Talk:Dinko Ranjina

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Domenico Ragnina - Dinko Ranjina → Dinko Ranjina – The person has only one name, not both simultaneously. Different language versions of the name should all be listed in the introduction of the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Proper names policy.

Comment (as nom): the suggested name is the original name of the article. Its current dual name has been assigned to it on September 7 2006. See history of the article for more details [1] RedZebra 11:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. RedZebra 09:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dijxtra 11:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against-- tell me a reason because Ranjina is more correct than Ragnina. Ragnina is the official name of one of the family of the Ragusan particiate. The double name respect both the aim of Ragusa/Dubrovnik. The persone wrote book in italian with the name Ragnina.--Giovanni Giove 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no "correct" or "incorrect" name. This survey is conducted so that the article name may be restored to the name that adheres to practice established on Wikipedia. The suggested name of the article is the one used before the modification you carried on September 7 without any discussion or survey. All the different names should be quoted in the article itself. RedZebra 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case the correct name is "Ragnina". Ranjina is only a Slavic translation of the original italian name (the pronociation is the same). He wrote in Italian, Hylliric (=Croatian) and Latin. Tell me on reason to use Ranjina instead of Ragnina. Ragusa was not Italian or Crotian, is both the thing and is correct to point it out--Giovanni Giove 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)--Giovanni Giove 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article, "Domenico Ragnina - Dinko Ranjina", is not acceptable. All the relevant names of this person should instead be listed in the introduction of the article. This survey is conducted to see if there is support for restoring its previous name "Dinko Ranjina" that adhered to Wikipedia practice and that you have changed without discussing such a change, let alone conducting a survey that would sanction your move. That too is not acceptable. RedZebra 08:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not answered the question. Even if (it's your hopinion) double name is not accettable, you have still to demonstrate why the Slavic form is more accetable. I remeber you that there is not an accepted standard agaisnt double names. Just look at South Tyrol discussion. Anyway, I repeat, tell me why the Slavic form shuold be more correct.--Giovanni Giove 09:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am conducting a survey that should establish the community's consensus about what to do with the current name of the article which is cumbersome, confusing and misleading and has been introduced by you without any discussion whatsoever. Let me reiterate that the article's name is not here to list every single name this individual was known by. It is what the introduction is for. On a passing note, your contributions seem to reveal a number of unresolved conflicts with other editors on most of the pages you work on. I am therefore left with serious doubts as to whether you really want to discuss anything. RedZebra 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat again the question: why the Slavic form is more correct than the Italian form? An unsupprted personal attack is not an answer. I'll wait for the answer. Greetings.--Giovanni Giove 10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings (OK, this is hypocritical, but anyway..). As I see, your contributions boil down to Italian irredentist propaganda & its fabrications, centering mainly around denial of Croat historical identity of coastal Croatia. Well- this is fascism lite, a Gianfranco Fini variety. You may report this as "personal attack", but I think the bulk of your contribs is just an Appenine counterpart of mega-Serbian lunacies propagated by a few Serbian wikipedians. Actually, I even doubt you're Italian (tho, it doesn't matter). What matters is your contrib policy of distortion, POV, undue weight & similar stuff- something which wikipedia is not supposed to be media for. Looks like Croatian wikipedians have allowed themselves too much leisure & forgot that some users misuse this online encyclopedia motivated by very, very deplorable state of mind. Mir Harven 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Google test shows 940 for Dinko and 44 for Domenico. Kafziel 16:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That is meaninless. An idea is not correct becuase is more common to be find. Ragusa/Dubrovnik are usally more popular in Croatia than in Italy. That the only reason of the result, this does not mean it Ranjina is more correct. The ethimolgy of Ranjina is clearry italian, from "ragno" (spider). Ragnina was also the original name of the noble famuly in Ragusa. --Giovanni Giove 09:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Twenty times more entries on Google for Dinko Ranjina call for strong counter-arguments, not personal opinions or original research. RedZebra 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To affirm that Google hits are risolutive, this is an opinion, and not a fact. Try with a more "scientific" arguments. --Giovanni Giove 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"use the most common name of a person" - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). And, google shows which name is the most common. --Dijxtra 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC

Indeed. I can not see the present case.--Giovanni Giove 13:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Thewanderer 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose until further information is provided attesting to the primary language/region of activity. The article mentions Florence and Messina. And Giovanni Giove is correct about the Google results. It's ludicrous to use them in cases of obscure historical figures where there are so few overall online references (small N). The vaunted "Google Test" would have us move flatulence to fart and sexual intercourse to fuck -  AjaxSmack  06:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • While agreing that it would be nice to get more info about primary language/region, I must remind you that by opposing you are allowing current name to persist. Which I find totally unacceptable (imagine somebody moves color to colour - color and then we decide to keep it that way until we find out which one is more suitable). (And, ofcourse, that Domenico Ragnina and Dinko Ranjina are both names acceptable for Wikipedia, while fart and fuck aren't, but I'm sure you knew that ;-) ) --Dijxtra 08:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, i.e. restore to whatever original name the article had, then rerun the RM if necessary. The double name in the title is totally inacceptable; make it one way or another, then investigate which one is more common. Duja 09:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Duja. Olessi 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, original name is just fine in these cases, an idea that should be followed more often. Links will still work, including both spellings in text will improve chances of search engines finding it. Gene Nygaard 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

• Support, as per Duja. Also, the article needs huge changes. Mir Harven 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I would naturally support too - but are you aware, Mir, that you're late for like over 20 days for the voting? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, I am naturally for this title [2].--PIO 11:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)