Talk:Battle of Wiłkomierz

Top Lithuanian commander

Was it Michael Žygimantaitis or Sigismund Kęstutaitis? Polish contingent was led by pl:Jakub Kobylański (Jakub Kobylański). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this one is particularly silly

The name of this article is particularly silly.

First, when the battle took place there was no place by the name of "Pabaiskas". There was a "Wilkomierz" or maybe even a "Vilkomir" close by, or if you really want to insist on Lithuanian naming "Ukmergė" (though even that name came around three or so centuries later).

Second, pretty much no sources in English call this "Battle of Pabaiskas" - this is pretty much a Wikipedia invention.

Third, after the battle there was a village founded on the site called "Poboje", which is Polish for "former battleground". Even this new "Poboje" didn't become "Pabaiskas" until ... 20th century (if we're going to be charitable in our guesses maybe there was something along these lines in the 19th century). So if anything the contemporary name of the battle - at least soon after it happened - would have been "Battle of Poboje"). "Pabaiskas" is not even a really Lithuanian word ... I think.

Fourth, of course it wasn't the "Battle of Poboje" either simply because there was no Poboje. But this means that there was even less of a "Pabaiskas".

Fifth, English language sources call this the "Battle of Wilkomierz" or sometimes "The Battle of Vilkomir". Haven't seen any sources that call it the "Battle of Ukmerge" but I guess there could be some sources out there which refer anachronistically to the battle by this name. Haven't seen'em.

This is at best like calling the sack of Byzantium by Septimius Severus in the 2nd century AD the "Battle of Istanbul" though at least Istanbul didn't first go through a translation from Greek or something. Volunteer Marek  04:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Contraversial move

Past and current title of article has enough usage in English literature, even by silly google book count it is by far the most popular one [1], thus the title is perfectly acceptable per WP policies. if there is a desire to change it, proper procedure is WP:RM. M.K. (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

M.K. I brought up this issue almost a year ago. There was no response for a whole year. Yet, less than a day after I moved it (after waiting a year) you revert the move - this very strongly suggests that you are not willing to discuss issues talk but are simply revert/move warring and tendentiously trying to impose a particular POV. The "past and current title of article" does not have "enough usage in English literature" - whatever that means. Your "silly" google book count consists mostly of Wikipedia mirrors and reprints, inflated by the fact that you bothered to include only one of the " " " quotation marks in the search term.

As I already explained "Pabaiskas" is not the name of this battle (in English or other sources) for the very simple reason that a place called "Pabaiskas" didn't exist when this battle took place. It couldn't have. "Pabaiskas" is a translation of the Polish term "Poboiska" which means "After the battle". It makes no sense for a place to have been called "after the battle" before or at the time that the actual battle took place. Using a very very very generous analogy, this is like insisting that some battle that occurred on the Volga river in, say, 1100 AD MUST be called "Battle of Stalingrad" - long before Stalin was alive. It's worse than that since here we have the name of the place transitioning from Wilkomierz to Poboiska and THEN being Lithuanized to "Pabaiskas".

I'm undoing the move. You had a year to discuss this and respond. At this point, YOU start an RM if you feel the current name is inappropriate.

VolunteerMarek 08:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of English sources which uses such name actually the biggest amount so far as I provided a link. As for response for the POV an OR claims actual there is no rule that editors such respond to such. Thus use WP:RM M.K. (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No there's not as you well known if you actually bothered to look at the link you're providing. It's mostly Wikipedia reprints. I have no idea what "such name actually the biggest amount so far" means. I also don't know what you mean by "As for response for the POV an OR claims actual there is no rule that editors such respond to such." - but yes, editors are supposed to discuss such issues. Especially if they've had a whole year to do so. You are being tendentious and disruptive. Again.VolunteerMarek 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim this is pretty much a Wikipedia invention. silly and pure original research as the current name is and was well established in English literature:

• • • Encyclopedia Lituanica 4Vol., p.140
• Making a great ruler: Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania, p. 138
• Lithuanian historical studies Vol.2 p.47
• Lithuania 700 years, p.66
• Historical Dictionary of Lithuania, p.272
• A History of the Baltic States, p.264
• The history of Lithuania before 1795, p.402
• etc etc etc

Claim didn't become "Pabaiskas" until ... 20th century silly and pure original research as no reliable sources were provided. For a year! So on and on. I have no time and desire to list remaining so called "arguments". As for obvious tendentious and POV pushing attempts to rename current title due to nationalistic view is easy to compare clear pattern - Duchy of Głogów spelling of that name was unknown for a long time period, but Polish activists find dozen of excuses why it should not renamed, yet on Lithuanian articles they act opposite. M.K. (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to MK

Of the list you give above, seven of the sources do use the term "Battle of Pabaiskas": [2], which also calls it "Battle of Ukmerge" and "Battle of Sventoji", [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - actually calls it the "Battle of Swieta/Pabaiskas", [8] - this is just from the index where it says "See Pabaiskas, Battle of"

I don't know why you put your "etc etc etc" in there as that's ALL there is. You've exhausted all the sources that use the term.

Additionally several of the sources in your list clearly state that the place wasn't called "Pabaiskas" at the time of the battle:

• "A great battle was fought on September 1, 1435, on the present site of the village of Pabaiskas (from Polish “pobojowisko”, the “battle site”), near Ukmergé"." [9] So right there it tells you what happened to the name. Unless you seriously think that this was "The Battle of the Battle Site", which would be silly.

Now Wilkomierz:

• "after the battle of Wilkomierz (Ukmerge),
• "The battle of Wilkomierz was a miniature Grunwald",
• "after suffering defeat at the Battle of Wilkomierz",
• "Thirteen noble volunteers were captured by the Poles at the battle of Wilkomierz",
• His forces lost a stiff battle outside Wilkomierz,
• listed under Wilkomierz in the index, page not available,
• it was also sung at the battles of Naklo and Wilkomierz,
• "Two armies met... few miles from Wilkomierz",
• on crossing the Prussian border and immediately before the battle, at Naklo (1431) and at Wilkomierz (1435)
• During close on two centuries intermittent warfare was waged to rid the country of them, the battles of Plowce (1331), Grunwald (1410), Wilkomierz (1434
• Sigismund of Lithuania defeats the Teutonic Knights and Lithuanian rebels under Svidrigello at Wilkomierz
• - shows that contemporary chroniclers called this battle at "Wilkomierz"
• "had been amalgamated with the Teutonic Order in 1237), were decisively defeated in 1435 near Wilkomierz (Uk- merge)". This is the Encyclopedia Brittanica
• and Lithuanian rebels under the deposed Grand Duke SvidrigeHo, at Wilkomierz
• [10]
• and in the battle of Wilkomierz on the river Swieta in 1435
• [11] (listed, preview not available)
• the Teutonic Knights, his allies, were defeated at Wilkomierz
• and after suffering defeat at the battle of Wilkomierz
• Battle of Wilkomierz and peace with Teutonic Knights at Brzesc 1431
• during the battle on the river Swieta near Wilkomierz

Also, that's not even checking "Vilkomir" and "Ukmerge" both of which make a whole lot more sense than the doubly-anachronistic "Pabaiskas". For example The city was called Wilkomierz by the Poles, Vilakomir by the Russians and Vilkmerge, later Ukmerge by the Lithuanians... a battle incurred near Vilkomir in 1435

As to your personal attacks and the usual tactic of making attempts at derailing the discussion by bringing up irrelevant articles, let's just say that if there's one thing I've learned while on Wikipedia in 6 years, is that it's ALWAYS the most rabid, most extreme nationalists who most frequently accuse others of "nationalism". Probably because they assume everyone is just like them, just of a different nationality. VolunteerMarek 15:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim didn't become "Pabaiskas" until ... 20th century silly and pure original research as no reliable sources were provided. - are you seriously asking me to support the fact that a place whose name is "After the battle" wasn't called "After the battle" prior to the time that the battle being referred to took place? Is this meant seriously or are you joking? I honestly can't tell.VolunteerMarek 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Above search, which should allegedly show and support claim that term "Battle of Wilkomierz" is more popular then "battle of Pabaiskas" is false and only serves as example how such search should not be done. As it uses different search syntax. Term "Battle of Wilkomierz yields no more no less then 4 google hits". Thus if anyone wants to rename article with the term "Battle of Wilkomierz" should start proper Wp:RM procedure. M.K. (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The above is not a "search" but a list. Are you denying that these sources use the term "Battle of Wilkomierz", despite the fact that I actually quoted the portion where they do? Please stop lying, because when it's done this blatantly it's actually embarrassing to watch.

If you can find more English sources which use "Pabaiskas" then do so.

If you can show that somehow, magically, despite the given quotes, the above sources do not use "Wilkomierz" then do so.

If you can offer some kind of explanation as to how a battle got called "Battle of the place of the battle" before the actually battle took place, then please do so.

If you can show that the term "Pabaiskas" is somehow NOT derived from the Polish "Poboiska" then do so.

But stop lying.VolunteerMarek 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I stating and stressing the fact that term "Battle of Wilkomierz" used only in 4 hits in contrast to current title. Rest is irrelevant M.K. (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that if a google book search you came up with finds only four hits for "Battle of Wilkomierz", but I actually list, link and quote TWENTY ONE sources (also from google books) which use the term "Battle of Wilkomierz", then your google book search trumps that??? Honestly? You're being serious? Don't you think that just maybe your google books search is bunk?

Your behavior here is textbook example of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLE. As usual.VolunteerMarek 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So far nobody presented twenty one English sources in which exactly term "Battle of Wilkomierz" is used. For instance, this source allegedly should prove that author uses term "Battle of Wilkomierz" to describe the battle, but he merely states that armies met near the place name called "Wilkomierz", and he uses one of the alternatives names for that place name. And let me remind that his is not the topic about how to name a place name but how to name the title of the battle. Thus most of those presented so called twenty one sources are variation of a alternative place name, the name which is by a mile away of being the common name for that place name in English literature. And I repeat my self there is only 4 English (actually 3 if we eliminate double naming) sources for exact term '"Battle of Wilkomierz". And please stop using my name every time. M.K. (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. If a source says "Battles of Naklo and Wilkomierz" apparently that's not calling this battle "Battle of Wilkomierz". If a source says "Battle near Wilkomierz" that's not "Battle of Wilkomierz". If a sources says "Battle (1435) of Wilkomierz", then according to you that's not "Battle of Wilkomierz. And even if, there are still plenty of sources which clearly use "Battle of Wilkomierz" "excatly". Are you trying to set some kind of record for dishonesty here?

There are about five times as many sources in English for "Battle of Wilkomierz" than there are for the anarchronistic and incorrect "Battle of Pabaiskas" despite your obtuseness.VolunteerMarek 13:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very sad see then personal attacks became the main arguments. M.K. (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What's sad is someone showing to a talk page and flatly denying reality in pursuit of a nationalist agenda. The main argument, already stated clearly is that - sources which use "Battle of Wilkomierz" outnumber "Battle of Pabaiskas" by a huge margin and that "Pabaiskas" is a clearly incorrect anachronism.VolunteerMarek 13:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BY huge margin? If I would make a search for various variations of the name (same as opponents of this title did) the list makes different shape, here + I just listed few sources, in all of those uses Pabaiskas of course in the context of the battle:

• • • • • • Archelogical investigatiuon in Lithuania (Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje) 2007. As editors perhas have no such source here is a cite „aim of which was to collect more information about the location and course of the Battle of Pabaiskas ( 1 September 1435). The approximate battle site is in the vicinity of present-day Pabaiskas“
          • Historical Dictionary of Lithuania p.272
          • Lithuanian historical studies: Volume 2; Volume 2 p. 47
          • Lithuania 700 years p. 66
          • History of the Lithuanian nation: Introd. by Clarence Augustus Manning p. 44
          • Lithuania in a twin Teutonic clutch: a historical review of German-Lithuanian relations p.60
          • A History of the Baltic States p.264 (uses and alternative Swienta)
          • Making a great ruler: Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania p.138
          • The city maps of Europe: 16th century town plans from Braun & Hogenberg p. 118
          • Lithuanian bulletin: Volumes 3-4 p.20
          • The history of Lithuania before 1795 p. 210
          • Samogitia: the unknown in history p. 167
          • The northern crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic frontier, 1100-1525 p. 240 (also uses Wilkomerz)
          • Ghillebert de Lannoy in medieval Lithuania: voyages and embassies of an ancestor of one of America's great presidents p. 12
          • Vilniaus gatvės: istorija, vardynas, žemėlapiai "With the outbreak of the civil war, in 1435 the armies of Švitrigaila and the Livonian Order, who supported him, were defeated near Pabaiskas"
          • Lithuanian historical studies: Volume 2 p.49
          • Encyclopedia Lituanica 4Vol., p.140

And I even not tried various other syntax search of Pabaiskas, on another hand I suspect that usage of Battle of Ukmerge is even more popular. I have limited time and I am forced to spend this time listening to continuous personal attacks directed to me. M.K. (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Common names

"The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. " from WP:COMMONNAME.

Math: Twenty two sources for "Battle of Wilkomierz" > Five sources which call it "Battle of Pabaiskas" + two which use double naming.

Anachronism: "is an inconsistency in some chronological arrangement, especially a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other. ". A place whose name is called "After the battle" was obviously named that... AFTER the battle took place. There is the Battle of Wilkomierz, and then there is a place called "Pabaiskas" (originally "Pobojowisko") which was later build near the site. Two different things.

VolunteerMarek 16:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The most common name for the place name is not "Wilkomierz", but obviously "Ukmerge". M.K. (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an article on the battle, not the place.VolunteerMarek 13:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. M.K. (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what? What is this supposed to mean? What are you talking about?VolunteerMarek 13:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moved to Battle of Wilkomierz, per Commonname. Move protected for 30 days. Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Battle of Pabaiskas → Battle of Wilkomierz –

relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC) VolunteerMarek 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As already pointed out above:

1. "Pabaiskas", derived from Polish "Pobojsk" is anachronistic. The word means "After the battle" or "Place of the battle" and it is the name of the village that was constructed AFTER the battle took place. Obviously this battle wasn't called "Battle of the Place of the battle that will be build in the future".

2. The name of the battle in English language sources (as well as other languages) is "Battle of Wilkomierz", or occasionally "Battle of Vilkomir", "Battle of Swieta" or "Battle of Sventoji", or sometimes "Battle of Ukmerge". Best as I can tell "Wilkomierz" is most common. Someone else can look for the "Vilkomir", "Swieta" or "Ukmerge" sources.

3. Specifically, there are 4 [12],[13], [14], [15], maybe 5 [[16] sources which use the term "Pabaiskas" to refer to the battle. Another 1 source [17] calls it Pabaiskas as well as Ukmerge/Sventoji. Another 1 source calls it "Pabaiskas/Swieta". So at best there are seven sources which use Pabaiskas.

On the other hand there are roughly 22 sources which use "Battle of Wilkomierz". These are listed above, together with the quote and a link documenting the usage. Here they are again: [18], [19] [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

Of these 1 one of them uses Wilkomierz/Ukmerge. So there are between 3 and 4+ times as many sources for "Wilkomierz" as for "Pabaiskas". M.K. can deny the existence of these sources all he wants but wishful thinking does not make source disappear out of existence.

4. "Wilkomierz" was the name for the battle used in contemporary chronicles [39].

VolunteerMarek 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom.VolunteerMarek 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Because:
  • There are much greater amount of English language sources which uses "Battle of Pabaiskas" rather then "Battle of Wilkomierz" .
  • Even if we use relax search "Battle of Pabaiskas" enjoys greater support, I just listed few sources there Pabaiskas is used in the context of this battle:
    • • • • Archelogical investigatiuon in Lithuania (Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje) 2007. As editors perhas have no such source here is a cite „aim of which was to collect more information about the location and course of the Battle of Pabaiskas ( 1 September 1435). The approximate battle site is in the vicinity of present-day Pabaiskas“
          • Historical Dictionary of Lithuania p.272
          • Lithuanian historical studies: Volume 2; Volume 2 p. 47
          • Lithuania 700 years p. 66
          • History of the Lithuanian nation: Introd. by Clarence Augustus Manning p. 44
          • Lithuania in a twin Teutonic clutch: a historical review of German-Lithuanian relations p.60
          • A History of the Baltic States p.264 (uses and alternative Swienta)
          • Making a great ruler: Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania p.138
          • The city maps of Europe: 16th century town plans from Braun & Hogenberg p. 118
          • Lithuanian bulletin: Volumes 3-4 p.20
          • The history of Lithuania before 1795 p. 210
          • Samogitia: the unknown in history p. 167
          • The northern crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic frontier, 1100-1525 p. 240 (also uses Wilkomerz)
          • Ghillebert de Lannoy in medieval Lithuania: voyages and embassies of an ancestor of one of America's great presidents p. 12
          • Vilniaus gatvės: istorija, vardynas, žemėlapiai "With the outbreak of the civil war, in 1435 the armies of Švitrigaila and the Livonian Order, who supported him, were defeated near Pabaiskas"
          • Lithuanian historical studies: Volume 2 p.49
          • Encyclopedia Lituanica 4Vol., p.140
  • Opponent of this title and supporter of the title "Battle of Wilkomierz" presented only snaps of sources there the battle itself mention just in the few lines, while the most comprehensive English language source -Encyclopedia Lituanica 4Vol., p.140 - describing in detail the battle itself and its events uses "Battle of Pabaiskas".
  • Wilkomierz is just a minor alternative name for the Lithuanian place name Ukmerge, and obviously is not a common name in English sources per WP:COMMON - "Wilkomierz" compered to Ukmerge
  • Clicking on several opponent links I receive a message Your search - Battle of Wilkomierz - did not match any documents. So editors should be very careful then evaluating such "sources".
  • Title "Battle of Pabaiskas" is used in older English language sources as well the newest ones, like Historical Dictionary of Lithuania published in 2011 M.K. (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support to rename current absurd title. The nominator makes good points, especially the first one is worth checking out. - Darwinek (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first point of nominator for me seems to be just play of words. Of course, I understand the etymology of the city name, but it does not have such importance as a decisive argument as depicted by Darwinek. For Lithuanians your arguments are very vague, because Pabaiskas for them mean only the place/city name (and in the vicinity of that place the battle took place). Orionus (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not disputing that there is a place called "Pabaiskas" and that it's article should be in fact under "Pabaiskas". It should! But this is about a battle that happened before there was such a place. Also, even if you don't agree with that argument, there are 3 others.VolunteerMarek 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think always the most preferable name is that used of the site owner country historiography. You can use that name in your Polish wiki, but your efforts to push "Wilkomierz" here seems for me only as efforts to polonize Lithuanian history... Orionus (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions say to use the name most commonly used in English language sources WP:NAME and here this appears to be "Wilkomierz" by far. Honestly, I'd be ok with either "Vilkomir" or "Ukmerge" or anything but the present silly title.VolunteerMarek 03:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For your information, in 1918 also there was a battle near Ukmerge, which is also called "battle of Ukmerge". Times are changing and the use of terms also is changing. I think here was already discussion about google hits. M.K. also presented here English sources where "battle of Pabaiskas" is used. I think there is too many emotions instead of arguments in your speech. "Silly title" - for you it is silly. For us it is our history. Orionus (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the WWI battle - that should be under Battle of Ukmerge (1918) (though I've come across a lot of sources which call it Battle of Vilkomir). Like I said the reason why the title is silly doesn't really have anything to do with any cultures or anything but rather with the fact that is so blatantly anachronistic. MK's sources are few and really outdated.

Btw, since this battle had Poles and Lithuanians fighting together side by side against the Teutonic Knights, it really is both of OUR history.VolunteerMarek 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, In the battle of Žalgiris we also were fighting together. But the site is in the Poland, then the name should be the battle of Grunwald. In this case the battle site is on the Lithuanian teritory, so let it be as Lithuanian historiography uses in Lithuanian and English sources. Orionus (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, most English sources use "Wilkomierz".VolunteerMarek 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per A History of the Baltic States Professor Andres Kasekamp - 2010 and for convenience since the most recent sources, inevitably including any map or guidebook for a tourist, will all use the Lithuanian name. However have added in the Ł (przekreślone L) to the Polish name in brackets in lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "A History of the Baltic States" is in fact one of the few English sources (about six or seven in total) which uses the term "Pabaiskas". On the other hand, there are about three times as many English language sources which use "Wilkomierz", including Cambridge History of Poland and Dictionary of Battles, History of Russia by AIP, and many many others. Now, if your argument is that we should GENERALLY use contemporary names regardless of what the most frequent usage is in English sources, I'm actually sympathetic to that. But let's see you move "Battle of Kolberg" (any of them) to "Battle of Kolobrzeg" first. At present that's not what WP:NAME Wikipedia naming conventions dictate - yours might be an argument for changing them (again, one I'm sympathetic too), but until those naming conventions get changed we should use the name which is used most frequently in English language sources - and that's "Wilkomierz".VolunteerMarek 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. IIRC, WP:NCGN supports the use of the most common names, and I see no reason why we should not stick with the more recognized name here. Modern names, when applied to historical events, are not always the best solution. Vide battle of Stalingrad and not battle of Volgograd. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

There are much greater amount of English language sources which uses "Battle of Pabaiskas" rather then "Battle of Wilkomierz" - this is demonstrably false, as shown several times above.

The first few sources listed above are the 5 or 6 that do use "Pabaiskas".

The city maps of Europe: 16th century town plans from Braun & Hogenberg p. 118 - does not refer to the battle but to the 16th century town.

Some of these other sources are very very oudated. "Lithuania in a twin Teutonic clutch" is from 1945. "Lithuanian bulletin" is from 1949, and I'm having trouble locating the mention of the battle. Ghillebert de Lannoy in medieval Lithuania [40] is from 1945 and I can't find the mention of "Pabaiskas" in it.

"Vilniaus gatvės: istorija, vardynas, žemėlapiai" - is not an English language source!

"The northern crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic frontier" actually calls it "Battle of Wilkomierz" and just says that it was at a place (which later became) Pabaiskas.

"Encyclopedia Lituanica" is a translation into English of a Lithuanian source. Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Wilkomierz" (link above)

"Wilkomierz" is how the place was known for most of its history. You are welcome to look for instances of "Battle of Ukmerge".

"Clicking on several opponent links I receive a message Your search - Battle of Wilkomierz - did not match any documents. " - if you don't know how to click a link that's not my problem. And given your previous false statements I'm not sure why anyone should take your statement at face value. When I click my links - provided with quotes - they work just fine.

In fact, can you PLEASE provide quotes which show the usage of Pabaiskas in the sources you listed? Just wondering you know...VolunteerMarek 15:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was 3 or 4 now it is 5 or 6 ! Impressive improvement in the judgment. But now, sources became too old. Typical.

"The city maps of Europe: 16th century town plans from Braun & Hogenberg p. 118" - does not refer to the battle but to the 16th century town. False it refer to place name there battle took place: "In 1410, after two centuries of war, the Teutonic Order was defeated at Tannenberg and the Livonian Order overcome at Pabaiskas in 1435, halting the eastward march of German settlers."

"Ghillebert de Lannoy in medieval Lithuania" And again in 1435, the Lithuanian army with some Polish auxiliaries, under the command of Grand Duke Sigedis- broke the power of the Livonian branch of the Order on the banks of the Sventoji (Holy) river at Pabaiskas in Lithuania

"The northern crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic frontier" actually calls it "Battle of Wilkomierz" and just says that it was at a place (which later became) Pabaiskas. - False full citation "and von Kersdorf led them to a disastrous defeat at Wilkomierz (Pabaiskas on the Sventoji) two years later" (in my list I noted about alternative naming in this source)

"Vilniaus gatvės: istorija, vardynas, žemėlapiai" - is not an English language source! Well it list and English language articles so such claim can be attributed as false

I dot care about personal option regarding the most comprehensive source of this battle Encyclopedia Lituanica as well as dates of sources. M.K. (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was 3 or 4 now it is 5 or 6 ! Impressive improvement in the judgment. You know people can read this talk page, right? From the beginning I said there were 5 sources +2 which used double naming. Again, stop lying.

Like I said neither Braun nor Ghillebert calls this "Battle of Pabaiskas" and are just referring to the place. But ok. "Wilkomierz" is still far more widely used.

"Northern Crusades" states: "Thirteen noble volunteers were captured by the Poles at the battle of Wilkomierz , six of them close relations of the master, marshal or commanders. " Later on it mentions Pabaiskas but NOT as the name of the battle.

"Vilniaus gatvės: istorija, vardynas, žemėlapiai" - still NOT an English source.

I don't care if you dot care, but naming conventions DO care and instruct us to use the name most often found in MODERN English language sources.VolunteerMarek 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree with me. M.K. (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Just repeating cite from "The northern crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic frontier" "and von Kersdorf led them to a disastrous defeat at Wilkomierz (Pabaiskas on the Sventoji) two years later"

<-- Thanks I will. Now, can you 1. Provide the quotes for the other sources you listed (so far you gave only two). 2. Address how a battle can be called "Battle of the Place of Battle" when obviously the battle took place before the place became known as "Place of Battle".VolunteerMarek 16:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Wilkomierz. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515185857/http://ausis.gf.vu.lt/mg/nr/99/10/10kar.html to http://ausis.gf.vu.lt/mg/nr/99/10/10kar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)