Talk:Gdańsk/Vote

The Vote has started. Please vote! There are a total of 10 points to vote on. The voting period starts on Friday, February 18 0:00 and ends Friday, March 4 0:00 Do not edit the questions voted on. Discussion is on #Discussion or Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion.

This page is a vote to decide the usage of the name of Gdansk/Danzig. This is a source of edit wars on dozens of articles mentioning the city on Wikipedia. There is a lengthy discussion on Talk:Gdansk and its archives, listing nearly every argument imaginable. Numerous previous attempts to reach a consensus have been unsuccessful, hence requiring a vote to end dozens of disputes and edit wars. Due to the complexity of the problem, there are six periods to vote for, plus three additional clauses. To avoid further edit wars, an enforcement is also voted on, allowing the revert of edits that violate the guidelines determined by this vote.

• The vote will start on Friday, February 18 0:00 and end after two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00
• An absolute majority (50% or more) wins the vote, where neutral and abstain votes are excluded.
• Each vote below contains two options, any user of Wikipedia in good standing may vote once for every of the question voted on.
• Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion" or at Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion.

There are a total of 10 points to vote on.
The voting Period starts on Friday, February 18 0:00 and ends Friday, March 4 0:00

VOTE: Period before 1308

Before 1308: A city in Pomerania, part of Poland. The name used to refer to the city before 1308 should be:

Danzig

1. Smerdis of Tlön 04:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. RickK 06:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Scott Gall 07:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Korath (Talk) 05:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
6. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Gdansk

1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. --Roo72 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. john k 03:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Chris 73 Talk 03:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. -- Esbi 04:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Note: User has a total of two contributions so far, both on this page. ([1]) -- Chris 73 Talk 04:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

9. --Bart133 (t) 04:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Lzur 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Szopen 08:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. JerryW 08:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
14. Halibutt 09:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Ryan! | Talk 11:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
19. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Closest to the Pomeranian (not Polish!) name.
22. Shimmin 12:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
23. – Kpalion (talk) 13:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Krzych 13:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 8 edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. tukan 15:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

28. Silthor 19:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only ~10 edits since 2003 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
29. --Rje 19:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
30. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. Dbiv 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
34. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. Marcika 14:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Theo (Talk) 19:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
38. Superm401 04:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Period from 1308 to 1454

1308: Teutonic Knights: The name used to refer to the city between 1308 and 1454 should be:

Danzig

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp | Talk 00:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. --Bart133 (t) 04:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Smerdis of Tlön 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. RickK 06:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
11. Scott Gall 07:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. JerryW 08:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
16. Halibutt 09:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Ryan! | Talk 11:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
21. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Shimmin 12:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
25. Karada 12:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. – Kpalion (talk) 13:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Krzych 13:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Timrollpickering 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • no other edits to English Wikipedia. john k 17:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. --Rje 19:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
32. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Dbiv 20:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. llywrch 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Korath (Talk) 05:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
37. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
38. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
39. Marcika 14:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
40. Lee S. Svoboda 17:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Theo (Talk) 19:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
43. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Superm401 04:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk

1. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

VOTE: Period from 1454 to 1466

1454: Prussian Confederation: The name used to refer to the city between 1454 to 1466 should be:

Danzig

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. RickK 06:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
9. Scott Gall 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
11. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. JerryW 08:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
13. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Ryan! | Talk 11:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
16. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Shimmin 12:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. – Kpalion (talk) 13:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Krzych 13:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Timrollpickering 15:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

25. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Dbiv 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. llywrch 20:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Bart133 (t) 05:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Korath (Talk) 05:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
32. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
33. Marcika 14:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Theo (Talk) 19:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Superm401 05:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Gdansk

1. Szopen 08:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) votum separatum :D
2. -- Esbi 04:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • Note: New user, only edits so far are on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. --Rje 19:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793

1466: Second Treaty of Thorn returns the city and Royal Prussia to Polish suzerainty: The name used to refer to the city between 1466 to 1793 should be:

Danzig

1. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Chris 73 Talk 01:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Most english language textbooks use Danzig when they refer to the then German speaking city. See discussion below
3. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. RickK 06:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Scott Gall 07:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
10. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Shimmin 12:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
13. Carrp | Talk 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC). john k's argument is persuasive.
15. Timrollpickering 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) I also find John's argument persuasive.
17. Dbiv 20:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Korath (Talk) 05:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
20. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
21. Marcika 14:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) - German-speaking city that was probably widely and usually referred to under its German name
22. Aleph4 14:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The discussion convinced me. John's claim that the city was linguistically German at the time seems to be undisputed.
23. Eugene van der Pijll 15:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Theo (Talk) 19:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Superm401 05:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Gdansk

1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. --Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. -- Esbi 04:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • Note: New user, only edits so far are on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Szopen 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. JerryW 08:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • only ten edits to articles other than this one. john k 05:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Halibutt 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. --Roo72 09:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Ryan! | Talk 11:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. – Kpalion (talk) 13:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Krzych 13:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. tukan 15:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Julo 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

20. Silthor 19:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only ~10 edits since 2003 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
21. --Rje 19:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
22. --Bart133 (t) 05:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
24. Space Cadet 18:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

VOTE: Period from 1793 to 1945

1793: Second Partition of Poland. Becomes a part of the Kingdom of Prussia, and again from 1813/1815 to 1920. Free City of Danzig from 1807-1813/1815 and again 1920-1939. From 1939 it is annexed by Nazi Germany. The name used to refer to the city between 1794 to 1945 should be:

Danzig

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Curps 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Henrygb 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Timrollpickering 02:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Smerdis of Tlön 04:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. RickK 06:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
13. Psychonaut 06:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
15. Lupo 07:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Szopen 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. JerryW 08:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
19. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Ryan! | Talk 11:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
22. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Shimmin 12:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
26. Karada 12:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. – Kpalion (talk) 13:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Krzych 13:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. AN(Ger) 15:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

32. --Rje 19:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
33. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Dbiv 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. llywrch 20:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. Korath (Talk) 05:15, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
38. --Bart133 (t) 05:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
40. Aleph4 12:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
42. Marcika 14:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Theo (Talk) 19:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
45. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46. Superm401 05:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk

1. Scott Gall 07:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

VOTE: Period after 1945

1945: Seized by the Soviet Army, given to Poland: The name used to refer to the city after 1945 should be:

Danzig

1. Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. RickK 06:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Gdansk

1. Curps 00:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. --Roo72 00:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Henrygb 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (usually without a diacritic)
7. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (and I'd prefer the diacritic consistently to be used)
8. john k 01:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
10. Timrollpickering 02:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) This one, at least, is obvious.
13. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. -- Esbi 04:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: New user, only edits so far are on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 14:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
16. Scott Gall 07:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Lzur 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Lupo 07:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Szopen 08:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. JerryW 09:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
22. Halibutt 09:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
23. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Ryan! | Talk 11:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
27. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Only when discussing the city after 1945.
30. Shimmin 12:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
31. Karada 12:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Charles Matthews 12:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. – Kpalion (talk) 13:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - with the diacritic (ń is in the first row in the "insert" table below the edit box)
34. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Krzych 13:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

37. Warofdreams 17:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. Silthor 19:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only ~10 edits since 2003 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
39. --Rje 19:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
40. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Dbiv 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. llywrch 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Kaldari 22:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
46. Korath (Talk) 05:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) With the diacritic.
47. Aleph4 12:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
48. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
49. Marcika 14:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
50. Theo (Talk) 19:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
51. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
52. Superm401 05:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Biographies

In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.

Agree

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Henrygb 00:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) For 1945 and earlier, otherwise just Gdansk
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (I'd support Danzig for German persons after 1945 as well)
6. john k 01:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Psychonaut 06:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Lupo 07:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Szopen 08:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. I don't think I've ever seen a more logical proposal on this subject. --Ryan! | Talk 11:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Double names only at the first occurance, once per article.
19. Shimmin 12:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. – Kpalion (talk) 13:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Krzych 13:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

24. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Anytime the city is mentioned in the context of (1) a person of German or Polish nationality or (2) a period when the city was dominated more by Germans ol more by Poles, use the the city German or Polish city name accordingly. All other cases, alternate equally or let whoever contributes new text employ their preference.
25. Qualified agreement. Yes, biographies of German-language people ought to call the city "Danzig," regardless of historical period. But my opinion is that "Danzig" is not only the German name, but also the Anglicized name. I would also resist attempts to impose Werszawa, or for that matter Göteborg or Firenze over the English names of those cities as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Julo 15:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Dbiv 20:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Double naming is preferable at least once as readers may not have realized the two cities are the same.
29. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Jmabel | Talk 00:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
32. Korath (Talk) 05:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
33. I cannot place Danzig/Gdansk on a map but I do not like edit wars, so I am only voting for the policy-related votes. JuntungWu 12:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. Marcika 14:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

1. RickK 06:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Use the name as it is approved in the vote above. Don't double name it.
2. Scott Gall 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Don't double name it. If the person was born before 1793, their birthplace was Danzig. If the person was born after 1793, their birthplace was Gdansk.
   • Why 1793? --Henrygb 00:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. Halibutt 09:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Timrollpickering 10:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. -- Forseti 11:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - people live in given community not their own universe.
7. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. --Rje 19:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), it should be the name of the city in the year of their birth, as decided above.
9. Superm401 05:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) something like what Rje said, except the name of the city when they first came into contact with it.
10. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

VOTE: Cross-Naming Gdansk/Danzig

The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig)

Agree

1. Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. The first mentioning does not hurt, even after 1945, I think -- Chris 73 Talk 00:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
   • In a purely modern context with no reference to German history or culture, this would be as out of place as putting Straßburg in every article where Strasbourg is mentioned or Königsberg in every article where Kaliningrad is mentioned. -- Curps 00:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • I have now edited a bunch of articles in accordance with the proposed stipulation that all post-1945 references must also include Danzig. For instance, I have edited List of airports in Poland, List of cities in Poland, List of major corporations in Gdansk, Transportation in Poland, Demographics of Poland, the pages of several Polish political parties such as Social Democracy of Poland, Alliance of the Democratic Left, Citizens Platform, biography pages such as Lech Walesa, Jacek Kaczmarski (born 1957), Pawel Adamowicz (born 1965, mayor of Gdansk), and a few sports teams such as Lechia Gdansk and Energa Gedania Gdansk and Nata AZS AWFiS Gdansk, as well as European Parliament election, 2004 (Poland). I have added Danzig to each of them, and thrown in a few Stettins and Breslaus for good measure. Plenty more remain to be done, see Category:Gdansk for instance. This is not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... every single one of these edits will be mandatory according to this proposal (unless qualified not to include post-1945). I think this is a recipe for nothing but trouble. -- Curps 07:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
     • Remaining inline discussion moved here at Chris 73's suggestion. -- Curps 12:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Henrygb 00:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) For 1945 and earlier, otherwise just Gdansk - as Curps
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (ditto Gdansk post-WW2)
6. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - limit to historical context only by pointing to present name.
8. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Agree, but with Curps's proviso. Both names should be mentioned only for historical (pre-1950ish) references. Psychonaut 06:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. Lupo 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) See my comment on Cross-Naming General. Respect historical context and use common sense: even though an article on Günther Grass (which, BTW, is very poor) could be construed to deal primarily with post-1950s events, I'd find it strange if only Gdánsk was mentioned.
    • But his birth there was pre-1945. Any mention of the city in a pre-1945 context does not involve a "post-1945" qualification. -- Curps 11:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Timrollpickering 10:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) but agree with Curps.
17. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC), but after 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone.
18. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Ryan! | Talk 11:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Only at the first occurance, only once per article.
23. Charles Matthews 12:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. – Kpalion (talk) 13:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - except when talking about post-1945 Gdańsk, unless it's about modern Polish-German relations (in other words, agreeing with Curps)
25. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (support Curps' suggestion
26. Krzych 13:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits other than on this page. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

28. Absolute The exception Curps made is going to cause (or sustain?) trouble. For the sake of readers who are unaware that Gdansk and Danzig are not two different cities, we must clue them in to the fact that Poles and Germans largely prefer "their" language's name for the city. Also, include a note that Wikipedia does NOT take sides on what the "proper" name for the city is; specifially, that "double naming" in the title or text of an article does NOT endorse or reject the propriety of (a) any single name or (b) the idea that city "really" has two equally valid names. We really have to be scrupulously neutral about this, if we intend to settle the matter! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, this exception is needed to prevent edit wars from spreading to an entirely new set of articles. Suppose we have articles on the Gdansk shipyard where Solidarity was founded or the Gdansk accords, or the Glos Wybrzeza newspaper published in Gdansk, or Lechia Gdansk football club... according to this vote, every one of these articles must mention Danzig. If a museum is built five years from now and becomes notable enough to include in Wikipedia, its article must mention Danzig, despite no connection whatsoever to German history or culture. This is a recipe for future trouble. Shall we also insert "Straßburg" into the European Parliament article, and every other article that mentions Strasbourg? Do people realize what they are voting for here? Is this really what we want? -- Curps 06:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Julo 15:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. --Rje 19:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC). I agree with Curps, but it must be strictly adhered to. Both names must be used for any person or event that happened before 1945.
31. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Dbiv 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Jmabel | Talk 00:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. On first reference only, of course. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
36. Korath (Talk) 05:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
37. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
38. Marcika 14:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Not after the first reference, though. --Bart133 (t) 15:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
40. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
41. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Disagree

1. If pre-1945 English language sources consistently used a name, that name should be retained without regard to historical borders or claims. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Only one name. RickK 06:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Use the name Danzig for an event that happened there before 1793, but Gdansk for an event that happened there after 1793. I was told in a History lesson last year that the name was changed to Gdansk in 1793. Scott Gall 07:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Gdansk should be used for the city in Poland. Danzig should redirect to Danzig (band). Danzig rocks! — Brim 01:41, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
5. I don't see why a modern-day mention of Gdansk and Wroclaw on a page such as Demographics of Poland would need to include Danzig or Breslau. For pages that mention it in a historical context it's okay, but not for *everything*, so this proposal is an overgeneralization. --Joy [shallot] 13:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Too general. This is often useful, but there are cases (such as List of Polish cities) where it is just silly. Shimmin 16:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
7. Superm401 05:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) This does not need to be a rule.

VOTE: Cross-Naming General

The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Agree

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Szczecin alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Carrp | Talk 00:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (and no objection to post-War use of Stettin (now Szczecin) in articles other than its own)
   • List of cities in Poland needs a complete makeover then, and a whole lot of other pages too. -- Curps 08:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. john k 01:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - historical German names should mention present name. Continue with policy on presenting commonly used national names of place in the first paragraph of place's article. In reverse order of gaining authority over the place if there would be disagreement about order.
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. Lupo 07:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) It should be possible to find such articles using Google (or other) searches using either name. Hence double naming makes sense: it is helpful. But limit to historical context, for articles on recent developments (post-1950s), prefer current name only.
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Ryan! | Talk 11:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. – Kpalion (talk) 13:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - agree with Lupo
20. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Again with Curps' suggestion
21. Krzych 13:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits other than the ones on this page. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

23. Julo 15:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Timrollpickering 15:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Curps' point.
25. --Rje 19:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC). I agree with Curps.
26. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Dbiv 20:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
30. On first reference only, of course. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Korath (Talk) 05:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
32. --JuntungWu 12:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Aleph4 13:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. Marcika 14:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. --Bart133 (t) 15:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Disagree

1. Disagree, just link to the article in question.--Roo72 00:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Disagree, link to the article in question. If pre-1945 references in English use a specific name, that name should be the one always used. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. RickKUse the German name until 1945.
4. Scott Gall 07:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Actually, use German names for everything until 1793, then use the Polish name.
5. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) As per Roo72/Ihcoyc
6. Too general. Having German / Russian / Ukrainian / whatever alternative names for every entry on a page like List of Polish cities is an example of where a foolish consistency would become our hobgoblin. Shimmin 16:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
7. Superm401 05:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Again, don't need a rule.

VOTE: Enforcement

Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted as simple vandalism. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted as simple vandalism according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes are not considered simple vandalism. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Agree

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp | Talk 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. with the (obvious?) caveat that if there comes to be a consensus that the policy isn't working, it can be changed. john k 01:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Timrollpickering 02:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - and do enforce it
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. RickK 06:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. Lupo 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)#
16. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Ryan! | Talk 11:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
18. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only one edit so far -- Chris 73 Talk 03:01, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
19. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. – Kpalion (talk) 13:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (what's the point of having a consensus which can't be implemented?)
22. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) agree with John's caveat
23. Qualified: Switching the name from one to the other (or "double-naming") in accordance with the majority vote is good, but let's not not call this rv vandalism. That will open old wounds. Contrariwise, if someone switches the name from one to the other or "un-double-names" it, in violation of the majority vote, let that be, er, "repairable on sight" (conform to naming policy). No "notice" needed, unless the person reverts the repair. Then we ought to alert them as described above. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
24. Julo 15:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. --Rje 19:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
26. Absolutely, this is a perennial problem with Posen/Poznan on the Hindenburg page. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Dbiv 20:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Jmabel | Talk 00:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
30. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Korath (Talk) 05:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) per Uncle Ed.
32. --JuntungWu 12:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
34. Marcika 14:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Revert on sight, but use an appropriate and descriptive edit summary, please...
35. --Bart133 (t) 15:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) - With obvious caveats.
36. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC) - if the policy changes then we can change it.

Disagree

1. Geni 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Disagree - policies can change over time, nothing is set in stone forever --Roo72 00:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • This vote is here because in previous compromise attempts, some parties just ignored any majority decision. The goal of this question is to give more weight to the majority decision. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
     • "More weight"? Either something is agreed or it isn't. If one is set to ignore any agreement no amount of "weight" is going to stop a person like that. Policies are usually set after a period of discussion (in that case read “reverts” instead of discussion). Perhaps some time in the future a new wave or generations of Wikipedians will decide to change the policy and they will start a discussion – they should not be treated like vandals.--Roo72 01:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
       • I don't believe this policy is meant to last until the end of time. If this policy is accepted, but it turns out that it doesn't work well, surely a new policy could be discussed and voted on. Carrp | Talk 01:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Henrygb 00:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Roo72
4. Scott Gall 07:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Although I know everything changed to Polish names in 1793, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have double names between 1785 and 1800 - this is a transitional period, just like when the euro was being adopted between 1999 and 2002.
5. User:Anárion/sig 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Bensaccount 15:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Roo72
7. Kaldari 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Superm401 05:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) I will not have a simple mistake called vandalism. If someone in the future makes an edit, completely unaware of this rule and enouraged by the Be bold in editing idea, do we really want to punish them? To me, that is like saying that it is vandalism to use a contraction because it's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
9. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

Discussion

Important notes on Cross-Naming

Dear Wikipedians!

Every article mentioning Danzig must refer to Gdansk for is equally difficult to find Nieuw Amsterdam on popular maps. Mentioning Danzig in post-45 articles is surly as awkward and certainly more irritating for it’s inhabitants than the eventual “New Orleans (Nouvelle-Orléans)” tag in the US city list. IYKWIM!

And let me warn you: omnipresent cross-naming of all secondary towns, then villages, rivers, mountains, caps, islands and lakes according to all the historically and linguistically tenable variations to make justice to all tribes, nations and groups that have once inhabited those places may lead to confusion, insomnia and nervous disorders! -- Mr. Wszedroik Feb 19, 2005

Discussion on 10 VOTE: Enforcement

The vote is aimed to resolve a large number of naming disputes. Of course, future votes may override the outcome of this vote. Until then, valid results of this vote are the community consensus, and should be enforced. I think the enforcement is possible even without an extra vote on enforcement, but to be on the safe side, I have added this as a vote topic. Previously, any compromise or majority view was ignored by one party, leading to dozens of revert wars. This vote is there to stop revert wars and to enforce community consensus. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

An attempt at persuasion on 1466-1793

Seeing as the current vote is 13-16 to use Gdansk for the 1466-1793 period, but almost unanimously to use Danzig both before and after, I thought I'd recopy my argument from Talk:Gdansk at why we should use Danzig:

1) English language sources generally use Danzig when referring to the city at this time. General use textbooks like John Elliott's Europe Divided 1559-1598, Geoffrey Parker's Europe in Crisis 1598-1648, William Doyle's The Old European Order 1660-1800, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, Jeremy Black's The Rise of the European Powers 1679-1793, and so forth, all refer to the city as "Danzig". A JSTOR search shows a limited number of references to the city as "Gdansk" - only 61 articles total mention "Gdansk", and many of those are references to the city since 1945. There are, on the other hand, 552 articles which mention "Danzig", and many of them are discussing the eighteenth century and earlier. [this is a JSTOR search of articles in the 56 journals that are classified as historical. A few of these articles, but not very many, will be from before 1945]

2) This English usage makes sense. The city was primarily a linguistically German city from the early 14th century on. Since 1945 it has been a linguistically Polish city. It makes sense to make the name switch only in 1945, because this corresponds to a major shift in the city that did not occur in 1454 or 1793.

3) These two factors alone should be sufficient to make the case. Now, one might argue perfectly rationally that it would make perfect sense to just call the city "Gdansk" throughout, or to complicatedly switch it depending on whether or not it was under Polish or German sovereignty. But only one usage has the support of common English usage, and that is using "Danzig" for the city for the entire 1308-1945 period. If it was common in English to use "Gdansk" for its whole history, or for its history before 1793, it would make sense for wikipedia to do that as well, whatever its inhabitants may or may not have called it. But that is not how it is done. "Danzig" is the main name used for this period, and Wikipedia should follow that usage. john k 14:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) Being honest, I don't understand your point. I am not a historician {so probably you) so I do not question your conclusions but I can question your argumentation. "English language sources generally use...", well, so what? the fact that they ARE traditionally biased does not make it fine. I dare say Polish, German, but also Russian, Japanese etc. sources have their own policies of calling mentioned cities. Russian policy will probably use Gdańsk (!) only (esp. in propaganda times), on the other hand English authors will tend to use Danzig than Gdańsk as to UK is Germany geographically and culturally closer than Poland. What is more some of them probably even do not know how to pronouncate Gdańsk... Even in this debate all of you talk about sth called "Gdansk" instead of proper Gdańsk...

The problem is that nowadays English is not only for Britons, other nations of Commonwealth or Americans but it is more and more lingua franca. It is undoubtful that while using names we create reality. The question is will we create it fair or not. There is the saying stating that "the winners are these who write the history". Shall we stop it?

2) It makes much more sense for me but it's still controversial - most of people in XII century believed that the earth is flat. Should we write it is 3D since... - and this is next question - since when? Copernicus? :) Here the case is much more complex as great number of Polish cities were totally or partly settled by Germans, Dutchmen etc. but they were in Poland, under Polish king and law and known with their Polish names... Danzig/Gdańsk citized agreed to be Polish subjects - even asked for Polish help. And to make it even more complicated - in many documents, esp. in Medevial Ages, latin was used. Maybe these names - from location acts (mostly on German law!) etc. - would be most fair?

3) Being common does not make something right. It is not an argument.

4) Something that hasn't been mentioned here - most of German names of these cities are more or less precise translations or "germanized" versions of the original, slavic names. For instance - Stettin and Szczecin. We may use such a form instead of original but we must be sure it does make sense...

Certainly it is not the end of such disputes - to mention only Polish/Ukrainians or German/French names. Every language has its own tradition here but if we want to build a truly multinational, fair, NPOV project we have to overcome obstacles like these. The best thing is we are discussing them. Best regards! --Aegis Maelstrom 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, john k, don't count my contributions as you used to... :) not everybody must be logged in here...

Aegis - you seem to be missing the fact that policy on wikipedia is to use the forms most commonly used in English. I'd also add that the fact that the city of Gdansk/Danzig was in Poland in the 18th century and earlier says very little about what we should call it - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a nation-state, and as such, being part of the Kingdom of Poland did not mean that the Polish language had very much to do with the city. As to counting contributions - it is unfair if users from the Polish wikipedia flood the vote here. I would not vote on the Polish wikipedia in a similar instance. john k 18:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should just try to be coherent here. If we have articles named Munich (not München), Cologne (not Köln), Copenhagen (not København) and Gothenburg (not Göteborg), Naples (not Napoli), etc. it would to me only seem rational to use Danzig instead of Gdańsk on the English Wikipedia if Danzig was the main name used in English at the time, regardless of what the Polish name at the time was. That is why I voted for Danzig prior to 1945. —Gabbe 09:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that the idea that "Szczecin" is the original name of Stettin is absurd. That spelling was never used until 1945. (well, maybe Polish people used it when referring to the city, but that's irrelevant, as it was not part of Poland). john k 18:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll interpretation

While on most of the poll questions we seem to have vast majorities one way or the other, no matter how it turns out, the question of what to call the city 1466-1793 looks like it will be closely divided. How is this poll to be interepreted? Should it be simply 50%+1 wins? That seems unsatisfactory. (And how do we deal with voters who are, uh, new to the English wikipedia?)

You seem to have problem with that users. Actually, I haven't seen such an amount of accounting in any other vote. But English Wikipedia isn't exactly a matter of Anglophones but - as English is lingua franca nowadays - rather international edition. We can't reasonably expect that all the foreign contributors would contribute to the growth of en: but be denied the right to vote. What it matters how many edits the user has at en: if he has plenty at pl: or de:? The number of edits is a way to ascertain the credibility of user's uniquness, if the user has high number of contributions it most likely means he is experienced. So, do you really want to keep experienced users from contributing to growth of en:? Would not be very constructive, I think. -- Forseti 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forseti, it's not a matter of non-native English speakers. I wouldn't cast doubt on your or Halibutt's or Szopen's or whoever's votes, because you've been around. But the vote should be a vote of those of us who are working on this wikipedia project. If users from the Polish wikipedia want to have their votes count, they should have to do their due diligence by contributing to en for a while first, as you have done. It is simply packing the vote to bring in a lot of users from pl who have never contributed to en before, and whom we have no guarantee will ever contribute to en again. Like anybody else, they ought to be asked to contribute for a while and show themselves to be real editors here. john k 15:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any other rule, standard policies should apply: votes have to be bad faith to be excluded, which means sock puppets etc. These voters can't be excluded on those grounds so should be accepted. Personally I don't think that a vote is always a crrect way to establish consensus and 50%+1 isn't a valid decision. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Is it a good faith edit to come and vote on English wikipedia when you aren't actually an editor on English wikipedia? That seems to me to be the basic issue. I know such votes don't count on VfD or requests for adminship, as a rule. I'm not sure why they should count on a survey. I would certainly agree that 50%+1 would not amount to a consensus. The question becomes what we do. For other articles, it seems like a live and let live policy is appropriate, especially if we use the "use Danzig for articles about German things, Gdansk for articles about Polish things" method, which seems to have strong support (for biographies, at least). But the Gdansk article and the History of Gdansk article will remain problematic - some decision has to be made. john k 02:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A further question: given that 1308-1466 and 1793-1945 at Danzig look to be pretty set, I'd be interested to see how those of you voting for just the 1466-1793 period to be Gdansk would have this dealt with in the history section of Gdansk. It strikes me that this would be a horribly awkward way to do things, and I feel that there should be some presumption on those of you supporting it to at least make a case for why and how we would do that. (If we had a strong force to simply call it "Gdansk" before 1793, or to call it "Gdansk" throughout, I would not be asking this, as either of these would be a fairly simple solution. But calling it "Gdansk" only from 1466 to 1793 seems like the worst of all possible worlds - we don't use the name which is most commonly used for that period, but we also have to switch mercilessly and confusingly between names in 1466 and 1793. I'll add that this is a problem really only with the Gdansk article itself and the History of Gdansk article. In other articles - especially given the likely-to-be-voted-in-rule about biographies and the use of parentheticals - there is no real problem with calling it whatever one wants whenever one wants.) john k 07:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forseti

Some inline discussion moved here, from #VOTE:_Cross-Naming_Gdansk.2FDanzig. -- Curps 12:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. • • I thought it's pretty straightforward: if there is Danzig we link it to Gdańsk as it is present name. At Gdansk in 1st paragraph there is Danzig mentioned. So connection should be pretty obvious the other way. Let's stick to correctness as sticking to pleasing everyone would be bad to our credibility. IMHO all the questions after that about historical period are so imprecise (should have more options) that really could be used to undermine the sense of the first ones. Forseti 08:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
       • Yes, the Gdansk article should mention "Danzig". However, what people are agreeing to here is that every article that mentions Gdansk must mention Danzig at least once. Including articles on current events and topics where there is no German cultural or historical connection (such as articles on Polish political parties or biographies of Poles who were born in recent decades). As for the rest of your comment I'm afraid I don't understand... can you clarify? -- Curps 10:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
         • As for factual correctness: There is only one location called at present Gdańsk and formerly Danzig and so there should be only one designation for current use. For talks about past, past names could/should be used but link to present should be maintained so that it would be obvious there is only one such entity. Trying to keep using German name in spite of fact it is Polish for 60 years is clinging to the past verging post-war world order revisionism.
         • As for notes about the poll: it seems to me that this poll would be void as sound arguments from naming according to historical periods would be undermined by loopholes of bibliografy cases, political-correct mentions of old Danzig in modern-time articles and so on until nobody would think seriously about this policy not to mention upholding it. Mentioned options should include questions like: is Danzig should be mentioned? is Gdańsk should be mentioned? and so on. If everybody is full of dissent now they wouldn't be less after the vote. -- Forseti 11:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
           • I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I really don't think you understood what you voted in favor of, below. -- Curps 11:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)