Jump to content

Talk:Rēzekne

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

Magdeburg rights

[edit]

This page (and some other Wikipedias, but hardly anyone else) states that "Rēzekne received Magdeburg rights from Poland in the 17th century." Others (e.g. the Polish Wikipedia!) say that city rights were given only in 1773, by the Russians. Is there a source for the first claim? And in which year these Magdeburg rights are supposed to be given? Fransvannes 07:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into details I don't know, I'd like to point out that there's no contradiction in that. The Magdeburg Law was in fact a set of laws rather than a single law, and used to be granted to villages as well. This gave them a certain degree of internal autonomy without necessarily granting them with a city charter and a city status. //Halibutt 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned on the city's webpage as well: "Rezekne is presented with Magdebourg rights widely used in Poland in 17th century." Olessi 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The page about Magdeburg rights may be modified a bit (at this stage it just says that these were city laws, and that they were granted to cities). Fransvannes 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To make the matter even more complicated, there were a number of location law variants popular in Poland from Middle Ages to 18th century. Among the most popular and widely used were Środa Śląska Law (prawo średzkie; a conservative version with lesser autonomy and more power vested in the voyt or a mayor), Vallachian Law (prawo wołoskie; used mostly for villages in rough terrain where the standard Magdeburg Law was not attractive enough), Luebeck Law (prawo lubeckie; mostly for trade towns - among them Riga), Polish Law (prawo polskie; the pre-Magdeburg design), Chełmno Law (prawo chełmińskie; never codified yet widely used), Poznań Law (prawo poznańskie, sometimes also Greater Polish Law), and so on. Some of these were in fact local variants of the Magdeburg Law while others are often mistakenly yet commonly referred to as such even though they had little to do with the laws of Magdeburg. //Halibutt 12:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latgales mara wwii.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Latgales mara wwii.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Latgales mara wwii.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

[edit]

I did some minor editing but this article needs a lot of work. A lot of it appears to have been written by someone for whom English is not a first language. Some parts are actually unencyclopedic and reads more like something from a travel brochure. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Combed through the article. --Joostik (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names

[edit]

The criteria for adding alternate names to the lead is that they should either be used by at least 10% of English sources or used by people who live or used to live in the city in question. This seems to be an established practice in Wikipedia. As Russians today are a plurality or close of that of the population of Rezekne, this means that the Russian name should be added to the lead section. Alternatively, the alternate names can be placed in a separate section, leaving only the Latvian name in the lead. Kostja (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is no point to put the Russian names here without explaination. Name of the city in a period of Russian Empire (19th century) was Режица but in a period of Soviet Union - Резекне. Alternate names could be put in a separate section. Dukurs (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kostja: As I have already explained to you on your own talk, you have completely misunderstood WP:NCGN. It has nothing to do with percentages of the population, but on English language WP:COMMONNAME. Google scholar indicates virtually no use of Rezhitsa, whereas Rēzekne is in common use. The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that your added content is WP:RS and conforms to the common name practice. Please don't invoke guidelines you've misinterpreted to push content because you like it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse the issue: the common name is what should be used as the main name of the article. As for alternate names, they can be inserted in the lead if they are used by the people who live in the city in question. Allow me to quote WP:NCGN: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.". Not mentioned, but obviously implicit is that names used by people who inhabit the place now can be added as well. Of course, alternate names can be placed in a separate section, which has been done here, so I would say the issue has been solved for this article. Kostja (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rēzekne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to replace https://web.archive.org/web/20090106221427/http://rezekne.latviasig.org/jewish_rezekne6.htm Rezekne after World War I with https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/Ludza/Rezekne/histories/Rezekne/History_AfterWWI.html (or https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/rezekne/pdf/History-of-Rezekne-by-Esther-Rechtschafner.pdf)or http://archive.is/M98WU or https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/rezekne/jewish-rezekne-esther.php History of Jewish Rēzekne indicating it's part of https://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/rezekne/jewish-rezekne-esther.php History of Jewish Rēzekne by Esther Rechtschafner?

Mcljlm (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rēzekne&oldid=1212220563"