Talk:Szczecin Lagoon

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Szczecin Lagoon is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Water Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects 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.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rename

Please use WP:RM procedure if you intend to change the name of the article. You know that Polish/German renaming is controversial and potentially contentious. --Lysy^talk 23:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a renaming procedure for this page.--Stonemad GB 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to Szczecin Lagoon per discussion below. There doesn't seem to be consensus over whether to use the German or the Polish name, but it's clear that "Szczecin Lagoon" is more commonly used than "Lagoon of Szczecin", as far as Polish names go. I am closing this discussion without prejudice against continuing to discuss the appropriateness of German vs Polish names, but the move I've just done seems to be a step forward at best, sideways at worst. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Lagoon of Szczecin → Oder Lagoon – Proposed because the current name is less recognisable to English speakers and is unpronounceable to English speakers without a working knowledge of Polish.

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose. "Szczecin Lagoon" is used more frequently in English (see discussion). Olessi 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as Olessi. I would support renaming to "Szczecin Lagoon", though. Also in Googlebattle, "Szczecin Lagoon" wins against "Oder Lagoon" over 10-folds (11,000 vs 1,020) --Lysy^talk 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opose. Support moving to "Szczecin Lagoon". Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. After having a look at the Europa.eu (European Union) website in English, there are 2 results as Szczecin lagoon, 5 as Oder lagoon, none as Szczecinski Lagoon, none as Stettiner Haff and none either as Stettin lagoon (all names including results for style Lagoon of xxxxx too)--Asterion^talk 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as by nom. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The rationale for the renaming is that no name for this feature has significant recognition in English. A Google search shows up similar figures for both terms. The current name, however, is both unrecognisable and unpronounceable for English speakers without a knowledge of Polish (ie 99.9%). (It is also misleading- the city of Szczecin is 20 miles from the lagoon). Oder Lagoon, on the other hand, is very easy to pronounce in English, and has as much historical validity and current use. It is not a cut-and-dried case, but I think this gives it the edge.--Stonemad GB 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather against the rename. Szczecin is similarly difficult to pronounce for English speakers without a knowledge of Polish (ie 99.9%) and has less historical validity (whatever it means). Would you propose to rename Szczecin article as well ? --Lysy^talk 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are different factors to be taken into consideration for the city. Firstly, it has 420,000 inhabitants who use the name Szczecin, and would presumably be rather unhappy about use of the German name, for obvious reasons. Secondly, English use of the name Stettin is seen as revanchist. Thirdly, use of the name Szczecin is a recognition of the different post-1945 nationality of the city. None of these factors apply to the lagoon, as a trans-national lake.

(By historical validity I simply meant that reference to this body of water as the Oder lagoon in different languages is long-standing; it is not a neologism).--Stonemad GB 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining this. I still think that the "pronunciation argument" is rather on a thin side for a rename justification. --Lysy^talk 19:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Szczecin Lagoon" seems to be the most common name of the lagoon in question, at least according to Google Books.

Lagoon of Szczecin (1)
Lagoon of Stettin (1)
Oder Lagoon (7)
Szczecin Lagoon (84)
Stettin Lagoon (5)
Oderhaff + lagoon (4) (to track usage in English instead of German)

Sorry, Olessi, according to Google Books, the winner is Stettiner Haff (223) (plus 9 for Stettin Haff)!-- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that "Haff" is an English word ? --Lysy^talk 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is also evident with Google Scholar:

Seems to me it should be moved from Lagoon of Szczecin to Szczecin Lagoon. Olessi 18:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google Scholar also lists the following results:

Stettiner Haff (87)
"Odra Lagoon" (40)
"Odra Estuary" (144)
"Oder Estuary" (138)
"Oder Delta" (105)
"Odra Delta" (1, for "Oder/Odra Delta")

Apparently scholars do in total use combinations of the river name(s) with estuary, delta or lagoon (and I've skipped bay) more often than ones including the city names - shame on anyone who now tries to find additional results for a "Szczecin Delta" to even the score! Also, I am convinced that (too) many Germans are desperately trying to lick anyone's boots by happily using foreign names even if inappropriate, while I can not imagine a Pole using a German name voluntarily. Even when publishing from a German institute, persons with Polish-sounding names use Polish place names, see 3rd, 5th, 6th result for evidence. Can anyone imagine a German at a Polish University getting away with the use of a German name in a published paper? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The delta and the estuary are different things that you're confusing here with the lagoon. --Lysy^talk 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half of this lagoon is still in Germany, why should it be called by the post-1945 name of a city that is far away (not even shown on the map provided in the article) rather than by the neutral and traditional name of the river which created the lagoon ages ago? BTW, the article, and its current name, was created by a very unbiased user who had chosen to call himself User:Gdansk. How about moving the Vistula lagoon to Gdańsk lagoon, and Curonian lagoon to Królewiec lagoon to further push Polish POV on European geography? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Szczecin Lagoon" is how the lagoon is most commonly called in English. --Lysy^talk 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

Szczecin Lagoon → Oder Lagoon – Proposed because Oder Lagoon is used more often in English. (also i see that 28 articles link to Szczecin Lagoon. 244 link to Oder Lagoon.) Matthead also covered this i think. -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a problem with those articles, not this one. Google books:

"Oder lagoon" - 89 hits "Szczecin lagoon" - 473

How about 610 on "the Stettiner Haff", 366 on "the Szczecin lagoon"? Besides, I'm really curious how many English speakers can put all those z's and c's in the right place without looking it up every time?-- Matthead Discuß 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for "Szczecin lagoon" some of these do appear to be German language [1] - but that's just one I found on the first five pages.

So no, I don't think Oder Lagoon is used more often in English. Anyway, this was already discussed above - I don't think the common usage changed much in the last 3 years.radek (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'd like to also note that some of those "244 articles that link to Oder Lagoon" do so simply because you recently changed them to do that [2].radek (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, using Google, Google Scholar, etc, in the way you just utilized them, is not recommended on Wikipedia. Second of all, I only changed it on one article due to it being about the German side of the Lagoon, and it was right after i saw the list.(i only edited one article like that, since it is referring to Germany's Side of the Lagoon, which i saw in my National Geographic atlas included the German name for the German side, and the Polish name for the Polish side.) -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) using Google, Google Scholar, etc is not recommended on Wikipedia for about the past two years - really? I missed out on that. Do you have a link to where this was decided?radek (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And alright, apparently you only changed one article - still, please don't strike out other user's comments. It's rude.radek (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a click through some of the "what links here", and the vast majority of those that go to Oder Lagoon do so because of one template, Template:Pomerania. Nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly no sign of wide use amongst many editors - one edit to that template and the statistics will be entirely reversed. Using Google Scholar can be misleading and has many limitations, so should never be definitive - but there is nothing wrong with using it for getting vague indications. I can't see any pressing reason to change the current page title as it is. Knepflerle (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the vast majority of those that go to Oder Lagoon do so because of one template, Template:Pomerania - good observation, i wonder who created that template. anyway i don't see any reason to change the current title either. Loosmark (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]