Talk:Duchy of Croatia

Recent move

Where in mainstream sources is this entity named "Duchy of the Croats"? I can't find any evidence for that terminology beyond one dubious book source, despite the recent move. I am not sure that we need another example of Wikipedia reimagining the historical record and inventing names as if they were either standard or official titles, let alone self-declared "more accurate" titles. N-HH (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Can this unilateral move be undone please? I have just tried but for some reason I can't make that work. N-HH (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Someone moves a page to an entirely made-up name, and another editor can't simply move it back to where it was, even if they undo all those intervening edits but instead it just keeps that made-up name? No wonder this place is a joke. N-HH (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The old name is a single-edit redirect to here - [1] - the Move function should work, per WP:MOR. What error are you getting? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the most common name used in literature is "Duchy of Croatia" or "Principality of Croatia", but the current one is also more accurate than "Dalmatian Croatia" because the later is a modern appellation for the entity. I'd support a move to "Duchy of Croatia". Tzowu (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if something is the most common modern appellation for something, we should actually go with that. The fact that it might be the modern name is an argument for using it, not for discounting it. Anyway, the current "Duchy of the Croats" seems to have no purchase whatsoever in serious sources and it's neither here nor there whether one other editor asserts that it's supposedly "more accurate" in some self-defined existential sense. I'm easy when it comes to other options: it shouldn't be too hard to work out which is the most common term currently used. We certainly shouldn't use the least common term when other better, equally clear and more commonly used ones are available. N-HH (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

N-HH here you are again demanding edits in an obscure area you didn't bother to properly research at all. Seriously, are you now going to keep on demanding some name or other here as well for the next six months? Its like its your mission to go around with a can opener opening pointless cans of worms all over the project. Nothing here is invented, or a-historical (as the map might've hinted).

This entity had no known name. Its from the damn Early Middle Ages. The sources are extremely scant, and its not even well covered in historiography. All we know is that the lord was called "Duke of the Croats" in some periods or "Duke of Dalmatia" in some other ones. For the record - he was never historically called "Duke of Croatia", as apparently no such concept existed at the time. I admit "Duchy of the Croats" is not very prominent in the sources, but its the next best thing to Duke of the Croats. If "Duchy of Croatia" is the more common name, I'd be fine with it too, though I'd be a bit less happy. All of those names are incomparably superior to some silly modern Croatian name like "Seaside Croatia" or "Dalmatian Croatia" or whatever, which are entirely fabricated terms basically designed to support some slimy Balkans claim to some area or other - which is a theme in the Balkans, in case you didn't notice ("Seaside Croatia" is supposed to have been "joined" with "Pannonian Croatia" into a glorious union called "Croatia".. none of these entities being called "Croatia" so far as we can tell, though, especially the "Pannonian Croatia"). -- Director (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done more than enough research to establish that "Duchy of the Croats" was essentially a made-up name that has no purchase in sources, something you have more or less acknowledged above anyway. Please don't dismiss someone simply asking that this site follows its own naming policies and that it does not allow other editors to go around inventing names as being on a "mission" to open "pointless cans of worms". And whether this thing had no particular name is neither here nor there. As with all these situations, and as I noted very simply above, what matters is how serious sources now usually refer to it, retrospectively. If that happens to be "Littoral Croatia" or "Duchy of Croatia " – or indeed anything else; I haven't favoured any particular option – we should use that, regardless of how many abstract theoretical objections can be raised to any such terminology by random WP editors who claim to have done the most individual research and thinking on the topic and to have come to their own conclusions about what would be a "better" or "less nationalistic" title. There might be fewer of these "cans of worms" and bickering if people could understand that rather basic WP principle in the first place. N-HH (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The current title isn't particularly better - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Duchy+of+Croatia%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1 gives me just 45 hits, many of which are fodder, and many of which don't actually refer to the pre-925 period at all. This title also needs help, like Talk:Duchy of Pannonia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Imo all that indicates is that there isn't really a commonname, and that we should go with the best historical term we can come up with. This is, after all, a very obscure area of study, especially for non-Croatian historians. "Duke of the Croats" is the only recorded title of the ruler of the realm, and I think you'll find its also comparatively very common on GB. If we must choose a name for a polity that arguably wasn't one (or was such just barely), I still like "Duchy of the Croats" best. Its the name most grounded in what few sources exist. -- Director (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)