Talk:Kraków złoty

Name

"Kraków złoty" or "Cracow złoty"? Google books shows 48 vs 26 results, so I don't think we can argue Cracow version is more popular. I suggest keeping the current name, since the city's name is Kraków. Historical and less common name Cracow should be avoided unless it has clear majority of use in a given context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The city's name is just as much Cracow as it is Krakow in English. Kraków is a very distant third. Try changing Nowy Jork to New York on the Polish Wikipedia, and see how far you get. Genealogizer (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid straw man arguments. I cited data, you cite demagogy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like a perfectly reasonable analogy. Why insist that English use Polish names if you don't think Polish should use English ones? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Because I never said Polish shouldn't use English ones. And Kraków is used by enough English sources to be considered an English word. Anyway, that's an off topic disucssion. If you want to discuss Krakow vs Cracow, go to Talk:Kraków. This is about the name of the coin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Kraków is not an English word - the English word for this city is Cracow. Some English sources no longer use it, but that doesn't make Kraków an English word. Ó is not an English letter. And if you don't think Polish Wikipedia shouldn't use English versions of the names of English speaking cities, go make a RM to move Nowy Jork to New York City. Genealogizer (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. The main arguments is the Kraków is primarily known in English by it's native name. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Kraków złoty → Cracow złoty – Consensus determined that the former city-state belonged at Free City of Cracow, therefore its currency should be called Cracow złoty. Genealogizer (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Object. No consensus determined anything like that. Most sources as pointed above prefer the term Kraków in this context. Standard Catalog of World Coins, which is likely the most reputable source for coins, refers to the city as Krakow, not Cracow: [1] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Free City of Cracow#Requested move 30 April 2017. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:USEENGLISH. The "data" cited by Piotrus in the section above the move request includes Polish publications alongside English ones, making the numbers given entirely misleading. Leading British scholars (e.g. Norman Davies) and university presses (such as Oxford University Press) at present still use "Cracow", so the argument made elsewhere that it is "obsolete" is simply false. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Your argument is about the city name. We are discussing coin name. Please don't attempt to obscure the matter by citing irrelevant sources from a different discussion. You have conveniently ignored my link to the most reputable numismatic database. How 'convenient' to ignore sources that disagree with you and cite irrelevant off topic sources... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • For anyone who may be fooled into thinking Piotrus's source proves anything, it also uses Nürnberg and Torino. Genealogizer (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• On the coin name, shall we perhaps consider publications such as the National Bank of Poland’s Journal on Economics and Finance, which used "Cracow" zloty in 2007? Or if that is dismissed as not being a source produced by English speakers, how about Gregory Grossman's Money and Plan: Financial Aspects of East European Economic Reforms (published by the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Slavic and East European Studies)? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Please provide links to them. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Grzegorz Wójtowicz, "The Origin and History of the Polish Money. Part II", Bank i Kredyt: Czasopismo NBP poÊwi ́cone ekonomii i finansom / National Bank of Poland’s Journal on Economics and Finance Jan. 2007, 5-18; Gregory Grossman, Money and Plan, has a preview on Google Books; to this can be added John G. Gurley, "Excess Liquidity and European Monetary Reforms, 1944-1952", The American Economic Review, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1953), pp. 76-100.
• Oppose. Although, for many years, Warszawa/Warsaw and Kraków/Cracow were the two Polish cities with English exonyms, in present-day usage, only Warsaw is indisputably referenced in the English-speaking world via its English exonym. As far as Kraków is concerned, it is now primarily known in English by its native name and, since the city's name has always remained the same, it would only sow confusion if Wikipedia were to use its present-day English name in articles referring to present and near-present events, while indicating the same city through its gradually-discontinued former English exonym in articles which describe the past. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

While striving to assume good faith, I begin to suspect a cabal of Warsovian editors bent upon depriving Cracow of its distinctive English name. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• OpposeKrakow is the well established English name of the city. In 2008 a research was carried out in regards to this issue as Krakow officials were debating which name to use and if Cracow is more widespread in English speaking world, the result was that Krakow is far more widespread and an decision was made to use the word Krakow in English publications[2]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Political considerations of bureaucrats are irrelevant to this encyclopedia. Genealogizer (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, Wikipedia ignores the official names used by governments all the time, see Ivory Coast, East Timor, Bangalore, and Plzeň (the city's official English-language website uses Pilsen). Genealogizer (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      • You ignored the fact that they already researched how widespread English usage is and Krakow absolutely dominates usage, while Cracow is an archaic form from 90s. Which I am sure you know from previous discussions on the subject from years ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) 05:48, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
        • Krakow doesn't absolutely dominate, Cracow isn't archaic, and the 90s weren't that long ago. As I said in the move discussion for the Free City, "Cracow isn't archaic. Even for the modern city, it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third." Genealogizer (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - once again, "Cracow" is not outdated, especially in a historical context. PolskaNation (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Do note that the above account was created in May, has only 6 mainspace edits out of which 2 are votes to change name of Krakow to Cracow.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate his point. A small group of users seems to be intent on removing as many references to Cracow as possible. It seems like the major rationale is WP:IDLI. However, wikipedia is based on sources, and more academic sources use Cracow than any other variant, especially with regards to history. Genealogizer (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But per WP:DUCK, likely being someone's WP:SOCK of WP:MEATPUPPET does make his 'vote' much less relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's worth underlining that unsubstantiated ad hominem allegations do not make anyone's views less relevant, except perhaps those of the people making them. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE and so the title will match the article of the country issuing the currency, the Free City of Cracow. —  AjaxSmack  22:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Was "Cracow" the common name in English at that time? Yes. Was "złoty"? I'm willing to bet no. I can't imagine "ł" was ever used in English sources. It frequently isn't even today. So to avoid the mix of Anglicised and native Polish I believe we should retain the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If your bet is a winner, and avoiding anachronism is the prime basis for discussion, that provides a strong case for "Cracow zloty" rather than "Kraków złoty". But anachronism is not the primary thrust of WP:USEENGLISH. The 2005 edition of Norman Davies, God's Playground A History of Poland, vol. 2 (Oxford University Press) – the most eminent English-speaking historian of Poland and the UK's foremost academic publisher, and at 12 years old not exactly archaic – uses "Cracow" for the city and "złoty" for the currency. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Davies, just like us, is not consistent: Norman Davies (24 February 2005). God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795. OUP Oxford. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-19-925339-5. - uses C twice, and K once on the same page. He does seem to use C 80% of the time going by pure word count, but still... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per location of both Kraków and złoty articles. Free city article should be moved to Kraków too. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It was moved to its current title through a RM last month. The consensus was clear. Genealogizer (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved by you: [3] without discussion, you mean. Please don't confuse people: you moved it first, after years of it having been under 'Kraków złoty'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the article on the Free City, not the złoty. Genealogizer (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That is hardly conclusive. You want conclusive, start a RM at Talk:Kraków. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Unsure whether the Polish spelling for złoty should be retained, but as we have recent consensus at Talk:Free City of Cracow#Requested move 30 April 2017 that the city is the Free City of Cracow and sources are divided on the currency name (predictably, as they follow their own style guides and we follow ours), this move makes sense and is an improvement. Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.