Talk:Kraków/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

World Heritage Committee draft decision for Statement of Significance for Cracow’s Historic Centre

Draft Decision: 32 COM 8B.85 The World Heritage Committee, 1. Having examined Documents WHC-08/32.COM/8B.Add and WHC-08/32.COM/INF.8B1, 2. Adopts the following: The historic layout of Cracow, with Wawel and Kazimierz, is one of the most outstanding examples of European urban planning, characterised by the harmonious development and accumulation of elements representing all architectural styles from the early Romanesque phase up to Modernism. The importance of the city is evident in the urban layout, numerous churches and monasteries, monumental secular public buildings, the remains of medieval city walls, as well as urban palaces and town houses designed and built by high-class architects and craftsmen. The value of the ensemble is determined by the extraordinary accumulation of monuments from various periods, preserved in their original form, with authentic fittings, which combine to create a uniform urban ensemble in which the tangible and intangible heritage is preserved and nurtured to the present day. The dominant point of the urban ensemble, Wawel Hill, is the symbol of the crown, a necropolis documenting the dynastic and political links of medieval and modern Europe. Cracow, one of the largest administrative and commercial centres in Central Europe, was a centre of arts and crafts, a place where Eastern and Western culture and art met. The importance of Cracow as a cultural centre of European significance is reinforced by the existence of one of the oldest universities of international renown, the Jagiellonian University. The picture of the city’s cultural richness is supplemented by Jewish monuments of Cracow’s Kazimierz. Criterion (iv): Cracow is an urban architectural ensemble of outstanding quality, in terms of both its townscape and its individual monuments. The historic centre of the town admirably illustrates the process of continuous urban growth from the Middle Ages to the present day. 3. Considers that, as no methodology has been adopted for Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for inscribed properties, or for whether they should have statements of authenticity, integrity, or protection and management, as required by Article 155 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, for properties at the time of inscription, this text should at this time be considered as a Statement of Significance.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2008/whc08-32com-8BAdde.pdf

SilkTork *^YES! 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the above description of the city by UNESCO could be used as an inspiration for further expansion of the lead if necessary, with careful consideration given to original wording in order to eliminate any possible risk of WP:COPY. --Poeticbent talk 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I feel that it could be used in some way - either incorporated into the lead with different wording, but sourced back, or some of it used as a direct quote, again sourced back. SilkTork *^YES! 11:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Though if to be quoted, probably best to wait until the statement has been accepted. It is still a draft at the moment. SilkTork *^YES! 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

German burghers

Many German burghers inhabited the city around 1300 - Rebellion of wójt Albert. German printers printed first Polish books after 1500. Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. Now, please find some reliable sources to back this up (not because we don't believe you, but because this is a requirement in Wikipedia), and then be bold and add this information to the article. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the simplification of Kraków's history. I don't have a research team to remove any error I find in 3 000 000 articles.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can do some research yourself to correct one article. If you don't do it, nobody else will. That's how Wikipedia works. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Names, lead

Per the BGN database:

• Kraków (BGN Standard)
• Cracovia (Variant)
• Cracovie (Variant)
• Cracow (Variant)
• Krakau (Variant)
• Krakov (Variant)

first place goes to Kraków, Cracow is an also-ran. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(For the benefit of anyone who may be misled into thinking that the above means very much, here is a sampling of BGN Standard names: Torino, Kyiv, Moskva, Warszawa, Al Qāhirah, Roma.) —RVJ (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This database includes names from various popular languages, and indicates one for BGN and other USG purposes.

Note that English Wikipedia is not a unit of the U.S. Federal Government (yet). We are not to be concerned with whether the Spanish name is more popular than the German name, nor even if the English name is more popular than the Polish name. If we have an English name in standard usage, we use it. (Consider that Polish Wikipedia has the articles for major American cities under their Polish names, seemingly unconcerned with the Polish names' numbers of Google hits.)

Important places in the world will earn names in the various languages of the world. We call these names exonyms. Little hamlets and suburbs that are of little interest to the world do not earn these names, and when the world has to refer to these places, it simply uses the local names, or endonyms—directly transliterated from incompatible writing systems, if necessary.

Once the royal capital of a thriving Poland free from foreign domination, Cracow's stature declined dramatically in recent centuries. As it rebounds today, do not imagine that erasing its name from your language does us, or it, any particular favor. —RVJ (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note that being a Government institution it is influenced by politics. Take for example its use of Londonderry and Derry. It seems to have come to the same compromise as Wikipedia does (call the town Derry and the county Londonderry (That this is a compromise on Wikipedia is made clear in the talk pages). For another example see Liancourt Rocks dispute#Recent conflict -- PBS (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Kraków

I wonder if there are any editors interested in creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Kraków? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cracow vs Kraków

I know this has been discussed recently, but why is the topic name 'Kraków' instead of 'Cracow'? I know of absolutely no English literature that uses the Polish spelling, notwithstanding the fact that the accent used in it is not used in English. Cracow, as far as I know, is at least the colloquial English standard name used for the city. The usage of Kraków on Wikipedia seems very suspiciously similar to neorevisionism, which is against policy.

As well, the BGN is not a valid source for city and geographical names in Wikipedia, the proper English name is to be used.

As this goes, why not rename Cologne to Köln, or better, Warsaw to Warszawa.

I might put this to vote, as a proper vote does not appear to have as of yet happened.

Antman -- chat 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Go, check the archives. The WP:NCGN policy was discussed many times, and this is it. --Poeticbent talk 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• • You aren't being helpful. I am stating that I disagree with the current situation on the grounds of WP:NCGN policy. Telling me to 'read the archives' isn't helpful -- especially if I disagree with much that had been discussed. Antman -- chat 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Search Google Books Antman, u'll see that Krakow has over 23K hits but Cracow only 9.7K hits. N.Y. Times writes about the city Krakow [[1]] so does Spiegel[[2]] so why change?--71.81.137.167 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Wherefrom come those numbers? On my search (for English-language books only), the difference was only 1k. The NY Times uses both Krakow and Cracow in different articles, depending on the author. Spiegel uses Krakow sans accent.. however, Der Spiegel is also a German newsletter, not English. As well, if you do a Google search limited to American and British sites in English, the difference is nary there. We can both agree, however, that the accent is not used in English language newsletters or in English at all, correct? So why have it? It's correct in Polish, but not in English. Again, we say Warsaw, not Warszawa. Antman -- chat 08:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of good sources for any of the three options. Given that we have to choose one of them, the form with K and the accent seems a good choice, since it also tells people what the native form is (and there's a tendency in English towards using native forms these days - this isn't a case like Warsaw where there's an absolutely established English form).--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Most atlases, however, still list it as Cracow. Why do people need to be informed of the cities heritage via accent marks? That doesn't make sense -- I would give in for Krakow sans accents, because without accents is the way I most often see it outside of Cracow unless it is a Polish source. Antman -- chat 08:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The good thing about accents is that if they don't mean anything to you, you can just ignore them, but if they do, they provide useful information. So this being an encyclopedia (which is about providing information) there's a strong bias towards using accents (I believe Britannica does the same). --Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

However, guess what? These are not accents at all. They don't even have a distinct name, but they are parts of distinct Polish letters. The mark is often referred to as a [kreska] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), but this simply means dash or stroke in English. They are written more vertically, but are conflated with acute accents in Unicode. [Ó] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) sounds like /u/ and is the 21st letter of the Polish alphabet after [O] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), which sounds like /o/. As ["Kraków"] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), the article name is simply not in English nor in a Romance language, but in Polish. "Krakow" is a vulgarization which may originate from an inability or unwillingness to render an [ó] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) on a typewriter and, in English, from simple ignorance of Cracow, the proper English name for hundreds of years. —RVJ (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This was debated ad nauseam already, and the acute accent is used in English publications too, for example the very popular Lonely Planet: [3]. In any case if you Antman plan to purge english wikipedia of non english letters you have to start a wider discussion in the appropriate place because then a lot of German, Finnish and many other cities would have to be changed too, for example Würzburg, Görlitz, Düsseldorf etc.  Dr. Loosmark  09:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My intent is to have native English names, when present, to be used in the stead of local names. In the case of German names, the umlauts can be replaced by vowel-e digraphs, for instance - Goerlitz. However, the accent, in this case, DOES represent something - the pronunciation in Polish. Cracow/Krakow, however, are pronounced differently in English than they are in Polish, and that should be respected - and not just the w. For the record, I actually prefer the K variant of the name, as K as a hard sound is clearer than C - however, it is simply that where I live (Chicago) which has a heavy Polish population, I do see the name 'Cracow' more often -- that might have something to do with the age of the Polish population in this region, though. Given that English is a Germanic language as well and tends to take many eastern European city names from German, Krakow would also possibly be more correct due to the name being Krakau in German. Antman -- chat 09:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My own impression was that the K spelling was gaining ground in English, so that seeing Cracow was becoming more and more unusual. Given the ambiguity of supreme term in English, adopting the K spelling makes more sense as is more universal in other languages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cracow clearly is the well-established, and neutral, English name of the city, especially when covering its history. Even Norman Davies uses Cracow. Modern web pages may often use Krakow (seldom Kraków) when describing the present day city, but that's hardly of significance to a Wikipedia article about a town which has an important German tradition from the 13th to the 16th century, and was as Krakau part of Austria until 1918 (Grand Duchy of Cracow). It is misleading to apply the modern Polish Kraków in historic context, e.g. writing that Copernicus had studied in Kraków in the 1490s, at a time when according to Henryk Samsonowicz the documents of the city council were written in German (59%) or Latin (41%). Only in the 1530s, when Polish nationalism was growing, the Polish King ordered that the members of the city council had to be fluent not only in German, but in Polish, too. Also, until the 1530s, the sermon in St. Mary's church was held in German. The Altarpiece of Veit Stoss there had been paid by German burghers of Cracow. The use of teh relatively modern Polish Kraków instead of neutral English Cracow is misleading -- Matthead  Discuß   01:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't answer Matthead's comments about the "German" Kraków, because they seem to me very Randy in Boise style and besides that has been done many times in the past. (really what the hell does German burghers of Kraków paying the Altarpiece of Veit Stoss to do with anything? apart that it happened a million years ago, going by that logic we should also write London in arabic because Al-Fayed for sure paid for many things there). I'd just like to note that Matthead is a vet of trying to rename Slavic cities, for example I remember he tried to rename the Czech Karlovy Vary into German sounding Karlsbad. btw Norman Davies used Cracow way back in 1982, but he switched to "Krakow" in newer editions of his books, for example [4]. And another thing, it's not true as Antman claims somewhere above that "most atlases still list it as Cracow", on the contrary, for example here: [5], [6],[7],[8],(US State Department), (Library of Congress)] etc etc etc  Dr. Loosmark  04:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark is correct. Norman Davies wrote about Cracow "way back in 1982" during the Cretaceous period. Or was it the Triassic period? In any case, what business or authority does Davies have sticking his nose into what Cracow should be called in English Wikipedia anyway. This living, vibrant Polish city need not need to genuflect before the English language guidelines on English Wikipedia. Whether this city has been known as Cracow for the last 300 years or more in the English language is of no importance. Seems pretty simple. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is the reverse that is true. Places with little world notability are the ones that are not represented in foreign languages. If your assertion above made sense, then this city would be somehow "genuflecting" to the many non-English languages and their encyclopedias—to say nothing of every other famous city. —RVJ (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert, please explain how the reverse is true. Has Cracow been known as such in the English language for the last three hundred years or not? And could you please give an opinion on Davies' writing about the city "way back in 1982"? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

-_- Cracow is official English name of Kraków, even we are teached about this in our English lessons http://serwistlumacza.com/szukajg.php?nazwa=Krak%F3w&wyslij=+Szukaj+. Cracow, Warsaw, Stettin, Lvov, Danzig and eventually Auschwitz (but now used only as name for German concentration camp) was officialy used in English as translation of Polish town's names (even Stettin, Danzig ad Auschwitz are German names too), as you can see here http://www.serwistlumacza.com/content/view/27/32/ Please do not be more Polish than Poles, if Nazis can have Cologne, we demand Cracow too! Best regards from Pole from Himmlerstadt xD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.94.33 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus for moving to Krakow. If moving to Cracow is desired, please start another requested move. Ucucha 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Kraków → Krakow — Disagreement on the talk page over whether to name the page Kraków or Cracow or Krakow without the accent mark. Seems to me that editors need to agree on the common name reliable English language sources (WP:UE), and using Google indicates that "Krakow" without the accent mark is the most common, in reliable English language sources. —PBS (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one for a debate on the subject. As an alternative to Cracow, is Krakow or Kraków more common in English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a really useful indication for usage in a Wikipedia article but useful as an indicator of popular web usage and if the ratios are similar to searches on reliable sources a useful check that the searches are returning fair samples:

• about 1,410,000 English pages for Cracow
• about 3,300,000 English pages for Kraków -Krakow
• about 13,400,000 English pages for Krakow -Kraków

So popular usage on the Web is for Krakow without the accent mark.

Searching on Google with site:uk (tends to remove native authors who often favour native spellings even when writing in English):

• about 32,400 for Cracow site:uk
• about 33,300 for Kraków -Krakow site:uk
• about 1,400,000 for -Kraków Krakow site:uk

So it looks as if popular usage in the UK is for Krakow.

Looking at websites that are in the gov subdomian in the UK returns:

• about 1,050 from gov.uk for Cracow
• about 109 from gov.uk for Kraków -Krakow.
• about 2,990 from gov.uk for -Kraków Krakow.

Which suggests that Krakow is the most common usage in more reliable sources in the UK.

US government usage:

• about 10,100 for Cracow site:gov
• about 6,790 for Kraków -Krakow site:gov
• about 29,400 for -Kraków Krakow site:gov

Ordering is the same as the gov.UK domain, with a slightly higher ratio with the accent mark

A Google book search on books published since 1945:

• 6,483 on Cracow in English
• 2,760 on Kraków -Krakow in English
• 8,689 on -Kraków Krakow in English

This Book search like the gov.UK and GOV domain searchs shows a similar bias towards Krakow. --PBS (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with user Atemperman's conclusion that Google searches are useless -- this particular search among the books section indicates statistical tendencies for usage in written works of the English language. The contention that "technical difficulties" encouraged the non-use of diacritics does not wash; there have been no shortage of works using all kinds of symbols. W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Google book search is indeed reasonable, provided we have evidence that the way the books are converted to electronic form is faithful to the books' original use or non-use of the ó. Even then, Krakow's edge over Cracow is small, and there exists no majority usage. --Atemperman (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When discussing this issue please stick to the guidance in the Wikipedia:Article titles policy page and associated guideline pages rather than discussing your preferred options with reasons like "because English people should use the correct [Polish] spelling with a diacritic, as it is the function of this Encyclopaedia to educate people". N.B. The policy does not include that as a remit when deciding [on] an article title-- PBS (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Cracow per WP:UE. Kraków and Krakow are not really any different since the o kreskowane can be "read through". — AjaxSmack 01:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• What is your evidence that Cracow is the most commonly used name in reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for precisely the same reason as stated by AjaxSmack; if the diacritic can be "read through", then there's no harm leaving it there. I would support a move to Cracow, a historically established English exonym, but Krakow is just Kraków with the diacritic left out due to technical restricitons. These restrictions don't apply in Wikipedia anymore, so there's no reason for a misspelled title. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Just because a diacritic can be "read through" does not make it acceptable to include it. Where in WP:UE and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is it suggested that we should use names with diacritic can be "read through" instead of following the usage in reliable English language sources? How do you know that English language sources leave out diacritic for technical restricitons. I bet if you asked most English people to write in long hand they would leave it out. But that is speculation on my behalf, do you have a source to back up your assertion that it is left out of books published since 1945 for purely technical reasons? -- PBS (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  The question here is whether Krakow is a (new) English exonym or if it's just the Polish endonym sans diacritic. We might never find reliable source that authoritatively indicates either way, but judging from the fact that there is now a general tendency to use endonyms instead of long-established English exonyms and that many English speakers pronounce Krakow not as "crackowe", but as "crackov" of "crackoff" – apparently an attempt to immitate the native Polish pronunciation – I think it's the latter. When I say that in this attempt to use the local name, the diacritic is habitually left out for technical reasons, I don't mean that it's necessarily impossible to add it, but it may require some extra effort on the writer's part (if you don't use Polish keyboard settings) and that most English speakers will not be bothered about it. But in Wikipedia, by removing the diacritic we may throw out the baby with the bath water; diacritics aren't there for decoration. If you know how to read Polish, it will inform you about the correct Polish pronunciation of the word; if you don't, then you probably won't even notice it (or "read through" it, as AjaxSmack wrote) and you'd mispronounce it anyway. There's less harm in using the diacritic than it removing it. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose We are no longer (technically) restricted as to which diacritics we can use in English, so why restrict ourselves? -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Because the diacritic is not used frequently in English. Wikipedia is mean to base its decision on what is commonly use in English see WP:UE. If and when the majority of reliable English language sources use a diacritic the we can follow their lead. -- PBS (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Concur with PBS' comments. Diacritic usage in English is very much an exception. Just because their usage is common in other languages does not automatically imply the English-language Wikipedia has to adopt their use. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - we've been through this many times. Just because a source omits the diacritic doesn't mean it regards the diacritic as wrong - it might be constrained by its own technical limitations or house style. English readers know that diacritics on foreign words are often omitted in English, so we don't misinform anyone by including it - on the other hand, Wikipedia readers know that Wikipedia's style is to include the diacritics unless another name is very well established in English (and we don't alawys even do that - see Zurich), so by omitting it we are potentially misinforming people.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Where in WP:UE does it say "on the other hand, Wikipedia readers know that Wikipedia's style is to include the diacritics" There is no such style on Wikipedia. What policy and guidelines say, is that we should base our decisions on. But of course Kotniski you know this because your are very active in editing the policy page. So why are you expressing an opinion that is contrary to policy? Do you have a source to back up you speculation that "it might be constrained by its own technical limitations or house style" and as you know you should not make decisions on speculation of what people might be thinking (its a form of OR). Also your say "English readers know that diacritics on foreign words are often omitted in English" so why should we include them, and yes we are misleading them if we include diacritics when they are not commonly included in reliable English language sources. Zurich is a very misleading example to use, particularly as the last WP:RM for that was many years before it was agreed to base article titles on reliable sources, and in that last WP:RM for Zurich, the community was close to evenly split. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not citing any policy, just expressing things I know to be true from experience and common sense, and what we can easily observe on Wikipedia. I would like the guidelines and policies to say what Wikipedia's actual practice is, but on this point, certain people (you included, if I remember correctly) have always blocked attempts to allow that to happen. Zurich is an illustration of just how far we are prepared to go to include diacritics, even when there is a definitely established English form, which is not the case with K/Crak/co/ów.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Krakow or Cracow per WP:UE. If readers want to see the names of locales anywhere as the locals spell them, to include diacritics, they can go that language's Wikipedia. The English language Wikipedia has no unique responsibility to reflect the use of diacritics in other languages. These disputes are ridiculous considering that other national Wikipedias apparently make no efforts in this regard, such as this Polish Wikipedia article. Everyone "knows" the city's real name is "New York" -- but no effort other than passing mention of this is made in the article's introductory paragraph. Once this imbalance is noted, one has to wonder why the English language Wikipedia is apparently uniquely expected to conform to local spellings of the names of places. Let's see the Polish Wikipedia start using local names -- or is the truth that there is not a snowball's chance in Hell of seeing that? W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison - Nowy Jork is the unquestionably established Polish name for that city (like our Warsaw for Warszawa, which of course we do use). "Cracow" used to be the established English name for that city, but for whatever reason, many modern sources have gone over to using Krako/ów. --Kotniski (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, it is absolutely a fair comparison. There is a double standard in operation here. In the Polish Wikipedia, it is considered perfectly in order to use the Polish versions of place-names. But for some reason, the English-language Wikipedia is expected to conform to the expectations of speakers of other languages. If I were to begin an editorial action on the Polish Wikipedia to encourage the use of local place-names, I am certain the reaction would be a mixture of contempt and dismissal. Because there is a double standard in operation, one must ask "why?". I frankly think that the "international" perception is that the English-language Wikipedia is the most commonly consulted "national" Wikipedia and therefore is targeted by various interests and agendas -- and this occurs as well in areas more significant than a language's choice of how a place-name is spelled. My view is that these nationalist and linguistic agendas should be pursued elsewhere. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read what we've said. Nowy Jork is like Warsaw, which we do use on English Wikipedia. Krakow is like Gyor, where Polish WP also uses the native name. This is all pretty irrelevant anyway, but the comparison is flawed.--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I read what was said. For many English-language speakers, the city's name is "Cracow" or "Krakow" without a diacritic. Most native English speakers who read Wikipedia don't really care if they see the diacritic or not -- my point is that some Poles expect this Wikipedia to bend over backwards to meet their linguistic expectations. This is the flaw in your argument -- you assume that the presence of these diacritics are somehow important to most readers of this Wikipedia when in fact the bulk of the readers of this Wikipedia are native English speakers who are unfamiliar with the diacritics and don't know how they affect pronunciation. This is an issue only for native Polish speakers; so why should it become an issue for the English-language Wikipedia? W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As we keep saying in different ways, the diacritic doesn't hinder the understanding of those readers who don't know what it signifies (they still recognise the word), while it does give increased understanding to those who do know (not native Polish speakers - they already know how to pronounce "krakuf" - but non-Poles who know the Polish alphabet but aren't sure of the the original spelling/pronunciation this particular name). So it's a win-win situation. Sorry, win-draw.--Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is not a fair comparison. Where Polish equivalents don't exist – or if they are not common today – Polish Wikipedia uses local names with all diacritics even if these don't exist in the Polish alphabet. See pl:Győr for example; not Gyor and not even Jawaryn (incidentally, it's Győr in English Wikipedia too). — Kpalion^(talk) 09:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have presented some evidence at the start of this RM of the most common usage in English today. I deliberately chose to do the book search from 1945 to remove the large number of Victorian books that the Google Book project has scanned that would have used Cracow, yet dispute the evidence that Krakow is clearly by far the most common usage in English, and that Kraków is the least, some people such as Kotniski are ignoring that and just "voting" (I use that word deliberately) for their preferred option. Personally I think it is done for emotive aesthetic reasons to (in this case) a Pole seeing a familiar name spelt "incorrectly" niggles, and they are unable to empathise that many for monoglot English speakers funny foreign squiggles are equally distracting. I fail to see why editors who are more than willing to support the use of reliable sources for information in an article, are not willing to use the same standards for the name of an article. KISS: Follow the common usage in reliable English language sources. In this case I would prefer Cracow to Krakow as I am more familiar with that spelling (I tend to come across it in histories of the Napoleonic period were it was usually known as Cracow) I was surprised that Krakow is now by far the most common spelling, but following policy that is why I suggested that spelling. If people want to use Kraków they should come up with some sourced based arguments as to why we should use it and not base their choice on their own preferences. For example what is used in most of the soruces in the article or what is commonly used in other tertiary sources. But to date if I was closing this RM I would move the article as non of those who have objected to the move have done so policy based arguments. --PBS (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy doesn't really settle this one way or the other. We've presented common sense arguments as to why the present name makes the encyclopedia better. Such arguments trump "policy" anyway. Or if you want to refer to the policy (WP:NC, sorry AT) - the form with the diacritic is equally recognizable, equally easy to find, equally concise, more precise and more consistent than the form without. So it seems to win on that basis too.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How is Kraków more precise and more consistent than Krakow, given that Krakow is the much more common spelling in reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's consistent with all the other Polish (and other countries') cities, where Wikipedia includes the original diacritics. It's more precise since it informs us of both spellings (the one with diacritic, and the one without, which we can deduce) rather than just one.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely how consistency ought not to be used, just because other articles are misnamed is no justification for misnaming another. Further one article name can not be used as a precedent for another. As for more informative it is not so. If the article is named Krakow and then the (Polish: Kraków) is included in the introduction, the reader is given two pieces of information. The common English language spelling as used in reliable sources and as an alternative the native spelling. Just putting in the native spelling does not convey the information. At the moment there are three alternatives given for the English spelling, a reader has no way of knowing what is the most common usage in English language sources and therefore the optimal one to use if they wish to use the name in another English language document. -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You still aren't taking account of the fact that people know about diacritics and how they used in English. If people want to write in a diacritic-less style, then can easily omit the diacritic. But if they want to write with diacritics, they need to see the name with the diacritic. It's of no surprise to anyone that you can find plenty of sources omitting the diacritic. No-one will consider the diacritic wrong (as opposed to a bit unusual) in English. Perhaps in Zurich the diacritic would be considered actually wrong English, because we have such a well-established name (and pronunciation) for that place - maybe that would be a better rename to propose. But I don't think Krakow belongs in that category.--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per "oppose" arguments adduced above. Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

which arguments? -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google counts are pretty useless in cases like this. The sources we should rely on are those that use English exonyms for some cases (Cologne rather than Köln) but not when those exonyms are obscure (Livorno vs. Leghorn). The sources should not include diacritics or modified Latin letters when the word has become nativized (Mexico rather than México), but not indiscriminately strip diacritics (Bogotá rather than Bogota). Any source that doesn't fit these criteria is not reliable as regards how a place is written in English. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Modified_letters directs us to "consult[] works of general reference which deal with the subject and see[] what they use." This means we need to look at what sources like Britannica, Encarta, M-W, the OED, etc. use. I don't have access to the OED where I am now, but the first three of these sources all use Mexico rather than México, but Bogotá rather than Bogota, indicating that they take care to judge whether the native diacritic is retained when writing the word in an English context or whether it is not. All three of these sources furthermore include the diacritic for Kraków[9][10][11]. Note that the URLs of all these sites and the titles of the webpages all include the diacriticless Krakow, even though the titles of the entries are all Kraków, and so searches for Krakow -Kraków or Kraków -Krakow will not return results for these sites, even though the sites are strong examples of reliable sources using Kraków rather than Krakow. --Atemperman (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The OED does not contain proper nouns. -- PBS (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer Cracow so we don't have to get into arguments between pro-diacritic v pro-English v anti-diacritic v anti-English v anything-written-anywhere-in-the-world-is-English-if-a-sentense-appears-in-English arguments. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Not sure if I will vote here but I'd like to say that I'm not against diacritics being used in English Wikipedia. That being said, Cracow is the long established English name for this city (probably over 300 years). Not in tabloids and travel guides, mind you but in scholarly works as well as on maps and so forth, in English. What is the uniqueness of this situation? Does Florence make more sense than Firenze or should we go with that choice? Again, what is the uniqueness of this particular situation. A rational explanation might make me vote to oppose the move. Thanks. And please, don't bother with google hits or that "Kraków is a living vibrant city". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

THere are plenty of good scholarly sources (Britannica I believe is one) using Krakow or Kraków. None of the three names is wrong, but I think Kraków is best, for the reasons set out above. (My second choice would be Cracow, since it's unambiguously not the native name, so the lack of diacritics won't mislead.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, despite this being a tad OT, I find it interesting that you would choose Britannica as a scholarly source to bolster your point, yet you don't like Britannica here [12]. Which begs the question that W.B.Wilson brought up, is there a double standard in operation going on? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the two questions are rather different. As regards facts, it makes sense to follow secondary sources; as regards typography, it makes more sense to imitate other tertiary sources. (Well it's not only Britannica that uses the diacritic anyway.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether a source is authoritative depends on what its authority is being asked to determine. My angsty diary from when I was fourteen is a good authority on how I felt at the time about my older sister and her dumb jock of a boyfriend, but it is a poor authority on the quality or validity of their relationship. Similarly, encyclopedias are generally inferior to secondary sources with regard to their factual claims, but they are equal with regard to how words are written in reputable publications in English.--Atemperman (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Atemperman, with all due respect to you, "Whether a source is authoritative depends on what its authority is being asked to determine" reminds me of President Clinton's famous statement ..."It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is ..." and is really confusing and not particularly helpful here. The rationale and explanation for your opposing vote [13] could also use a little more clarification. Maybe someone else can help me with this "Similarly, encyclopedias are generally inferior to secondary sources with regard to their factual claims, but they are equal with regard to how words are written in reputable publications in English" too. Hopefully I'm not too dense to grasp your other points, but your angsty diary from when you were fourteen didn't seem to correlate to the proposed move from Kraków to Cracow or Kracow. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)--Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia prefers not to cite other encyclopedias to answer questions of fact such as, "when was the Treaty of Ghent signed?", but it has no problem using other encyclopedias as authorities on writing conventions, per [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Modified_letters]]. The angsty diary was an example of how a source can be authoritative in one regard but not in another. All of this is intended as a defense of Kotniski's opposition to using Britannica as a source for questions of fact but his or her support of Britannica as a source for how the name of the city in southern Poland is written in English.--Atemperman (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, a little clearer now. Perhaps your belief that your angsty diary is an example of an authoritative source threw me for a loop. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Cracow as Krakow is a town in Germany. Cracow and Warsaw are the proper English names for the Polish cities, especially in historical context. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The existence of a German town called "Krakow" is possibly an additional reason not to call Kraków, "Krakow." It's not a good reason to call Kraków, "Cracow." Nihil novi (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nihil, it would be an even better reason to call Cracow by its original English name Cracow. Wouldn't it? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite irrelevant one way or the other. As is the existence of Cracow, Queensland.--Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The existence of similarly named subjects hasn't caused us to reject Cologne for Köln, for example. WP:UE specifies that "[a]rticles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." --Atemperman (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree, because although we aren't changing Cologne for Köln, or Warsaw for Warszawa, the problem is we changed Cracow for Kraków. And it seems to be in defiance of WP:UE. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, what I agreed to was Kotniski's assertion that the existence of Krakow am See and Cracow, Queensland has no bearing on what the title of the article we're discussing should be.--Atemperman (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. First Kraków vs Cracow, the majority of sources use Kraków/Krakow and since even the relatively conservative Britannica uses Kraków/Krakow, there isn't much to discuss really. Kraków vs Krakow is also an easy call, quite simply the de facto rule on wikipedia is to use the original spelling, for example Zürich not Zurich even if there are many english sources which use Zurich. Similarly we have German Düsseldorf or Czech Plzeň or Finish Jyväskylä or Hungarian Pécs, Győr, Kecskemét and there are countless others. Note that all those cities are also written without the non-English letters in sources yet nobody is saying that the Swiss, the Germans, the Czech, the Finns or the Hungarians "expect this Wikipedia to bend over backwards to meet their linguistic expectations" as somebody accused the Poles in this thread. Renaming Kraków would mean renaming a huge number of articles and there is zero consensus for that.  Dr. Loosmark  22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"...There really isn't much to discuss really...[it's] an easy call...". O.K., let's hypothetically say fine, no argument. So then Loosmark, what is your view on the "historical" application of "Cracow" on English Wikipedia. I mean should any reference to the city prior to 1945 in a historical context be either Cracow or Kraków? Should this historical difference be delineated prior to 1945, 1976, the advent of "google hits" or for the sake of consistency and simplicity, should we just use Kraków throughout English Wikipedia? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your view on the historical application of "Peking" on English Wikipedia?  Dr. Loosmark  00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Dan, but if it were up to me, I'd use "Peking" throughout. It's closer to the actual Chinese pronunciation than "Beyzhing", which is how most Anglophones mispronounce the non-intuitive pinyin transcription. And there are no Beijingese dogs, just like there are no krakowe shoes or krakowian calculus. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Peking closer to the actual Chinese pronunciation? You have to be kidding. Beijing is closer to the actual pronunciation.  Dr. Loosmark  01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's just says that neither /beɪˈʒɪŋ/ nor /pʰeɪˈkɪŋ/ is really close to /pei̯t͡ɕiŋ/. Back to (C|K)ra(c|k)(o|ó)w now. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"de facto rule on wikipedia is to use the original spelling, for example Zürich not Zurich even if there are many english sources which use Zurich." There is no defeacto rule, the rule is use reliable English language sources. This is compatable with the content policy WP:V and the article title policy. (BTW Zurich was last debated many years ago before it was agreed to rely on reliable English langauge sources for the name of a city. As two people have raised Zurich as an example it seems to me that it is time to revistit that article's title.) -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The "German Düsseldorf or Czech Plzeň" should be assessed on exactly the same criteria as laid out in WP:UE. That you say " Note that all those cities are also written without the non-English letters in sources yet nobody is saying that the Swiss, the Germans, the Czech, the Finns or the Hungarians" well I am saying that every place should be assessed against the article policy and relevant guidelines. "Renaming Kraków would mean renaming a huge number of articles and there is zero consensus for that." No! Renaming one article does not set a precedence for others each name should be assessed on the names used in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Only that in all of those cases the English language sources are split, both versions are used. In cases like that wikipedia almost exclusively uses the original spelling, because it contains extra information. And it isn't limited to cities, it's much the same with names, thus we spell Mika Häkkinen, Teemu Selänne or Béla Kun even if there are tons of reliable sources which spell those names without the ä, é, ü etc.  Dr. Loosmark  02:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We can have our cake and eat it because more information is convayed if the name of the article is in the predominant English name and the foreign spelling is includeded in the first line with the language it is in. Eg "Krakow (also spelled Cracow, and Kraków in Polish) ...". The current wording "Kraków (Polish pronunciation: [krakuf] ), also spelled Krakow or Cracow" does not convey the information that Krakow is the most common spelling in reliable English language sources, nor does it tell us that the spelling Kraków is derived from Polish. -- PBS (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't even come close to demonstrating that Krakow is the most common spelling "in reliable English sources". Unless by "demonstrating" you mean your POV interpetation of the "google hits".  Dr. Loosmark  04:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How is the informaiton I have presented above a point of view interpretaion of Google hits? Lets cross check the Google searches I did above (which included books) using Google scholar:

-Krakow Kraków city: about 5,390

Cracow city about 16,600.

Krakow -Kraków city: about 16,900

So for a Google scholar search also shows that "KrakówW is the least used. -- PBS (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Google searches would have to come under original research. (I don't mean they can't be among the considerations for choosing a title for the article, but I don't see how they can be used to support a statement made in the article. For that you'd really need to find a reliable source that states that "X is the most common spelling". Maybe common sense would take precedence in clearcut cases, but I don't think this one is clearcut enough. "Reliable English-language sources" is not synonymous with "pages indexed by Google Scholar".)--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The only situations in which the Google hits are important are those in which there is a clear preponderance of hits for one or the another. Btw the results I get are very different frm those you published at the beginning of this debate. Google hits:

Kraków 47.800.000

Krakow 43.200.000

Kraków -Krakow 29.300.000

Krakow -Kraków 15.600.000

Kraków (pages in UK) 2.190.000

Krakow (pages in UK) 2.120.000

Then one also has to consider that many pages use "Krakow" because of "technical reasons" so to say and the author might have intended to use Kraków if it would be possible. And another thing to note is that in your Google Scholar search there is for example a person named "Samuel L. Krakow" or "SL Krakow" and there are probably many other hits which are not related to the city.  Dr. Loosmark  09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I went to check Google Scholar and I randomly clicked on only 2 of the results pages and all of the hits were related to the following names: "K Krakow", "D Krakow", "JS Krakow", "G Krakow".  Dr. Loosmark  09:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

These differences in Google results are probably due to the different default search properties Google applies to users in different countries. If you're googling from Poland you get different results than if you're googling from the US, because diacritics are treated in different ways (I forget the details).--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Loosmark, temporarily leaving Béla Kun and Pekingese dogs aside, would you state your position vis a vis Cracow and Kraków regarding their historical context and English Wikipedia keeping some sort of consistency with these names? As PBS succinctly and correctly put it, Düsseldorf, and Plzeň can be dealt with at another time. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My position is that the article should not be renamed.  Dr. Loosmark  02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. Thanks, anyway. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosmarks's answer [14] Dr. Dan (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My question to Loosmark was, should Kraków also be used in a historical context instead of Cracow. As in the Free City of Cracow WP article or the Cracow Uprising article? Loosmark your opinion regarding this issue, might help us out and shed some light on the process being discussed here. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, it depends on the sources. If you want to rename those articles start a relevant discussions on the appropriate talk pages.  Dr. Loosmark  03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Even the CIA uses Kraków in their latest maps: [15], [16].  Dr. Loosmark  04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position better now, "you have no idea" and "it depends on the sources". Hopefully you don't mean how you interpret the sources. The entire vote here is predicated on the sources. Some turn to scholarly sources, other to tabloids, travel guides, and google hits. If Encyclopedia Britannica, or Norman Davies or Timothy Snyder and on, and on, support a certain held viewpoint, then they are reliable. When they do not, their information needs to be "qualified" or refuted. Besides "even the CIA uses Kraków in their latest maps". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered "i have no idea" and "it depends on the sources" regarding your question about the two other articles, Cracow Uprising and Free City of Cracow which was an attempt to off-topic and to derail [TM] the conversation. Nobody serious would for example claim that having articles like Peking (ship), Peking Plan or 2045 Peking bares any relevance on the name of the Beijing article. That you now try to give an impression that my position regarding renaming the renaming of Kraków is "i have no idea" speaks volumes. Unlike you I also don't think that Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA, Norman Davies etc need to be "qualified" and "refuted". I will even risk the crazy hypothesis that they know more about the subject than the random wikipedian.  Dr. Loosmark  08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Cracow per WP:UE. Hoped to get some reasonable arguments as to why UE should be waived. Didn't hear any. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think UE leads to Cracow? Are you disputing Philip's data which shows that Krakow is far more common in English than Cracow?--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Historical Use of Cracow

Now that this RM has been closed, perhaps we can address the other issue of whether it is more correct to use Cracow in a historical context per WP:UE. Since it was suggested that my questioning this " was an attempt to off-topic and to derail [TM] the conversation" (sic), we can now look at it as a separate issue. Specifically, is it appropriate to substitute Kraków for Cracow in the Cracow Uprising and Free City of Cracow or similar articles? If, as it was argued in the above RM that Cracow is archaic or "Victorian" should Kraków be applied throughout the encyclopedia for consistency? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The solution should be source driven -- the MOS is clear on this:

• For this article: the name should be the same as the title name of the article "Spell a name consistently in the title and within the article (covered in Article titles)..." (Wikipedia:MOS#Foreign terms).
• For other articles use the name that the reliable sources in that article use: "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, ..." (Wikipedia:MOS#Foreign Terms and my emphasis on references for the article).

This is why it is best to use for article titles the same name as is found in reliable sources as it ties the name and the contents together (hence the emphasis on using reliable English language sources). Do as we are currently doing here, and using a spelling that is a minority spelling does not help the project as some editors dislike to have redirects on article pages as they mistakenly believe the title of a page to be the "correct" name, and/or that redirects load the servers to the detriment of the project. -- PBS (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Today, the Wikipedia "Main Page" had a snippet under "In the News" relating the fact that the element with the atomic number 112 has been officially named copernicium in honour of Nicolaus Copernicus. So then, is the entry at the Copernicus article, "His father was a merchant from Kraków and his mother was the daughter of a wealthy Toruń merchant", correct, historically appropriate, and acceptable under the WP guidelines? If the argument is correct stating that Kraków is the recently acknowleged toponym for the city and Cracow is the less frequently used archaic, and "Victorian" variant, how do we deal with the historical usage in this type of a case? Google hits? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference from the article does not help here as it is a Polish one. Using the WP:MOS#Foreign_terms fall back position of use all reliable sources, a search of Google Scholar and Books shows that Krakow/Kraków is more commonly used in combination with Nicolaus Copernicus that Cracow.

• Google Books: 721 on "Nicolaus Copernicus" Krakow in English.
• Google Books: 135 on "Nicolaus Copernicus" Krakow Cracow in English.
• Google Books: 686 on "Nicolaus Copernicus" Cracow in English.
• Google Scholar: about 872 for "Nicolaus Copernicus" Krakow
• Google Scholar: about 101 for "Nicolaus Copernicus" Krakow Cracow
• Google Scholar: about about 399 "Nicolaus Copernicus" Cracow

Further analysis needs to be done but it appears that Krakow is probably the most frequently used, and it certainly is not incorrect to use it. -- PBS (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• MOS, strictly so called, has nothing to do with article titles; that is WP:AT. (Some of us think this is just as well: ;-> the idea that one subject, in one time period, should vary from article to article, is a characteristic absurdity.) But I agree that Cracow should be used for the 1830s, just as we use Constantinople for the city on the Golden Horn in the 330s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation, however Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul are the same place but with completely different names. Kraków, Krakau, and Cracow are the same place, with the same name. The difference is that one is Polish, one is German, and the other English. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well - just we use Treaty of Nanking in 1842. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be decided on a case by case basis, seprately for each article. If an article like, let's say, Kraków Uprising is based on English-language sources and these sources predominantly use "Cracow", then I suppose this article could (or even should) be moved to Cracow Uprising. I don't think we need a general guideline for all Kraków-related articles, and it would be impossible to say "use Cracow until year X, and Kraków thereafter" anyway. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Kpalion. As long as we throw overboard the dubious argument "It was declared to be Kraków in 1975, so it must be Kraków for the indefinite past", and look at sources, I would be perfectly satisfied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just to add my own voice, it seems to me entirely clear that the common English name of the city has for centuries been Cracow, or at a stretch Krakow (but not by any stretch Kraków), and accordingly the name that would accord with Wikipedia policy is either Cracow or Krakow. The fact that there is a distinct English name at all (as with Venice, Vienna, Ghent, Copenhagen, etc. etc.) is a mark of historical/cultural importance (there is no distinct English name for Mniszek), and objecting to English speakers using the English name when writing in English has the effect of seeming xenophobic and parochial. But given that some people care passionately, in some cases (given comments above) even neurotically, about using a Polish name for a Polish place, while English speakers don't particularly care about this sort of thing (I can't see much likelihood of a lobby to move pl.wiki's "Oksford" to "Oxford"), it's plainly a waste of energy to try to insist that the English-language wikipedia should use the English-language placename. While one might have expected Poles to be as little exercised by "Cracow" as Austrians are by "Vienna" or Italians by "Venice" (or Swiss by the lack of an umlaut in "Zurich" or our failure to call Geneva "Genève"), it seems we actually have to apply the same sort of postcolonial sensitivity that (rightly) makes "Mumbai" and "Beijing" the norm. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think it's not even Poles in general but us, Wikipedians. It's a reaction to things such as the attempts to remove all diacritics. The Kraków debates may be quite an interesting field of study for some researcher one day... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic traditions

I'd like to dispute the inclusion of the "Catholic traditions" section. These are not particular to Krakow, they can be observed in thousands of Polish cities and towns, and in fact in many Catholic majority countries. I don't think that it is particularly useful.--Atwardow (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Flag?

I'm not entirely sure how to edit Wikipedia articles, so I would do this myself, but please could someone change the flag by the Zagreb, Croatia link in the 'Twin Towns - Sister Cities' section to the correct one. It shows a flag of the former Yugoslavia, not the Croatian flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.136.94 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Using wrong flag icons is just one of several problems with flagcruft. I did away with all the useless flag icons in this section. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

introduction

I would like to propose slightly revising the introduction. If you spend some time perusing articles about other countries' major historical/cultural cities, you find quite a bit more information about those cities' distinguishing cultural characteristics in the introduction, precisely what makes them unique not only from an historical standpoint but also from artistic, architectural, and political standpoints. I feel that in this regard the introduction to the Krakow article is quite weak. I don't think it's great that Krakow's proximity to Auschwitz is highlighted so prominently as this is not what makes Krakow "Krakow." Any thoughts?Atwardow (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious information

This claim Germans constituted the majority during the 14th century and became Polonized by the 16th century. - is contradicted by other sources. For example this work on the development of the city [17] has a table which lists the population by ethnicity and by subsection of town.

In Krakow proper, in the 14th century, there were about 5000 Poles, 3500 Germans, 1500 Jews, and 800 "other" (mostly Hungarians and Italians). The text also says explicitly "Poles formed about half of Cracow's population". In the towns of Kazimierz and Kleparz - suburbs of Krakow - the Poles dominated completely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The majority info was added by User Skäpperöd over a year ago,[18] [19] with no weblink to check if there's any nationalistic agenda there at source. — Krakowski (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved from mainspace for further discussion

These citizens were German settlers who moved in during the Ostsiedlung, and who constituted a majority of burghers in contemporary Polish and Bohemian towns. ^{[please provide weblink, to confirm that]} The 1257 foundation decree issued by Bolesław V the Chaste was unusual insofar that it explicitly excluded the local population. ^{[exluded from what exactly, please provide WP:RS explanation of the context]} The older Royal fort Wawel was connected to the new town, built on its northern side around the market square, by its former its suburbium (Okol). ^{[the "fort" (meaning, the castle), isn't "older" than the "new town" (i.e. Stare Miasto), there was a settlement at its site originally]} Germans constituted the majority during the 14th century, and became Polonized in the 16th century.  ^{[please see table]}

— Krakowski (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the new expansion

The recent expansion ([20]) which added about 10% to the article has one major content: it has no references. This, sadly, would lower the quality of this article, and degrade it from a Good Article. I am afraid the expansion will have to be reverted unless proper inline references are added (see WP:V). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• References (previously lacking) added to expanded cityscape section.

Gnesener1900 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Full name of Krakow and capital

Full name of Krakow is (in Polish): "Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków", not "Królewskie Stołeczne Miasto Kraków. It is very important because the first word of the name, "Stołeczne" is "Capital". Because we do not know for what reason my footnotes (correct and not expired links) have been the slogan of "Krakow" removed, then cite these links here: This is a link to the official Statute of the City of Krakow, it says that the FULL name of Krakow is "Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków". While the short name is: "Miasto Kraków" (City of Krakow). There is no word called ceremonial name (Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków) for it is full. http://www.bip.krakow.pl/_inc/rada/uchwaly/show_pdf.php?id=21510

... and here is a link to the official, the Public Information Bulletin. Specifically, the tab describing the colors and symbols of the City of Krakow. Of course, using a full name, "Stoleczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków". http://www.bip.krakow.pl/?mmi=98

... And here's a link to the Internet System legislation (specifically, it belongs to the Polish Parliament). It contains the file. pdf is one example (existing legislation), which officially used the full name of Krakow, which is "Stoleczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków" (In short: 'St. Kr. Miasto Kraków):

http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19300890698

---

Moreover, the case of Krakow and Warsaw, is that in 1596 the king was started (because it took until 1612 years) relocation of the royal court in Warsaw. Court, he remained the official capital of Krakow Polish. Warsaw was awarded the title "City Residential His Majesty." In Krakow, were still royal coronation, royal funerals, other States Legation arrived to Krakow. Regalia were in Krakow. He was so split on the capital city, Krakow and residential city (people) of the King. (One could say that this situation similar to that of Amsterdam and The Hague). The fact that if one city is the royal residence, does not mean yet that the second is not the capital. Especially that retains all the attributes of the capital. Krakow was the Polish capital formally until the Polish occupation by Russia, Austria and Prussia. Description of the situation, about which I wrote is included among other things here (do not know why this link is still the slogan of "Cracow" disposed of as a kind of offline):

http://www.wk.pl/glowny/kalenpl/r04.htm

Nor do I know why you removed the link (to the "competitive" to Krakow and Warsaw closely related after all):

http://www.zyciewarszawy.pl/artykul/257088,364995_Warszawa___czy_to__naprawde_stolica_.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.232.18 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the City of Warsaw a reality only in the Constitution (Communist) Polish in 1952. Previously, Warsaw, there was no Polish Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.232.18 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dear User 89.79.232.18 (talk · contribs) from Kraków. I sympathize with you, because I'm also from Kraków originally. Please remember, one of Wikipedia's basic policy/guidelines is strict adherence to what has already been written about the subject, I mean, in virtually thousands of books mentioning Kraków as capital of Poland between 1038 and 1596. Your one article written by a thrill-seeking journalist (zyciewarszawy) does not change anything. Please don't pretend that you haven't read the standard history of Kraków before. You just stumbled upon a piece of journalism and now, are trying to impose it on others as some kind of Eureka moment. How am I suppose to take seriously anything else you'd like me to see, if you yourself can't see the writing on the wall? Besides, I have a very hard time understanding your English. No offence, please. Your Polish is probably better than mine. Poeticbent talk 08:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

--- ' Dear Uaser Poeticbent'

Unfortunately :(, repeated stereotype becomes the truth. Yes, much better to write in Polish Powielanie legendy w końcu kiedyś staje się prawdą. Tak się stało właśnie z legendarną datą 1596, kiedy indziej podawaną jako 1609 a kiedy indziej jako 1612. Wielu Polaków poddaje się legendom :)

Po 1596 r. Insygnia władzy (koronne), skarbiec koronny, koronacje (czyli Sejmy Koronacyjne) i pogrzeby były nadal w Krakowie. Czyli dla ówczesnych, sprawy najważniejsze. Król wielokrotnie do Krakowa wracał i z niego wyjeżdżał. Jeśli ktoś myśli, że wszystko załatwil rok 1596 to jest w błędzie. Stąd tak wiele dat rozbieżnych (1596, 1609 itp). Do Krakowa słano nadal ambasadorów. Kraków w Umowach międzynarodowych był nadal miastem stołecznym np. w Umowie o obronie przed Turkami dwóch miast stołecznych Krakowa i Wiednia (a to już czasy Jana Sobieskiego, czyli tego, który sobie rezydował w Wilanowie).Poselstwo tureckie słano zresztą do Krakowa. W prawie międzynarodowym czy administracyjnym Stolica Państwa nie dzieli się na stolice i miasta rezydencjonalne. Termin Stolica Państwa jest desygnatem swojej rzeczywistości, miasto rezydencjonalne (rezydencja, czy jedna z rezydencji) króla to pojęcie odrębne. Jest sprawą oczywistą, że Warszawa w XVII w. uzyskała tytuł Miasto rezydencjalne Jego Królewskiej Mości - jest to fakt absolutnie bezsporny.. Jesli studiowałeś w Polsce np. prawo to jest taka książka, podręcznik do Prawa i Administracji i to chyba wydana jeszcze "za komuny", gdzie sprawa Miasta Rezydencjalnego i Stolicy Państwa była "oczywistą oczywistością". Stolica nie musi uzyskiwać takie tytułu, po cóż skoro jest niby stolicą? :)

Ponieważ niestety nie mam na to czasu, aby wertować książki (czego żałuje) to moze wejdź sobieproszę do hasła Wikipedii, z którym przecież nie mam nic wspólnego a mianowicie "Historia Warszawy". Tam pewnie kwestia tego nazewnictwa i tego co nioslo ono ze soba jest zasygnalizowana. Wraz z przypisami pewnie, bo dla historyków warszwawskich takze nie ma tajemnicy w omawianej kwestii. Janusz Tazbir przypomniał mi sie w tym momencie zresztą ... http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Warszawy

Jeszcze niedawno na stronach Miasta Warszwy było to wylożone kawa na lawę (czyli Krakow stolicą do końca Zaborów). Usunęli chyba to ze swojej zakladki "historycznej" ale zmieniła się w ogóle zasadniczo ta strona.

Nieprzekonanych przekonać się nie da. Mnie, przekonuje nie kryterium większosci, które przytoczyłeś (zresztą jakiej większości? Kto mialby jak wiele linków przytoczyć?) ale prawda. Powielanie stereotypów jest moim zdaniem szkodliwe. Historia, ta "czysta historia" i tak wie swoje. Mógłbym po prostu zapytać: podaj proszę akt prawny (na prxeniesienie stolicy). Dokładnie podobnie, jak mógłbym poprosić Cię o wskazanie Warszawy w Konstytucji niepodległej Rzeczypospolitej przesd 1952 rokiem. I tego też nie znajdziesz bo tego nie ma :). Przytoczysz mi wówczas jako pierwszą Konstytucję Stalinowską z 1952 r. bo tam dopeiro ukazała sie Warszawa ale to temat odrębny. Mam nadzieję, że jako Redaktor (?) tego hasła zainteresuje Cię omawiana kwestia i nie pójdziesz po najmniejszej linii oporu jednak czyli linii powtarzania bez dociekania.

Na datach mi nie zależy. Nie mam z tym problemu. Prosiłbym Cię jeszcze tylko o jedno, jeśli mógłbyś to zrobić mianowicie o zmianę nazy pełnej Krakowa w haśle "Kraków" ponieważ jest wyssana z palca tak jak legenda 1596 roku. (składnia: Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków - to jest prawidłowa nazwa pełna Krakowa). Pisalem o tym wcześniej. I nie jest to nazwa ceremonialna (nie ma i nie moze o tym być nigdzie ani słowa. Dziwi mnie nota bene usuwanie moich przypisów w tym właśnie zakresie a cytowanie tegoż samego Statutu Miasta i z uporem maniakalnym pisanie nadal nazwy blędnej) ale nazwa pełna. Przypisy (Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej, Statut Miasta, czy Internetowy zbior aktów prawnych na stronie sejmowej) również podałem ale widzę, że to wszystko jest wycinane równo z glebą łącznie z przypisami, linkami do aktow prawnych. W innym przypadku powielana błędnie nazwa pełna tego Miasta stanie się w końcu dla przytoczonej przez Ciebie większości, prawdziwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.232.18 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pozdrawiam serdecznie!

Weak Intro, Issues with nationalism

Like just about every article about Poland on Wikipedia, this article suffers from a POV-flavored retelling of history. In typical fashion, the article (particularly in the intro) severely downplays centuries of non-Polish rule. It is riddled with strange pan-Slavic comments such as [Krakow] "was already being reported as a busy trading centre of Slavonic Europe in 965" (Weasel words, BTW), "elevated to the papacy as Pope John Paul II – the first Slavic pope ever," (what does the Slavic pope comment have to do with Krakow and why does this belong in the intro?). In reality German-speaking peoples (Austrians, Prussians, Germans), had a lot of direct influence on the development of the entire region over the course of centuries. In this article, they appear only as Nazis who invade in 1939 and kill Jews. Russians, though Slavs, get similar treatment. I understand and appreciate that the underlying assumptions and the priorities that appear in this article reflect the sincere, heartfelt beliefs of the people writing them. Still, those beliefs are anchored in 20th Century political realities at the expense of comprehensive and accurate historical understanding. Unfortunately, good intentions in themselves do not make for a strong article.Udibi (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, your good intentions in themselves do not make for a strong argument either, without hotlinks to reliable, third-party sources in support of it. Meanwhile, Kraków is a Good article that underwent a strenuous review process. Poeticbent talk 14:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia can and should be much better than this. That is apparently a long way off....Udibi (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The name

I would like to ask the polish here about where the name of Krakow comes from? Can it be connected with Krakan>Krakren from the nordic mythology with a meaning of "Dragon" or "a Dragon slayer". We, the bulgarians have also word "Krakon", "krakoncho", which complex etymology could be connected with a dragon. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the diacritic?

Nobody seems to notice but "Kraków" is the Polish spelling of the name of this particular city. There are already two English spellings of that name in use: "Cracow" and "Krakow" (note the latter is without the acute accent over the "o"). Shouldn't we consider renaming this to either of those? Please reply.

And the reason I'm proposing this change is easy to spot. Let's take into account Warsaw, the capital of Poland, since it and Cracow are in the same country: its article is at Warsaw, not "Warszawa". Like Dublin is at Dublin, not "Baile Átha Cliath" or "Áth Cliath", and Cork is at Cork, not "Corcaigh"; other Irish towns and cities are also not at the Irish names, not even Dingle (which is even in the Gaeltacht but still uses the English name regardless); and see also Derry, not "Londonderry", as another example. The Andalusian capital, being at Seville and not "Sevilla", is yet another example. See also this, and maybe you'll be convinced to simplify the name of this article to either "Cracow" or "Krakow" (without the acute accent over the "o"). Again, please reply and pick your stance on this proposal, and maybe something will get done about the diacritic. -- 92.13.88.3 (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Place your mouse on the scrollbar (to your right), and scroll higher up on this page. Don't even have to check the archives yet. Poeticbent talk 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not answering the question. Please answer the question. -- 92.13.88.3 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at wp:diacritics. There is a constant ground war going on about this on Wikipedia. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That MOS defers to WP:UE, under which guidelines, this title should be moved to the standard English usage, i.e., Krakow, no accent mark. Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. WP:UE suggest the usage of the diacritic as is currently being done. Look, this horse has been beaten to death. Just leave it alone.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How does it do suggest that? The diacritic in the name is nowhere used in standard English form. When I did a Google search, as suggested by the WP, I found 90% of the book titles that popped up used either Krakow or Cracow. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes it is [21], you're just squinting very hard not to see it. Anyway, the whole diacritic issue has been debated up, down, left, right, backwards, forwards, inside, outside, sideways and diagonally. You're not gonna bring anything new to the table. The consensus on Wikipedia is that it stays. Just leave it in peace for goodness sake.Volunteer Marek 01:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Request move to Cracow

I would like this to be moved to Cracow, which is the most correct name on English. Check all these websites from Poland

http://polandpoland.com/cracow.html

http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/school/ (based in Cracow)

http://uek.krakow.pl/en/university/some-other-units/cracow-school-of-business.html (based in Cracow)

http://letters.krakow.pl/pronunciation_krakow.html (based in Cracow)

And having an English Exonym is a sign of honor, as it signifies your town was important internationally.

I'm on an iPad, so I can't start the move request, would someone please do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevonicus (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This one's been extensively discussed before. There's no point to redoing all that again. The current name is the English name.Volunteer Marek 20:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're both right. "Cracow" would be a better title and I agree that an English exonym signifies an international importance. But we know from experience that you'll never win against Polish jingoism in Wikipedia, so you may just as well not bother with yet another move request. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm Polish and I always call the city "Cracow" in English. Pronouncing "Kraków" in the middle of an otherwise English sentence sounds really weird to me. --Piotron (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you weren't "Polish" like you say you are, but (for example) British, American, Canadian, Australian, etc. (i.e. an "English" speaking person), you would have known that "Kraków" and "Krakow" and "Cracow" are pronounced the same way by people who do not know Polish and can't speak it. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting argument for spelling it the Polish way. Actually, as "real" English speakers know, we place the accent on the first syllable, which seems to be at odds with the Polish form. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• English exonym Cracow is not old enough to be of significance. However, the word Cracovia might be. There was a time in history when the British tried to rename everything in their own image, although some Germans did the same for a few years later on. I bet, the Soviets would have done it too if Krakau was located on the other side of the Curson line in 1939. Poeticbent talk 14:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I can never understand why some people think that archaic and frankly silly 17th - 19th century inventions like "Ladislaus" or "Stanislaus" and yes, "Cracow" (though that goes back a bit earlier) constitute "English usage". These are neither real Latin, nor real English nor actual Polish, just some weird-ass mix of all three that sounds horrible to anyone with an aesthetic ear. It's like a drunk two year old baby with a major speech impediment trying to speak... Latin, or English or Polish and slurring so badly that it speaks neither. They're likely to annoy both the Latin scholar, the English reader and this so-called "Polish jingoist" (do you even know what the word "jingoism" means? It might be a good idea to actually learn the meaning of English words before lecturing people on the usage of the English language). Unless you think the encyclopedia should be written with a lot of "thy"'s and "thou"'s they really have no place here except as historical curiosities.

Furthermore, this insistence on using antiquated English forms from 200 years ago really betrays a complete misunderstanding of how the English language actually works. It ain't French. What has made English a world language is precisely the fact that it is so adaptable, dynamic and fluid. So by insisting on these freaky archaic forms you're actually deprecating the English language - as she actually exists - itself. Just forget it. It's Kraków and English speakers are fine with that.

Volunteer Marek 01:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

See, Chevonicus? This is exactly what I meant. Words that have been used in English for centuries are not truly English because they sound horrible to Marek's aesthetic ear. Beat that with a rational argument! — Kpalion^(talk) 14:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sinking church?

I can't ask about this in the Churches of Krakow article because no one has written anything there since 2009. Watching the Travels & Traditions Krakow episode, they just feature it and I didn't catch the name. The church's original entrance is about 12 feet below street level, with a flight of stairs going down to it in a small courtyard area. Anyone know its name? It doesn't appear to be mentioned in the Churches of Krakow article. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It could be any old church in Kraków. It's not that churches sink into the ground. It's the ground level that rises over centuries, as old buildings are demolished, and rubble and waste accumulate (and not just in Kraków; you'll see it in any old city). St. Adalbert's could be the church you're thinking of, as it's a good example of this phenomenon. The current Baroque church is on ground level, but it stands on top of its Romanesque predecessor which is now well below the ground and houses a small archeological museum now. And to think that when it was built a millenium ago, it was standing on a small hill! — Kpalion^(talk) 13:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Pollution?

I was surprised to see that the article says nothing about pollution from the Nowa Huta steel mill, which I had understood was a serious problem for historic Kraków. Sca (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a serious problem and a "good article" should really mention this. The Economy section doesn't mention the heavy industry (steel mill, power plant, etc.) either. Frankly, it reads a more like a travel guide than an encyclopedic article, which should discuss the shortcomings of this otherwise wonderful city. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Climate

I just changed the climate paragraph back from "Continental" to "Oceanic".

Point is, the Koppen scheme we use in Europe has a cut-off from continental climates at -3C (26.6F) where in the US they use 0C (32F). This is primarily because in the US they refer to what we call an "Oceanic Climate", a "Marine West Coast Climate" and by leaving the threshold at -3C half of coastal New England would have a marine WEST coast climate...

Anyway, as Kraków is not located in the United States of America, I would like to recommend sticking to the original, European definition of the Koppen scheme...

Clint.hotvedt (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)