Talk:Polkovnyk

1 article for Polkovnik, Polkovnyk, Pułkownik, Plukovník and etc.

Do we need multiple identical articles about the same Slavic colonel in different countries, which is in many ways written?

Polkovnik
Polkovnyk
Pułkownik
Plukovník

Yes, Ukrainian colonel was not only commander of a regiment, but head of an administrative unit. But is it so necessary to make a separate article or will be enough to make a section in a general article about the Slavic colonels?UeArtemis (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it; I've had enough rudeness. "Rvv" stands for "revert vandalism". If the previous edit does not fall under the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism, then one is abusing the edit summary by writing this. This could even be interpreted as a Wikipedia:Personal attack. It's against the word and spirit of Wikipedia conventions, and it's highly counter-productive. I'm giving notice here: from this point on, I'm going to revert such edits, whether I agree with them or not. Everybody has to learn to behave like respectful collaborative editors; and I don't just mean you, Andriy: there are a number of others. —Michael Z. 2005-11-14 16:09 Z

You don't mean just me? Why only I've got such message from you?

A group of people (whom I am not going to label by their pressumed nationality any more) were calling my efforts to make Wikipedia conforming other English language encyclopedias "vandalism". You kept silence and even sometimes were supportig them on tal pages.

Suddenly it appears that I am not allowed to use the word "vandalism" after the article I've just started were replaced by a redirect without any discussion.

OK, I'll promice you do not use "rvv" in such cases. I'll use rv. Is it OK?

I'll remember you promice to revert all edits inapropriately marked by "rvv".--AndriyK 16:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I happened to spot this one in my watch list just now and have had enough, that's why. I don't have any responsibility to police Wikipedia, so stop criticizing me for what I haven't done. If you can point out where I supported someone inappropriately calling you a vandal, then I'll apologize. This is not "suddenly"; I've tolerated rude behaviour from you and others for too long. I'm not promising anything, and I wasn't directing this at you, although you are as guilty as many others so don't try to turn this around at me. Try to take it graciously. —Michael Z. 2005-11-14 17:27 Z [moderated my own comments —M Z 2005-11-14 18:33 Z]

I see, you tolerate rude behaviour from others, but I desrved your special treatment.

This were Irpen, Ghirladajo and Co. who blamed me vandal for trying to introduce appropriate spelling in Wikipedia.

Do you find my "self-righteous tone" and "turning what you write around" inapropriate? I've learned it from Irpen, whom you advocated several times when I was trying to point out his inapropriate behaviour on his talk page. I thought you like such behavior, if you advocates Irpen.--AndriyK 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Show some pride. Take responsibility for your own behaviour. And seriously, this is not just about you. —Michael Z. 2005-11-14 17:56 Z

I see, you made an anoncemet at the UA-Portal. No it's addressed to everybody.

Please consider removing our discussion from this page. It has very little to do with cossack commandors.--AndriyK 08:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.Please have a look at Ghirlandajo's comment [1]. Thanks.--AndriyK 09:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polkovnik and Polkovnyk

There is no reason to have separate aritcles for Polkovnik and Polkovnyk. Either Russian, Polish and Ukrainian "polkovniks" should be discussed in a single article or all of this info should be merged with colonel article. Wikipedia is not a Ukrainain language dictionary. Fisenko 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's postpone the discussion concerning merging the article until I finish it. Please wait a couple of weeks.--AndriyK 08:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let's wait. Fisenko 08:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to make ONE normal big article about all Slavic colonels.UeArtemis (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I think it makes sense to merge all four of the P**ko*n*k articles. AndriyK has had four months to finish it, and if the Ukrainian concept of полковник is fundamentally distinct from the Russian полковник (or from colonel), I don't see any evidence of this in the respective articles. —Michael Z. 2006-03-17 04:40 Z

Yes, they are distinkt. See below.--AndriyK 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fundamental difference at all. Both words have an exact same Slavic etymology. Both are military ranks in a modern sense and had a more diverse meaning in the past. Russian Cossack hosts also had Polkovniks. The common article should elaborate on etymology and expand into Polish, RUssian and Ukrainian sections. The contentious part would be how to name the article. Some nationalists would irk to see the article under the "not theirs" name. Google search woould provide a clue. Like the one I used to choose between Khutor vs Khutir and Mestechko vs Mistechko. Whatever title it is, all names should be in the first line bolded and the redirects should be kept. --Irpen 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a fundamental difference between Polkovnyk and Colonel. I would suggest to list Ukrainian Polkovnyk, Russian Polkovnik, and the other two as subsections of Colonel article.

Google provides 51,600,000 links for Colonel, 138,000 links for Polkovnik, and 791 links for Polkovnyk.

Please see Talk:Colonel for the previous discussion on a similar merge. Anonymous, 05:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Different etymology from Colonel, but OTOH, common between Russian, Polish and Ukrainian ranks. --Irpen 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words "polk", "polkovnyk", "polkovnik" are of slavik origin, but I don't see so significant evidence of different etymology for "polkovnyk" and "polkovnik" as a term from "colonel". Both, Ukrainian Army and Russian Army were not the first to introduce ranks. The rank Colonel is going back to the Rome Empire times. The specific features of "polkovnyk" and "polkovnik" can be adequately indicated in a subsection.

If we look from the other angle on the article, as a history of Colonel(Polkovnyk) rank in Ukraine, then we should not merge it with anything.

Please check also Senior Colonel article. It already incorporates "Polkovnik" into it. Anonymous, 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the fact, that Polkovnyk (unlike Polkovik or Colonel) is not just a military rank, but also a political figure in Ukrainian history. Some Polkovniks were even more famous than many Hetmans. In Hetmanschyna, Sloboda Ukraine and later in Zaporizhzhia they were not just military comandors, but also regional leaders (why don't you propose to merge this article with Governor?).

There is no need to have a special article for what is indeed just a military rank (like Starshyi leitenent or Heneral-mayor etc.) but articles about Polkovnyk and Sotnyk are needed if we want to represent Ukrainian history at WP properly. Of cause, those, who do not whant it, will continue this merge campain.--AndriyK 08:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, please do not ascribe motives to your opponents. Especially since you can't know those and your imagination may be misleading you yet again. --Irpen 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cossacks used military organization and ranks in their political-administrative structure. A separate article on Cossack political-administrative organization would be nice. But this fact does not make polkovnyk a separate concept from polkovnik throughout all history. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 20:10 Z

Please read uk:Полковник. Four distinguished features of Polkovnyk are mentioned.

This is probably a question for Michael, but if we do keep separate articles for Colonel (Canada) , Colonel (United Kingdom), Colonel (United States), Kolonel (Netherlands), Oberst (Germany), etc. that's keeping them by country then why in the same time we should merge Polkovnyk (Ukraine) with Polkovnik (Russia)? We should either merge all of them, or keep a separate article per country. Anonymous, 06:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If merging, then not just these two but also Polish Pulkownik. Reason: identical Slavic etymology, much common history, including Cossackdom played an important role in histories of all three nations. --Irpen 21:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel (United States) probably has enough specific material to warrant its own main article, but colonel (Canada) does not.

All the Slavic polkovnyks should be represented in the colonel article, by more than just some external links. I think there's enough material for the four of them together to make a decent main article broken off from that one. If a topic in that article becomes very long, then it in turn deserves to be spun off. The military-administrative organization of Cossacks seems to be a topic worthy of an article. If the specific history of the rank in Russian or Ukrainian forces grows very long, then perhaps there will someday be an opportunity to break those off, too. But the Russian word for colonel and the Ukrainian word for colonel are not two different subjects, in and of themselves.

AndriyK, I thought you were supposed to avoid national naming controversies. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 22:34 Z

And the guy who created Polish Pulkownik article, was he also creating a naming controversy?

Polkovnyk are Polkovnyk are two ranks, in two different armies, of two different countries, that on the top have distinguished history. I really think that either we keep one Colonel article for all, or one article per country. Going into other unclear and sneaky criteria would be much of provocative, and for no big reason it would create additional conflicts.

Speaking of AndriyK, it's abominably to observe that everyone is jeering at the user both for a reason, and for no reason.

Well, at first I thought that there is no need for separate articles on national military rank variations. However, after a brief discussion I had with one of the lads at Talk:Colonel (or was it some other place?) I realized that having some of the ranks separately is not that bad of an idea. And if we have some of them listed separately, then why not all of them. In most cases such articles would be simply a short note that the rank is equal to the rank of XXXX in English-speaking world. However, some of the ranks indeed merit their own article, as is the case of, for instance, Polish pułkownik (which used to be both a military rank and a military assignment) or generał brygady (that in certain context is equal to either Maj.Gen., Brigadier, Brigadier General or Lt.Gen., so a simple redirect would be misleading). I'd say keep the articles as they are. Besides, it's good to have as many articles as we could create ;) Halibu tt 13:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serdyuk

I deleted mention about Serdyuk. Serdyuks were mercenary riflemen and Hetman Guards. I think that we need one article for Ukrainian, Russian, Polish and all other Slavic and post-Soviet colonels. 95.69.152.59 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC) UeArtemis[reply]