Talk:Free City of Cracow

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 29 August 2007 (→‎Questions for Piotrus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

WikiProject iconPoland Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that a map be added to this article and placed within the infobox.

Republic or Free City

The name of this country was Rzeczpospolita Krakowska, which could be translated as Republic of Krakow or Republic of Cracow. I've never heard the name Free City of Krakow. Could anyone provide some example?Halibutt 18:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See: [1] for the city-state's constitution (in Polish) and coins. You'll only find the name Wolne Miasto Kraków (Free City of Kraków) there, no mention of Rzeczpospolita Krakowska. However, it seems that both names were used interchangeably in everyday language or even some formal documents. Kpalion 18:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My bad, thanks for the explanation.Halibutt 22:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Split

This article will soon be expanded and/or splitted into several subarticles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why it should be split. --Kpalion 23:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, maybe split is not the right word ATM, but the plan is to expand this article, and when it reaches 32k some parts will be splitted to subarticles. For now, obviously, emphasis is on expansion :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh my, you're seriously thinking of expanding this article to over 32 kb? Geez, all my knowledge on FCK does not exceed 500b, not to mention 1kb... Also, doesn't the article on Kraków need expansion more? Halibutt 17:54, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
All in good time. After all, shouldn't we strive to make every article a featured one? :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe my version on polish Wiki will help (but I'm not sure if there are no mistakes). Pozdrawiam :) (no i wielki szacunek (rispekt jak to się mówi dziś nad Wisłą ;) za Wasze art. z historii Polski na Wiki-en) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.64.229 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop de-Anglicizing!

Kraków may be more theoretically correct, but "Cracow" is more common in the English language, certainly when referring to this 19th-century historical entity. In English, Rome is not generally called "Roma", Munich is not generally called "München" -- and the same applies here... AnonMoos 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your grieviances to Talk:Kraków; once you move it to Cracow I am sure nobody will oppose renaming of this article. Please note that reverting copyedit changes is disruptive, stop this.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, dude -- you may think that English speakers should use Kraków, but the simple fact is that they don't, especially in a historical context like this. Manipulating articles to suit your politics is a violation of WP:POINT. AnonMoos 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, first of all, please don't use this kind of language on Wikipedia. Nobody will take your arguments seriously, if you use phrases like "whatever, dude" in your discussions. Now back to the point: you may be right that "Cracow" is the correct English form, but we should aim at consensus and consistency throughout Wikipedia. So Piotrus is right – first you have to convince everyone to move Kraków to Cracow and then you can go around other articles and toggle the links. Doing it otherwise will amount to vandalism. And by the way, did you think about moving Mainz to Mayence or Beijing to Peking yet? Kpalion 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kpalion, if you support Kraków, then you have to promote 北京 also. There are English Wikipedia articles named Hanover, Cologne, Nuremberg and Munich which are supposed to cover the German cities Hannover, Köln, Nürnberg and München. How come that the town which as Krakau was part of Austria and which was called Cracow in English for centuries is called Kraków in the English Wikipedia? Will we soon be told that Warszawa is English, too? And I haven't even started on Wrocław 3730 Google books hits vs. Breslau 7930 Google books hits yet.-- Matthead discuß!     O       02:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest, Matthead: WP:NCGN and EOT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NCGN states that "if the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.". Cracow was and is the widely accepted historical English name. Besides, you are pushing Kraków all over historical places, e.g. the current Talk:Kraków grosh survey on a 14th century coin. The currency of the Cracow Republic is at Kraków złoty, too.
No, Kraków is. Discus it at Talk:Kraków if you disagree, and don't waste others time here. Thank you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthead, read what I wrote once again. I'm not suporting "Kraków", I'm supporting consensus and consistency. I'm not opposed to "Cracow", I'm opposed to edit wars that lead to nowhere. Kpalion 03:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position. Anyway, when I looked up Nicolaus Copernicus a year ago, it said "Mikołaj Kopernik ... was a Polish ... astronomer" [2], and Polish/Poland was written all over the article. I am opposed to edit wars, too, but I am even more opposed to edit warriors that have "conquered" (or just created) many controversial articles and still keep on pushing. Read examples with another ongoing survey at Talk:Mikołaj of Ryńsk/Talk:Nikolaus von Renys. -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be hard being opposed to oneself, Matthead, isn't it? Please understand that some Polish-language words are acceptable and used in English, and there is no need to replace them with German-language versions, and the revert wars will end...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did you stop beating your wife? Was it hard for you and her? Piotr, please refrain from such word plays, insinuations and rhetoric questions. Besides, where is the need to replace them with German-language versions manifested? Are Mikołaj Kopernik and Mikołaj of Ryńsk acceptable and used in English, and questioning the use of these prohibited? Is Nicolaus Copernicus a German-language version that will cause prolonged revert wars? (and Nikolaus Kopernikus is Polish spelling, maybe?) -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you stop making ad hominens yourself, and accuse others who disagree with you of anti-German sentiment and such, you'll find the discussions much less pleasant. Alas, it is you who have to make the change, Matthead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica.com: Kraków

I’d like to appeal to Wikipedia editorial team to please protect this article if the edit war continues. Kraków is a living, vibrant city with one generally accepted name. Nowhere in North America have I seen it being spelled differently. Nevertheless, all major encyclopedias acknowledge the existence of an alternate (and somewhat misleading) spelling introduced into the English language in the past.

The only accepted differentiation in the spelling of Kraków currently used by all of North American media is the one without diacritics, i.e.:

New York Times on Cracow (internal search) 854 hits -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that the above so called "hits" were NOT originally added here by the author. They were inserted by Matthead in order to confuse the issues. I have assumed that the reader can find for themselves what's relevant. New York Times hits on "Cracow" (quoted by Matthead) are highly misleading since they include entities being promoted abroad by overzealous Poles (not native English speakers), i.e. "Academy of Cracow", "100 Hotels in Cracow", "Cracow Klezmer Band", etc. Poeticbent 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "inserted by Matthead in order to confuse": Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Regarding "overzealous Poles (not native English speakers)", I'm confused. Do underzealous Poles that are native English speakers promote Kraków then? -- Matthead discuß!     O       07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that the Washington Post "hits" on Krakow quoted by Matthead are in fact full size articles written on Krakow... not web search hits by any stretch of the imagination. Poeticbent 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek on Gary Krakow reports" many hits for "MSNBC.com's Gary Krakow reports", also hits for "Brian Krakow", and Cracow of course -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that the new and narrower internal Newsweek search on "Krakow Poland" yielded 104 articles, and only 14 results for "Cracow Poland." These are the real proportions Matthead tries so hard to misrepresent.
Again, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The original "Krakow" link shows 1695 hits, with "Krakow Poland" its down only 104. Where's the misrepresention then? -- Matthead discuß!     O       07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It would also be worth mentioning that the corresponding article in Britannica called: “Republic of Cracow” [3] does not have significance similar to that of a ongoing discussion regarding the use of the Polish name Gdańsk (versus the German name Danzig in historical context, see:Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice). Unlike the name “Cracow”, which was introduced into the English language — and the English speaking world — from outside of Poland… the German name Danzig was commonly used by the inhabitants of Gdańsk for centuries. The alternative spelling of the “Republic of Cracow” therefore exists in contextual vacuum, even though the spelling of “Cracow” is currently being used by some Poles striving to write in the so called proper English without enough exposure to it. Poeticbent 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get that straight: When Britannica calls the 19th century state Republic of Cracow, this does not have significance and "exists in contextual vacuum", but when Britannica chooses to use Kraków for their article on the present day town, this is significant for any use and can be taken as a pretext to force this name on every related article? Do I have to remind you (and others who might not know yet) that Cracow, like Danzig or Praha, was not exclusively inhabited by Poles, nor exclusively owned by Poland throughout its history? In the 19th century to WW1, "Austrian rule was more benevolent than that exercised by Russia and Prussia, Kraków became a Polish national symbol and a center of culture and art, known frequently as the "Polish Athens". I say that this period should better be described with Cracow, or do you prefer the proper German Krakau, or Russian Варшава for the Warsaw of the time? I think the English speakers kept Cracow and Warsaw "verbally alive" then, and reinstated Poland after WW1, and this should be respected for decades to come. If Kraków is natural to English speakers, it will catch on without being pushed. Recently, some media might have choosen Krakow, but many who have grown up with Cracow are still alive and not willing to get "reeducated" to use pedantic new spelling. See Prague for example, do the Czechs push Praha? The Italians Firenze, the Greek Αθήνα, the Italians Roma? The Russians even went back to St. Petersburg, skipping Petrograd. These countries take pride that their cities made themselves a name in the world's probably most important language already centuries ago. Do you want your town to be listed among the countless absure places with funny names instead? -- Matthead discuß!     O       08:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that Cracow is a nice town, but that has very little relevance to purging 100% of references to what is still probably the most common spelling in English -- certainly so in a historical context like this... AnonMoos 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper spelling of the name “Kraków” (including diacritics) has been used in the English speaking world for decades. International Edition of the World Atlas by Hammond (Maplewood; New Jersey, New York, Chicago; 1976) published 30 years ago wrote “Kraków (Cracow)” in its index of Poland, while The Canadian Oxford School Atlas (Oxford University Press, Don Mills; 1957; 1963; 1972; 1977; 1985; 1987) wrote “Kraków: see Cracow” in its world index. — There was never any doubt in the minds of the English scholars that the original spelling of the name “Kraków” could not be taken for granted. Poeticbent 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum II: I regret that Matthead mistook my findings for a personal attack. Nowhere have I questioned his ability and willingness to contribute to our ongoing discussion perhaps even substantially.

As far as assuming Matthead's good faith, again, it is in good faith that the user promotes a point of view different from mine. I responded with counterarguments only under those circumstances. However, like everybody else, I’d prefer not to have text inserted into my discourse, as is the case with the first original "hit count" for New York Times added by Matthead without distinction, signature or a single word of explanation.

The purpose of this discussion is obvious to all who participate in it. — Your train of thought does not follow mine. Please, state your argument only in your own paragraphs Matthead and refrain from editing for content text written by me if you want to be treated cordially.

P.S.: I refuse to respond to all other claims made by Matthead like the one made above, quote: “English speakers kept Cracow and Warsaw "verbally alive" then, and reinstated Poland after WW1, and this should be respected for decades to come.” — Please read History of Poland to learn more about how Poland was “reinstated” after WW1 by “English speakers” (wink, wink) with blood, sweat and tears, no doubt.

Poeticbent 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cracow

This article is about a HISTORICAL ENTITY, not the current city of Cracow! Historic naming applies. The content of the EB has been twisted as "evidence" for Krakow and even an administrator is saying to move Krakow first! Ridiculous! The proper name of this article is either Republic of Cracow or Free City of Cracow... NOT the name that Piotrus has locked it into! Charles 06:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two preceeding discussions, as well as comments by several uses you got recently on your talk page after the move, show that there is no conensus for the move. Feel free to present your arguments for the move, and start a WP:RM to move it when you feel the argument has been presented. PS. The applicable naming convention is WP:NCGN. It states: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. [...] If [...] the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. However, modern English publications increasingly use Kraków instead of Cracow for the city throughout it history; hence we should use Kraków for both modern and historical references to the city. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus or a vote to keep it at Krakow, so I made a bold move and changed it to Cracow, which was backed up with evidence from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I see no rationale for this move and for others in the history where a reversal of a well-intentioned editor's move goes without so much as an edit summary. I have always tried to assume good faith, but I am finding it to be increasingly difficult. I do not think, Piotrus, that you are showing NPOV. I had faith that you would turn a better leaf and work toward a better English Wikipedia and made note of such after you came to talk to me on my talk page. I have been silently been observing various shenanigans with regard to English/native naming and I found it to be an incredible affront to my intelligence to be told to have the Krakow article moved first before moving anything else. Absolutely unreal. Charles 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Increasingly does not mean overwhelmingly. Indeed, the EB uses "Republic of Cracow" and that name is all but discounted for the sake of the location of the article on the current city. Unbelievable. I have only come into seeing Krakow recently in the article on Wikipedia, never before in any text or manuscript that I have read. Charles 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion

From my talk page: User_talk:Charles#Bone_of_contention, where the edit history ([4]) can be verified and checked if needed. Please don't copy and paste the entire discussion, it was had already. Plus, the formatting is awful and it is generally disruptive to just copy and paste an essentially concluded discussion. Charles 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, everybody! Please remember there is an Arbcom decision on Eastern Europe, advising reasonable and calm behavior out of everybody; and I do mean everybody.
His rationale thus far is that a move can only be accomplished when Kraków is moved to Cracow, which he will see to that it does not happen. The name is supported by the naming conventions and the EB even prescribes the name, but everything thus far has been distorted to "support" keeping this at a name using Kraków. I truthfully wonder if the various editors think we should have articles on the Kingdom of Hannover or the Duchy of Braunschweig. Do they even care about those places? Charles 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors do support the Duchy, or at least the Duke, of Braunschweig; IIRC they were outvoted. I disagreed with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very interesting link. I see Kraków comes up in it as well. Quelle surprise. Charles 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place called Kraków does exist (see WP:NCGN for guidance). It did not have a different name in that period. It was also called Kraków (native name, now and then), for the last one thousand years. And why exactly are you advocating peace, PMAnderson, while driving a stick in an ant colony? --Poeticbent talk 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am advocating peace; I am also asking that this decision be taken in accordance with the guidelines we have decided upon after the presentation of evidence. Metaphors are not helpful. If it is impossible to do so, I shall post this discussion to Arbitration Enforcement, and let them do what they wish; I would deeply prefer to see this discussed reasonably, without imputations on motives (save it for ArbCom, if they care). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wait, were we magically transported to Polish Wikipedia and talking about the Polish name, or are we discussing the English name of a historical entity? Charles 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, let’s not repeat ourselves. We had this discussion already on your Talk page. Please read what I wrote above, on January 11, 2007, about The Canadian Oxford School Atlas (Oxford University Press, Don Mills; 1957; 1963; 1972; 1977; 1985; 1987) using Kraków for the last fifty years. Hardly a Starship Enterprise of a transporter. --Poeticbent talk 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that index listing referring the reader to Cracow and I see the errors in your dating of material on my talk page. You are trying to manipulate data to suit your POV. Why would a scholarly publication see the need to redirect one to Cracow if it is bad, wrong and forbidden? Again, you ignore that it tells one to see Cracow because that is where the entry is located. Charles 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of evidence

This has been moved to #data below.

The last three are unlikely, but not (even #5), absolutely impossible. Let us calculate. Please supply links or references, as appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Google Books results particularly striking, myself. Feel free to look for false positives, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are saying that this is a Battle of Volgograd issue? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is. Thanks for the analogy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put your mind at peace, PMAnderson. The reason why so many books in your search spell Cracow is because they’ve been published in the eighteen century, between the years 1847 (Travers Sir Twiss, Edmund Burke) and 1875 (Edward Hertslet). Please read the above mentioned discussions for more data. Btw, your comparison of Cracow to Stalingrad is preposterous, since the modern city of Volgograd has changed its name a couple of times since then. Kraków didn't. --Poeticbent talk 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Playing the devil's advocate, note that limiting our search only to books from 1950 onward, while cutting the above results by over 50%, still leaves large numbers: [5], [6].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try cutting the search a bit further, since the city has proclaimed its official English spelling of Krakow only in recent years. And so, Google Book search produces only 63 titles on the "Free City of Cracow," date:1980-2007. That includes books like International Law in Historical Perspective, by Jan Hendrik Willem Verzijl, published originally in 1974, etc. --Poeticbent talk 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Government of any kind has the right or power to declare what English is; only English usage does. We do not accept official usage until it has become common usage; see Talk:East Timor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limiting the Google Scholar results to recent ones still preserves many results for the Free City of Cracow.
  • And the purpose of Use English is the simple and practical one of allowing our readers to compare our articles with other sources, and minimizing surprise. On this subject, an English-speaking reader will be surprised not to find the usage of the Britannica and NCMH. Polish readers have a Polish Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You’re absolutely right about this. We ought to promote the new and the old English spelling. However, the official communiqué of the city officials were meant NOT for the English speakers, but for the Polish writing community, including journalists, travel writers, TV anchors, English language teacher in local schools, etc. I’m sure that the increase in numbers of books and articles on the Free City of Kraków will follow. --Poeticbent talk 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the change in English usage happens (and the city's policy doesn't change first, which is one reason we do not respond immediately), "Free City of Kraków" will be unsurprising to anglophones, and Wikipedia will follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that has not happened yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Charles 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PoeticBent, English Wikipedia is meant for English speakers, not for the Polish writing community. Charles 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the Polish wikipedia uses pl:Londyn; not only for history, but for the present day, and no English editors are complaining on their talk page. Isn't fair fair? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Free City of Cracow

Where's the RM and vote? I'm sick of all the talk promoting "Krakuf", which is the way our Polish friends pronounce their "Kraków". Anyone ever heard that spoken, maybe in a BBC radio broadcast of 1978 "... and the new pope is ... the Archbishop of Krakuf"? There will never be a consensus as some "natives" will not cease to promote their local POV. Let's vote to move this and related articles, e.g. Cracow Uprising, to the proper English name, and get over with the endless talk. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight. Until a consensus is achieved on the naming of the article, it should remain at the naming convention determined by the original article creator according to WP:NAME. This was the Free City of Kraków, and thus the article has been moved by an administrator, and will remain there until a consensus can be determined. Unfortunately, not all participants are willing to accept a civil participation in the dispute. --Poeticbent talk 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. If only I could show you that I would be wagging my finger at you. STOP MANIPULATING naming conventions to support your biased POV. The naming conventions support and endorse a move back to Free City of Cracow. You, my friend, are hardly civil in your accusations and insinuations. I can hardly believe that you have the nerve to tell other people "how it is". Charles 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight[7] seems to be a personal attack to me. Charles 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you're unwilling to consider any kind of compromise. Please remember though, that Wikipedia:Naming conventions states the following. “Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. The naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes. However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia.” [8] --Poeticbent talk 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I wrote that. Your quotation is out of date; it says nothing about "taking precedent". It continues "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain; if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." I add italics. This is not intended to confer ownership on the POV of the first contributor; we don't do that. It's intended to recognize that (Roman) Catholic Church is not soluble to consensus satisfaction; this is not so large a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is indeed indifferent, then Piotrus' move was equally undesirable; but I don't think it is indifferent; and if the three of you take 12 hours away and have a nice cup of tea, perhaps we can discuss it rationally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly: Would the three of you please stop it? All three of you feel insulted, and all three of you have a case (whose case is best is not my decision), but do let's imitate ArbCom and have an amnesty.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, PoeticBent, you have shown yourself to try and manipulate another naming convention, which is for historical names and English names. It is painfully clear that it is a case of picking and choosing what to follow and then adding personal criteria on it. I really am sorry to say... This name is not protected by the naming conventions if it isn't the English term used for the subject. Historical and present usage for this territorial entity uses Cracow. Your previous arguments alongside Piotrus of moving the article "Krakow" to "Cracow" first or matching this article name to that one don't cut it. Do you feel that you are improving Wikipedia by keeping this article at the incorrect title? Charles 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do attack the arguments, not the editor. (This is not intended to be condescending, just a helpful statement of the obvious.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Caveat: Closely related to the 1815-1846 city status are the articles currently named Kraków Uprising and Grand Duchy of Cracow, on the revolt and the post-1846 Austrian successor state German: Großherzogtum Krakau that existed until 1918. I suggest including them in the process.-- Matthead discuß!     O       15:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first is mentioned under #discussion, and there is a note on their talkpage; please notify the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally created at the present title, but it has been, for six months or so, at Free City of Cracow until it was moved here. I do not wish to discuss the rights or wrongs of that move; as above, I would remind all editors of the recent ArbCom decision on Eastern Europe, which enjoined reasonable and calm behavior on these pages.


There are two questions:

  • Free City or Republic? Many sources say "Republic of Cracow/Krakow"; many say "republic", because it was one. It's hard for a search to distinguish between these two. This is hard to decide; I would prefer to stay with the original title and the New Cambridge Modern History.
  • Cracow, Krakow, or Kraków? This, I think, falls under the principle of WP:NCGN: use the current historic name in English, if English uses a different name for a past period of a city's existence; as we use Battle of Stalingrad. English use of Kraków, in this context, is vanishingly rare; virtually the only examples in #Data are the two encyclopedias which have an article on Kraków, devote only a sentence or two to the Free City, and don't waste it discussing names. If Kraków masks this link, on the same principle, I don't really care. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that this nomination said absolutely nothing about diacritics; and that WP:UE#Disputed English actually says: "There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus." This is neither favor nor opposition, but permission. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(precision)#Minor_spelling_variations suggests links between two articles with spelling variations; they're linked now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Interesting shopping list for upcoming moves. The 1st refers to French/Polish departement, 2nd to Russian subdivison, last is medieval international treaty, and 3rd was German 1939 to 1945, meaning that you also promote the Polish Oświęcim concentration camp for English Wikipedia? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Link to revision showing removal[reply]
  • Free City, Cracow per nomination and WP:UE. — AjaxSmack 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Cracow - I have to agree with this one. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Kraków per Poeticbent, Space Cadet 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Cracow is English usage for this historic entity. Noel S McFerran
  • Free City of Kraków - English sources use both terms, let's stick with the one chosen by editors who wrote most of that and related articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Kraków per Space Cadet. - Darwinek 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Cracow per overwhelming popularity in English literature and not controversial title by default. Since when English became controversial in English Wiki?. M0RD00R 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Kraków. I'd vote for Cracow, but Poeticbent convinced me. //Halibutt 21:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Cracow--Aldux 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Cracow, use English. M.K. 10:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Kraków this name better reflects this entity Tymek 14:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Cracow per Google Books results and NCGN. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Kraków due to widespread usage in English as accepted name.--Molobo 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free City of Kraków since the article about the town is named Kraków, not Cracow, even if the later seems to be the traditional English name of the town. "Free city" seems to be a better translation of "Freie Stadt" than "republic", which IIRC would be "Freistaat" ("Free State"). -Ulla Sweden 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not consistent and this article is not about the current city, but a historical entity. If they were indeed the same thing there would only be one article. I urge everyone to play the devil's advocate, drop their preferences and examine the evidence. Charles 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I understand, it is about the same city, and the article describe a part of its history when it was a(n almost) sovereign state. -Ulla Sweden 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boundaries might be close, even elements of the name, but they are not the same. Indeed, as you say, it was almost a sovereign state, a city-state. Today there is no city-state. Please read the naming conventions on historic names (WP:NCGN), #1: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. The Free City of Cracow does not exist anymore and the widely accepted historical English name uses Cracrow. Please make note of all of the evidence provided. Charles 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city name was and is Kraków. It is only because Cracow was dominant in older English publications, and because the Free City is an obscure topic, that Free City of Cracow is more popular then Free City of Kraków; but - just as Cracow has been replaced by Kraków - so should FCoC be replaced by FCoK.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought an admin would know that what you just said is a big load of BS and refrain from saying it, but it is obvious that you do not understand the naming conventions for historic places. The fact that you just admitted, that FCoC is more popular, is all that matters because than indicates the primary English name. Again, you can't retroactively rename such a thing (a historical entity). Must we have an article named Isle of Mumbai? Or an Iraq campaign? Charles 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the same. Then it was a state, now it is a municipality, but it is still the same city. It has not changed its name either, Cracow is just an anglizised form for Kraków. The choise is thus not between two different names for the same city, but for two different ways of writing that name – the traditional English way or the contempoary Polish way. Wikipedia might not be consistent, but I am; if the choise of Wikipedia would be to name the article about the city "Cracow", then I would also second the idea to name the article about its time as a free state as "Free State of Cracow". -Ulla Sweden 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! This article isn't in contemporary Polish. It's historical and it is English. If Cracow for this state is tradition (and more widely known), why do you insist on shoving Krakow down English Wikipedians' throats? It should be noted that every single editor that erroneously pushing Krakow save for you is seemingly Polish and the lot of you do not speak English as your native language. Nothing wrong with being Polish or a non-anglophone, but are we supposed to see a correlation here? Please answer my question: Again, you can't retroactively rename such a thing (a historical entity). Must we have an article named Isle of Mumbai? Or an Iraq campaign? Charles 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official name of the entity was Polish. This is English Wikipedia, so we use translation if available. When most common translation of Kraków to English was Cracow, Free City of Cracow was the dominant translation. With recent change and Kraków not being translated anymore but used in its original spelling (well, minus the diactric, usually), Free City of Kraków is the 'modern' name of that historical entitry. If you write an article about older historiography of this entity, yes, it would use Cracow. But modern uses Kraków. What's so difficult to understand here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is difficult to understand is if you really think I am falling for story to mask obvious bias. Everything you just said is not Wikipedia policy and you are flouting the naming conventions by posting this drivel. You do realize, but fail to acknowledge because you like Krakow better, that Free City of Cracow in its entirety is the correct name of the article. You cannot split it into "Free City" and "Cracow" and then change "Cracow" to suit your painfully obvious biases. The fact that you avoid any number of questions on this page speaks volumes as well. Charles 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, both name are more or less as accurate. In the case of such a tie I prefer the modern name, particulary as it is more familiar to me. What I fail to understand is why you won't admit that your logic is the same: you prefer Cracow, because you are more familiar with it, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the "Discussion" heading, you have said nothing other than a note about WP:NPA. Do you believe that if you do not acknowledge the evidence against this title, and provide nothing for it, that it does not exist and you'll have your way? Are you going to acknowledge the evidence and answer the questions? Of course you're more familiar with Krakow, you're Polish! But when you allow bias into editing (as you have admitted before) that becomes a problem. I am a native English speaker, of course I am more familiar with the other name. This is English Wikipedia. Get it? Are you going to rename the French article to Krakow? It doesn't matter what I prefer: Cracow IS English, particular in the name of this historical entity. Charles 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data

WP:NCGN recognizes six classes of evidence:

  1. Encyclopedias
  2. Standard sources
    • Library of Congress country guides Poland does not mention the subject; the treatment of the early nineteenth century concentrates on Russia.
    • Cambridge histories NCMH IX: 403: "Cracow, now a Free City"; 664: "treaty status of Cracow, established at Vienna as a neutral Free City". X 16: "disappearance of the Free City of Cracow"; 235:"the nominally autonomous Free City of Cracow", 267: "occupation of the Republic of Cracow".
    • Oxford dictionaries
  3. Google, but not www.google.com; and with extensive warning about false positives.
  4. Media sources
  5. Consensus of Wikipedians
  6. Uses of one phrase to translate another into English
    • Use as a translation of Freie Stadt Krakau here

Discussion

There is also some discussion of the evidence above. The evidence was moved here to be part of the RM discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that if the local form can be found in English, even once, we should use it, is defended by each national community for itself, although there does seem to be some cooperation at Talk:Wilhelmstraße, now also under discussion. It ignores that the one usage can always be found on the web; sometimes in a book written, translated, and published by people who are not native speakers of English.

More seriously, it ignores our policy on such matters and the reasons for it. We should use what other standard sources use; we should not surprise our readers with forms they are likely to see as odd in the context. This English Wikipedia is meant for English-speaking readers; that's why we have more than one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that the above opinion supplied by PMAnderson says little about the fact that all country specific content in English Wikipedia is created by editors uniquely connected with, and devoted to the subject, usually with countless contributions to prove it, and NOT English language community at large. In general, country specific articles are written by editors who speak English at an advanced level and adhere to our policies, and who need not be lectured. As far as whether we should or should not surprise our readers with new content in proper context is a matter of interpretation. Once in the past, our readers were surprised to discover, that the continent of Africa made it to English Wikipedia. [9] Once, I myself was pleasantly surprised that the city of Kraków made it too. I would have been happy to see it spelt any way at that time, but it is all different now. Needless to say, I see the proposed move to Cracow as a move in a wrong direction. At worst, the Free City should be moved to Krakow without diacritics for the sake of growing list of new in-depth references available online. However, it is also well known that here in Wikipedia editors have the advantage of redirecting our readers to articles with advanced, country specific titles (like Wilhelmstraße), which books already published in English don't have. --Poeticbent talk 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is policy, and forbids all such claims. If PoeticBent indeed knows our customs, he should, as a matter of civility, abide by them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and your royal "our customs"! What "forbidden" claims did you spot in my comment above? And, is the repeated insinuation of incivility the only thing you care to add at this stage? Btw, I do not wish to respond to further personal attacks. --Poeticbent talk 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why without the diacritics? In your mind, isn't that as wrong as Cracow? Then again, no one here expects rational or stimulating discussion, including your dismissal of WP:OWN when it doesn't suit your POV and other things. The fact that people connected with these places right about it doesn't mean that they can shove their preferences down everyone else's throats. The most recent remarks seem to be the last ditch efforts in a failing battle in a war no one but the "other side" is waging. Charles 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent, Pmanderson is correct about WP:OWN. The best way to figure this out is to get everyone involved. Incidentally, I ended up agreeing with Charles' proposal of "Free City of Cracow"; my only problem was his approach to this issue. Unilateral moves of several articles while dismissing requests to use the proper channels (WP:RM) is very unconstructive. Appleseed (Talk) 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles did not act well; but he is not the only contestant for the least constructive editor award, which is not awarded here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome an argument for Krakow; it would take an argument, since it is still a minority usage in this context. But the idea seems to show a promising spirit of compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad to see that some of us are beginning to see the light at the end a tunnel they made. However, I’d like to appeal to editors concerned with our discussion not to be swayed by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)’s “holier than though” attitude, while, at the same time, unable to stop himself from making derogatory comments against me.[10] Septentrionalis (PMAnderson) is not involved with writing Poland related articles, however, he has already expressed bad judgment and a lot of attitude in another Poland related discussion concerning naming conventions, thus prompting me to consider arbitrary action against him, (here are the particulars). I believe that the current name of the article is best and most appropriate, considering the fact that all other alternative names used in online sources are already featured in Wikipedia as the so called redirection articles. However, I will abide by the decision of the community, like always. --Poeticbent talk 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a comment regarding me. Personally, I find you to be awfully hypocritical, crying out to silence others for commenting on your beahviour, yet here you are doing it. If we are to take into account other editors' behaviour at other articles, perhaps we should take into account your behaviour (removal of other users' comments, etc). Charles 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this fascinating. I believe the only opinion I expressed at Talk:Florian Gate was that there was consensus against PoeticBent's preferred name - I still do not see anyone else supporting it; I said hardly anything about the merits. Similarly, I said nothing about who else was least constructive in this discussion; there is at least one other editor in the running for it still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, Poeticbent: if you continue to violate WP:NPA, you may face yourself blocked. Discuss edits, not editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! I hope that you'd understand how hard it is for someone like me not to react. But I'd like to assure you also that this is my last comment in this thread. --Poeticbent talk 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with the truth, Piotrus? As a note to past incidents, WP:NPA applies to everyone and should not be waived around as a threat, but practised if preached. Charles 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Piotrus

Piotrus (and others if you feel that this applies),

In an effort to see what exactly supports a name using Krakow, I have the following questions that I think might clarify things. I have signed after each question so that you may answer below. I feel that since you are involved in Polish articles that you ought to answer and clarify some things regarding English:

  • 1. What do you think of the evidence and of the scholarly results supporting the English name of Free City of Cracow? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 2. How come your only participation in the discussion was a note on WP:NPA, and not any argument present evidence or refuting the evidence given? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 3. How come it is okay to have an article on Cracovie in French Wikipedia (you are an editor there), but not an article on the Free City of Cracow here, a name used more often than Free City of Krakow? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • 5. How come you are dismissing WP:NCGN #1? It reads: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. The Free City of Cracow does not exist anymore and the widely accepted historical English name uses Cracrow. Please make note of all of the evidence provided. Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 6. How come when you made your vote and said, English sources use both terms, let's stick with the one chosen by editors who wrote most of that and related articles and were invited to participate in the discussion you didn't? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 7. Do you realize that what you said in your vote essentially violates WP:OWN? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 8. How come you said that the article Krakow should be moved first in order to move this article? Wikipedia is not consistent and historical entities are allowed to have different names, especially when they were different forms of territory? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 9. How come you dismiss the participation of users seeking English names for English wikipedia to be disruptive? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 10. Do you think that your preference for the non-English name violates WP:ILIKEIT? Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 11. Which is used more: Free City of Cracow or Free City of Krakow --- those names in their entirety. Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I do feel that not answering the above questions would be further damaging to the credibility of the preference for Krakow. If you feel that it should be at Krakow, now is your time to truly shine. Charles 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_City_of_Cracow&oldid=154417969"