Category talk:Ragusan noble families

Article names of Ragusan noble families

All articles on Ragusan noble families should have their original attested names. A quick review shows that:

• "Binciola" (86) vs. "Binčola" (8)
• "Caboga" (100) vs. "Kabužić" (14)
• "Bobali" (192), "Bobalio" (103), vs. "Bobaljević" (99)
• "Zamagna" (240), vs. "Džamanjić" (55)

The original names prevail. I boldly moved articles to their proper names, but was massively reverted by Director (talk · contribs) on 11 November. This confuses me greatly. Is there a concensus to use Croatian neologisms for the titles for these families? Note that the official language in the Republic of Ragusa was Latin (until 1492) and then Italian, and that in all official documents only Latin-Italian spellings were used. As per consistency, all article names should use the same basis.--Zoupan 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The undisputable titles of most of the families, such as Binciola, Caboga and Zamagna should be moved right away. @Director: Which of the noble families should have the Croatian spelling, in your opinion? In that way we could list the disputable articles. --Zoupan 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A few preliminary points with regard to search engine testing (WP:SET). #1 be sure that hits are solely in English. #2 there is no need for parentheses, e.g.: be careful not to exclude "Dzamanjic" when searching for "Džamanjić", they refer to the same name. Also exclude Wiki results by adding "-Wikipedia". -- Director (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Did a few searches for Binciola/Bincola... Ugh.. Nothing has changed. This is the problem with these articles. I assure you the issue would long have been settled in that way if it was as straightforward as you think... There are very few to no English-language hits that I can find. A laughably small number of hits (such as e.g. "14 vs 11" in either direction) removes the whole point of SETing and invalidates that method. In fact, it actually means the article should probably be deleted per WP:N. Which if I recall is precisely why we agreed, back at the dawn of time, to just use the Croatian with Italian in the lede right next to it.. basically because the city is in Croatia. (Granted, a few Italian users had at the time recently been community-banned for massive sockpuppeteering, but that's their fault and no one else's.) -- Director (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

One cannot base deletion of an article on the SETing of one spelling in English-language hits, obviously. No reason to hold by that specific guideline. Is there really a problem in best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness, and NPOV, not using neologisms. I see no problem in adding the Croatian variant, beside the main Italian, if popular, in the introduction. Note that many Croatian sources use the Italian name. Here are some refs:

Various English-language refs dealing with Ragusan history:

• David Rheubottom (2000). Age, Marriage, and Politics in Fifteenth-century Ragusa. Oxford University Press. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-19-823412-8. Sorgo and Bona as well as the Zamagna, Cerva, and Menze
• Paola Albini (3 April 2015). The Great 1667 Dalmatia Earthquake: An In-Depth Case Study. Springer. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-3-319-16208-9. Basegli (Bassegli) or Basilio/Basiljevic ́/Vasilievic ́ Bobali/Bobaljevic ́ Bona/Bunic ́ Giorgi/Eurdevic Gozze/Gucetic Gradi/Gradid Menze/Menòetic Squadro/Skvadrovic Zamagna or Zamagnio/Zamanjic
• Susan Mosher Stuard (1992). A state of deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the medieval centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3178-6. Marinus de Bincola, among the Ragusan nobility
• Zdenko Zlatar (1 January 1992). Our Kingdom Come: The Counter-Reformation, the Republic of Dubrovnik, and the Liberation of the Balkan Slavs. East European Monographs. ISBN 978-0-88033-239-2. Orsattus Cerva and Bernardus Binciola
• Susan Mosher Stuard (1992). A state of deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the medieval centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3178-6. de Bincola
• Francis W. Carter (1972). Dubrovnik (Ragusa): A Classic City-state. Seminar Press. ISBN 978-0-12-812950-0. Sorgo (Sorkocevic)
• Harriet Bjelovučić (1970). The Ragusan Republic: Victim of Napoleon and Its Own Conservatism. Brill Archive. pp. 76–. GGKEY:1ERFSC27Z6S. Ragnina and Caboga
• Patrick Doreian; Vladimir Batagelj; Anuska Ferligoj (2005). Generalized Blockmodeling. Cambridge University Press. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-0-521-84085-9. Caboga Cerva Georgi Ghetaldi Gondola Goze Gradi Menze Natali Pauli Poza Ragnina Resti Saraca Slatarich Sorgo
• Balázs Trencsényi; Márton Zászkaliczky (2010). Whose Love of Which Country?: Composite States, National Histories and Patriotic Discourses in Early Modern East Central Europe. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-18262-4. Bassegli
• Bariša Krekić (1 January 1997). Dubrovnik. Ashgate Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-86078-631-3. Prodanelli [...] Ragnina

Let's get to the point. For starters, do we agree on Binciola and Caboga? These are two of the given examples.--Zoupan 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Wait - on what grounds? Obviously there are "English-language refs dealing with Ragusan history" as a whole, but talking about Binciola specifically, you've not presented any reason to consider one name more prominent than the other in English-language use. My own research indicates that either spelling of the name is virtually unused in English-language sources.

Re WP:N, I'm not talking about "one spelling", obviously, - I'm talking about any spelling. There's so little mention of families like that in English-language sources they almost certainly fail WP:NRV for the English Wikipedia. Rest assured of that...

-- Director (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Did I not say "Let's get to the point"? Binciola and Caboga, Yes or No?--Zoupan 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As this is getting nowhere, I will request moves at each one.--Zoupan 19:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)