Talk:Lauenburg and Bütow Land

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

Name: Move "Lębork-Bytów Land" back to "Lauenburg-Bütow"[edit]

While I have no problem to see this entity referred to with a German name in appropriate context, Gdansk vote is no excuse to move Gdansk to Danzig, or this article to a German name: the entity is now in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entity does not exist anymore. It is a historical region, Gdansk vote fully applies. Please move the article back to its proper name. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also an entity that existed before the 1308. Original name is fully relevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entity did not exist before 1308, nor did Lauenburg and Bütow (though there was a castle at the Bytow site before, Lb region was a part of the Belgard ad Leba castle area). The history of L-B entity is from 1455 to 1846. While this is stated clearly in the article, the time before and after is included for a better understanding, maybe that caused your confusion. Please move the article back, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both variants are used in literature. I suggest a widely advertised WP:RM to gather opinions and reach a consensus.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus you want was already reached in the Gdansk vote. Please move the article back to its proper name. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following your suggestion I posted the issue on WP:RM, yet I'd rather see you moving it back yourself. You were wrong about the timespan, this could be clarified, don't make a big deal out of a minor mistake. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:NC(UE), what is it called in English-language sources? In a very quick scan through the Google Books results I didn't see an English-language text... Knepflerle (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Districts of Lauenburg and Bütow" by Karin Friedrich and others, see article with two references and Google Books link. The old name "Lębork-Bytów Land" is unsourced, at least according to Google Books [1], so I moved, as we want to conduct the RM discussion based on a sourced name. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you've moved it to a name unknown to literature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, de-umlautifying the search gets all the (umlauted) results: [2]. Yet another case of how badly Google's optical character recognition sucks... Knepflerle (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Do note that land(s) instead of districts seems 50% more popular: [3]. I'd suggest a move to Lauenburg and Bütow Land. This would also standarize it with the names of other ziemias.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to decide to whether use district or land, I'd favour land, too; yet I am still convinced the most suitable would just be a move back to Lauenburg-Bütow, plain and simple. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Lauenburg and Bütow? I don't like the hyphenated version in a full title, as it insinuates that Bütow was a part of Lauenburg.-- Matthead  Discuß   10:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In English use there's no such insinuation of subordination, but the hyphenated version does sound more like a dynastic title than a region of land. For that reason, I think "land" is the best option because it makes clear we are talking about a wider area than the towns themselves and it does have an ever-so-slight usage edge over district. Unless strong usage arguments come for another option, I think this is our best shot, with redirects to be created for the rest. Knepflerle (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with simply Lauenburg and Bütow,[4] since GB offers a range of options to choose from - lands, districts, territories, fiefs, etc. Olessi (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Land, in this construction, is not idiomatic in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

There are a lot of false positives in both naming searches above, cases in which someone is listing districts and these two come next to each other, as they are geographically. Would it make sense to split the article? I see that they were administratively joined for part of their history, but so were Tenedos and Imbros; yet we have two articles there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the notable and unusual history seems to concern the two together, but if there is enough information on each individually I see no reason why they can't have their own articles, with this then just covering the joint administration. Knepflerle (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a split. L-B is special because of her history as a region in between Pomerania and Pomerelia, thereby somehow belonging to both but to none really (much more so than other border regions like Stolp, now Slupsk). This interesting status dimished whith the rise of the German nation state and finally got lost with the resettlement after WWII, turning this former link between Pomerania and Pomerelia into mere administrative units like the surrounding ones. I don't know if it makes sense to have an article on "Kreis Lauenburg" and "Kreis Bütow" formed out of L-B in the 19th cty, because there would be not much more to tell but that these districts empovered after the Polish corridor was set up cutting them off Pomerelia. Also, extra articles on the current administrative divisions (powiats?) would be pretty boring, too, in my opinion, it is sufficient to have them enlisted in the article about the current voivodship. That might be the reason for user:Pmanderson's "false positives", who finds the "modern" (post-1850) districts to only show up in lists. For the towns, that in contrast of course both deserve an own article, there are Lebork and Bytow already.
If I read the article correctly, they were separate fiefs, each with an extensive territory outside the town, before 1526. If that's wrong, please clarify the text; if right, then that would make the opportunity for two articles. But I'm not volunteering; it's just a suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The area was not a fief before 1526, I think the text states that clearly enough. Yet for most of the time L area and B area shared the same history before. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the mentions I have seen were concerned with both lands, and they were mentioned as part of the same entity (ziemia). Thus I'd oppose the split.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Lauenburg, Butow and Draheim/Lebork, Bytow and Drahim?[edit]

I have seen many maps dealing with the 1657-1658 territories in question (Treaty of Bromberg/Bydgoszcz) and most of them also include the Draheim/Drahim region, which was ceded to Brandenburg for the same reason. About the only difference is that Draheim/Drahim was fully within the German ethno-linguistic area as opposed to having small border Polish communities like Lauenburg and Butow, and that it was not made into a Prussian landkreis, as of 1900 it was located within the Neustettin landkreis.

To me it seems appropriate to merge the Draheim article with this one.

Prussia1231 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauenburg_and_Bütow_Land&oldid=1208107519"