This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Treaty of Stolbovo is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
In this english version of Wikipedia, there seems to be a few Swedish patriots who desire to color the history of neighboring countries and the Swedish position by introducing and maintaining Swedish forms of names, in cases where the locals certainly used other languages.
I have noticed this trend too, but I at least try to keep all names to their English varieties, even in the cases wehere they are most definitely Swedish names, as in the case of Gustavus Adolphus which I as a swede most definitely know as Gustav II Adolf.
I assume anglifying names is the correct way of doing things (?) (unsigned)
Being one of those Swedish patriots, I'll rather refrain from editing this topic, so I'll just comment here. Is the final line relevant? It refers to the third war between the two states after this treaty, a whole century later. (Petrograd from Swedish Wikipedia, 16 Nov 2006)
What? Seriously?
When entering "Stolbovo" into google it even asks if I typed "Stolbova" wrong. Likewise, a search for "Treaty of Stolbova" turns up 5 times as many hits as "Treaty of Stolbovo", which should mean it's the probably predominant spelling used in the English language for the city in question, right?
When you look at the google stats, keep in mind that a lot of hits are copies of this article. Until recently, this article had it as StolbovA thus greatly contributing to overall numbers. The Russian name of the town is also StolbovO.
Please do not forget to sign your entries by typing four tildas like this ~~~~
Well alright, then I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the Russian name too was Stolbova, but you obviously know this better than I do. I stand corrected and enlightened.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The date in the article (27 February) is according the the New Style/Gregorian Calendar. However, both Sweden and Russia were at this time using the Old Style/Julian Calendar, in which it was 17 February. Shouldn't this at least be noted somehow? In my opinion, it should be listed as 17 February, with (possibly) 27 February in parenthesis. /Ludde23TalkContrib23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
