Talk:Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga

A fact from Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a sculpture of Jesus near Tiškevičiai Palace (pictured) in Palanga was torn down in 1948 and not reconstructed until 1993?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/April.

Wikipedia

Lithuania Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column.

Architecture: Historic houses Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Amber#Inclusions|inclusions]] Anchor Amber#Inclusions links to a specific web page: Inclusion (mineral). The anchor (#Inclusions) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Tyszkiewicz Palace

This article should be renamed to Tyszkiewicz Palace, Palanga. Tyszkiewicz is commonly used to refer to Tyszkiewicz family, their property and to that palace in particular, compare: 109 google hits for "Tyszkiewicz Palace"+Palanga to 37 Google hits for "Tiškevičiai Palace"+Palanga. Also, there are 2 Google Print results for "Tyszkiewicz palace Palanga" and none at all for Tiškevičiai palace (even without Palanga).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be renamed. Indeed lets compare: 23 and 21 or 23 Quite a small gap to determine that current name is wrong. But this is not the main reseon, current name is officially used, including museum and Association of Museum publications such as [1]. Second "little" inaccuracy - palace is not their property. So I do not see any reason why current name is bad or why it should be changed. M.K. 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyszkiewicz Palace is used in print. Tyszkiewicz is more popular than Tiškevičiai (hence the Tiškevičiai redirect to Tyszkiewicz). And finally, official page of the Amber Museum clearly gives precedent to Tyszkiewicz compared to Tiškevičiai.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is not important that redirects where, because we talking about building name. And yes finally, official page of the Amber Museum clearly gives precedent that palace is called TIŠKEVIČIŲ RŪMAI (which direct translation is used in this article as well) rather then Tyszkiewicz rūmai. Name of the article used in printed versions (one abstract from Museums already provided above), as well as in different articles in web, rather then wikipedia clones or photo gallerias of so called "109" hints. Therefore I regard this discussion as over, as there are no arguments why established name by Museums should not be used M.K. 12:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see the point of argue - it might well be Tyszkiewicz Palace for a historical sake, like Radziwill Palace, Vilnius, Sapieha Palace, Vilnius and Slushko Palace. This time I would support the consistency.

Moreover, I oppose the merger since both articles are now valuable in their own sense. Besides, if the article Palanga Botanical Park is created - should it be merged as well and with what article then, because it is also inseparable from the palace? There are more similar examples such as Louvre Museum and Palais du Louvre, which is even a shorter article compared to this one. Iulius 07:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no need to merge; I have removed the merge note from that page (I think M.K. did it on the other end). I think the WP:UE and English popularity of Tyszkiewicz variant should lead us to use that one, but it is a minor issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example how Lithuanian WP users retrospectively falsify history. Family of Tyszkiewicz themselves not used Lithuanian names, because were Polish speakers. Names used currently in Lithuania cann't be used as argument because all names in Lithuania are lithuanized. In serious literature Lithuanian researchers avoids backward lithuanization. Good example, this summer I was in Panemunė Castle and got a flyer written by professionals where is stated that castle was build by Eperjesz both in English and German, only in Lithuanian is used lithuanized form - Eperješas. 81.7.98.250 (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ownership of the palace.

I've also heard that Alfred Tyszkiewicz and his wife formally donated the palace to the city of Palanga. It would be good to verify when this actually happened. I believe in 1990s ? --Lysy^talk 10:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga → Tyszkiewicz Palace, Palanga — Per arguments above, this is a palace of the Tyszkiewicz family, and we use the original family name on English Wikipedia (Tyszkiewicz), not the Lithuanized Tiškevičiai. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename as the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This move request seems illogical; we can afford to spell the same name differently in different countries. Compare Luxembourg Palace and Luxemburg, Iowa; or Frankfurt and Frankfort, Kentucky; it's not notable enough for an article, but there's a Hotel Meran in Prague. Evidence of English usage on the palace is always welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go with a proper Lithuanian name, this should be at Tiškevičių rūmai, Palanga. The form of "Tiškevičiai Palace" is not used in Print, English or any other language; "Tyszkiewicz Palace" is, including in the context of Palanga ([2]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. The current name is a hodgepodge of foreign translations. --Poeticbent talk 12:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.-- Lokyz (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, move to Tiskevičius Palace instead. See search results section below. Novickas (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Piotrus and Poeticbent radek (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given the historical context, the association with the Tyszkiewicz family and the number of English language references that use this form in reference to the family. --Martintg (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, - original name is Tyszkiewicz. There is no question that we should move the article back to the original name of the family.--Jacurek (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Jacurek. Tymek (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as already indicated by this research family name Tiškevičius/iai is much more popular in English works regarding this context> So called argument that google books give no gits of Tiškevičiai Palace is false, as we can see 1, 2, 3 and 4 etc. including museum's bulletin uses Tiškevičiai Palace as well. So called arguments that Tyszkiewicz is one and only family name is false too, I wonder that about such individuals like Gediminas Tiškevičius etc. He should also change his name? M.K. (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tiškevičius is the family name in the Lithuanian language, this Palace is in Lithuania. Any palaces in Poland should be named "Tyszkiewicz." Those in Belarus, "Тышкевічы" (with Romanizaton of course). Seems to be pretty simple. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Search results

Background: Tiskevičius is singular, Tiskevičiai plural. Most WP mirrors excluded. Palace, mansion, and manor considered. The web searches include reliable sources such as museums, city/county websites, conference announcements.

198 English pages for tiskevicius palace palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [3]

112 English pages for Tyszkiewicz palace palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [4]

55 English pages for tiskevicius mansion palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [5]

34 English pages for Tyszkiewicz mansion palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [6]

82 English pages for Tiskevicius manor palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [7]

37 English pages for Tyszkiewicz manor palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [8]

Gbooks - 11 on tiskevicius (manor OR mansion OR palace) palanga [9]. Of these, 8 are for Tiskevicius Palace [10]

Gbooks - 18 on Tyszkiewicz (manor OR mansion OR palace) palanga [11]

We do have 73 English pages for tiskeviciai (palace OR mansion OR manor) palanga -wikipedia -citizendia -answers.com -reference.com -translate.earthcam -wikimedia -absoluteastronomy -allexperts [12] While these don't exceed the number of Tiskevicius Palace hits, they do go to support the LT version of the surname in this entity. Novickas (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The Google results are quite messed up, but even the Google Book result you cite above show that Tyszkiewicz Palace is much more popular. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you see as unclear about the search results? They show that the most common English-language name for this entity is Tiskevicius palace. Is the OR usage a problem? It's algebraic; a Google search of A (B OR C OR D) is the equivalent of find (A and B) or (A and C) or (A and D). If you find this confusing, I can separately iterate the search results for Tiskevicius palace, Tiskevicius manor, Tiskevicius mansion, Tyszkiewicz palace, etc. Also, please note that while Wikipedia:Naming conflict urges the use of reliable sources, these are not confined to books. I am assuming the ratio of reliable-to-unreliable sources is the same for both the PL (Tyszkiewicz) and Lithuanian (Tiskevicius or Tiskeviciai) usages. Someone could, of course, analyze both sets source by source. Novickas (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search "results" become more and more "unclear," and "quite messed up," when they don't support the changes desired. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]