Jump to content

Talk:Danielewicz families

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

Article

[edit]

Reagrding Danielewicz article, how do I improve it? If anyone have any suggestions I would appriciate a lot!

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA work

[edit]

FTDNA sites are the result of crowd-sourcing. The material is not compiled as part of a directed study and there is no vetting of either the self-reported data or the conclusions, which have not received peer review. FTDNA exercises no editorial control over the research process or results, but instead are playing the role of web host for a 'club of hobbyists' and that is not what is considered a WP:RS for scientific data. Scientific data needs to be reported in a reliable peer-reviewed publications to be used to make claims about family origins. Agricolae (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes and no. Yes, FTDNA exercises no editorial control over the research process or results. No, its not a 'club of hobbyists' since the project is superwised by phd in Polish History, Łukasz Łapiński that is concidered one of the best in subject. He also run R1a project on FTDNA with team of highly skilled scolars. Here. He is researching full time and there are several publications on subject. Also, check here. Although we need much more data for sure (there is one project on FTDNA that is finished on Rurikid dynasty), to call it 'club of hobbyists' is pretty pretentious. Furtheremore, in some projects like Pol-Lith Nobility DNA, full documents are required and revided by Polish Nobility Association where scolars must first approve the documents. Camdan (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move; article split. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Danielewicz families → Danielewicz – This article is redirected from Danielewicz to Danielewicz family without any notice or attempt to communicate. The art. include several different families with surname Danielewicz and as it is now, it indicate that all the families is one family as it is "Danielewicz family" and not "Danielewicz families". I hterefore ask for redirect the art. back to "Danielewicz" as it is more proper. Camdan (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Invalid request. I have already moved the page Danielewicz family to Danielewicz families. From the article lead it was unclear that there are several families, not one. Please update the article lead paragraph accordingly, because the article lead must be a summary of the article, not just its beginning. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Camdan, the original author of this article, is requesting that the page be moved back to its original title Danielewicz, which was moved without discussion last year. The current title doesn't seem to fit very well since this is just a general article about unrelated people who have a family named after a Daniel. Maybe the article should be split up. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The naming preference of the article creator carries no special weight, but we do need to know the intended/envisioned scope of the page before deciding what the best name is. Is it a general surname page that simply highlights the most noteworthy (as many surname pages do)? Is it really about the one Ostoja-linked family, with the others just added to clarify it is not the only such family of that name, or is it vaguely something in between, aimed at summarizing the several noble families of this name. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, Agricolae is right that the naming preference of the article creator carries no special weight. However, we had discussion few years ago about renaming issue regarding Heraldic clan and therefore Staszek Lem should know better than moving art. without notice. Intention of the art. was to forward the origin of the surname, then later different families was added. According to Jan Ciechanowicz there was no other Danielewicz in 15th century. Ciechanowicz wrote several books on Lithuanian nobility and he had access to the archives in Minsk. He also correctly pointed out the origin of the surname, its just took time for me to get english translation of Pskov 3rd Chronicle to confirm that. Thjarkur and Staszek Lems suggestion to split into separate page is interesting and might be good move. Altenative is to improve art. In any case, I dont see the point of moving Danielewicz to Danielewicz families as people will primary look for the surname and not info about different families. Art. name Danielewicz include both the origin of the name as it is primary goal and also tell about different families that later also used or use this surname. Renaming art. to Danielewicz families is just messing it up. Camdan (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that there is also page's Danilewicz, Danilowicz and Danilevich. Its only different spelling of same families. And Danielewicz (surname) - what a mess! There shoudl be just one page for all of them - so best would be to redirect all of them, including "Danielewicz" to "Danielewicz (surname). Then, we can split the art. "Danielewicz"/ "Danielewicz families" between "Danielewicz families" as suggested and the part about Ostoja Danielewicz would be moved to "Ostoja Danielewicz". So with three articles. it would work fine. Section "others" is correctly removed. People where adding names by themslves and on the page. Notable is enough. Camdan (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We,, I doubt Danilowicz is a different spelling of the same surname. In any case, we typically do not merge surname pages into one based on spelling see, eg. Smith Smyth Smythe. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Staszek Lem - You doubt because of lack of knowlegde about naming in the time of the Partitions of Poland. Much talk and lot of Vacuum. Your doubt is not any argument, not verified by any sources and just Your opinion without any sources that can support Your poor statement. However, I understand to primary separate name Daniłowicz from other families with similair surname as they in old books are separated. This name is primary for two families, on famous senator family with Sas coat of arms an other is same CoA but of Cossack's origin. This family had a special variant of the CoA of Sas, whitch does not even apply on heraldic rules - as You dont put silver inside CoA with gold together with gold/silver or any metallic but colour. Simple heraldic issues. Then, the problem is that after Partition time, names where spelled so different. Family of same origin could be spelled different during Partitions of Poland - depending if its Russia, Austria or Preussen. Dont confuse with historical names and with those that come up after the Partition. Basics are - Danielewicz in Poland is Danilewicz in Lithuania/Belarus and Volhynia - someone can be born Danilewicz and moving to Poland die as Danielewwicz. Then, in Siebmacher You can se both Danielewicz and spelling Danielowitz - same family (Ostoja). Then even more other that took name from Daniel or in east Danil/Danilo. Spelling of surname was different in the time of Partition so this is what all given sources tell - Danielewicz, Danilewicz, Danielowicz, Danilowicz, Danielewitz and more - same family. Then, You have many other different "Danielewicz" families that was wroten in same way by foreign authorities in the time of Partition. All noble families. Then, add Jewish, Farmers and all Others. Spelled exactly in the same way I wrote about - different! Depends on authority that register name and where, by whom. This is not anything special about "Danielewicz" but apply on most of names that origin from the East. Its common knowlege so I think that Staszek Lem is making opinion on subject that no professor or no seriouse Polish or Russian/Belarus/ Ukrainian scolars can agree about. But if You Staszek Lem can present any other great scolar that tell differnet and as You try to tell, then my ears will be bigger than Jumbo's. You just dont know the issue or understand basics. I think that You possess great knowlegde in other subjects and then I would be greatfull to cooperate with You when passing Your knowlegde where I could need Your help. I this subject, I would rather think that I can support others and also help. I tried to ask for some solution and to to find it all together but You really missed the point. Your post Staszek Lem is just messing it up, You dont provide any sources that could support Your statement. Subject is so so simple - surname origins from Danil, Daniel or Danilo - then applying those was written in so many different way that we can not separate. Camdan (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Camdan: - I have a respect to your knowledge, but just the same, you have to respect my doubts. I am very well aware that in the past there was no consistency in spelling of the names. I even know worse: in some cases the names were Latinized in official records and we know no other spelling from the records, and we can only deduce the actual rod by indirect indicators. And this was a source of both troubles and cheating during nagana szlachectwa (test of nobility).
        • Now prepare to have you ears to be bigger ythan Jumbo's :-). In Wikipedia a Wikipedian has no personal authority. However a Wikipedian can exercise his authority in a way succinctly stated in Wikipedia:Expert editors (emphasis is mine):
Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing.
Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia.
Please ponder upon this a bit ..... ...... ...... That said, please keep in mind that we are volunteers here and most of us do have a "real life" (with well-known exceptions of really obsessed "wikimaniacs"), so when we see a "wall of text" like yours, first thing we scan it for keywords for a judgement whether it is worth our time to read it or to apply the tl;dr clause. In your case the ones are "your poor knowledge" and "your opinion without any sources" in an answer to a simple expression of doubt. I skip the first one, although in is a mild personal attack frowned upon in wikipedia. But the second one is an informal fallacy. Basically, the burden of proof is upon you to provide an evidence that all these families used multitudes of names and there are no families used some spelling exclusively, and this is a 100% rule in Wikipedia. Further, "argument form your authority" is unacceptable, you have of operate exclusively with references to reliable sources or to wikipedia articles solidly based on reliable sources. So, in the words in broken Russian from a popular internet meme clipped from the film Red Heat, "Kakie vashi dokazatelstva?" [Какие ваши доказательства?]. And your evidence must be presented not in the talk page, but in the article, basing on reliable sources either about the particular families or about the genesis of Polish noble families in general. The latter may be an interesting article in itself. We do have a relevant text: Polish name#History, heraldry, and clan names, but in is way too general and covers only basics. Not to say it is sloppily written; I've just fixed one nonsense a minute ago. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Staszek Lem: I fully agree with what You wrote above. I tryed to prove my point about problem with the surname. Then, Your and Thjarkur suggestion to split was good. To organize this mess in some way - there could be three independed art. as suggested above. In that way we could put it all togheter. I would by Your suggestion remove most of the info about Ostoja Danielewicz and create new art. In such way, art. "Danielewicz families" would be more correct. Then, all the spellings of the surname, we could redirect to "Danielewicz (surname)". From there link to "Danielewicz families" and to "Ostoja Danielewicz". What do You think? Do You have any other suggestions? Now my ears are bigger than Dumbo's for sure :) Lets try to find good solution. Regards, Camdan (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Agricolae: Please, dont do any significant changes in the art. right now. Let us reach consensus first so we know in what way to proceed. I posted my suggestion and Im waiting for others to comment or suggest other solutions. Regards, Camdan (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of random people with the surname belongs on a page about the surname. We have a page about the surname, Danielewicz (surname). Making this page also about the surname is redundant. The discussion over what this specific page should be named, or whether a page specifically on the Danielowich of Ostoja is to be split off does nothing to change this - we have a page about the surname, and it is (surname). We don't need a second one. Two editors have removed the list of unaffiliated people from this page, only you think it belongs, and the only justification given is 'notable', which is an argument for an individual person to have their own page, not for a list of otherwise unaffiliated people specifically to be listed on a page other than the (surname) page. Agricolae (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: Dont be ignorant and remove anything before conclusions as we still discuss matter. This, because of your question about the intention of the art. that later expanded the question - so it was you that bring in on and then suddenly start o change. Your suggestion is ok, no problems with that. Still, I wish to hear all how to organize. Everything that You posted will be concidered and Im sure that it will be to your satisfaction. But right now, dont change because it make a mess - its not much to ask? Dont waste time for editor war. Again, please wait for comments and then we can together organize as there as several issues to be solved. Once its done, we can for sure move the list to Danielewicz (surname) as You did. It can not be done only because of respect for others that wish to comment and also to answer on my suggestion. I made suggestion that You solely ignored and instead just removed part of the art. Why not post Your comment on the issue first before removing? Again, to much to ask that we all cooperate? How do You think we should organize this mess? I ask so we dont have to have another discussion in the future? Camdan (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Camdan:On what planet is calling me ignorant acceptable civil behavior?
I think it should be that way, @Þjarkur: thinks it should be that way (having made the original edit), @Staszek Lem: thought Danielewicz should redirect to Danielewicz (surname), suggesting they thought people with generic Danielewiczs interest (not these noble families) should be sent there, and by implication that is where generic Danielewicz material should be. And now you find the underlying reasoning "ok, no problems with that." Yet you still maintain there is some lack of consensus that needs resolved on this issue, and insist that the change be put off indefinitely while we wait to hear from others who may never respond. It looks a lot like a filibuster. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ingnorant is when I kindly ask You and You ignore. Simply as that. If you wish to spend 20 years more on this subject, I would be honored! Although I think that there is more in life than this? :) Camdan (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, people, WP:There is no deadline, nothing horrible is in this page yet. By the way, on a different occasion there is a discussion in WikiPRoject Anthroponymy about surname page naming: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#"Surname-article" template required. We may want to wait until a general consensus is reached there about the updating of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree, thank You for understanding!Camdan (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But as I understand it, that proposal is about giving standard naming to the types of pages. The random people with the surname are still going to go on the page that lists the random people with the surname, whether that page ends up being named Danielewicz (surname) or based on the proposal gets moved to List of people named Danielewicz. While there may be no deadline, there is also no legitimate reason to delay indefinitely making a change just because someone has made an informal proposal somewhere that isn't really going to affect the logic of what goes where, just the name the page ends up being given. If there is no lack of consensus, what exactly are we waiting for? Agricolae (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Wikipedia, list of people include only ones which have wikipedia articles or at least have a potential having one according to Wikipedia rules of notability. That said, by checking Polish Wikipedia I made sure that all such people are listed in Danilewicz and Danielewicz surname pages. I also found all places in en:wiki where these people mentioned and wikilinked them, even is there is no en:wiki article yet. The same should be done with the second major list.Staszek Lem (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Russiian Wikipedia article interwikilinked hers speaks only about Danielewicz of clan Ostoja family. Therefore please make a separate page for it, for correct interwikilinking (and categorzation; because only it belongs to ). Staszek Lem (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did the split now and moved part that tell about Ostoja Danielewicz. Then, what is left is only Danielewicz families of noble origin. However, "Danielewicz families" indicates that the art. is about families that used or use this surname - not only noble families. As it is now, we exclude for ex. Jewish families with this surname. So, what about all other families? Is there no place for them? Also, where can we publish notable people with this surname? Any suggestions? Camdan (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there no place for them? - in WIkipedia we have place only for notable subjects which are discussed in releable secondary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • where can we publish notable people with this surname - Don't you see? In the surname list pages (listed in "See also" section of this article). Please keep in mind that in Wikipedia lists we list only people which have Wikipedia artricles or have a high potential of having articles.
  • not only noble families - in Wikipedia we do not care about ordinary families, only about notable ones. Besides nobility, a family may be notable, e.g., if it is a dynasty of musicians, artisans, etc. I d not remember now, but we have an article or two of this type (I believe, about a dynasty of early book printers). Once again, in Wikipedia the subject of an article must be notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More particularly, for a family to be notable, it should have received coverage as a family. If a family has produced a number of notable people, but no biographers or historians have taken significant note of the fact that they represent a single family, then they are individually notable but not notable as a family. The thing about noble families is that historians and biographers are a lot more likely to write about their larger family context because family membership is central to their noble status. Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, then its all settled. Im so fed up with this discussion. Even if I would get Noble prize, some would still know better in subject. So Ludomir Danielewicz that helped to break Enigma machine is not notable? Instead of moving him to Danielewicz (surname), you just removed him. And of course, being "Professor" is not notable. Camdan (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC
    • He is not Ludomir Danielewicz, he is Ludomir Danilewicz. To get a Nobel prize you have to know your subject better. And you know what? Being just a "professor" is not notable. I understand your frustration, but I strongly suggest you to ease on irony and just understand that wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines. You are not expected to know them all, but Wikipedians usually help each other on this. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, really - he is not Danielewicz but Danilewicz. Here, on the site of The Foreign Intelligence Agency and that is a body of government administration competent in matters of protection of the external security of the state and serving the Head of the Foreign Intelligence Agency. Does it state Danilewicz or Danielewicz? Can you then explain why he is not Danielewicz when its certainly so in provided source? Wikipedia is not just policies and quidelines but also people that maked them and about behaving. I have seen pointless discussions on pl:wiki leading to thoughts about Polish "Complexes and Archetypes" that origin from tragedy and trauma. Ignorant and know-all champions. Removing or putting tags is not preferable before helping by trying to improve. Yes, I would rather think that if not all then most of the professors are notable, maybe not those that are called "professor" in primary school but this is not the issue. Never mind, at least You helped and this is what counts. Then, as it is now, art. "Danielewicz families" exclude all other than noble families which could possibly lead to the discussion of discrimination. If You only wish to have noble families in this art. then I feel not confident with renaming to "Danielewicz families" as it is about "Danielewicz noble families". Otherwise we will soon have discussion about Polish antisemitism because we exclude Jewish families from this art. And then it would be interesting to see their reaction when you explain that they are not notable. Camdan (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC
        • I do not care what ignorant English write in occasional sources. He is Danilevich and we are not going to argue about his name here. The rest of your diatribe is ignored, because it is irrelevant to the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Staszek Lem You can not tell any other person on Wiki what is relevant or not by using "we" - you speak for yourself. Everyone have their own point of view and have right to speak - I decide what I wish to discuss in matter when I see simple errors. In my opinion, redirecting to "Danielewicz families" is not correct. Please try to write on subject. There should be better option although I agree that not to "Danielewicz" as I proposed from start. Also, I pointed out that you are not familiar with that Ludomir was also spelled as Danielewicz. Instead of answering, You wrote "He is Danilevich and we are not going to argue about his name here". You dont wish to discuss ok, but there is no we - You are NOT ruling Wikipedia here and I can for sure go on arbritrage on this. However, we can surely agree on that his name is not spelled as "Danilevich", as of Your latest proposal- so now its not "Danielewicz", not "Danilewicz" but "Danilevich" - and basta because You say so! Bravo!. Also, to underline that you sometimes write without any reliable sources in subject You really dont understand was your edition on Danielewicz in the art. of Ostoja Clan where you changed from "Danielewicz adopted by Pac" (It was Michal, son of Katarzyna Pac that was daughter to Voivode of Minsk) to "heraldic adoption". This without any sources or any clue, you create falsery and fiction. What "heraldic adoption" Staszek? What source? If You dont know subject - simply ask. Michal Danielewicz was adopted but he did not change CoA to Gozdawa, he stayed by Ostoja. There are several documents of that from Vilnius Archives (published) and that is common knowlegde (All heraldry books - Boniecki for start). There is no Danielewicz vel Danilewicz with Gozdawa CoA :) How on earth can You change correct post to one that is completely Your own imagination, no sources? It proved that You are so lost in subject! This made me think that guys like Agricolae that are pain in the X actually contribute with pointing out things to improve (and actually first warn about the issue and its technical) - even if he dont care to do anything by himself. But You Staszek, You take the prize. Now, kindly stop. This is enough. I wish not see any single post of You where You can not provide sources because it will be sabotage and treated according to the rules You know so well by telling me them. Or shall we go for arbritage where You must provide evidence for Your edit/ sabotage about "heraldic adoption" of Danielewicz? Any time Staszek! With Your attiude, Im just scared about what more "improvement" You have done past years. Camdan (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC
  • Oh! And now I see Staszek to change from "Ostoja Danielewicz" to "Ostoja Danielewicz family" - in same order of not understanding and ignorace by not asking or consulting - cause he knows better. By obsession calling everything ending on "family". What a kind of person are You Staszek? Now its all clear for me - no need to add more. Camdan (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC
If I did something wrong, just fix it, without emotional outbursts. Instead, please explain why it was wrong. by not asking is not a valid argument, just the opposite, see WP:OWN. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out your errors Staszek Lem, my questions was about why and on what sources you made the changes. If You change, it is you that need to have proof and reference. You did not provide any. Just posting WP:OWN is not enough if you dont read whats inside. It is clearly stated: it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them. I suggest that you follow those guidlines. My objection is still valid - right now, the art,. include only noble families which is not what the subject tell as it state "Danielewicz families". Therefore, I the list of "notable" is necessary. Or, it can not be "Danielewicz families". Camdan (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary and consensus

[edit]
  • to move from "Danielewicz" to "Danielewicz families" - done
  • to split art. and move sectioi about Ostoja Danielewicz to separate art. - done
  • to add notable with surname Danielewicz/ Danilewicz or other spellig to "Danielewicz (surname)" - partly done, this list could be expanded by creating art. on each person and that is "notable"

Question unsolved - It feels inconvenient to exclude all other families with this surname except those that are noble. I do not question agruments forwarded by Staszek Lem or Agricolae regarding notability. I suggest to make section for "Other Danielewicz families" and to add "Main article" below so it link to "Danielewicz (surname)" where the list is created. Camdan (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create an article section just so we have a place to hang a main-article template - the See Also section can handle such usage. We only have a section if we have something to say, so what exactly do you propose to say about 'other Danielewicz families' in this section, and what sources do you plan to use for it? Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources which discuss some other Danielewicz families, you can add them here, with references. You cannot add anything to wikipedia without references. The latter is a fundamental policy, more important than notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not work to add anything without references in any academic work Staszek Lem so Im aware of that, no need to point it out since it would be the same if I ask you for your academic education - pretty rude way to communicate, dont you think so?. I was new to Wiki 10 years ago and I would then appreciate your kind suggestion about how Wiki works. My primary question Agricolae is about excluding and not including. There is a slight difference between those words. If You dont agree about my suggestion, its fine but then be constructive and suggest other solution to solve the question otherwise its of no value. If question is to hard to understand, I suggest we repport issue and move the discussion from here to adequate body where such questions are discussed where we could be applied. As for now now, You only speak for yourself. And please, don't start another unproductive discussion. Camdan (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to follow Wikipedia rules, you don't have to ask anybody's permission. It is you who starts unproductive discussions of other Wikipedian's intentions. In talk pages we do not discuss editors, we discuss articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If You follow the Wikipedia guidelines, this discussion would never take place. It is you that redirected art. without any consensus or discussion and started this issue. Please show some respect for other editors to avoid such unproductive discussions. As for your suggestion, lets stick to the art. I suggested link as main art or to make list of notable that represent other Danielewicz families in order to not exclude other families than noble but its seems that there is no consensus. Its not about permisssion but to reach consensus so we can finally end this discussion once or all.Camdan (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae wrote: We only have a section if we have something to say, so what exactly do you propose to say about 'other Danielewicz families' in this section, and what sources do you plan to use for it. Yes, what this section wish to say is that there are other Danielewicz families that are notable (not only noble) and create longer list where all on the list have own art. and that everything is of course sourced. In that way, other Danielewicz families will not be excluded. See Also section is not enough. Either we reach consensus and close this discussion or I move this discussion somewhere else - and then we will decide.Camdan (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the distinct impression that you want to do this just because it morally offends you that only the noble families are notable. Nonetheless, if you actually have sources, then nothing is stopping you, but these need to be sources showing that these 'other families' are noteworthy as families, not simply that there are individuals who do not belong to the noble families that are notable, with you stitching together an 'other families' narrative by WP:SYNTH based on personal biographies. As to reaching consensus or else . . .(whatever), I don't even know what you are insisting on a consensus about, so your ultimatum lacks the power you seem to intend. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your are pretty close to what my intension is with my post Agricolae although its not just about morals. Just putting WP:X is not enough because one can understand "suggestion" or "guidelines" in different way. Its just like with legal clause, its not enough just to read it - its necessary to understand the intension about the paragraph. Thats what lawyers argue about in the Court. The intension here would be to reach consensus so it can be applied in other, similair question regarding surnames in the future. This would be constructive aspect of the discussion. That is also why our consensus is of much higher value than own interpretation.

I now see that Danielewicz is redirected to Danielewicz (surname) where we can see some notable persons that use or used this surname and same with Danilewicz, Danilevich and Danilowicz although all of them where spelled in different way. But ok, this is maybe the best way to deal with the problem, I dont have any better idea or constructive suggestion. Then, if the art. name would be "Danielewicz noble families" or similair, then I have no objections. But as "Danielewicz families" refer to all different families with that surname then its slightly different. Troubleshooting (few points):

  • Family of not noble origin is notable and added to this art. - possibly doubling info in other art. like Danilevich
  • People dont only write art. but also read them. It will give them impression, possible bad one since all others are in "See also" and not included. You are aware of all "-isms" in the World, are you?
  • History page - before, people just added to the art. as they wished - notable or not. Then, they will continue to do so and publish not notable families everywhere. At least we could have this problem in one place and not all over in five different art.

As art "Danielewicz (surname)" might expand in time, I would be god to refere to this art. but not only in "See also". By creating "Other Danielewicz families" and under link to "main article", no family would be excluded and we can finish this discussion in good way and with consensus for the future. I really dont understand why this would be wrong to do cause main art. should be about the surname in art. Danielewicz (surname), noble families are just part of this as even Danielewicz now is redirected there.

Finally, cooperation and consensus is also about to compromise. It can not be so that one side compromise and other do not. It is not against any rule to create "Other Danielewicz families" and under link to "main article". Instead, in this particular situation and difficulty with surnames, spelling and families, it seems necessary to do so.Camdan (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It remains entirely unclear what you want out of this discussion that might result in a generally-applicable consensus. You are talking about multiple, sometimes contraindicatory things, and an unfocused discussion of an obscure article is not the place to generate a governing consensus anyhow.
You have yet to indicate that you have any referenced content to put in an 'Other families' section, so such a section would both represent inappropriate use of a section heading just to highlight a link, and also a misuse of what the 'Main' template is for. Pointing readers to a related article is precisely why 'See also' sections exist. It is not excluding anybody to put such a link where it belongs.
(And do me two favors - 1) don't ping me. I have the article watchlisted, at least for now, and don't need the special notification, and 2) please hit those few extra keystrokes rather than abbreviating 'article'. 'Art' means something completely different and your insistence on abbreviating just this one word needlessly makes your contributions more tedious to read.) Agricolae (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my arguments are enough to understand the issue. I do not wish to write more in subject, its all there.Camdan (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What issue? There are multiple issues all inter-jumbled. You want both to rename this page to Danielewicz noble families and you want to include a section in the article for non-noble families (even though you seemingly have no content to put in such a section). Those are incompatible aims. Now, it would move things forward on both of these issues if you would provide evidence that there are noteworthy non-noble Danielewicz families, as you have been asked multiple times, but none has been forthcoming. And you apparently have an issue with which page should be called Danielewicz. So again, it is hard to understand what exactly is to be the subject of the governing consensus you claim to want to achieve here. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it Agricolae. If you dont understand my arguments, Im not into to continue this discussion. Mind that "Danielewicz noble families" was only suggestion that it could fit better although it was not any conclusion. You completely missed the point, please read more carefully. You still dont wish to understand difference between execluding and including. Maybe its to difficult for you? As for Danielewicz and splitting, its done so why on earth do you bring this forward this again? What is wrong with you? All your arguments are noted so no need to reapet it over and over again. If there is no one else that wish to add something, then case is closed and all done. I support move to "Danielewicz families". End of story.Camdan (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not resolved, since we clearly do not agree what this page is even about. Until that is resolved, we will continue to talk and edit cross-purposes. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae Mind that its not we but only you. Question about moving from Danielewicz to Danielewicz families is resolved, as it is by suggestion of other editors (not you) to split. Please stick to the subject about moving or redirecting page and later also consensus of splitting. Please resolve yourself.Camdan (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your incivility is not helpful. You keep saying you want to achieve consensus, or at least indicate a desire to keep discussing, even leveling an ultimatum that if we don't reach consensus you will go somewhere else to achieve one, and yet now you say that the subject of the formal proposal under discussion here has already been resolved and you now support the name as-is. It can't be both resolved and also need further discussion to reach consensus, so yet again I have to ask what it is you are trying to get out of this discussion. Agricolae (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Text in "View history" and last change: does this address the concerns? Yes it does.Camdan (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RESET: Which families to include

[edit]

PLEASE STOP ANY COMMENTS about EDITORS RIGHT NOW. Because of this it is impossible to work on the article.

At the top of this section Camdan says about one issue left unresolved: It feels inconvenient to exclude all other families with this surname except those that are noble.

Wikipedia does not "exclude all families except those that are noble" We have Jackson family of musicians, Gambino family of gangsters, Kennedy family of politicians Belilios family of merchants and bankers. We also have articles about families/dynasties of musicians, and artisans, and military men, etc. In order to write about a family in Wikipedia, the whole family must have some recognized prominence. (Except of an obvious case when we write about a person's family background in his biography.)

Now,... are there other prominent but non-noble Danielewicz families? (Again: not individuals, but complete families)

  • If not, the discussion is moot, case closed.
  • If yes, just add its description in the article, per WP:BOLD, case closed. If someone objects to your edit, this is a subject of a separate discussion.

Do you agree or disagree with this dichotomy? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT discuss any other issues in this section. Please start a separate section for it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danielewicz_families&oldid=1208180412"