Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 12 January 2007

Former countries Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. 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: 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

AnonMoos, first of all, please don't use this kind of language on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Kpalion, if you support Kraków, then you have to promote 北京 also. There are English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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      O       02:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Matthead: WP:NCGN and EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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" , 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      O       06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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      O       18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Britannica.com: Kraków

I’d like to appeal to Misplaced Pages 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 Krakow (internal search) 322 hits

New York Times on Cracow (internal search) 854 hits -- Matthead      O       02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note, that the 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 above) 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)

Regarding "inserted by Matthead in order to confuse": Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages: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      O       07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Washington Post on Krakow (internal search) 7 hits in the last 60 days

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)

• Newsweek on Krakow (internal search)

Newsweek on Gary Krakow reports" many hits for "MSNBC.com's Gary Krakow reports", also hits for "Brian Krakow", and Cracow of course -- Matthead      O       02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. The original "Krakow" link shows 1695 hits, with "Krakow Poland" its down only 104. Where's the misrepresention then? -- Matthead      O       07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It would also be worth mentioning that the corresponding article in Britannica called: “Republic of Cracow” 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)

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      O       08:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 respond with counterarguments only under these circumstances. However, like everybody else, I’d prefer not to have anything inserted into my discourse, as is the case with the first original "hit count" for New York Times added by Matthead without clear distinction, signature or a single word of explanation.

The purpose of this discussion is clear 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)

• Start-Class former country articles
• Former country articles requiring a map
• WikiProject Former countries articles