Jump to content

Talk:Palanka

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

Untitled

[edit]

We should make an article for Gubo and Palanka. I think I'll make a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charizardpal (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2021

[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 section.

– Because it is a disambugiation page and the primary meaning of the word palanka is 'Ottoman frontier fortress'. Visnelma (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)—Relisted. 2pou (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt about sources existing. I'm saying the search engine, which is typically influenced by user searches, isn't showing results that would imply a primary topic. It could be a fluke, of course, but it seems unlikely with what is not a common English word. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: This is simply because palanka was not a structure that existed in Western culture and it is mostly unknown outside academic society. But since there is no other meaning that the word 'palanka' refers other than town names, which in fact originate from this fortification, it can be concluded that fortress/fortification is the primary topic.--Visnelma (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that inference does not implicitly follow for English-language readers. What precludes readers being more acquainted with derived toponymy than the original etymology? Meaning we should not automatically circumvent navigation to prefer the latter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Palanka is not just a fortification (Article still needs to be worked on.) According to Prof. Burcu Özgüven (2001), Evliya Çelebi describes palanka as such, "a fortress, a small settlement surrounded by a wooden enclosure, or as a masonry technique." So the word is a little bit ambiguous. It refers to the wooden fortification that a town was protected by, a fortress which was made of palisades and the town itself all at once. Those palankas or palanka protected towns later grew and reached their present state. Thus assorting it as a mere fortification would be wrong, also since the word also refers to the towns which establish the origin of the present-day towns, it can be argued that the word palanka preludes those towns both toponomically and etymologically. What do you think now?--Visnelma (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Forgot to ping.--Visnelma (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is all fine and well, but chronological superiority is simply not the end-all rationale for Wikipedia navigation decisions. Please read WP:Primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but as Shhhnotsoloud states, it has long-term significance and as the page you cited states, its usage in English sources can be demonstrated through Google Scholar in which such usage exists.--Visnelma (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Forgot to ping.--Visnelma (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the exact rationale for the claim that the original term has most of the long-term significance in itself as opposed to having it through being the eponym of so many significant places that still exist today. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the simple fact that this page has existed since 2006 and nobody noticed that the etymology was not explained, and you wrote the etymology article only in November 2020‎ and did not even link it here until this move request, indicates to me that this is not a very strong argument. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Palanka is neither merely a etymological article nor a fortification. Palanka directly refers to the towns which had certain characteristics in Balkans (also even in Anatolia and North Africa). As I said earlier, they later grew and reached their present state. So, it is also important to give information to users about the roots and characteristics of those type of fortified towns. And thus, it also has educational value which is important in determining the primary topic. Also the number of academic sources about palankas give an idea about its notability compared to other articles. The reason that I didn't link it here was because palanka is one of the first articles I started working on, and I didn't know much about disambiguation pages back then.--Visnelma (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make more of a set index article from that article you wrote, I suggest you first go about doing that, and then revisit the request for move, because this here just doesn't make a whole lot of sense AFAICT, as your new article includes a list of settlements called like that only at the bottom, which puts it sort of in the middle of nowhere between a navigation aid and a WP:Content fork. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: I don't know what set index article is and probably I don't want it. Article currently describes the term just as a fortification which is in fact true but neglects its aspects as a town. I don't think it needs to be changed, but updated. Also there are hundreds of palankas mentioned in the book The Ottoman Military Organization in Hungary by Klára Hegyi. If I wrote every single one of them, it would be a list, not an article. That's why I included the ones that only have an article.--Visnelma (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, based on e.g. https://pageviews.toolforge.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&range=last-year&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palanka I don't see how we can say that the original etymology is substantially more relevant for readers than everything else combined, when the eponymous film alone doubles its view count, let alone everything else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's even before the most recent edit which IMHO wrongly applied the WP:PTM principles, as there is no proof provided that people don't refer to any of the Palanka settlements as such (it seems quite likely in the vernacular). I will undo it because it seems to prejudice this discussion a bit; it can be re-applied later if that is indeed the consensus. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: old page is even more problematic. Now a town called "Palanko" appears which does not have even a etymological link to the word palanka, and it is not clear why there is a link to the page "Palanca".--Visnelma (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will allow the reversion of my edit to stand until the end of this RM when I will reapply it. But my comment above still applies: there are actually only 2 articles that might otherwise be titled "Palanka"—a film and the "fortification". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The fundamental thing here is that WP:PTM specifically states that toponyms that have a specific and a generic part do in fact belong on disambiguation pages for the generic part, and in this case that generic part is "palanka". Likewise I do believe it is quite possible that people refer to each of these places as "the Palanka" in their own contexts, and that English readers will encounter this kind of a usage and then look up this term, not looking merely for the etymology of the generic part, but the quite possibly resolving ambiguity in which specific part is wanted. I do agree that this is a disambiguation page and not a WP:Set index article, so 'Palanko' and 'Palanca' should only be listed in a See also section instead of the main body. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose without any evidence Red Slash 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quite thought-provoking this one. But in English, it's much more likely that the term is a toponym rather than a reference to the type of fortification that gave rise to the names of these numerous places. So no possibility of a primary topic unless it was one of these places, and none of them look at all promising. Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa: If you look at this source which is cited in the article it clearly states palanka is a fortification. "Kazık çakmak suretiyle yapılan palankalar, ağaç kütüklerinin tek sıra halinde veya iki sıra halinde yan yana sıralanarak birilerine bağlanması ve toprakla doldurulması ile oluşturulmuş küçük ölçekli tahkimatlardır." (Palankas which are built by piling is a fortification in which stakes are placed in a single or double row side by side and tied together.)[1] According to Evliya Çelebi and other sources present in the article palanka was also a fortified town or fortress. And numerous palankas in the Balkans gave their name to many present-day towns. So, my conclusion is palanka was both a fortification and a toponym.--Visnelma (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that palanka was both a fortification and a toponym. But both that conclusion and the Turkish-language source you quote seem irrelevant to the discussion. (And there seems to be another possible translation of that word palankalar to mean pulley, is that correct?) Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa: You opposed the move because palanka was just a toponym not a fortification. So it is definitely relevant to the discussion. If you search the cited quote by clicking crtl+f you can see it. It is not so hard... Also pulley means palanga which originates from the Italian word palanco not palanka which originates from the Hungarian word palankvar. I don't suggest you to use Google Translate.--Visnelma (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    False but I can see why you might think that. Didn't you read the post to which you were replying? There I agreed that palanka was both a fortification and a toponym (emphasis added). So there is no way that I could be saying that palanka was just a toponym not a fortification (my empahsis). I opposed the move because in English, it's much more likely that the term is a toponym rather than a reference to the type of fortification that gave rise to the names of these numerous places. I was referring to English usage, not etymology, as the etymology is irrelevant here, but the usage of prime importance. But I should have said in English usage not just in English for the benefit of those less familiar with the policy, and I apologise for that. (Also thank you for the information, it does answer my question even though the logic is invalid. What I was asking was what palankalar means in Turkish, not how pulley can be translated into Turkish. That distinction is subtle but very important in translation theory... it's why back translation is helpful but not foolproof for example. I suggest you learn how to use Google. It is not perfect, that was why I was asking the question, actually very few translations are perfect however careful and scholarly. But like Wikipedia, Google Translate is a very useful starting point if used properly. As are other mechanical translators, and getting better all the time.) Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your answer. Also what I am trying to say is actually the article which is named palanka (fortification) is wrongly titled and lacking in content. Because academic sources mention palanka not only as a mere fortification but they also cover their distinct aspects as a town.[2] I will today add some adjustments to the article, more can be done later.--Visnelma (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrewa:I took a look at the sources again. And most of them describe palanka as either a fortress or a kale which are both fortifications. But in Turkish kale is not used to simply refer fortifications. A fortified town could be called as a kale too. And Arabs used the word kal'a which word kale originates to refer fortified towns in the Middle Asia during the spread of Islam. And in Turkish kale is a ambigious term too. I cannot understand whether sources refer to a fortified town or more of a castle like structure when they use the word kale. On the contrary Klara Hegyi states when Ottomans used the word kale and palanka they referred to different thing and Burcu Özgüven refers to the citadel of Ottoman towns in Balkans when she uses the word palanka. She also states that Evliya Çelebi uses the word to refer fortresses, fortified towns and a masonry technique. I am not sure how could I integrate all of those into the article and which definition should I prefer. But I am not sure why do you think that the term is a toponym rather than a fortification or fortified town--Visnelma (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The usage in Turkish is irrelevant. You do not seem to understand this despite the point having been made repeatedly, and this seems to be the problem. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa: But the book written by Klara Hegyi is a English source and she herself distinguishes the words palanka and kale. Burcu Özgüven's articles and books are also written in English.--Visnelma (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to answer my previous comment. I understand your point. Thanks for your detailed answers.--Visnelma (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
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.

Dab or Set index

[edit]

Currently this page is something between a set index article (listing towns) and a disambuigation page (listing the fortification and the film). I don't know if they both can be in one page. If they can't this is a problem.--V. E. (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging as we had a discussion about a similar but not same topic previously. @Shhhnotsoloud: @Dicklyon: --V. E. (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a not atypical disambiguation page to me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Visnelma: I agree with Dick. After I cleaned it up following the above RM, this page is now a conventional disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: I couldn't get what you mean by "a conventional disambiguation page". Can you explain it a little bit more detailed? If you mean by it a proper disambiguation page. I would disagree because this page list terms which have different meanings such as a film, fortification and a fictional character; and also towns which should be a part of a set index article (WP:NOTDAB).--V. E. (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: @Dicklyon: Towns should be listed in an article called "List of towns named Palanka" due to Wikipedia:SETNOTDAB--V. E. (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The set of towns sharing a name seems like a coincidental set that there's not much to say about. But if you think that set is interesting, you could start the Towns named Palanka page for that. I don't think it helps to say "List of". We would still also list them on the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: It is not coincidental as those towns were named after Ottoman fortification palanka. Since they ought to be an element of set index article, they should not be listed on a disambiguation page.--V. E. (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say things in a set list shouldn't be included in disambigs? Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: The page I cited says disambigs are for words written same but have different meanings (fortification, film and character), whereas set index articles are for listing things that are the same types (i.e. towns named palanka). Since, set index articles and disambig pages are not the same thing, towns contain the name palanka and terms which have different meanings should be listed in seperate pages.--V. E. (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes there will be both a disambiguation page and a set-index article organized around the same term. If the disambiguation page bears the term as its title (as is the case with Signal Mountain), then the set index article can be named "List of XXXs named YYY"; the example of List of peaks named Signal is a helpful instance." The same is the case for the word "palanka"--V. E. (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cited guideline says:

  • A disambiguation page is a list of things (possibly of different types), that share the same name (or similar names).
    It is formatted for best helping the reader in navigating to topic being sought.
  • A set index article (or SIA) lists things only of one type, and is meant to provide not only navigation, but information as well.
    Just as with a typical list article, it may have metadata and other extra information about any of its entries.

I see no inconstency in listing the towns both in the dab page and in a set article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I see, because as the guideline states, disambig pages are for the list of things which are of different types whereas towns are not different types of things, they are of one type.--V. E. (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Visnelma: it may help to say that a disambiguation page is a navigation aid to Wikipedia articles (not a list of things which are of different types). They comply with MOS:DAB. This page is a disambiguation page that complies with MOS:DAB. Generally only very long lists are taken out of a disambiguation page and put in a list (e.g. List of places called Newton in the United Kingdom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palanka&oldid=1241786105"