Talk:Free City of Cracow

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free City of Cracow article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Poland High‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Republic or Free City

The name of this country was Rzeczpospolita Krakowska, which could be translated as Republic of Krakow or Republic of Cracow. I've never heard the name Free City of Krakow. Could anyone provide some example?Halibutt 18:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See: [1] for the city-state's constitution (in Polish) and coins. You'll only find the name Wolne Miasto Kraków (Free City of Kraków) there, no mention of Rzeczpospolita Krakowska. However, it seems that both names were used interchangeably in everyday language or even some formal documents. Kpalion 18:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for the explanation.Halibutt 22:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reason for it's establishment?

It doesn't take hindsight to know that the Free City would become a center of Polish Agitation. So what rationale did the three powers have for establishing it? There is something about a drop in Prussian textile exports after its demise so I guess all three powers expected economic benefits? But of course the article shouldn't be based on speculation so if someone knowledgeable could take some time off of the bs edit wars about the name and work something about the original motivation of the three powers into the article, that would be great... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1E40:12A0:BC79:3095:C086:EE89 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 April 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: result was move clear consensus.(non-admin closure) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free City of Kraków → Free City of Cracow – Regardless of which name is more appropriate for the modern city (and I personally prefer Cracow for that as well, as does the OED), this 19th-century political entry is almost always called Cracow, not Kraków in English. Using the Polish spelling here would be like having an article on the Battle of Volgograd. Even Britannica, which tends to use as few exonyms as possible, uses Cracow when referring to this state. Genealogizer (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, i.e. WP:UCN (use common names). The current title seems to be largely a Wikipedia post hoc creation and doesn't even show up in these Google Ngram results. Note also that the successor state is at the English title Grand Duchy of Cracow. — AjaxSmack 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I'm actually not sure if "Free City" or "Republic" would be better. I definitely think "Cracow" is a better choice than "Kraków", though. Genealogizer (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources support both "Free City" or "Republic"; I think the idea is that "Free City" is a more faithful translation; I'm fine with either. There is previous discussion of this above with links to Google counts of the variants. — AjaxSmack 21:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is moved, then the related articles of Kraków uprising, Kraków Department, and Kraków złoty should be moved as well. Genealogizer (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object for the reasons Genealogizer mentions. It is a slippery slope. Cracow is an old spelling of the city's name. The entity did not have an official English name to the best of my knowledge. It still doesn't, and sources call it variously Free City, Republic, etc. Even Polish Wikipedia states it had different names in Polish. There is no good name, we should have a section for it, but at the very least not using the old name is saving us one problem. Also ping User:Poeticbent who writes a lot about the city. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. And many works that use Kraków for the modern city still prefer Cracow for this 19th-century political entity. Genealogizer (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the split in the sources I think opting for consistency with the Polish spelling is the right way to do. Otherwise we will never be able to draw the line (when to use K vs C?). And yes, it is strange some modern Polish Krakow-based institutions opt for the C-version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As one of the great cities of Europe, Cracow has different names in most major European languages. Yes, the Polish version (or more accurately, a bastardized version of the Polish version that omits the diacritic) is more common in the news when referring to the modern city, and is occasionally used in academic works, though Cracow is still very common in academia. However, the traditional English name Cracow is much more common for this 19th-century political entity. Modern cities and things named after them don't need to use the same version of the city's name. (see: Peking duck and Beijing, China; Bombay duck and Mumbai, India; Madras curry sauce but Chennai, India; Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople but Istanbul, Turkey) And unlike Peking, Bombay, Madras, and Constantinople, Cracow is still relatively common in English, especially in academic settings. Genealogizer (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bombay and Madras are also still very common in English-language sources, even Indian ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        But no major dictionary or map site still prefers them, unlike Cracow. Genealogizer (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Which isn't what you said. You implied they were no longer common. They are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With regard to the Kraków/Cracow debate, I think this is analogous to the Marseille/Marseilles debate. American sources have generally kept to the old-fashioned English name, whereas British sources have mostly switched to the native name. I can, however, see the arguments for keeping the old-fashioned name for an historical entity so I'm staying neutral on the RM issue. I would, however, oppose moving Kraków uprising, since this is the common name in modern British sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cracow is hardly old-fashioned, given that it is still in use by some dictionaries, Bing maps, several major newspapers/magazines, and a lot of academic works. A far better comparison is Ivory Coast instead of Cote d'Ivoire. Old-fashioned English names are things like Panompin, Plescow, The Groyne, or Urga. Genealogizer (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - In British English it certainly is old-fashioned! It's as old-fashioned as Coblenz, Lyons and Marseilles. Not to Americans, maybe, but to us it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Coblenz" has been less common than "Koblenz" since 1974", where as "Lyons" and "Lyon" are pretty much tied. "Marseilles" is still more common than "Marseille". As far as British English specifically goes, "Cracow" is still more common than "Krakow", and "Kraków" is a very distant third. However, even if Cracow is sometimes called by its Polish name in modern contexts, the traditional English name remains much more common in historical contexts, similar to Bombay or Persia. In fact, "Coblenz" is still often used when writing about World War I, even in modern works. Genealogizer (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assume you do know that Google is not the be all and end all of knowledge! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I do, but Google Books has a pretty good sample of books. Genealogizer (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this move because 1) It's more common, 2) The current title is a bizarre mix of Polish and English, sort of like having an article called "Warszawa Pact", 3) The current title is rarely seen on websites that aren't Wikipedia or based on Wikipedia. PolskaNation (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) would only be true if you assumed that Cracow was the standard English name for the city. Given it isn't (the British have commonly spelled it Kraków for years, although sadly even some British people haven't yet got their heads around the correct pronunciation), there's nothing bizarre about it. Some cities have standard English names that differ from their native names; this is not one of them. Which is why our article on the city is titled Kraków. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of English dictionaries, newspapers and academic works still prefer "Cracow", which is the traditional English name. As I demonstrated above, "Cracow" is still more common than "Krakow", even in British English and "Kraków" is a very distant third. Also, there's nothing sad about the fact that English-speakers pronounce "Cracow" differently than Poles pronounce "Kraków". Most languages pronounce and/or spell major foreign cities differently than the natives do. Genealogizer (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually meant spelling it correctly but still pronouncing it wrongly! But again, most British people I know do pronounce it correctly. Just as most modern British publications I've read do spell it correctly. In fact, I'd be most surprised these days to see a British publication spell it the old-fashioned way (the only Polish city we still usually anglicise is Warsaw). So I'm frankly mystified as to where the Google Gods may get their information from! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is nothing wrong about the pronunciation "CRACK-ow". The truly archaic pronunciation is "CRAY-coe", which was common in the 19th century. Also, just because you rarely see Cracow doesn't mean it's uncommon, and Kraków is no more correct than Cracow. But all of this is about the name that is most common for the modern city, not this 19th century political entity, for which the spelling Cracow is overwhelmingly dominant, even today.Genealogizer (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move for the same reasons I gave ten years ago (as you can see above on this page): it's dubious whether "Kraków" is even the most commonly used form of the name in English today, and it certainly wasn't in 1815-1846! AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Spelling of Cracow

It was decided that this article belonged at "Free City of Cracow", not "Free City of Krakow", let's keep the spelling consistent throughout this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.42.87 (talk) 11:48, August 10, 2017‎ (UTC)

There is no consensus for that. Several other request moves for this change failed. While we did, sadly (IMHO) get some consensus for renaming this article, there is no reason it should be the only article with the usage of the word Cracow. That word is deprecated in Wikipedia, with the only exception being the phrase 'Free City of Cracow' (per RM above). Redirects should be avoided, hence 'The capital of Free City of Cracow is Krakow'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. It was agreed to use Cracow for this article, so let's have internal consistency. Notice that Britannica does it the same way. (https://www.britannica.com/place/Republic-of-Cracow) Genealogizer (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having the text match the title is typical practice at Wikipedia, especially if it is in line with WP:UE. Wikipedia also uses the English spelling for the Grand Duchy of Cracow. "Deprecated in Wikipedia" is the application of original research as the English name is not deprecated in reliable sources (seen here). — AjaxSmack 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having this to be the only article to use Cracow just illustrates the problems caused by the idiotic POV-pushing move to Cracow, move that has for years been pushed by certain anti-Polish nationalists who don't like seeing Polish names anywhere in this project. Shrug. These days I really have better things to do than to stress over those kind of issues. If you want this low visibility article to use outdated terminology that's inconsistent with every other Wikipedia article, so be it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. I have nothing against Polish, as evidenced by the fact I don't try to push English names where there is a Polish equivalent in Polish wiki. Stop trying to push Polish names where there is an English equivalent in English wiki. And once again, Cracow is not outdated, as evidenced by the fact that 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. And many works that use Kraków for the modern city still prefer Cracow for this 19th-century political entity. " Genealogizer (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As both an idiotic POV-pusher and anti-Polish nationalist, I still have policy, i.e. use reliable, English sources, on my side. Go over to Polish Wikipedia and propose a move of Tuluza to Toulouse, Moguncja to Mainz, or Bolonia to Bologna and see how far you get. — AjaxSmack 03:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus -- I am really not an "anti-Polish nationalist" (and whether I am or not, there's no evidence available to you on the basis of which you could validly conclude that I'm one). What I'm opposed to is the importation of endonyms which barely have any established existence in the English language, especially in a historical context where the endonyms would be completely anachronistic. By the way, the German language uses "Krakau", so "Cracow" really says nothing about Poland vs. Austro-Hungary. AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos, AjaxSmack, and Genealogizer: When I said idiotic POV-pushers, I was referring to some long-gone and banned trolls, not present company, with which I may disagree but which I certainly don't consider idiotic, so my apologies for anyone who was offended by my indeed too-easy-to-misinterprest comment. Now, while it is true that the use of Krakow and Cracow is, roughly, tied, I do believe there are several good reasons to stick with only one, modern name. First, unlike let's stay Constantinopole/Instanbul, there is no official name change, and in fact while I couldn't find an official decision, I found 2008 newspaper which cited an official from the city promotion department saying that they prefer Krakow ([2]) and a blog of professional translator ([3]) which discusses pros and cons and notes that official website uses Krakow and that official websites should be taken as official positions in lieu of official statements. Second, Wikipedia:Consistency is good for readers. Unless there is an official name change, there is no reason to use varying names outside of an etymology section. Both articles linked above (sadly, they are in Polish) cite several experts and usage counts in favor of Krakow, noting that Cracow is historical, but loosing ground. So since there is no official recognition for use of Cracow, also in the context of the past, I think the consistency argument suggests that using Krakow everywhere is the sensible, reader-friendly thing to do. The argument that C was more popular than K in 19th century works so we should use it in this context is, to me, ridiculous - it's like saying that we should not discuss slavery in American in negative context until mid-20th century, because majority 19th century and other pre-abolitionist publications did not see it as a problem :/ Wikipedia should represent modern views and scholarship. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~We don't let city promotion departments dictate what names we use - see Bangalore. Genealogizer (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Straw man argument, plus ignoring all my other points. Thank you for conceding to my points, I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should use Cracow. This push to deprive a major city of its standard English name, even when any other name would be anachronistic in English, is ludicrous. Several of those pushing for it have already said openly that they think only Warsaw should be so distinguished. It's more and more looking like a childish game (such as the tug-of-war a few years ago to have "maths" or "philosophy" as the ultimate end-point of all wikilinks) that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies or best interests. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous. Childish. And all those ludicrous childish English publishers printing books that say "Krakow is" more than "Cracow is". We need to use Wikipedia as a bastion to fight against this growing internationalism and multiculturalism in English books and turn back the clock to proper English names for foreign cities. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas Philopater: "Its standard English name" according to whom? You? Because the official city website uses Krakow, not Cracow, and as noted in [4], already ten years ago NYT, Guardian, BBC, CNN, Fox News and Yahoo were leaning towards K over C by ratio of 60-90% depending on the platform. National Geographic, Lonely Plant, Encyclopedia Britanica - ditto. Need we go on? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now a Polish city gets to decree English usage? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irony aside, @Andreas Philopater: are you a native English speaker? Because as a native English speaker I also learned "Cracow" "Bombay" "Minorca" "Calcutta" when young, and yet because I have kept reading English sources it now looks "ludicrous" to see those names. I cannot understand how anyone can keep reading newspapers and not have got past this? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument about usage by mainstream English language media - I guess you chose to ignore it because it is inconvenient, yes? It is really hard to discuss things with people who have such selective vision :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, once again "even for the modern city, Cracow 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. And many works that use Kraków for the modern city still prefer Cracow for this 19th-century political entity. " Genealogizer (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent until proven guilty. Stop trying to link me to random discontinued user accounts because you don't like my views. If you wish to continue this discussion of my user account, this is not the appropriate place for it. Do it either on my talk page or the investigation page. Genealogizer (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of being guilty, you are guilty of WP:CANVASSING editors - you notified only people who strongly agreed with you: [5], [6]. At the very least you should know this is bad practice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent until proven guilty. <-- that's a ... very interesting defense you got there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except the thing is, I won't be proven guilty because I'm not guilty. As much as you would like me to be a sock puppet so that you can get rid of me, unfortunately for you, I'm not. Genealogizer (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek and In ictu oculi: Well, gee, it seems Genealogizer have been judged guilty and blocked. I think we should start a new RM, particularly given the canvassing that has been ongoing, as noted by me above and by the closing admin at the SPI.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Well the result wasn't a surprise. However in terms of relisting, the problem of canvassing will still linger. I would leave it a couple of weeks and aim to demonstrate in the proposal whether modern WP:RS sources since 2010 are WP:CONSISTENT, i.e. they don't start speaking about the Free City or Duchy as "Cracow" and suddenly become Krakow. Incidentally, did anyone notice that DK guidebook on Amazon see how DK changed from 2007 to 2015. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above evidence it seems the best way forward is to move the article back as it was an organized canvassing campaign by banned sock-puppeteer that led to the change. If you look at the vote and discussion they were throw away accounts involved as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: I'm not sure anyone can "just move the article back" other than via WP:MOVEREVIEW or a new RM. The classic example (to me at least) on en.wp of the "English names" thing is a Serbian tennis player who was WP:RMed to an English name without ć at an RM attended by only "English name" activists, and she's still there, uniquely among 1000s of East Europe bios 7 years later as a special case. Another "English name" case Talk:Minorca/Menorca was recently RMed, in a move I proposed I should admit, and then reopened, so WP:MOVEREVIEW works both ways in regard to this kind of titling. There are possibly others but I can't think of them at the moment. If you scroll down the list of English exonyms in most cases en.wp is in line with 2017 guidebooks you would find on Amazon.com and with 2017 newspapers like The Guardian and NY Times. the above sock made edits down the list that illustrate the thinking. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free City of Krakow

The City Government Museum refers to this period as the Free City of Krakow. Let’s stop pushing Cracow from Poles who most likely got their degrees from the newer universities that decided to use Cracow to be fancy.

http://www.mhk.pl/exhibitions/237