Talk:Pączki

Pronunciation

How do you actually pronounce this word? IPA is useless as I can't read it. 218.102.78.49 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In Detroit, we say it 'punch-key' or 'pooch-key'. No idea if that is correct in Polish, though.--TPS Report 11:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncing them as 'punch-key' sounds quite the same in Polish. - Brzęczystrzykiewicz.

Being a Polish guy myself, "pwnch-key" is how I say it(trying imagining the pwn part like saying the internet slang PWN). Depends on the accent though, I suppose. --68.79.1.46 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit late to the party, but in Lansing we say "poon-sh-kee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.159.252 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.29.171.250 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm Polish. The correct pronunciation of pączki is likely with nasal "o" (sound which doesn't exist in English, something like "on" in French bonjour), but most people tend to prenounce it /pawnch-key/ (pawn + ch like /ch/ in chocolate + key). 62.148.67.62 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

To summarize the references from previous discussions: the English pronunciation is recorded in the American Heritage Dictionary which gives /ˈpʊntʃki/ (po͝onch′kē [1]) and in Dictionary.com which has /ˈpɒ̃tʃki/ (/ˈpɔ̃tʃki/ [2]). And in Torono they supposedly pronounce it /ˈpʊnʃki/ [3]. I haven't seen any reference that would use /oʊ/ like in the pronunciation that was just removed from the article. – MwGamera (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Pierogi, etc.

Is this stuff the same as: "pierogi, pirogi, pirochi, piroga, pirogs, piroque, pirotchki, pirozhki, pyrochki, pirozsok, etc"? 12.46.6.70 19:56, Dec 4, 2003

No. Pierogi is like large ravioli. Packzi is large filled doughnuts. Rmhermen 20:19, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Easter?

Easter sunday is on 11 april this year count back 40 days and shrove tuesday should fall next week. any one know why its early? 194.154.171.13 11:07, Feb 25, 2004

Whoa. You're right, 194.154.171.13. I dunno what happened. GusGus 21:39, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

Check out 4th 'graph of Lent. Until the first time they try calculating it, everyone assumes they are 40 consecutive days, but there are no Sundays in Lent. --Jerzy(t) 05:30, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

In some years there have been two Easters. The Eastern Orthodox version often falls a week after Western Christianity's. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was taught in Catholic school that Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. That's why the date varies so widely. It also bares testament to the pagan roots of the holiday.

Piper1740 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Al B.

Prunes?

I've never heard of prunes being the traditional filling for pączki. I've always thought it was marmalade made from rose buds. Can anyone confirm the prune story? Kpalion 12:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not in where I live. Perhaps they fill them with prunes in Chicago, but I've never heard of such filling in Poland.Halibutt

I live in the Detroit area. These pastries are normally sold in boxes of six or twelve, and there are places on the box to be checked for filling. In other words, there are little boxes that are labeled "apple," "lemon," "raspberry," "cream cheese," "prune," etc. But I have never found prune-filled paczki locally. I would like to try them but no one sells them here, just the boxes. The cream cheese ones, incidentally, are VERY rich and heavy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.68.254 (talk • contribs)

I also live in Detroit, and actually the prune-filled Paczki are commonly available "today" at most of the Polish and Paczki bakeries in and around Hamtramck, and also at most supermarkets in the suburbs. Since prune is one of the original traditional fillings, they may sell out earlier than the less traditional ones. There are plenty of reliable sources to confirm that prune is one of the old traditional fillings for Paczki - just do a yahoo or google search for the words "prune" and "paczki", and literally dozens if not hundreds of references and recipe sites will show it. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in Saginaw, Michigan and there the Paczkis were not filled at all! When I grew up and started to see them being sold with fruit filling I was actually rather annoyed as I was quite used to having them without filling from the church that I attended where elderly women and men would take over the school gymnasium and bake paczkis the entire night before fat tuesday. I'm not sure if the filling-free variety are something that ought to be added to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nostarnite (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I am also from Michigan, near Posen. That's little Poland for those of you who have never been. My grandmother, Jadwiga, never filled her paczki with a filling. She put rasins in the batter and sometimes she would put a prune or date in the center. I also get anoyed with the jelly doughnuts that the grocery stores try to pass off as paczki.

I grew up in northern NJ near big Polish immigrant areas where there'd be lots of Polish bakeries (and butcher shops and pharmacies, etc) and Polish was spoken by everyone. For a long time the only pączki you could get were the rose hip ones and the prune ones (specifically filled with powidło -- I've added this word to the article). Only later did you start getting fillings like strawberry or raspberry. That lemon pączek in the American photo totally grosses me out. The filling and the dough are wrong (very Americanized to resemble donuts more). Anyway, I added references to the fillings to get rid of those citation tags. -Krasnoludek (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

After living in Poland for years and years, I find it strange that cherry/cherry jam has not been mentioned. Every Polish pastry I've tried has been available with some type of cherry in it. Paczki included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.165.40 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pierogi?

Halibutt wrote: "pierogi do not really belong here". Well, besides the well known "tastes differ", IMO they do belong here and very much. I suggest you to take hold of a larger bunch of recipes and you will soon find that both foods cross- refer to each other it terms of dough recipe, preparation (flat-cut-wrap)) , cooking (boil or deep fry), filling (paczky only weet, though), etc. E.g., one often sees "the dough is the same as for 'pierogi'", etc. Of course, there are differences, but there ar many similarities, too. If you disagree, please tell me what makes you think they are *SO* different. Mikkalai 21:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of differences:

• shape (u-shaped versus round)
• size (in most cases pączki are fist-sized while pierogi are much smaller; not to confuse with Russian pirozhnye)
• filling (I've never heard of pączki filled with anything but marmelade or sweets; pączki with potatoes? nyah!)
• dough (you don't add yeast to pierogi dough, do you, just like you don't add alcohol or milk)
• taste (all tastes versus sweet)

It's like comparing lard with crude oil - they are both fatty, but that's not enough to mention both in one article. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:27, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

You are probably talking about Polish cuisine. Recipes tend to change when going international. I agree with all what you say, with the exception of dough. Still, there are similarities, and more significant than those between lard and crude oil (btw., crute oil is not fatty :-). See also section is to point out somethig relevant in some way, not just for further details related to exactly this topic. Let me repeat myself: since recipes of paczki and pierogi often cress-refer, I'd like to indicate this somehow in the article. Unfortunately, I am not a cook, so I added a reference only, without discussion of similarities and differences. (BTW an additional support is that in Russian cuisine, sweet pirozhki and ponchiki may be called both ways.) Mikkalai 17:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hah! Here's the difference! You refer to similarities between pirozhki and pączki, not between pierogi and pączki. If I remember correctly, the Russian pirozhki are similar to Ukrainian cheburiek and are made of yeast dough and deep-fried. On the contrary, you never-ever add yeast to pierogi dough. We simply describe two different recipes and two different kinds of food. A typical pirazhok is indeed somehow related to pączek (although not that much). Pieróg is something totally different. Anyway, if you feel that a link to pierogi is important - lat it stay. However, I believe that it only adds to the confusion. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:28, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the confusion is started by the pierogi page, which lists pirogi, pirozhki, etc. as synonyms. Like I said, I'm not an expert in cuisine. FUI, Pieróg redirects to pierogi. BTW, at the bottom of pierogi, I've added a note of difference between 'pirogi' and 'pirog' (in Russian cuisine). All the more, let the reference be here until an expert comes and unscrews the screwed up. Mikkalai 19:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If not us then - who, if not now then - when? Let's prepare a list of all the delicacies of Central and Eastern European cuisines that sound or look or taste similarily and then decide whether they should stay here or go to hell:

• pierogi family (singular pieróg) - vareniki (RUS, UA), uszka (POL), ravioli (ITA), deruny (UA), pielmieni (UA, RUS)

!!!!!![POL] "Uszka" is not "pierogi" its only similar/ Uszka are small pierogi but it is not true in 100 percent!!!

• pirazhki family (singular pirazhok) - cheburieki (UA), deep-fried pirazhki (RUS, UA), paszteciki (POL)
• pączki family (singular pączek) - pączki (POL), donuts (USA), pampushki (UA, RUS), pampuchy (POL)

What else should be added? The basic division is as follows:

• pierogi family is a group of boiled or fried dumpligs, no yeast added
• pirazhki family is a group of larger dumplings of yeast dough, usually deep-fried but at times also boiled
• pączki family is a group of those round, fist-sized sweet cakes, similar to donuts.

What do you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Pontshkes?

Polish Jews frying pontshkes in oil sounds like a revisionist myth. Fried foods were usually fried in שמאלץ shmaltz – Redaktor 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know it for a fact, but it makes sense that on Chanukah they would use oil, just like latkes. Or did they fry those in shmaltz too? In which case, why did they do it davka on Chanukah? Zsero 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. A lot of post-hoc explanations make sense. That is why they are postulated. My father, a Polish-born Jew, used to laugh at the idea that latkes were associated with Chanuka (although we always ate latkes on Chanuka, and still do). He said that winter in Poland was the prime time for slaughtering geese. Since a goose can generate a large quantity of shmaltz, fried foods were eaten throughout the winter. Chanuka falls conveniently in the winter. However, in case you think that is a lone voice, I cannot find any reference to eating foods fried in oil on Chanuka in any East European work. All the references I have ever seen are post-WWII. – Redaktor 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fat Thursday or Tuesday

Could "Tlusty czwartek" shift elsewhere in the USA?

Please check out Poletown article. It says that they eat donuts on Fat Tuesday, not on Fat Thursday. Either Paczki or Poletown mus be updated. Mikkalai 22:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Poles in Poland eat them on Fat Thursday (I ate half a dozen this year, yummy), the Poles in America eat them on Fat Tuesday. I thought this article says it clearly enough, but you may reword it if you want. – Kpalion (talk) 22:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion regarding the tradional day in the "Paczki Day" section. Specifically, the sentence "In Chicago and Detroit, Paczki Day is more commonly celebrated on Fat Tuesday instead of Fat Tuesday." seems a little odd. Should this read "In Chicago and Detroit, Paczki Day is more commonly celebrated on Fat Tuesday instead of Fat Thursday." ? It is Tuesday, Feb 20th 2007 and I can confirm that it is being celebrated as Paczi Day here in Chicago. - Pottroff 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some confusion between Fat Tuesday and Fat Thursday. It has been fixed now to say: Traditionally, the reason for making paczki has been to use up all the lard, sugar and fruit in the house, which are forbidden during Lent. In Poland, they are eaten especially on Fat Thursday, the last Thursday before Lent (Polish: Tłusty czwartek). In Chicago and Detroit, Paczki Day is more commonly celebrated on Fat Tuesday instead of Fat Thursday.--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your confusion was the result of a vandal who struck just 12 minutes before you left this comment. Before then it did indeed say "Thursday". If you see something in a WP article that strikes you as strange, check the history, it may be quite recent vandalism. -- Zsero 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

picture

is the picture of those politicians eating them really necessary? it seems to break up 6the article. if no one has any objections, i'm taking it down. Joeyramoney 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pączki - pronouncing

Hi! I come from Poland and specially for English WikiPedia I just recorded how to pronounce "Pączek", "Pączki" :D

MP3 File
ZIP file with MP3 inside
Both files are ~160KB.

--Dawid Nowak, MacDada 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

THANKS! That is good enough to post on the front page in the pronunciation section. The "OGG" file or whatever that was there didn't work for me anyway. Sort of comes out half-way between "paunch-key" and "pone-chkey", rather than "poonch-key" or "punch-key", as is commonly said around Detroit. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Not done - no consensus for move. Neıl ☎ 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Paczki → Pączek — Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). —Visor (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose In my area, these are called "Paczki" or "Paczkis." The term "Pączek" is completely unused/unheard of. JPG-GR (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose In English, for better or worse, paczki is the only term that is in use. -- Zsero (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Per JPG-GR and Zsero. "Pączek" is almost never used in English to refer to these. older ≠ wiser 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have some firmer evidence than anecdote if possible. Any suggestions? I have never, ever seen the name paczki in English - just pączki, Polish doughnuts or just doughnuts. In my experience, people use the original name with the ą, or translate fully. I'll see if I can find examples. Knepflerle (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Here in Chicago, at the local and Polish bakery's it's always posted as "Paczki". What would make more sense would be to have this article researched and given a reference section than worry about a renaming. Buster (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it's right to move to an entirely Polish word "Pączek", but would support moving to "Pączki". Húsönd 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Though in the English I see and hear, they are called doughnuts or Bismarcks, not paczki either, the paczki term is used in English in other locations. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge? Do these differ from Jelly doughnuts? If so, the article should explain how. If not, merge into doughnut. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Similar case at Talk:Panino (panino vs. panini). What's the usage in English-speaking countries? — AjaxSmack 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note Polish Wikipedia has article under name Pączek and it is a singular form of Pączki. Visor (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Presumably Polish uses both singular and plural; they should then use the singular as an article name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canada section

This section seems like a mention that they are popular in the Polish community in Toronto, which is not a particularly notable statement (as paczki are likely to be popular within any sizeable Polish community), plus a somewhat irrelevant list of sales location (that's essentially advertizing, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia). Would anyone mind if I removed this section? Or is there any subtantial info about paczki in Canada that would warrant a rewrite instead of a deletion of that section?--Boffob (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Doing exactly that was on my list of things to do when I get some more editing time - the mentions of individual bakeries is unnecessary. Go ahead! Knepflerle (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely get rid of the advertising! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.74.196.48 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

• At the moment we have the worst of both worlds: the title has no diacritic but the text always uses diacritics. If 'pachek/ki' is to be the official name because it is perceived to have 'widest usage', then it should also be used in the text. I say this only for the sake of consistency - I think the title should have the diacritic but I missed the vote (we are after all talking about the Polish delicacy, not the way it is perceived in Chicago). Malick78 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hang on... unless my eyes deceive me... (paczek fat coagulating in my retina...?) the second photo on the page is with the diacritic and it's an American box! Hmm, me thinks the vote was a little hasty and its result too simplistic... Malick78 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Phrases

"Jak pączek w maśle" (like a donut in oil) means as happy as a very happy happy thing. Anybody know of another phrase or two to create some section based on sayings? Malick78 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Berliner or not?

A small contradiction:

Although they look like bismarcks or jelly doughnuts, pączki are made from especially rich dough containing eggs, fats, sugar and sometimes milk. [...] In German and Danish, they are called Berliner.

I suspect these are not the same thing as Berliners and the latter remark is in error. Dcoetzee 09:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

SO WHY DOES THE ARTICLE STILL SAY THAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.125.179 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

This article claimed "though many English speakers use pączki as singular and pączkis as plural."

I claim that is utter hogwash. Can anybody show me any use of "pączkis" untainted by Wikipedia, let alone any extensive use of that spelling?

What I can easily find is extensive use of "paczkis" as plural and "paczki" as singular. That, of course, is evidence of assimilation into English--and evidence that the English alphabet is used in this assimilation, too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I grew up belonging to a Polish parish in East Chicago, Indiana, (USA) and I've often heard the word "pączki" used as both the singular and plural form. Some people (for example, on the Southside of Chicago) use "pączkis" for the plural. Piper1740 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pączek

Pączek (polaco: ['pɔnt‌͡ʂki]) es el tradiconal dónut de Polonia. Pączki es la forma plural de la palabra polaca pączek([ˈpɔ̃t͡ʂɛk]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandra Ozga (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Other countries

Why is Armenia listed as one of the "other countries neighboring Poland" when in fact it is very much distant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.167.67 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

moving to English

Folks, I'm anglicizing the article. Not a single source cited uses "pączki," nor does a single English-language dictionary enter this word. Naturally. There are no ogonki in English.

Given the ample evidence that paczki is the loanword, I won't have to move the article to "Polish doughnut". RVJ (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced. I've reverted this undiscussed move per WP:RM. This is a potentially controversial move; please start a proper RM discussion and see if there's a consensus to support such a move. In the past many similar moves were rejected, as the lack of usage for and diacritics like a is simply a byproduct of laziness and people not having the correct key/program on their keyboards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not, I didn't know what else I was going to do with my week. -- RVJ (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pączki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hamtramck.us/events/pages/paczki.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2018

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. (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 08:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Pączki → Paczki – Per WP:Use English — Kpalion^(talk) 15:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nom. A common English word exists and it is "paczki" (pronounced PAWNCH-kee or POONCH-kee), as you can see in English dictionaries ([4], [5]). If you're Polish (like me), it might look and sound weird to you. Yes, the ogonek is missing, the punczki pronunciation is ridiculous, paczki in Polish is a completely unrelated word to pączki, and you may not like the depluralization (in Polish, pączki is plural, the singular is pączek). But this is English Wikipedia, so none of that really matters (although, by all means, it should be mentioned in the etymology section). What matters is that the Polish pączki has been naturalized into English as "paczki" and it's the latter, English, word that we should use. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kołacz, etc. Without the hook this is would be the https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paczki#Polish (packages pl.) read "patchki" not "ponchki", not the same thing. The two freebie web dictionaries you've put don't pass WP:RS as they don't have full Unicode font sets (which en.wp does) so they can't spell words such as this correctly; like expecting a colour picture on a black-and-white TV set. A full Unicode print book like Iconic Chicago Dishes, Drinks and Desserts p.106 can spell the pączki as "pączki" and does. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In ictu oculi, let me deal with your oppose point by point:
    • "per Kołacz". How is that article relevant here? It's just a short, poorly written and poorly referenced article that probably should be merged with Kolach and Kalach (food).
    • "Without the hook this is would be the Polish paczki". No, this is English Wikipedia, so it only matters what "paczki" means in English, not in Polish.
    • "The two freebie web dictionaries you've put don't pass WP:RS as they don't have full Unicode font sets (which en.wp does) so they can't spell words such as this correctly." This argument may have worked ten years ago, but today practically all websites are perfectly capable of displaying full Unicode font sets. The reason English-language dictionaries don't need them is that the English language doesn't use Polish diacritics. See here, the word pączki is displayed correctly; there's just no gloss, because there's no such word in English.
    • Would you accept non-web or non-free dictionaries as reliable? How many would it take to convince you?
    • "Iconic Chicago Dishes, Drinks and Desserts p.106 can spell the pączki as "pączki" and does." Alright, there's one English book that uses the Polish spelling. Here's a few that don't: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Again, how many would it take to convince you that "paczki" is an English word? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I said "Kołacz, etc.", it is relevant per WP:CONSISTENCY with Category:Polish desserts and Category:Polish cuisine. What it would take to convince users that Pączki is established as an English loanword would be a significant change in semantic domain and/or spelling and/or pronunciation such as Polish klocki becoming Klotski and that being verifiable in OED. Wheras still pronouncing "ponchki" but some low-MOS sources dropping the hook which turns "a" to "on" sound is not establishment of a new item of English vocabulary. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

By "consistency" you mean that all articles about Polish foods should have Polish-language titles, even if English names exits? That's definitely not what WP:CONSISTENCY is saying. "Klotski" is a case where the spelling has been Anglicized to keep a pronunciation close to the original one, but this is a rather rare case in English; it's more common to keep the original spelling and butcher the pronunciation. Notice that one of acceptable ways to pronounce "paczki" is POONCH-kee, quite different from the Polish pronunciation. Note also the difference in grammatical number (one paczki, two paczkis). You can't argue that this is still a Polish word used directly in English (and not an English word of Polish origin) if the spelling, the pronunciation and the grammatical number are all different that in the Polish word. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean what I said. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

But what you said doesn't explain what kind of consistency you have in mind. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - this formation seems to be the most common way to refer to the topic in english. Anecdotally, store signs and packaging all use it. Honestly, I'd consider it more like an extensively-used stylization in English-speaking areas much like the metal umlaut. The word looks strange in English without the mark. -- Netoholic @ 10:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Netoholic, would you say that store signs and packaging are more reliable sources than dictionaries? Also, "the word looks strange" is an "I don't like it"-type of argument. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. - Darwinek (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi and Netoholic. This is a quixotic nomination which would be opposed by just about all Polish Wikipedians and also some others with no connection to Poland. WP:USEENGLISH is well and good for various applications, such as book or film titles, but if there was insistence upon a rigorous application of USEENGLISH, the name would be jelly doughnuts or, if pressed that these are jelly doughnuts like no other, upgraded to Polish jelly doughnuts. Ethnic foods in the English-speaking world, especially dishes and specialty items associated with a culture that uses basically the same alphabet, carry certain associated pride of nationality and linguistics. Even with an Anglicized plural, such as pączkis or pierogis, the link to the old country is still there, but with the diacritic gone, it loses its original flavor — one might as well go to Dunkin' Donuts. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi, Netoholic, and Roman Spinner. This is a good faith nomination that apparently has gone terribly wrong somewhere. For for me: "paczki" (patch-key) means parcels in Polish, or just plain cardboard boxes, which really makes me cringe. I would rather have Pączki merge with donuts, than to see it being misspelled like that. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd hope those opposing the move would provide some references for the use of the ogonek in the English word (so far, In ictu oculi has provided one, which is a start) and fewer arguments based on personal preferences (like "looks strange", "makes me cringe" or "loses its original flavor"). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another Susan Gibson Mikos Poles in Wisconsin p.43 "Filled doughnuts, called pączki, were traditionally served during the week before Ash Wednesday. In most Polish communities, Lent was observed much as in Poland.". What we're seeing is books with full font don't suddenly drop full fonts when they hit filled donuts and turn "ponchki" into "patchki". This is part of WP:RS, to use sources reliable for the statement being made. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But notice that, in this case, the word "pączki" is italicized, just like other Polish terms on the same page, which indicates that it's not treated as an English word. Compare this with [11] or [12], where the use of roman type, English plural suffix and the indication of a non-Polish pronunciation ("poonch-keys") all point to "paczki" being accepted as part of English vocabulary. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Polish word referring to a Polish thing which has no common name in English. UE does not apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If "paczki" is not an English word, then how come it's in English dictionaries? — Kpalion^(talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, if there's consensus that "paczki" is not an English word, then we're only left with the Polish word pączki. But then, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), we should change the title to the singular Pączek. But we already had this proposal back in 2008 and guess what? The consensus was that the article should stay at Paczki because this is what the pastry is called in English! (That was before Piotrus boldly moved the article to Pączki.) — Kpalion^(talk) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Interest seems to have died down, so I'm going to invite the two relevant wikiprojects, as well those users who participated in previous naming debates on this talk page. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, while I typically see the diacritics-free "paczki" in store advertising and such, I really don't have that much of a problem with the article being titled with proper diacritics so long as redirects are in place. I'm not sure the singular/plural forms are a significant issue. The Polish plural form Pączek is virtually unrecognizable in English, whereas either pączki or paczki are readily recognized by most English speakers who have any familiarity with the pastries as referring to the same thing. older ≠ wiser 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the resulting ambiguity, if nothing else. Having the #REDIRECT paczki solves any remaining language issues. Furthermore, per WP:Use English (WP:DIACRITICS): The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; [...] The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources., as "pączki" is,^{[13][14][15][16][17][18]} which nullifies the nom's sole argument. Looks like a WP:SNOW close to me.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:10, 8 January 2018 (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.

Follow-up: is "pączki" an English word?

I'd like to understand what the result of the last move request discussion means not only for the article's title, but also for its content. Should "pączki" be treated as an English or a Polish word in the article? So first, I'd like to ask all those interested the following question:

Does the English language have a word for a Polish filled doughnut?

I suggest a few possible answers below, but please feel free to provide your own if you disagree with all of mine.

1. Yes, the English word for this kind of doughnut is "pączki" (PAWNCH-kee or POONCH-kee; plural: "pączki" or "pączkis").
2. Yes, same as above, but "paczki" (plural: "paczki" or "paczkis") is an acceptable alternative spelling.
3. No, there is no word for this kind of doughnut in English, so for want of an English word, we have to use the Polish word pączek [pɔnt͡ʂɛk] (plural: pączki [pɔnt͡ʂkʲi]).

— Kpalion^(talk) 16:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Paczki is an English loanword.

(Excuse me for a moment while I re-install my Polish keyboard...)

Pączki is not.

As much as I love nearly all things Polish, this should be obvious to reasonable speakers of English, whether or not they know what an ogonek is.

And yes, the former being English can be singular. The latter being Polish can only be plural, so it is not an appropriate article title on that score, either.

Sorry I didn't get the notification in time for the vote, folks. RVJ (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Kpalion:, Eh, I don't think either the word truly qualifies as a naturalized loanword under either spelling. Many dictionaries do not have any entry under either spelling ([19] [20] [21]. So the direct answer to the question Does the English language have a word for a Polish filled doughnut? is No. That said, both spellings are used in English language sources. In my experience, stores in areas with significant Polish population (or background) will often use the diacritic and the less closely tied the area is to a Polish background the more likely the diacritic gets lost. As the title of an English language Encyclopedia article, I don't see any problem with using Pączki. older ≠ wiser 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, it isn't an English word. It's a Polish word. There is no common English equivalent. However, in English-language sources (which can still employ foreign words when referring to foreign things, of course, without them becoming English words or loanwords) it is almost always seen in the plural, so per WP:COMMONNAME I think the current article title is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, it isn't an English word, English plural nouns generally end in -s, "poncheks". It's a Polish word. There is no common English equivalent. A few mispellings, font limits, etc don't make a word English. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I take it that the Wikipedia community has voted the word "paczki" out of the English vocabulary. That's fine, I suppose we've got that prerogative. But how are we going to explain to our readers the presence of the word "paczki" in English dictionaries (here's another example; it's behind a paywall, so I hope it's more reliable than "freebie dicionatries")? Should we cite this talk page? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And why do we have to do that? We're not responsible for the content of dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary does not include it. Neither do other respected dictionaries. Just because some online dictionaries may include it does not make it an English word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, so you can find the word in some dictionaries and not in some other, and it prooves the word doesn't exist? There are cookbooks where pączki are not mentioned, so maybe these pastries do not exist at all? Of course, we're not reponsible for the content of dictionaries (those lexicographers have no idea what they're doing!), or any other reliable sources for that matter. We know better, right? Why do we even need WP:V? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and didn't you notice the link above is actually to an Oxford dictionary? But I know, it's an online version, so it's not a "respected" dictionary. So here's another dictionary which has an entry for "paczki". Not only is it printed on paper, it's actually hardcover! What could be more reliable than hardcover, right? — Kpalion^(talk) 00:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you're a bit angry because the RM discussion went against you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm frustrated by what I see as concensus being based mostly on personal opinions, original research and out-of-hand dismissal of reliable sources. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Consider canelé, "a small French pastry flavored with rum and vanilla with a soft and tender custard center and a dark, thick caramelized crust" ... and a nice French diacritic in English Wikipedia. — There's nothing wrong with having the word paczki (patch-key) redirecting to Pączki ... for as long as the "paczki" from Red Cross sent to Auschwitz remain outside of the English language. Poeticbent talk 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)