Ragusa.
If this explanation is not sufficient, please chose where you want to continue the discussion. It is silly to write the same message on six different places on wiki. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for use of the name Republic of Ragusa[edit]

It is the traditional name. As for the Persian Empire, it is still referred to as such now that the country's name has changed (not refferred to as the Iranian Empire). It also contradicts the article about the republic on Wikipedia.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I' ve taken a look at how the republic is called in other languages, going by the consensus reached on wikipedia.

Ragusa

French: République de Raguse

Belarus: Дуброўніцкая рэспубліка

Bulgarian: Дубровнишка република

Catalan: República de Ragusa

German: Republik Ragusa

Spanish:República de Ragusa

Finnish: Ragusan tasavalta

Dutch: Republiek Ragusa

Norwegian Bokmal: Ragusa (Kroatia)

Polish: Republika Raguzy

Portuguese: República de Ragusa

Russian:Дубровницкая республика

Albanian:Republika e Raguzës

Serbian:Дубровачка република

Turkish: Ragusa Cumhuriyeti

Ukranian:Дубровницька республіка

Hungarian:Raguzai Köztársaság



Dubrovnik

Bosnian: Dubrovačka Republika

Czech: Republika Dubrovník

Slovenian:Dubrovniška republika

SerboCroat:Dubrovačka Republika

Swedish:Republiken Dubrovnik

My conclusion is that worldwide consensus is that it is indeed the "Republic of Ragusa" the name we should use. For political reasons, only ex-Yugoslav countries and the Czechs chose the Dubrovnik version (Sweden has a high concentration of refugees/immigrants from ex-Yugoslav countries that can easily dominate discussion, plus the Serbs seem to disagree, for the usual reasons). I really don't think that I can be accused of siding with irredentists after this. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had suspected this may be the source of the misunderstanding. The issue is not the Republic of Ragusa, but the city of Dubrovnik itself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


So, WP:NCGN says that Britannica is accepted as the source for English names. As can be seen here, mention is made that Dubrovnik had acquired its alternate slavicised name in the 14th Century, but no mention is made to the name for the republic being changed or even an alternative being in use. For the purposes of this article, Ragusa should be used. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The name of the most common name for city itself is "Dubrovnik", by far. A country and a city are not the same thing, User:Brutaldeluxe. WP:NCGN is quite clear on that indeed, your rather strange interpretation is not very relevant. Britannica mentions that the name "Dubrovnik" was (supposedly) from the 14th century? So what? You misunderstand the point entirely.
There is really nothing to discuss. The misunderstanding has been cleared up, I hope. The country is the Republic of Ragusa, the city is Dubrovnik (primarily). I can understand your protests in light of the misunderstanding, but pushing for the Italian language name on the English Wikipedia would certainly make no sense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a misunderstanding and it all started as I saw all references to Ragusa changed to Dubrovnik in the popup on my watchlist. I quick-reverted and it led to this...
My point is that when addressing the city and the country in historic context, the historic English name should be used. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Lazaretto[edit]

According to this wiki, Dubrovnik was the first city to have one, but if you click on the link to Lazaretto, it says Venice was the first in 1403. Which is correct? Should it be changed to say 'among the first to have...'? 12.172.67.7 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maritime republics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Codrinb

I will review this article shortly. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to have to quickfail this GA nomination. The article is tagged as having "multiple issues", mostly relating to the citations, and I have to agree. Most of the article does not have inline citations, which is a requirement for GA status (2b). In addition, I would point out that the lead does not adequately summarize the entire article, as described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

There are many good things about this article. It provides a lot of relevant information, and it's well written with lively prose. There are a lot of useful images with appropriate captions. But without inline citations, it is impossible for the reader to verify the information in the article, and so I can't promote it at this time.

If you are able to accurately and thoroughly provide inline citations, and if you also rewrite the lead to effectively summarize all sections of the article, the you can feel free to resubmit the article as a GA nominee. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All makes sense. I plan to work on these issues in the not so distant future. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maritime_republics&oldid=1194930388"