Talk:Three Crosses Square

Page name

I think square of the Three Crosses or even Three Crosses Square would sound much better. --212.76.33.108 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Nihil novi 14:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Triple means potrojny in Polish so Triple Cross Square translated back into Polish would be Plac Potrojnego Krzyza. --212.76.33.125 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's the mistake. The rendering of Plac Trzech Krzyży into English is an excellent illustration of the fact that one cannot always translate literally. A language is not mathematics; one cannot always just reverse the operation and end up with precisely the original text. See "Literal translation." Nihil novi 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your rationale, Nihil novi, as I see no reason why the literal Three Crosses Square is unacceptable. I'm presently going to carry out a Page Move to that name. For support:

• An account by Józef (Joseph) Ziemian (1922-1972) of youngsters in Nazi-occupied Warsaw who escaped the ghetto and survived on the "Aryan" side, published in 1963 as "Papierosiarze z Placu Trzech Krzyży" was translated to English and published under the title "The Cigarette Sellers of Three Crosses Square" (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1970)

Deborahjay (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One swallow does not a summer make. "Three Crosses Square" is very clumsy English. I've reverted the title change back to "Triple Cross Square." Nihil novi (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy or not, this square is not called "Triple Cross" in any language, be it English or Polish. http://books.google.pl/books?q=Three%20Crosses%20Square&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=pl&tab=wp //Halibutt 12:34, 2 March 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Triple Cross Square → Three Crosses Square — The "Triple Crosses" thing was invented (in good faith, I believe) by one of the contributors of Wikipedia. However:

1. The square is called literally "Three Crosses Square" or "Square of Three Crosses". A triple cross is something different than three crosses.
2. Secondly, the name is usually translated as Three Crosses Square into English, both by natives and non-natives
3. Also, this is the name used by English language publications. Google Books gives almost 500 hits for "Three Crosses Square" [1] and no hits for "Triple Cross Square". The "Three Crosses Square" name is used both in historical contexts (WWII books) and in modern guide-books to Warsaw.
4. The same is true to general Internet usage: 73 thousand hits for "Three Crosses", less than 2 thousands for "Triple Cross" //Halibutt 12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both "Three Crosses Square" and "Square of Three Crosses" are incredibly klutzy in English. The present title, "Triple Cross Square," on the other hand, is idiomatic—and has been used by more discerning English-language writers. Nihil novi (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. A triple cross is as in this image. Three crosses is † † †. The article says that there are three crosses in that square.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The papal cross referenced above is not called a "triple cross" but a "papal cross" or "ferula." In any case, an expression may have more than one meaning. In "Triple Cross Square," "triple cross" refers to three crosses, much as the expression "triple coronary artery bypass surgery" refers to three coronary artery bypasses. Nihil novi (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• In "triple coronary artery bypass surgery", the word "triple" appeared to avoid unclearness in the course of incorporating "three coronary artery bypasses" into a longer noun compound. The meaning of "Three Crosses Square" is clear. The Polish original "Plac Trzech Krzyży" means "square of/with/at three crosses". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Three Crosses Square" is not idiomatic English. "Triple Cross Square" is. Nihil novi (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly one doesn't say "Three Crowns of Thoroughbred Racing," but "Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing." Nihil novi (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• And one doesn't speak of a "three stars system," but of a "triple star system." Nihil novi (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So why is it that I have never stayed in a double-star hotel, a triple-star hotel, a quadruple-star hotel, or a quintuple-star hotel? Varsovian (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that one does not speak of a "three-stars hotel" but of a "three-star hotel," with "star" in the singular. Thus, "Triple Cross Square" or "Three Cross Square." Nihil novi (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I believe you're missing the point here. The name you invented might indeed sound better. However, it's not the name used by authors anywhere outside Wikipedia. And our policy is to use commonly-used names. In this case both Google Books and the general Internet use "Three Crosses". Nobody uses "Triple Cross Square". And Wikipedia is not the place to try to promote a "better" name, even if it is better. WP:UCN is quite helpful. BTW, WP:Use English is also telling. It states that If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject. However, in this case there are more than enough English sources to use the "Three Crosses" name. //Halibutt 10:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• It has been pointed out by various Wikipedia editors that a Google count is not necessarily an infallible guide to best usage. There are other ungrammatical usages in English that are also widespread; that does not make them correct, and we avoid them at Wikipedia. As to the use of "Triple Cross Square" outside Wikipedia, you have yourself provided links to such above. What advantage is there to propagating monstrous inventions such as "Three Crosses Square," produced by incompetent translators? Nihil novi (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I also posted links for Google Books comparison (500:0), which seems pretty telling to me. //Halibutt 20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• What it tells us is that the authors, editors or translators who rendered "Plac Trzech Krzyży" into English as "Three Crosses Square" have an inadequate grasp of English grammar. There is a reason why the expression "three-ring circus" is not "three-rings circus." Travestying the English language in this article ends up travestying the article's subject. Nihil novi (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide whether English or American authors know their own language well or not. The fact is they use one version of the name and do not use the other. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of used vs. unused by anyone except Wikipedia. //Halibutt 17:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, a toast! To our Google—May it always be right. But our Google, right or wrong! Nihil novi (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Three Crosses Square (or to the Polish name, as a second choice). Nothing unidiomatic about it, and it sounds better than the present name; I also believe it's more commonly used. (In case there's any doubt about the grammaticality of the structure, try googling "Three Oaks Road", which turns out to be a genuine street name in several English-speaking places.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

At least one of the "Three Oaks Road" instances is an exception to the rule and is attributable to its reflecting the name of the town, Three Oaks, Michigan. The general English usage is exemplified by the expression "three-man team" (not "three-men team"). The analogous formulation in the present instance would be "Three Cross Square." Nihil novi (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go by Google numbers, the single "Cross" variant ("Three Cross Square," 98,000,000) outnumbers the plural "Crosses" variant ("Three Crosses Square," 1,870,000). Nihil novi (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how you did that search (did you include the quotes?) but I get much smaller numbers and the reverse result. (Either is perfectly good English, honestly.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. It should be Square of Three Crosses, place with three crosses within the square.--WlaKom (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why you began your comment with the word "wrong" (what is wrong? why?). Your suggestion is also a possibility (I see it comes up quite a lot on Google), but I don't see the advantage - it is less common, and doesn't sound any better, than "Three Crosses Square".--Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support I live in Warsaw, have written about it for more than a decade and spend a lot of time with native speakers of English: I have never heard anybody refer to Plac Trzech Krzyży as "Triple Cross Square". From a grammatical viewpoint the name should be either "The Square of the Three Crosses" or "Three Crosses Square", the latter of those two is what appears to be more commonly used in English. Varsovian (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I lived in Warsaw for years and am a native speaker of English. Plac Trzech Krzyży is a bit more difficult than the average Polish toponym to render satisfactorily into English, but I see no reason to depart from the usual English approach. The name is best rendered as "Three Cross Square" or, less ambiguously, "Triple Cross Square." Nihil novi (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is the usual English approach in this situation. You're right about common nouns (we wouldn't say "a three crosses square") but names work differently. If you don't believe the Three Oaks, then how about this: Three Rivers Park District. A park district in the US with three rivers; not "Three River..." or "Triple River...", but "Three Rivers..." --Kotniski (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the example that you cite appears to undermine your argument. If a name incorporates a pre-existing entity name such as "Three Rivers," then the derivative larger name will, naturally, retain the earlier name unchanged. In the case at issue, there was no "Three Crosses" entity before the toponym "Three Cross Square" was created. 65.249.61.66 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At first glance it seemed that there was no "Three Rivers" entity either (though I'm not familiar with the place, so I may be wrong).--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 16 March 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.

Questionable move

The above move-request discussion should not have been closed, and the article moved from "Triple Cross Square" to "Three Crosses Square," by Anthony Appleyard, who was one of the discussants and, thus, interested parties. Nihil novi (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed have been better (as in "better style") if it was closed by someone not taking part in the discussion. The result however would have been the same though. //Halibutt 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, had more native English-speakers been involved in the discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, judging by what most native English-speakers use in their publications (web/books) the result would still be the same. //Halibutt 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"A minority may be right; a majority is always wrong." — Ibsen, An Enemy of the People. Nihil novi (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting new algorithm for decision-making... --Kotniski (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Three Crosses Square?

Have people really translated the proper name of the square to English? I wish luck to everyone who'll be looking for a Three Crosses Square in Warsaw!

While you're at it, you might also think of changing these: Basilique du Sacré-Cœur, Paris to Sacred Heart, Paris, Los Angeles to The Angels, USA or Colosseum to Stadium, Rome. Have fun! --SylwiaS | talk 20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we had better correct "Red Square" to "Кра́сная пло́щадь", and "Beijing" to "北京". Nihil novi (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

Now we've decided to call the article "Three Crosses Square", I don't see any need to include any other variant English translations - having checked on Google Books and Scholar, neither "Three Cross Square" nor "Triple Cross Square" has significant usage (and anyway, the reader can presumably work out that such a place might sometimes have alternative translations with obviously equivalent meaning). Anyway, we certainly shouldn't be using such alternative translations in picture captions etc., although we might make more use of the original Polish name in such places.--Kotniski (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the uncertainties about how Plac Trzech Krzyży should be rendered into English, it is appropriate to provide alternative versions. Google Search gives 1,210 hits for "Square of Three Crosses" (the most "literal" version), 1,930 hits for "Three Cross Square," and 8,190 for "Triple Cross Square."

It does not seem warranted to make assumptions about how much non-Polish-speakers know or can guess. Nihil novi (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the "Triple Cross Square" hits on general Google are mostly derived from past versions of this Wikipedia page. I couldn't find any such on Books or Scholar.--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean "mirrors" of the previous Wikipedia "Triple Cross Square" article—there are sites with that same title, unrelated to the Wikipedia article. On just the first page of the Google "Triple Cross Square" search, I found the following:

• Panorama of Triple Cross Square
• Wikimapia: Triple Cross Square
• WorldFlicks: Triple Cross Square
• Polska: Poland's official travel website: Triple Cross Square

"Plac Trzech Krzyży" is one of the greater Polish toponymic challenges, hence the existence of several English renderings. I think the English-language reader should be given the full array of possibilities. Nihil novi (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect even those links (if they do contain "Triple Cross", as not all of them seem to) are derived somehow from Wikipedia - they don't seem very authoritative. Although I suppose the one claiming to be Poland's official travel website might be a legitimate source for mentioning that translation in the article. (I wouldn't say it's a toponymic challenge, though - the common translations "Three Crosses Square" or "Square of Three Crosses" are quite unobjectionable.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

They do each use "Triple Cross Square," if you read them.

The challenge is manifest in the fact that there are two translations that you find acceptable—both of which are exceptionally klutzy. Nihil novi (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Could people join in this discussion instead of slow edit-warring over the inclusion of alternative translations? Perhaps saying on what sources these additional translations are based?--Kotniski (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- The "Plac Trzech Krzyzy" is not called "Triple Cross Square", plain and simple. It's an incorrect translation. Triple Cross Square would mean a square with a cross being a vertical line with three horizontal lines through it. Also, what if the square was called "Plac Dwóch Krzyży"? Would it be called Double Cross (betrayal) Square? Please don't introduce incorrect translations into the article. Thanks. Szczesny (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Triple Cross Square," back-translated into Polish, is "Plac Trzech Krzyży."

This English version appears thousands of times on Google Search.

Calling the Papal cross a "triple cross," and the reference to "double cross," are red herrings.

"Triple Cross Square" is one of several possible English renderings for "Plac Trzech Krzyży," and perhaps the most elegant. It should be listed together with the other versions. Nihil novi (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I must say I don't find "Triple Cross Square" elegant at all, and I agree that it would likely mean "potrójny krzyż" rather than three crosses. But if it is really used in a significant number of reliable sources, then I suppose that's justification enough for mentioning it in the article.--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also a native English speaker, I work with other native speakers, and none of us believe that "Triple Cross Square" sounds elegant. In fact, they were all rather surprised to hear it. I don't think that the article is made less informative by excluding the incorrect "Triple Cross Square" translation. BTW, some of the Google Search results point to the "Triple Cross Square" name of the Wikipedia article before the name was changed. Therefore, including the incorrect name in Wikipedia leads to that name being used on other websites, and then you use such websites to back up the incorrect name... Szczesny (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If we are to speak of "correctness," then I submit that "Three Crosses Square" is incorrect English. One does not speak of "five cards stud" but "five card stud." Analogously, it's not "Three Crosses Square" but "Three Cross Square." And another way of saying "Three Cross Square" is "Triple Cross Square." Nihil novi (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we've been through all this before. The rule that applies to phrases like "five-card stud" doesn't extend to toponyms (I showed you some examples of actual toponyms in English-speaking countries that follow the "Three Crosses Square" pattern). Nor does "triple cross" necessarily mean the same as "three cross(es)".--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your remark begs the question. Yes, there is a Three Oaks, Michigan, so there can be a Three Oaks Elementary School (rather than "Three Oak Elementary School"), since "Three Oaks" is a place name that modifies the noun "Elementary School." But there is no place in Warsaw called "Trzy Krzyże" ("Three Crosses") to modify "Plac" ("Square") to "Three Crosses Square." Thus the "Three Oaks" precedent has no bearing for the English rendering of "Plac Trzech Krzyży." The article's lead should include the renderings "Three Cross Square" and "Triple Cross Square," both of which appear in Google Search. Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above regarding your Google search results? Szczesny (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I await your demonstration of which Google Search "Triple Cross Square" items took that name from our Wikipedia article, and which relied on other sources or on their own invention.

One item is a "Triple Cross Square Pillow," which features three crosses ("triple cross") woven into a square pillow, "hand-designed and hand-woven... by Mexico's Zapotec Indian tribe." Wording doubtless likewise inspired by our "Triple Cross Square" article! Nihil novi (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Triple Cross Square

The Polish toponym "Plac Trzech Krzyży" (literally, "Square of Three Crosses") is unequivocal — in the original Polish, it permits of only one interpretation.

This is not the case with the English-language version, "Three Crosses Square". The English language is built differently than the Polish. The English word "three" can be an adjective or a noun. "Cross" can be a noun, an adjective or a verb. "Square" can be a noun, an adjective, a verb or an adverb. Consequently, to many native speakers of English, "Three Crosses Square" will produce a subtle ambiguity that is often of use in poetry, but not in a toponym. The resulting awkward dissonance of "Three Crosses Square" will be clear to many native speakers of English, but not to many speakers of English as a second language.

Probably the most unequivocal and therefore harmonious English rendering of "Plac Trzech Krzyży" is "Triple Cross Square". Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For an example of a "triple cross," as used here, see: [2] "Triple Cross Square Pillow." 193.0.116.21 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC). Note that this pillow is not referred to as a "Square Pillow of Three Crosses", a "Three Crosses Square Pillow", or a "Three Cross Square Pillow" — but a "Triple Cross Square Pillow", analogously to "Triple Cross Square". Nihil novi (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Another example of a "triple cross": [3] "Triple Cross Square Money Clip". Nihil novi (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC). Note that this money clip is not called a "Square Money Clip of Three Crosses", a "Three Crosses Square Money Clip" or a "Three Cross Square Money Clip" — but a "Triple Cross Square Money Clip", analogously to "Triple Cross Square". That is the nature of the English language. Nihil novi (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)