Talk:Vladimir (name)

Untitled

The name also exists in greek, as "Vladimiros". Most people with this name are greeks form ex-USSR

why is there not a notable Slavic Vladimirs section?

It could be pared down to the most famous - but to have a special section on non-Slavic Vladimirs seems silly without a more extensive list of Slavic ones.LeValley 02:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lenin

Could a better picture of Lenin be used? eg not one where he is disguised 81.132.8.235 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar

Didn't this name actually originate from Norse "Valdemar"? With the Norse princes of Rus that were so named? -- Director (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read it's disputed whether one comes from the other or both come from a common Indo-Germanic root. 87.132.169.180 (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is a Germanic name. Not Slavic. "Wald", powerful, and "mar", famous. Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

It should be added to the article that the stress in "Vladimir" is on "di". Most people don't know about this and say it incorrectly.--2.245.177.187 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for Russian; but it's "VLAD-i-mir" in Czech.

Vlad the Impaler???

His name wasn't Vladimir, but Vladislav. The linked entry on Vlad the Impaler states this. Czarnibog (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reservation

I am slightly uncomfortable with this part: «...but the (unetymological) spelling -миръ or -міръ predates the orthographic reform, indicating the folk etymological interpretation of the name as "world owner" or "peace owner"». I would like to ask if this is sourced properly. Because it looks (externally) like a far-reaching conjecture. EDIT: to clarify, I have problems with the compound reading of the name (world owner or peace owner). The etymological dictionary states that the first part of the name means this and the last part came (due to folk confusion) to mean that. But this does NOT imply that it ended up as a constructed phrase. I have asbolutely no doubt that people, then or later, would decipher the name as such, in their spare time. But the text of the article makes a jump that seems to contradict usual linguistic logic, and is unsubstantiated by the source.

Celtic suffix

-mar meaning great is a variant of the Celtic mor, meaning that. It's common to both Hispanic and Germanic threads of the language, meaning it predates the break in the tribe c1500BCE, in the Sinai area. That in turn points to an Indus origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.80.209 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the lists of military campaigns in the Presidents and prime ministers section

Closing this per reason no. 5 of WP:RFCEND. The RfC was opened because one user objected to removing the lists. That user has now been blocked for socking. None of the legitimate respondents supported the now blocked user's position after a week. It's clear that the blocked user's position is unsupported. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the "Presidents and prime ministers" section have removed from it the lists of military campaigns as “one of the principal commanders” against each name? Indicate Support for removal or Oppose for keeping. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. The purpose of the description after the name is to give a very brief indication of who the person is. The reader can click on the link to get further information. There is no need to have more than a few words. The long list of military campaigns for, eg, Putin and Zelenskyy is non-sensical, unnecessary and out of place. What is the point? But more than that, it is irrelevant to Presidents and prime ministers. For a military person it is arguable that it may be relevant. But for a political leader, why pick on that aspect of their political career and not any other, such as other political roles. Furthermore, the list of campaigns claiming the person is “one of the principal commanders” is unsourced and WP:OR as to why those particular campaigns as listed eg Putin one of the principal commanders of War on Terror, International military intervention against ISIL, Syrian civil war, Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Central African Republic Civil War, Insurgency in the North Caucasus, Russo-Ukrainian War, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas, 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, Russo–Georgian War, Second Chechen War, Southern Ukraine offensive and 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. In what sense was he “one of the principal commanders”? DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Condense Only the most important campaigns should be mentioned. Most other entries do not have a long list. A few do have a list, but also appear to be involved with the war in Ukraine. Senorangel (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just to be clear: while the long list for Putin and Zelenskyy is obviously excessive (why anyone thinks it’s remotely relevant to list “Central African Republic Civil War” for Putin is beyond me), the question is why have any campaigns for any of the Presidents and prime ministers. The purpose is not to have a potted biography (why pick out campaigns for that anyway?) but to give a very brief statement of who they are, solely for identification purposes. The bio info is in the underlting article. DeCausa (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMentioning that they were prime minister or president is enough for identification purposes (and if not, then we should just use the dates that they were in office). Presidents are in most cases the leader of their countries armed forces. --2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:111A:45DE:CEEC:DFCE (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Summoned by a bot. A mention of either seems sufficient Comatmebro (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – unnecessary, looks silly, and gives excessive focus to military conflicts as opposed to other aspects of what these leaders have done. Readers can click through for full biographies. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posts by blocked sockmaster and socks. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RandomGuy2018

Oppose Listing military operations is by far better than not. I can just click on of the the links straight away other than clicking on the article about a person and then going through the whole article looking for them so I found it 10x more comfortable. Made the article much better and easier to use so I'm 500% for keeping. It has more of a positive effect than anything so I don't see any valid reason for a removal. TheBritishVampire (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I support keeping it in for pretty much the same reason as British Vampire already mentioned. 85.254.75.213 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's better to keep it as it is right now, since it is indeed easier to find out more about a person this way. If a person reading this article wants to read the article about a president itself they can. If we remove something then the reader can't find out as much straight away and has to go read the article itself, and in this case leaving the "principal commanders" part seems more reasonable.213.226.141.121 (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose President is a military leader by default so I feel like having these here just like with military leaders is logical imo. As for it being more comfortable to see military engagments without having to visit the article, I do generally agree. It can be a hassle to navigate through an article to find the links and having them listed here the same way as with military leaders is more comfortable and consumes less time for the reader. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Since president is a military leader listing military engagements seems to make sense. A president or a prime minister, as a leader of a country, is both a military and a political leader so it seems valid to me that we explain that a president or a prime minister is a president and a prime minister, and then we also list the military engagements the same way as with a military leader. It not only saves readers time but also mentions both the political and military leadership of a president or a PM so I vote for leaving the lists in. A president / PM is both a political and a military leader, that is why I think presidents and PMs aren't listed in either a political or military section. MichaelBeEverywhere (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.