Talk:Sorgo family

Mirosevic-Sorgo

although I can understand why you write "Mirosevic-Sorkocevic, the correc tspelling is still "Mirosevic-Sorgo" as per the edict of Emperor Franz josef the First in January 1905. The Italianisation of the family names dates back to the 11th century and there is no point in overturning 100 years of history. My uncles, brothers, sister, cousins, children, nephews, nieces and I are the descendants of the couple whose name was changed in 1905 - and we are all known either as "Mirosevic-Sorgo" or in some cases just as plain "Sorgo" (except of course my sister and female cousin who are both married and have taken their husbands' family names). Clearly there are still many gaps in the listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.48.146 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

you coulkd explain the Natali branch?.. Mato Natali?..202.172.48.146 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.23.114 (talk)

It's important to underline that the name Dubrovnik was introduced only in the XX century. Since 7th century, until the changhe of the name, both the city and the republic were called Ragusa.

So it's not politically and historically correct to use the name Dubrovnik in the article.--Theirrulez (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, anyways, according with a reasonable consensus, that it could be used for notable people or facts historically related to the XIX century or before, it depends by the context.. --Theirrulez (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this is not politically correct, not neutral, not anything. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Name

"Sorkočević" "family" on Gbooks does only have 15 hits. "Sorgo" is the original and common name.--Zoupan 00:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it renders 33 times more... 500 hits [1] (if you're not trying to doctor the results). But more to the point, no need to qualify with "family" - family members are part of a family. And 'Sorkocevic' can basically only refer to one thing (unlike 'Sorgo', which renders 340,000 hits - almost none of which appear to refer to this topic). -- Director (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I now get 127 for Sorkocevic, and 61 for Sorkocevic+family. Always go to the last page. Still, Sorgo is their official name, without a doubt used more in sources, and follows NPOV (Sorkočević is a Croatian neologism).--Zoupan 21:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sorgo" "Ragusan" (79) versus "Sorkocevic" "Ragusan" (28).--Zoupan 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved. Note: will require admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Sorkočević (family) → Sorgo (family) – Gbooks hits has "Sorgo" "Ragusan" (79) versus "Sorkocevic" "Ragusan" (28). The official language of Ragusa was Latin and Italian, and not Croatian. Zoupan 21:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The current title appears to be a neologism and less common in English sources. Even a notable Yugoslav member of the family in the mid 20th century, Niko Mirošević Sorgo, used "Sorgo". —  AjaxSmack  02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.