Jump to content

Talk:Kraków/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6


White space below article

Do you also get this enormous size blank space below the article, or is it just my own computer? Can you please confirm or otherwise that it is not a single PC error? Thank you in advance, Poeticbent talk 04:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No blank space for me. Perhaps it was a local problem or has been resolved. Klbrain (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The main station isn't any more a station

Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The airport picture is too dark

Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Air quality

There has been continual back and forth about whether "Krakow’s Air Quality [is?] Among the Worst in the World" (with sources) should be in the article, with lots of name-calling going on too. Can somebody explain the problem? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been deliberately caused by a sockpuppet IT and a user, which is now blocked. I used to revert his edits this week in the article Warsaw, because his information was incorrect. I actually started a discussion and proved my point, but he refused and kept on reverting everything. This information that he provided is taken directly from Google in order to start another edit war. Furthermore, I haven't called him names or anything, whereas he seemed to be quite threatening. User:Oliszydlowski, 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
"I can get you site banned so you cant edit wikipedia on ur computer" is a personal attack. Can you please discuss the content and not the editor. The information is cited to a source, how is it not correct? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes my mistake, I simply couldn't stand it for any longer. Secondly, I will assess the source given and check if Kraków is the most polluted city. If so then I'll add something about it when the protection expires. User:Oliszydlowski 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, not a problem - simply put when admins look at a dispute, unless it is very clear and blatant vandalism, we have to look at all sides of the story and make sure whatever we do is fair. I cited the North Circular Road was the most polluted in London not too long ago without issue, so while the information might be uncomfortable or threatening, it's not beyond the bounds of incomprehensibility and it's good to show some solid evidence it is incorrect. I think your other problems have stemmed from there. The best solution is always to lock the article and force a discussion - if the other party refuses to play ball, then we can look at sanctions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The external link used by the SPA in Polish (with no named author of article), looks like a local young up-and-coming advocacy group "screaming murder" with no (!) official, government-approved source of data of any sort, scaremongering about pollution for possible political gain. — The funny part is that the photo-illustration accompanying that blurb is a regular foggy morning over the Vistula river in Kraków, nothing else. Poeticbent talk 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this makes me angry. I am not a Wikipedia editor and just happened to stumble upon this. I am a foreigner who have spent a couple of winters in Krakow and can confirm that the winter air in Krakow is super bad and downright dangerous. Users Poeticbent and Oliszydlowski are apologetics, deliberately covering up an important issue. I have a few screenshots I took off of the site http://aqicn.org to show family and friends how bad it can get during the winter 2016-17. I just don't understand how to upload them here. It is downright life threatening. When the "fog" over Vistula and over the Planty and city center is yellowish in color with a slight taste of urin, it is in fact life threatening smog - not "fog". To most Krakowians this is a well known secret, as is the fact that the government tries to downplay and hide the issue. There might be historical data on the site http://aqicn.org, but you have to register as an institution or university representative to get hold of it. But for starters, I will check back here in a day or two, see if I can find instructions where to send my screenshots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.130.197 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


The discussion, which concerns the use of the form "Cracow", rather than "Kraków", may be viewed at Talk:Kraków uprising#Requested move 8 May 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


DK guidebooks switch from Cracow (2007) to Kraków (2015)

DK guidebook on Amazon changed from 2007 to 2015. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if more people interested in Kraków would take a look at Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Cracow#Requested_move_3_September_2017. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Krakow

The only reason some people use(d) Krakow is because their keyboards didn't support Polish diacritic ó. I agree that the two main names are Kraków and Cracow. We don't need to stress Krakow much, I am not sure it even belongs in the lead at all. This may merit a wider discussion at a wikiproject. Łódź does mention Lodz, but Gdańsk does not mention Gdansk, Wrocław doesn't mention Wroclaw, Białystok doesn't mention Bialystok, Toruń doesn't mention Torun and Rzeszów doesn't mention Rzeszow. That's the diacritic use in the Top 20 biggest cities in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 26 October 2017

@Piotrus: I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen, but the following needs documenting, cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
03:03, 31 October 2017‎ 2601:19b:801:3c30:78cb:36ff:15ae:3b19 (talk)‎ . . (157,583 bytes) (+133)‎ . . (→‎Sports) (undo)
04:23, 26 October 2017‎ Academicoffee71 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,450 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (Kraków and Krakow are spelling variants, "Cracow" is the actual other_name (as it's the traditional English name)) (undo | thank)
18:52, 25 October 2017‎ @MyMoloboaccount: (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,343 bytes) (+316)‎ . . (restore information sourced to reliable source) (undo | thanked)
02:58, 24 October 2017‎ Academicoffee71 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,027 bytes) (-288)‎ . . (→‎Etymology: removing grammatically incorrect and questionably sourced POV pushing sentence) (undo | thank)
03:23, 13 October 2017‎ @Volunteer Marek: (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,601 bytes) (+288)‎ . . (restore sourced) (undo | thanked)
03:10, 13 October 2017‎ Academicoffee71 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,313 bytes) (-288)‎ . . (→‎Etymology: Removing questionably sourced statement) (undo | thank)
02:45, 6 October 2017‎ @Nihil novi: (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,321 bytes) (-218)‎ . . (Undid revision 804007190 by Academicoffee71 (talk)) (undo | thank)
02:31, 6 October 2017‎ Academicoffee71 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,539 bytes) (+218)‎ . . (How's this for a compromise?) (undo | thank)
02:20, 6 October 2017‎ @AusLondonder: (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,321 bytes) (-219)‎ . . (Undid revision 804005631 by Academicoffee71 (talk) Disagree that Cracow is "conventional") (undo | thanked)
02:14, 6 October 2017‎ Academicoffee71 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,540 bytes) (+219)‎ . . (undo | thank)
19:26, 5 October 2017‎ @Staszek Lem: (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (157,388 bytes) (-152)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Academicoffee71 (talk) to last version by Poeticbent) (undo | thankSend public thanks for this edit? Yes No)
17:41, 5 October 2017‎ Academicoffee71 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (157,536 bytes) (+148)‎ . . (undo | thank)
@In ictu oculi: Not sure I understand the relevance of this issue here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: just pointing out the persistent battleground efforts of the latest BobbyMartnen/Genealogizer sock. The ideal solution here is progressing the SPI with copying across similarities of the previous two accounts, but failing that this page evidently needs to be under permanent watch. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The US Goverment, The City by decree and the American Literature Newberry Award winner of 1929 all use Krakow as the offical spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.91.113 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


anti-Jewish violence, legislation, and expulsion

I have reverted as the text is fully supported by The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland: A Jewish Revival of Classical Antiquity. The source reads: "In the fifteenth centruy, extremist Catholic clergymen incited the townfolk to vioence against the Jews, and persuaded the king to underwrite legislative measures against the presence of Jews in Cracow. As a result, the Jews were gradually pushed out of the positions that they held in the city. In 1469, the were expelled from their old settlement.... After the Jewish seniores had been forced to sign a renunnciation of trade in Cracow in 1485, the financial situation of the community detiorated. The Jews then chose to move ... royal town of Kazimierz which de jure did not fall under the renunciation .... In 1494 a great ire provoked a new wave of anti-Jewish assaults in Cracow.. This is followed by a discussion of sources on the king's transfer orders (whether it amounted to banishment or not, the author is of the opinion it was likely a banishment). Please be specific on what you allege is misrepresented here. Ample sourcing exists for the Chruch led anti-Jewish events in Krakow in the 15th century - this is rather DUE per available sourcing and since this resulted in all the Jews being expelled in 1495 (to the nearby royal town).Icewhiz (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Cracow

@Oliszydlowski: please provide rationale for not having Cracow as a possible English name in the lead, since it does not result obsolete at all, contrarily to what you say just to keep reverting edits of mine and of PeachyCoolArrow’s. Where does it state that it is now uncommon enough to remove it? イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 11:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

How about you provide a rationale for why it has to be there. It's obsolete and pointless. The former English alternative is mentioned in lede and in the etymology section. Furthermore, it should not be used. No guide in the world uses the word "Cracow" from 2019. I won't further undo the edit, but I do not see it as a positive contribution in any way. If the Polish spelling would make it more difficult for English readers to spell or pronounce then I'd completely agree with you, as in the case of Łódź which in my opinion in English should be LODZ. Perhaps start a discussion on there as it would help. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Cracow is still often used in English when referring to historical events or quoting old texts. This is actually more important than Lodz, as the spelling (not just diatrics) changes. See Beijing for a similar example - and Peking is probably far less used than Cracow. We just need to be clear this is the old spelling.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: first off, it is not obsolete. The two references I provided do not list the spelling as obsolete and the Oxford Dictionary even keeps it as the main entry. Secondly, it is customary to have alternative or former spellings/names in the lead section, unless there are too many and they would clutter the lead, in which case they are listed in the name/etymology section below. It has little to do with whether (the pronunciation of) a certain spelling is difficult or not. I surely do not doubt that it is increasingly less common to see Cracow instead of Krakow or Kraków, but in any case in should be kept, as it is a historical variant of the English name; of course, with the due specifications (see for instance Livorno, for which the name Leghorn has indeed fallen out of use). イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 16:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This topic does not concern me nor am I an expert on etymology. I simply share a view of the general public as I've never seen/heard "Cracow" used except in a 1970s documentary and on a 1600s map. I share a much more radical view of Lodz, due to its German current derivative and, hence, the English pronunciation should be the same being a Germanic language. The name Łódź is as good as renaming the article Woodge. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I have seen Cracow quite a bit (mainly in texts on history). While Lodz pronunciation may be an issue - the Łódź / Lodz issue is implicit in that all names with diatrics/accents are (often) written with plain English letters in English. It may still merit a mention in Lodz.Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not talking about renaming the article Cracow, the present name is fine. All I am saying is we should not remove that name from the lead, for the reasons above. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually I was wrong on how common Cracow is - per Google NGRAM - it is actually almost equal to Krakow (the K over passed C only in the past few years). I also just read a few journal papers (from Polish authors, actually, in English) - that used Cracow in English (e.g. [1]). Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The only correct version of the city name in English is Cracow, as for Italian it's Cracovia, for German it's Krakau and for French it's Cracovie. The same rule should be followed as in case of Warsaw (Pol. Warszawa) or Rome (It. Roma). This is the matter of consequence and of the language traddition. I have 20 years of expirience with translating scientific literature and I'm deeply convinced, that the basic version should be changed everywhre in this wiki. Kuźma Idzi (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Both the US and UK Government use Krakow Kommie27 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A quick bit of googling reveals plenty of current / recent use of the name Cracow. For example see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-cracow-beats-paris-or-rome-for-savvy-tourists-s66r7sdgv Greenshed (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been proofing texts in Poland since 2002, and in that time I have seen a shift in what people want. Back in 2002 it was translate everything, but now even Warsaw is becoming Warszawa in addresses. The Gdansk or Gdańsk page has actually seen a battle here on Wikipedia against 'Danzig'. Yes, 'Danzig' and 'Cracow' have a lot of history, but the question is what should be the primary name we use here? I'm for Kraków, or Krakow for anyone without the ability to access 'ó'. Cracow, should be mentioned, but only that, even if a certain university has professors who still live deeply in the past. Certainly I have convinced every translator I have ever had to work with. Lublin Trev (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

travel guide - doesn't qualify as RS

" https://www.local-life.com/krakow/articles/wawel-krakow-castle " - the statement about 3000 B.C. needs to be supported by reliable historical sources. Anyone have any? This website would be of use if one were looking for where the weekend theater openings were taking place, but never for hard science. 50.111.52.253 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors who regularly contribute to the article may try to incorporate this information: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/arp.1824 "A multiproxy approach to studying a large prehistoric enclosure in Ojców, Kraków Upland, Poland"50.111.52.253 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I will attend this issue shortly. If I do not find time could any other users be interested? Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Snow closure: there is consensus against moving the article to the proposed name. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Kraków → Krakow – The proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this city. This is shown by the broad usage of the proposed name across publications such as Reuters, the BBC, AP, the Guardian, Bloomberg, WSJ, and the NYT. Spekkios (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times. Wikipedia titles use diacritics. Volunteer Marek 07:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The only move request I can see is this, unless I have missed anything else. That ended in no consensus 11 years ago. WP:DIACRITICS says The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). Reliable sources show Krakow is the WP:COMMONNAME, so we should use that. --Spekkios (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I would also note that it seems every argument aside from Iggy'slindlynx relies on the official name, which is typically not how we determine article names. Iggy's argument is compelling, but when I went to confirm it with recent news sources I found that in this instance it appears to have produced an erroneous result. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, this has been discussed before, but nominator's examples are hardly cherry-picked. Most random high-quality English language sources don't use the accent. Nobody contests that the accent is needed in Polish, but there's very strong evidence that it's not used in English. Washington Post , The Economist for two more examples of high quality English publications that drop the accent. These are all recent-ish articles, as well, as far as potential claims they're out of date - 2020 & 2021. SnowFire (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. Anglophones often not only simplify spellings of foreign names, they often also avoid correct English-language spelling and punctuation, to the detriment of clarity. All this in the name of ease and simplicity, but actually a dumbing-down. Let the informed use proper spellings and punctuations – and the lazy or uninformed simplify any way they like. If the latter individuals type "Krakow", Wikipedia will still send them to the correct "Kraków". Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would also rather see an accurate spelling than a mistaken version of nobody knows what it is. I believe "ó" instead of "o" is correct. Kraków in English is spelled Crascow Cracow not Krakow. So yes, please keep Kraków here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
..by the way, I just glanced at the talk page archives. The issue has been discussed a "million" times already. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I fixed my typo and here is more examples:[5],[6],[7] - 3 more okay or you want me to keep going? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would. If you believe that "Cracow" is the English language WP:COMMONNAME, as you appear to be arguing, then we will need more than four sources - particularly as I assume that you selected them because they use "Cracow", rather than blindly selecting them and then determining what term they use? BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we could make a precedent here and establish that in case of doubt, the real native name, in that case: Kraków - is used? Why not give the courtesy and from all the possible variants accept the one that is, well, the real name?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The offical name of the city is Kraków and this is exactly how the article should be titled. Proper spelling also does not sound like 'Krakow' at all. This Wikipedia (and many others) NeonFor (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Could you explain? WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the common name in English, while WP:DIACRITICS tells us that the use of diacritics should "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". To me, it is pretty clear that if "Krakow" is the common spelling in English - and I believe it has been established that it is - then WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DIACRITICS support this move (as well as WP:UE, but two policies is enough for now). BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's a pattern on Wikipedia where diacritic differences in language are treated differently than spelling differences that I don't think stands up to scrutiny. They should be treated the same way. The article on the country is at Poland, not Polska. This is easy to show by checking high-quality English sources which use "Poland". If some gremlin replaced every instance of "Polska" with "Póland" in English texts, then this analysis wouldn't change - unaccented "Poland" would still be the proper title as it's more common than the replaced Polska's that now use an accent. Hopefully we can agree that this would be a legitimate case of dropping the accent? There may be good reasons to oppose, but I disagree with the simplistic analysis that "Wikipedia uses diacritics". Sure, if they're in use in high quality English sources. Maybe that can yet be shown, but checking what high quality news sources use while searching for both "Krakow" and "Kraków" (i.e., start with the source, not with the answer you want to hear) has consistently shown dropping the accent in English to me. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    @SnowFire - It’s not only the accent. "ó" in Polish sounds as [8], "o" has a different sound [9]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that's true, but is it relevant? English pronunciations are routinely different than native language ones. "Cyclops" should really be more like "Kýklōps" if you want to make a Greek-style pronunciation. Or for an even worse examples, wikt:quixotic is spelled the same in English and Spanish, but it's pronounced "kwix-augh-tic" in English, and more like "kee-hoe-tic" in Spanish. I think the battle has already been lost on attempting to get pronunciations lined up. SnowFire (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose For languages using the Latin alphabet, it is preferable (and frankly more respectful) to use the existing names, as long as no established English alternative name exists (such as Venice, Rome, Gothenburg, Copenhagen etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Encyclopedia Britannica (by far a better source than those presented above) uses Kraków, while also recognizing the spelling Cracow, showing that the proposed Krakow is a non-starter. Kraków is indeed English usage, Cracow the alternative. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I am unsure as to why Encyclopedia Britannica using a particular name makes this request a non-starter given the number of other sources presented that show Krakow is in use. Just because Cracow is listed as an alternative doesn't mean it is actually WP:COMMONNAME. --Spekkios (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per my comments on Talk:Wrocław – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close this obviously is not going to happen just because a newish editor is not familiar with the consistent and universal use of full Latin fonts on the en.wp. To keep the RM open is pointless and byte wasting. Close and get back to more productive activity 17:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kraków/Archive_5&oldid=1197300595"