Jump to content

Talk:Giant Mountains/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Interesting article

I found this article while browsing and found it interesting. The related articles about "Krakonos" are cs:Krakonoš, de:Rübezahl, and pl:Liczyrzepa. Olessi 19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article of "The international service of Czech Radio" at www.radio.cz The Giant Mountains - a world of legend [21-12-2005 12:04 UTC By David Vaughan] uses Krkonose or Giant Mountains, Snezka or Schneekoppe. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

German names still used in modern English books

I have to point out again that in post-1990 English language books, according to Google Book search, the German names are as often used as both Slavic languages combined (searches with diacrits yield the same number of results):

So please include the English(!) names. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we are at it:

Thus, the current name "Karkonosze" is the worst possible. I strongly suggest using the neutral English name Giant mountains rather than picking the lesser popular Slavic one. Anyway, Poland was only expanded to border this mountain range about three decades after Czechoslovakia was established. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also against the Polish name, but because of practical reasons. The Polish name represents less then 1/3 of the mountain range, the Czech name more then 2/3. This alone speaks for the Czech name. The more detailed this article gets the less he will cover the smaller Polish side. It's rather confusing to write about the Czech side using the Polish name... and vice versa. This speaks for the use of both name, which is not very practical. The most practical solution is the English term "Giant Mountains", which covers both sides. But since this name is a translation of the old German name it will probably cause some, ahm, ...stir. Karasek (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
One has the impression that the true purpose of the English Wikipedia is to keep stirrers silent by giving in to their POV. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some more combinations for "Giant Mountains":

"Poland" seems to beat "Czech Republic" in post 1990 books, but then the state was only established after 1992:

No matter what, the Polish context is always the least popular. That is not hard to understand, as Poland only borders to the mountains since 1945. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This means nothing, the name is so generic that your results can include fictionable books, fantasy scenarios, poems, biographies in which any other mountain that the author named giant is named and so on.--Molobo (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Again too generic to conclude this is about Karkonosze and not any other mountain range.--Molobo (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't purpose of Czech and Polish Wikipedia to present their names in thier respective Wikies? Ore Mountains and Bohemian Forest are fine examples to follow here. I recomend to move the article under the proper English "Giant Mountains" title. --IEEE (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's follow good example

I propose Karkonosze/Krkonoše following the example of Sněžka-Śnieżka. I think both Polish and Czech editors showed the spirit of Wikipedia by agreeing to such neutral and natural naming without any fights and beautifull cooperation between editors from two different nations. Why not follow the spirit of Wikilove and name this article in the same way ? --Molobo (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about including native English speakers? Maybe Polish and Czech editors should first agree on one name, then propose it on English Wikipedia. Anyway, Giant Mountains is neutral and English. And Riesengebirge was and is established in English use, too. As is Schneekoppe. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant Mountains ? That can't be used-too general, can give result from any mountain refered by search as giant. Plus it is not the propera name used in modern sources for that mountain range as it is obsolete translation for general german term. Risenbiezger aren't used when talking about those mountains. Plus it is also a general term that could be used to any "bieger" that are "rise". As to your proposal for Schnekophfe the responces given by editors were telling, if funny sometimes, so I don't think that would pass.--Molobo (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Mountains, White Mountains , Snowy Mountains, just to give some generic names from the top of my head. All valid names. Thanks for your creative spelling efforts, BTW. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) So Matthead, your logic is pretty much that a German name is the right one? The DominatorTalkEdits 15:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just read the section above: post-1990 use of Riesengebirge in English Google Books outnumbers both K-names. Riesengebirge is established in English, as is Giant Mountains. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant mountains and its german version is so generic that the result is meaningless. As to German names since Poland and Czechoslovakia were under German-language rule then you will always find more German names then Polish and Czech ones. Using that logic we should rename all the areas that were once part of German to German language names which is absurd. In some cases giving name used in the past during German rule is ok, but when writing general articles about modern locations and times then we should use normal names reflecting the real situation.--Molobo (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be completely against to the "Giant Mountains" idea even though it is a bit generic. I'm going to take a quick look around and see how often Giant Mountains is used. The DominatorTalkEdits 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite often I am sure, since it will be used every time somebody makes remark that some mountains are Giand. You can bet many results will be from fictional books, poems, fantasy books, phrases like 'those giant mountains were obstacle to our journey' when talking about Urals or Himalayas and so on. Any search on that term is worthless as source of info.--Molobo (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these mountains, but I do believe that standard English usage needs to be honored. Furthermore, though "Giant Mountains" sounds silly, even childish, to my ears, that is undoubtedly because I have never heard of that name before, and I'm sure that "White Mountains", as Matthead pointed out above, is just as generic and, I think, would sound just as silly to someone who had not heard them before. I will support whatever name is used in most English-language sources. What is that?Unschool (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck in finding that as giant mountains is so generic you will get thousands results not connected to this mountain range.--Molobo (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. And also simply counting Google hits is a pretty poor way to take decisions, unless the differences are overwhelming. Particularly since we need to weight in favour of modern and scholarly sources. You also can't help noticing that "established" English names for foreign places are generally on the way out, except for the very well-established ones that everyone's heard of (Warsaw, Munich, Prague etc.). It doesn't matter greatly what the article's called, since we have redirects (generally I think we spend far too much time arguing about names when we could be improving the article in many other ways), but it seems to be fully in line with normal modern English usage to adopt the local name (Polish or Czech, I don't have a preference).--Kotniski (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Why use an English or German name for a mountain range that is shared exclusively by Poland and the Czech Republic? Sounds like linguistic imperialism. Nihil novi (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
An English name on English Wikipedia is linguistic imperialism? -- Matthead  Discuß   22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The bilingual slashed versions of names of articles (such as Karkonosze/Krkonoše) are politically correct, but I personally do not like them very much. Using the English equivalent of the name enables avoiding the slash in the name. And because this is the English language encyclopedia, I have nothing against the English name Giant Mountains, but I am against the German name.

I tried Google, which gave about 109,000 hits for the exact phrase "Giant Mountains" on the English language pages, which means that this version of the name is used. I went through the first 50 of them and just two pointed to pages which were not about the Czech-Polish mountains, but about some other mountains which were simply giant. So I think we do not have to be too much bothered that the name is too generic. Also Czech pages written in English frequently use this name (I do not know what the Polish sources use in E.), the Britannica's article is called this way and so is the article in our sister project Wikitravel. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could just be that the rest 100 are not about the region, your deducation method can't be taken in serious manner. Brittanica uses Karkonosze and Krkonoše in its name.--Molobo (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the online Britannica article's title is "Giant Mountains" ([1]).

Maybe a little search within the first 200 Internet pages containing the phrase "Giant Mountains" listed by Google can be taken slightly more seriously. Just 8 of them were not connected with the region we are talking about. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You searched that quick ? Anyway Google is intelligent and takes your previous searches into consideration if you searched earlier for Czech topics it likely gave you the links with Czech and Polish content first. Thus this can't be considered. As to Brittanica:
Giant Mountains, or Karkonosze, or Krkonoše, or Riesengebirge (mountains, Europe) [2]. Per above the best solution is Karkonosze/Krkonoše. --Molobo (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I searched that quick. Quite easy, because Google shows extracts from the pages, so most of them were not necessary to enter to know what topic they are about. If you do not believe me, you can repeat the search. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Failing to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Molobo? Anyway, here is what Brittanica uses as name: Giant Mountains

  • The Encyclopædia Britannica Article: Giant Mountains: Czech Krkonoše , German Riesengebirge , Polish Karkonosze mountains, major segment of the Sudeten in northeastern Bohemia and part of the western Czech-Polish frontier. The highest peak in both the mountains and Bohemia is Snezka (5,256 feet [1,602 m]). The Elbe (Czech: Labe) River rises in Bohemia on the southern slope, and tributaries of the Oder (Odra) River flow northward from the Polish side. The traditional textile industry—wool, cotton, and linen—is centred at Liberec, Czech Republic. Quartz is used in making Bohemian glass in some of the southern foothills, notably at Jablonec nad Nisou. Glassmaking is typified by the small works that extend high up the slopes of the mountains, with prominent forge chimneys attached to each cottage. These activities, together with machine production and timber working, account for most of the region's employment. A railway line from Prague runs across the mountains and branches off to Görlitz (Germany) and Wroclaw (Poland). The main road from Prague to Wroclaw crosses near Náchod, Czech Republic. Extensive beech, pine, and fir forests and hiking trails and ski slopes support a year-round tourist industry with centres at Vrchlabí, Jilemnice, Trutnov, Špindleruv Mlýn, and Janské Lazne in the Czech Republic and at Szklarska Poreba and Karpacz in Poland. Both the Czech Republic and Poland have parts of the area under protection as nature preserves. [3] (expanded to full view)
  • Encyclopædia Britannica hosts the free GPL image as uploaded to Wiki Commons: The Giant Mountains, part of the Sudeten mountain range system." Harald Ulrik Sverdrup [4]

Let's follow good example of Encyclopædia Britannica. The issue is pretty much settled towards the indisputable English name Giant Mountains which is not as generic as some assume. Article fixed.-- Matthead  Discuß   22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's follow good example of Encyclopædia Britannica. Brittanica already established that its best to use Karkonosze/Krkonoše, since we already established that Giant Mountains is meaningless and can be text from any poem, fantasy or fictionable book, and the name from Germanisation period is not acceptable then its best to follow Brittanica and name the article like Sněžka-Śnieżka Karkonosze-Krkonoše. Case seems to be closed on this one Matthead.--Molobo (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we talk about the same Britannica article? I can still see there the title "Giant Mountains" and the local names appear later in the text. Which would be quite a good solution for this article. It would solve many problems: Using Czech, Polish or both (slashed) names? If both, which first? Why should there be a bilingual Czech-Polish name awkwardly divided by a slash, when a neutral English name exists? Even Czech sources often use this English name, why should English encyclopedia not? I think "Praha" should be called "Prague" at English Wikipedia, and the "Giant Mountains" is also a well established English version of the name. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you know-what is the source ? A generic name like that can't be used in search since it will bring countless other unrelated results. The header in Brittanica is clear Giant Mountains, or Karkonosze, or Krkonoše, or Riesengebirge (mountains, Europe) . If you are against double names-start at Śnieżka. Matthead proposed to name it Schenkopfe-perhaps you will support him ? --Molobo (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be used in search, it is just necessary to check, whether the pages really talk about these mountains - and it seems they mostly do.
We are discussing the title of the article, aren't we? And Britannica's title is "Giant Mountains". I keep repeating the same argument and you keep saying something which simply is not true. The only title in Britannica is the English version. If you search in Britannica for the article, only "Giant Mountains" lead there directly, other versions like "Krkonose" just come up with several searching results. One of them is – "Giant Mountains" again. Try it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As for Sněžka: That is slightly different, because there is no common English name of the mountain. English sources use Czech, Polish or German name. There is no reason to use the German one, in my opinion. I am not suggesting to use the German name for the Giant Mountains either. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The allegation that one cannot use Google to search for what term is more popular in English-language sources is just flat wrong. Searching for "Giant Mountains" nets some 137,000 returns, the first ten refer exclusively to the mountains in Czech Rep./Poland. Narrowing the search by adding Czech Republic (which should remove the majority of the false returns) lowers it to 48,100, while using Poland nets 38,800. The argument that Google remembers your past history is a red herring - I've never searched for anything remotely related to Poland or the Czech Rep. Clearly, "Giant Mounatains" is a term widely established in English usage, and is favored by WP:UE as well as WP:NCGN. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And when did I deny that sometimes Giant Mountains is used ? So far you only had proven what was never denied-that the name is sometimes used in relations to Karkonosze range. But frankly one can't count how often compared to that since the term is so generic you will not be able to determine exact numbers compared to more established and accepted name of Karkonosze and Krkonoše.--Molobo (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Then, per WP:UE, the article should be named "Giant Mountains", as it is the most common English language name. Karkonosze and Krkonoše are Polish and Czech, respectively, and therefore are only viable choices if there isn't an accepted English name. However, since there is Giant Mountains, it takes precedence over the endonyms. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"it is the most common English language name". According to what or who ? No evidence has been presented. Since the term is so generic no google search will provide answer as countless other results are within it not related to that mountains.--Molobo (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, what other English-language names are there? Matthead has listed Riesen Mountains, but it appears to be an outdated term. Again, the Polish and Czech names aren't viable because a widely accepted English-language name exists. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Karkonosze seem to be more widespread, just like Krakow is more widespread in English then Cracow. Cheers.--Molobo (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to Giant Mountains

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus for any move, or at least, any particular move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Karkonosze → Giant Mountains. In the scientific journal Opera Corcontica specialising in this very mountain range, international authors, mainly Czech and Polish, clearly favour the use of Giant Mountains [5]. Also per WP:Use English, Encyclopedia Britannica, Czech Radio website, evidence found on Google Books and Google Scholar, previous talk. Czech Republic official website czech.cz uses Krkonoše (Giant Mountains) [6], but not Karkonosze. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, as nominator. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Britannica. Neutral English name enables to avoid the disputation whether Czech, Polish or awkward bilingual title should be preferred. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose Meaningless generic name. No source confirms it is the most used one. Brittanica uses Karkonosze/Krkonoše, the most popular local version should be used. Already rejected three times.Is not a English word but translation of German term for Polish and Czech mountains.--Molobo (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not true, Britannica uses Giant Mountains in the title, as I have pointed out several times. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose apparently equals to bending the truth backwards. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that arguments for or against either proposal not based in Wikipedia and policy will likely be ignored by the closer of this proposal. Please do not use arguments analogous to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as they are invalid. Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to highlight a line from the introduction of WP:NCGN: "By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it." It seems that the naming convention would in fact favor Giant Mountains, as it would avoid the dispute between Polish, German, and Czech names for the mountains. Parsecboy (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no dispute between the Polish and Czech names — they are merely variants of the same name. The German name is essentially irrelevant, as these are not German mountains. Nihil novi (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. One could argue whether we should use Polish, Czech or both names - but German is quite irrelevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oddly, English seems to be no option at all for some. The German name is Riesengebirge, and it is quite popular in modern English use, too. As shown elsewhere on this page, it equals or beats the Czech name. The Polish is less popular and relevant than the Czech one anyway, double Slavic naming proposal is a mere attempt to keep the Polish name afloat on board of the Czech one. No matter how, there is an well-established English name, and it will finally prevail even in POV-ridden Wikipedia. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly be preferable to "Giant Mountains." Nihil novi (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ostap, I certainly hope that that was an attempt at humor. Unschool (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't question the seriousness of other users, please. English names on English Wikipedia should always be substituted by concatenating all available Slavic names, in this case to Karkonosze-Krkonoše-Крконоше. Polish name always comes first, except in Sněžka-Śnieżka. See Puszcza Białowieska-Belaveskaya Pushcha-Белавеская пушча. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a vast Slavic conspiracy. Ostap 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me remind you that Piotrus doesn't have a valid point; WP:NCGN actually states the opposite of his position, that is, to use common English names first. His example with Lodz is equally superfluous, as the city isn't commonly called "a boat" in English language sources. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ve haff vays of teaching überpolitikal Korrektnis to ze Enzyklopädia Britannika. (says one German user to ze other) -- Matthead  Discuß   21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The term "giant Mountains" is also used by Norman Davies in his book Microcosm [7] I think he is unsuspicious of german Nationalism (HerkusMonte (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
A couple of comments, please remember to WP:AGF, and also, base your reasons in policy, guidelines, or naming conventions, not arguments analogous to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as I have previously. Olessi (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Please consult the archives. Let me repeat that "Giant Mountains" is a direct translation of a historical German name. Today the mountains are not in Germany any more, and their modern name is Karkonosze/Krkonoše. It's been already discussed before and the outcome was to keep the name. The name of the mountains didn't change since so why are you wasting the time again ? --Lysytalk 16:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How come all votes opposing Giant Mountains have no reason given besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? The move request is up for a week, and all the opposition can come up with are complaints that the multi-century old German tradition is not as dead and buried as most of the Germans expelled from their Riesengebirge homes in 1945? Just showing up and voting "oppose" might have been enough to filibuster previous move requests to "no consensus", but this time, overwhelming evidence (incl. scholarly use, official Czech use) for a move to Giant Mountains is presented. And regarding the Slavic names, the traditional Czech Krkonoše clearly is preferred over the much more recently invented Polish version. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
German/Czech wikidrama surely is a mistake here? There is the general German/Polish En-wikidrama about Danzig/Gdansk etc., and in regard to this mountains, a Polish/Czech wikidrama, as Poles have adopted the Czech names Krkonose and Snezka only in modified form. As a result, the Wiki article is currently at Sněžka-Śnieżka. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Nihil novi Piotrus. Space Cadet (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, Nihil novi's argument appears to be that Wikipedia is trying to steal these mountains, an arguemnt that isn't exactly grounded in policy. Again, please note that arguments based on analogues to WP:IDONTLIKEIT aren't valid, and will likely be ignored by the closing admin. Please provide sources, not your opinion, to justify your position. Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Piotrus' point isn't valid either; the example of Lodz is superfluous, as there aren't a number of reliable sources that call the city "a boat"; there are, however, a number of sources that use "Giant Mountains" to refer to these mountains. If you read WP:NCGN, you'll see that it actually disagrees with his position. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess he actually meant "per Tymek". -- Matthead  Discuß   02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Invalid vote-it has been already rejected. Respect the community result[8] --Molobo (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Two years ago, "The result of the proposal was No consensus." -- Matthead  Discuß   23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed not accepted-thus rejected.--Molobo (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any rule saying, that after a move is not accepted, any other proposition is invalid? Even two years later? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Molobo, please read through WP:CONSENSUS again, you appear to be a little rusty on the topic. Specifically, Wikipedia:CON#Consensus_can_change. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Molobo keeps saying something which is not true. He argues with Britannica, but this encyclopedia uses "Giant Mountains" as the only title (see here) and other language versions of the name are mentioned only in the text. If we try to search for Krkonose or Karkonosze, the result is this – Giant Mountains again. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Molobo keeps saying something which is not true. Indeed. Is there a name for a person which does so? Especially when the not-true-statement is repeated after having been pointed to the truth? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found a number of texts, in which Wrocław scientists use the name "Giant Mountains". Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Sturla J., Mazurski K.R. Pałucki A.: Geoecological Problem of the Giant Mountains. Proc. Int. Conf., September 2000, Svoboda nad Upou; Opera Corcontica 37/2000: 88-93.
  • [9] includes Marek Błaś, Mieczysław Sobik Osobliwości klimatu Karkonoszy i Gór Izerskich ....109 Climatic peculiarities of the Izera and Giant Mountains (Western Sudetes) ....120
  • Comparison of Evapotranspiration and Condensation Measurements between the Giant Mountains and the Alps, Chapter Authors: Carmen De Jong, Marco Mundelius, Krzysztof Migaa [10]

Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For 1st, see here. BTW, The yearly journal Opera Corcontica publishes peer-reviewed, original papers from the field of environmental sciences, geography and geosciences, humanities and social sciences relating to Krkonoše National Park. Articles are in Czech, Polish or English. Czech and Polish articles are provided with English Abstract and Legends. [11]. They offer a list of Articles in English or Czech/Polish with English Abstract. Of over 600 titles, in the first 20 displayed, Giant Mountains is included in 12, compared to 0 Krkonoše, and 1 Karkonosze, and that as part of Karkonosze National Park. I wonder how that will be contested? Easy: each one of those scientists violates WP:NOR! -- Matthead  Discuß   12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement above is manipulation-Karkonosze gives in the search not one but 60 results. A search for generic mountains gives every article where word "giant" and "mountains" is used, not necessarily regarding Karkonosze range.--Molobo (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop your false claims, Molobo! I wrote "in the first 20 displayed", and the most recent come first, with Cold War era ones further down. The first 100 go back to 2003, and include 19 mentions of Karkonosze mostly as part of the Polish national park name, not the range as a whole, which is called Giant Mountains in 43 titles, or almost every second one. And that journal specialises in the Giant Mountains aka Riesengebirge or Krkonose, and is published from the Czech National Park website krnap.cz! Stop your ridiculous attempts. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Distinctly ambivalent. Personally I have seen these mountains referred to most often in English-language texts as the Krkonoše, occasionally as Karkonosze or Riesengebirge and practically never as the "Giant Mountains"; this title would certainly surprise me somewhat. The cost-benefit analysis of this move doesn't stand up - the change to the user experience if we move is minimal given the existence of all the relevant redirects and a thorough explanation of all the different names in the text. Moving the page however will create a number of problems as regards disambiguation from all the other Giant Mountains, and then a slog through hundreds of links to redirect a large proportion of them to the right destination. Sure go ahead and move it, but only if someone is prepared to do the cleanup operation afterwards, in full knowledge that it's making practically no difference to our readers. Knepflerle (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The clean-up operation that you're warning against isn't a problem, bots are set up that automatically fix all redirects caused by a move, within a day or so of the move being made. The only thing that needs to be done by humans is to fix any major double redirects. Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a non issue - Wiki search lists 23 results for "Giant Mountains", not hundreds, and only The_Burning_City did not refer to this article (changed to huge now). Fixed also the links piped as [[K*|Giant Mountains]]. Besides, Giant Mountains is less ambivalent than Black Forest - or do you suggest a move to Schwarzwald there? I do not know what you read that you seldom encounter "Giant Mountains", but Google Scholar has over 200 hits for "Giant mountains" in scientific papers science 2000, many of them by Czech authors, and by Poles, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And how many of those results include txts fictionable books, fantasy scenarios, any other mountains considered giant or described as such rather then Karkonosze ? --Molobo (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Google Scholar, Molobo! Science without the fiction; geology, biology, meteorology etc., not studies in "fantasy scenarios" like the ones you want to make believe. Stop your pathetic trolling. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I went through the first 5 pages of results, and every single return was a reference to the mountains in question. Why don't you look through the results yourself, instead of making invalid criticisms of them? Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So your results are in conflict with results of Jan who reported several results on his google search enginge gave non-relevant terms. And that's hardly an argument-first 5 can give some results while 95 others not at all. As to my results-Karkonosze isn't a generic term but a name of those mountains, so every result is about them.--Molobo (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Jan wasn't evaluating the search Matthead provided above. And no, I checked the first five pages, that is to say, the first 50 results, not the first 5. Your allegations about "Giant Mountains" returning results that aren't relevant until you can show a google search that gives them as results. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
They are 1,280 hits for Karkonosze right now on Google scholar[12] compared to yours 50 hits for enigmatic giang mountains. Seems like EOT.--Molobo (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Gee, Molobo, comparing the first 50 hits with an overall count? Even with the Polish language interface, the Czech krkonose with 1640 hits outnumber the Polish name, and the 2880 for riesengebirge right now on Google scholar equal both Slavic versions combined. Of course, we want to study only use in English, with 717 for "giant mountains" and further 178 for "giant mts". Anyone might enforce English use by requiring eg. "+mountains", which will show that in English scientific papers according to Google Scholar, the Polish name is less popular 678 than the Czech 836 and the German 712 one. And that despite the Czech name suffering from OCR scanning problems with the š [13] which further demonstrates that Unicode and diacritics - per beautifull example of Sněžka-Śnieżka - are not established in English at all. Luckily, in this case, we have a perfect and neutral English name that was established over 200 years ago, as used e.g. by John Quincy Adams [14]. Yet, even the use of Riesengebirge is current, a glimpse at the first 10 results show that the results are from recent papers, post 2000, with the authors' internet domain. The current Polish article name should have never been selected on English Wikipedia. Seems like EndOfTrolling for Polish POV now, indeed. -- Matthead  Discuß   12:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also the semi-translated Riesen Mountains [15] [16] [17], but this seems to be rather outdated. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Unproductive edit warring by Matthead and insertion of German names in place of Polish and Czech ones

Mattheads proposal to rename Śnieżka into Sznekopfe was rejected by all editors, yet he continues to push it through in other articles. Matthead-please respect community vote and stop inserting that name into articles about Polish and Czech geography. You are also trying to push through a name that is under discussion and too generic to be accepted. Please beheave in more scholary way and engage in discussion rather then enforcing your views on articles.--Molobo (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Schneekoppe - try to use copy&paste when you've run out of misspellings. No such thing as a Sniezka until 1945. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Śnieżka was a mountain, I don't think Poles build it after 1945.--Molobo (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more information on legends of Karkonosze/Krkonoše

The article lacks much cultural information about Polish and Czech legends regarding Karkonosze/Krkonoše it would be good to add it.--Molobo (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a theory, that the Ruebezahl is a Slavic idea, accepted by German settlers, but I'm not sure if it based on facts or pure speculation. There are several books in German, some of them translated into Polish. I don't know about any Polish legends, did Kolberg write any? Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Good luck Molobo, I can't wait to read about them. LOL Karasek (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your comment about Slavic culture ? Why "LOL" and "good luck" ?--Molobo (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about Slavic culture, I just can't wait to read more about these Slavic legends. :D Karasek (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out by Xx236, Rübezahl is the place to look at. And Ribesal a place to look after. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of other legends beside Rübezahl. Almost every village and every mountain had it's own legend. Most of them are obviously forgotten now. I've got a few old books from the 19th and early 20th century about these legends, but strangely they aren't Slavic. We just have to wait and see what Molobo can find, maybe we have to rewrite the entire history section afterwards. Karasek (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazi listening station during WW2  ?

I stumbled on info that there was a Nazi listening station in the Karkonosze/Krkonoše mountains during WW2. Would like to know more on that information if anybody has any info.--Molobo (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Karkonosze → Karkonosze/Krkonoše — Sněžka-Śnieżka compromise —Molobo (talk) 19:24, 15 May 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.

I propose Karkonosze/Krkonoše following the example of Sněžka-Śnieżka. I think both Polish and Czech editors showed the spirit of Wikipedia by agreeing to such neutral and natural naming without any fights and beautifull cooperation between editors from two different nations. Why not follow the spirit of Wikilove and name this article in the same way ?

Support- per beautifull example of Sněžka-Śnieżka.--Molobo (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Anything but alien linguistic-imperialist names. Nihil novi (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Neutral for now I wouldn't say that the example at Sněžka-Śnieżka is beautiful as many people opposed it and it is somewhat clumsy, but Giant Mountains is too generic and note to Molobo that I never said anything about doing an arbitrary Google Hits result test, I just wanted to look into how often the name "Giant Mountains" is used to refer to Krakonose, I absolutely despise using Google Hits for an accurate naming convention. It seems that they are sometimes referred to by the name "Giant Mountains" but not often enough to reach a conclusion. Also, this is Wikipedia, not Britanicca. All in all, I think that a double name here makes just as much sense as using a double name at Sněžka-Śnieżka, so, while I believe that this debate should never have been started as it just serves as more provocation for cultural disputes over which we lost many fine editors, but now that this debate has been started, I support a double name. I also think that we should make a guideline that explicitly permits double names where consensus can't be reached (if it doesn't exist already) and get it approved as a guideline. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reasons given at the snowy mountain page. We use one or the other, simple. We do not use names nobody uses. Nobody uses the hyphenated double-naming, so we don't use it either, simple as that. We do not invent English usage for our convenience, we copy it with its flaws. Knepflerle (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not follow the spirit of Czech and Polish scientists that use Giant Mountains when publishing in English in the peer-reviewed Opera Corcontica journal? -- Matthead  Discuß   12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Responce.Why not follow the spirit of Czech and Polish scientists that use Karkonosze when publishing in English in the peer-reviewed Opera Corcontica journal as simple search shows. --Molobo (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Molobo, you are once again making a statement which can only be called a lie. As simple search at the scientific journal that specialises in the Giant Mountains shows, e.g. in vol. 42/2005, there were 13 English article titles, of which 10 included Giant Mountains, and none Karkonosze. And that includes two articles written by Poles in Polish, by Robert Szmytkie (at interia.pl, Uniwersytet Wrocawskim, GRANITE CAVES IN THE POLISH PART OF THE GIANT MOUNTAINS / JASKINIE GRANITOWE W POLSKICH KARKONOSZACH) and Mgr. Marek Kasprzak (at geom.uni.wroc.pl, THE RATE OF DEGRADATION OF TOURIST ROUTES IN THE EAST GIANT MOUNTAINS / TEMPO DEGRADACJI POWIERZCHNI DRÓG I CIEEK TURYSTYCZNYCH W KARKONOSZACH WSCHODNICH). No mountain range is as high as the hole you are desperately digging is deep, Molobo. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. per Molobo and Nihil novi. Space Cadet (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The question isn't what the Czech or Polish people call them but what the English language calls them. Most everything gets referred to in some way in these international times. The current title does seem to get quite a few hits on google books and no compelling reasons are given for the move, so oppose. Narson (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Both Czech and Polish versions of the name are used in English. I don't see why one should be preferred over the other. --Lysytalk 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Umm, I'm fairly certain that the link Matthead provided in the other move proposal thread clearly demonstrates that the Czech and Polish scientists use Giant Mountains in their English-language texts. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And they use also Karkonosze and Krkonoše-your point ?--Molobo (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My point, which I've been trying to explain in the other move proposal thread, is that when there is a widely accepted English-language name, it always takes precedence over the endonyms. Hence, why we have Germany and not Deutschland, France instead of République française, and Russia instead of Rossiyskaya Federatsiya. For further information, please read Wikipedia:NCGN#Use_English, I'd like to point out the line "Non-English names should be used only if there are no established names in English" specifically. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence, why we have Germany and not Deutschland And we have Krakow not Cracow on Wikipedia since the first name was determined to be more widespread and is established English name of the city. Likewise Karkonosze. Any search on enigmatic giant mountains must be cleared from results not related to Karkonosze in order to establish if it is more widespread. So far nobody has done that, and nobody has proven anything beyond the fact that translation of German language is sometimes used , which neither means it is a English word nor that is more widespread then original names for those Mountains.--Molobo (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, I ask that you adhere to WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Your allegations that Giant Mountains gives false results is baseless and has been disproven by Matthead's search above. I've now checked the first 10 pages (the first 100 results), and only 1 was referring to your beloved "txts fictionable books, fantasy scenarios, any other mountains considered giant or described as such". To put it another way, 99% of the first half of Matthead's search results were valid references to these mountains. Also, specific sources have been provided that demonstrate English-language usage of "Giant Mountains" in scholarly, expert sources. Again, please read WP:UE and WP:NCGN, and you'll see that your position is unteneble, both in naming conventions as well as in the demonstrated English usage. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your allegations that Giant Mountains gives false results is baseless" Already proven by another editor: "I went through the first 50 of them and just two pointed to pages which were not about the Czech-Polish mountains"Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

100 results ? That's very little if compared to results for Karkonosze which give thousand of hits. As to first results of Matthead since google stores his previous discussions and searches for Czech and Poland history then no surprise first ones were connected to Poland. You claim that "Giant mountains" is used in English language publications was never denied, so what's the point ? Karkonosze is used far more often and in relation to mountains only not to anything else as presented here: http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/05-01/fiji-dawn-sleeping-giant-mountains-nadi-fiji.html Fiji Dawn - Sleeping Giant Mountains, Nadi, Fiji --Molobo (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My search for "Giant Mountains" returns 717 results, the first 50 of which all refer to these mountains. This indicates that statistically, most of the results will refer to these mountains. Similarly, Google Books gives 838 results for "Giant Mountains", and 690 for Karkonosze. Again, none of this is really relevant, because WP:UE and WP:NCGN give precedence to Giant Mountains as an accepted English-language name. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please tell how many of those 838 results are not about Karkonosze but about Fiji, or any other mountain range described as giant in personal diary, poem or fictionable book. Of course the phrase can also be used as metaphor and that results also should be removed. Thank you.--Molobo (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be some kind of logical misconception here that because "Giant Mountains" is English (consists of recognizable English words) that should somehow give it precedence over names like "Karkonosze" which are visibly foreign. This is not how I read WP:UE. What matters is whether a particular name is clearly established in scholarly sources in English, regardless of how English or un-English that name looks. If Giant Mountains is so established, then I would support it as the name of the article. But it seems that in fact no one of the three alternative names is clearly established ahead of the others in English writing, so citing WP:UE or similar in favour of any one of them is spurious.--Kotniski (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We have four(!) different names used in English, with Giant Mountains surely being "more English" than the other three, Riesengebirge, Krkonose, Karkonosze. And Giant Mountains is the name of choice of the scholarly source in English that focuses on the mountain range, Opera Corcontica. Hardly a pseudo-controversial naming dispute has a better referenced solution than that. The current Polish name is surely less often used, and less appropriate, than the Czech Krkonose, so a move is necessary anyway, no matter how many WP:ILIKEIT voters want to keep it. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually that is false argument, with "Giant Mountains surely being "more English"-Cracow is "more English" then Krakow, yet Krakow is more widespread then Cracow in English.--Molobo (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, using WP:UE is not at all spurious; it and WP:NCGN are quite applicable to this proposal. The issue is this: the editors who favor moving the page to Giant Mountains have provided several sources demonstrating English usage in academic sources. So far, the editors opposed have consistently failed to provide any sources demonstrating English usage of Karkonosze in academic sources, and instead rely on google counts (which aren't reliable enough to justify much of anything by themselves). As for using English, allow me to quote a section from WP:NCGN:
This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers ... One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; in general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
Along with:
Non-English names should be used only if there are no established names in English
This would favor "Giant Mountains" over any of the other alternatives, because it is widely used in English, and it is an English-language name. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I interpret UE and NCGN differently. English and Non-English are clearly used there to mean "used in English", not "English in form". You can see that by looking at the example Turin/Torino discussed at WP:UE. The question is what is English usage; the fact that Turin is English in form and Torino Italian is irrelevant. --Kotniski (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether we disagree in our interpretation of UE and NCGN is irrelevant, the point remains that we use names that are recognizable to literate anglophones. A widely accepted alternative does exist, and therefore we should use it: Giant Mountains. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure the vast majority of literate Anglophones have no idea where either the Giant Mountains or Karkonosze are. "Recognizable" here means recognizable by meaning, not recognizable as consisting of English words. So whatever the merits of the other arguments, the fact that Giant Mountains is made up of English words remains irrelevant.--Kotniski (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of those guidelines. The simple fact remains is that not a single reliable source has been provided that demonstrates Karkonosze is more widely used than Giant Mountains, while several reputable and expert sources have been given to support Giant Mountains. Verifiability trumps essentially all else in this debate, and that much is non-negotiable. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. It's about time an admin closes the "vote" and moves the article. The nay-sayers had enough time to amend their statements. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. Move it to "Karkonosze/Krkonoše." Nihil novi (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Giant Mountains are in Fiji

Fiji

Fiji is the home of the Giant Mountains Giant Mountains [18], full height windows offering 360 degree views of Nadi Bay and the sleeping Giant mountain range [19], Fiji's magnificent 'Sleeping Giant' mountains. [20]. --Molobo (talk) May 2008

Fiji Dawn - Sleeping Giant Mountains [21] full height windows offering 360 degree views of Nadi Bay and the sleeping Giant mountain range [22] Fiji's magnificent 'Sleeping Giant' mountains. [23] --Molobo (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Giant mountains in Fiji-gives 2,800 hits... --Molobo (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I should hope that it's obvious that "Sleeping Giant Mountains" =/= "Giant Mountains" Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And its obvious that any search for giant mountains is going to come up with Fiji. Among any other thousands of things not related to Karkonosze range, Fiji is just an example. --Molobo (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You can keep your disingenuous thread title, however, you have consitently failed to address the argument that among those results surveyed from both Matthead and my Google Scholar queries, around 99% of them refer to the mountains in Czech Rep./Poland. This thread here is a great example of a red herring. Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

that among those results surveyed from both Matthead and my Google Scholar queries, around 99% of them refer to the mountains in Czech Rep./Poland. Really ? You checked every result ? Can I see any evidence of that statement above ? Anyway your results even without deducting Poems, Fiji, metaphors, description of other mountains are below Karkonosze results.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, I ask that you read my comments more carefully; I clearly stated that the results surveyed gave about 99% accuracy, not all results the search gave. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would guess they used something like this. Narson (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And how many of those are from general description of other mountains, fictionable books, poems, diaries where the prhase was used to describe something different, metaphors ?

Giant Mountains in Fiji aren't named "sleeping" btw. I searched on google and Fiji "Giant Mountains" -sleeping gave results as well. 781 results for Giant mountains Himalayan-just an example out of many... 793 results Giant Mountains Himalayas. And I am sure we can do that with hundreds of other mountain ranges known to Mankin on Earth, Mars, and any other body with mountains... 706 results Giant Mountains mars Karkonosze otoh can give only one mountain range. --Molobo (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the only mountain range with Giant Mountains as their name are the mountains in Poland/Czech Rep. The hits for Fiji "Giant Mountains" -sleeping actually gives articles for these mountains as 6 of the first 10 results, not the Fijian mountains. So much for that. Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you could do something useful and create articles on Fiji's Giant Mountains/Giant Sleeping Mountains :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Knee timber?

"knee timber" [24] was introduced by User:Karasek as translation of the German Knieholz mentioned at Bei Paul Stránský erscheint 1643 der Satz: „Krkonosse nostrum vulgus accolae Germani alterum Schneekippe, alterum ab arbusculis, quae in eo humiles sunt, Knieholz, quidam vero montes gigantum appellant“ (Schwarz, 1961, S. 95). Damit sei auch die Bedeutung des Namens angesprochen, jedenfalls wird auf altgriechisch krka = Knieholz hingewiesen, der Name würde „Knieholzberg“ bedeuten.. This translation can be referenced [25]. Yet, not a piece of wood bend like a knee or a boomerang is meant, which was used to build sailing ships. In the context of high mountains, Knieholz refers to the feature of subarctic and subalpine tree line landscapes, where continual exposure to fierce, freezing winds cause vegetation to become stunted and deformed. This vegetation is mostly called de:Krummholz in German. Does anyone know the proper English name for that? -- Matthead  Discuß   13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From what Krummholz says, the proper English name would be elfin wood or elfin tree. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That article says William Rogers Fisher introduced the English terms elfin-tree and elfin-wood to correspond to the German 'krummholz' in his 1903 translation of Andreas Franz Wilhelm Schimper's Plant-geography upon a physiological basis. I guess there was no native English term as the British Isles are probably not high or northern enough to experience the phenomenon, so Fisher tried to translate it. (BTW, elfin-wood reminds of Elfenbein, elfin-bone, ivory). Anyway, the curios statement is that the corresponding Old Greek term is said to be krka, which would be κρκα in Greek. Similar names may be Kerkis or Karkinos. Even if Greek travellers (Odysseus?!) would have visited and described (Ptolemy?) the mountains or even the Corconti people, I doubt that settlers arriving in the 12th century would have read that and adopted the name. As I understand, the Czechs use Krkonose, and nobody knows why, or where that is derived from. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My explanation: the ancient writings of Ptolemy and others were preserved in monasteries. For a long time in the Middle Ages there was no need to name this mountain range, simply because nobody lived there. The settlement was mostly carried out by Germans, simple people who didn't know about Ptolemy. Since they didn't know about these old writing they named the mountain range and it's mountains after it's characteristic features. Sturmhaube was windy, Schneekoppe was snowy, Kahler Berg was bleak. As the mountain range was colonized it became an issue for the administration in the inner parts of the country (Prague, Kuttna Hora), which at that time was still mostly run by Czechs. And for these educated people the simplest way to name this "new" territory was probably to read old writings which they found in local monasteries. Karasek (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The assertion of Old Greek krka is impossible; no such combination can occur in Greek, which does not have vocalic r. On the off-chance that there was once a meaning here (Old Church Slavonic?) I will tag for now; but if no repair is made, it should be removed as unsourced; whatever should have been said will eventually surface again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Consequence of failed move request

Since the move request to Giant Mountains wasn't successful I wonder how we call this mountain range in a historical context? The Polish and Czech names were rarely used before 1945 since the mountain range was almost entirely inhabited by Germans? I suppose this means we have to use the German name Riesengebirge in the "Colonization" section, right? The english term Giant Mountains is a direct translation, but as Molobo already pointed out, this name is simply too generic. And a Google Books search gives less result too. Karasek (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would use Riesengebirge as nineteenth-century English usage; it will often be clumsy not to, especially in the context of direct quotations, which must of course stand unaltered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Polish and Czech names were rarely used before 1945 since the mountain range was almost entirely inhabited by Germans?" Source or is this another OR ? And please no interwar era German history books that claim Poles never lived in Germanised territories. It's really also non-scholary to talk about Germans since it was rather XIX century creation. And the name of course should be established one. Fortunetely Czech locations do not fall into enforced Gdańsk vote(which ignored several issues and votes against) so there will be no problem with using Czech names as this is largely the area of Czech history.--Molobo (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1) your source: http://english.krnap.cz/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=2&Itemid=3 (my source for the Colonization section)
2) since it's "non-scholary" to talk about Germans in this context I propose you change every entry of German-speaking people before the 19th century. Mr. Luther was of course no German but a German-speaking Saxon.
3) this region was settled by Germans. It was part of Bohemia, a multicultural country of Czechs and Germans before 1945, and Bohemia was part of Austria before 1918. The Czech language was only one of many languages in Austria (and Bohemia), because neither Austria nor Bohemia were a Czech nation state.
4) If we use Karkonosze or Krkonoše, but not Giant Mountains, to reflect the modern situation, it's only consequentially to use the German name to reflect the situation before 1945. Karasek (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Added

Established name istead of redirect, some pictures. Some minor changes.--Molobo (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Added

Main English name.--Molobo (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The tallest mountain in the range

If the tallest mountain in the range lies on the border, straddling Poland and the Czech Republic, shouldn't both names be included and not parenthisized? like this--> Sněžka/Śnieżka (CZ/PL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochamanita (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Krkonoše?

Should this page not be named Krkonoše? isnt the czech part bigger than the polish?Jadran91 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the entire talk page, and also the archive (and of course you are right).
PS: if you start a new topic on the talk page please add a heading. Karasek (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see whether there's any interest for renewing this debate, perhaps with a formalised vote much like the current Ireland poll. A preferential vote with the four names included may lead to a more accurate representation of the current community consensus on this issue. +Hexagon1 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I would support it, since the Czech part is much bigger (70:30) and a Google books search isn't in favor of the Polish name:
Karkonosze, date:1945-2009, English books, 208 hits
Krkonos(š)e, date:1945-2009, English books, 352 hits
"Giant Mountains", date:1945-2009, English books, 654 hits
Riesengebirge, date:1945-2009, English books, 662 hits
This search however screams "no consensus" again. ;) Karasek (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be no clear winner when it comes to simple plurality but the results of a preferential ballot (known in North America as "instant run-off voting", the system being used in the Irish poll) might be interesting. +Hexagon1 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No clear winner? We surely have a clear loser: the current, Polish name. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so Matthead, this has to be discussed on a wider bases and not between you and user Karasek.--Jacurek (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly why I suggested a wider poll. +Hexagon1 14:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of Google books search you're doing but I'm getting 718 hits for "Karkonosze Poland" (including "Poland" filters additional non-English sources), English books, from 1945-2009 [26]. A search for "Riesengebirge", even when nominally restricted to English books, actually turns up lots of German language sources.radek (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, while Krkonosše vs. Karkonosze is a legitimate subject of discussion, the German name obviously should not be used as the mountains are not in Germany. "Giant Mountains" is obviously too vague.radek (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the phrase "giant mountains" in everyday usage seems rare, I don't think I've ever heard it used now that I think of it, and if capitalised it ought to be obvious we're referring to a specific range. The truth of the matter is everyone feels as though they can produce statistics to back up their own personal viewpoints, I don't think we're going to be able to get there this way. What do the major encyclopaedias say, Britannica, World Book, Encarta, etc.?+Hexagon1 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "everyday usage". If I heard "Giant Mountains", just randomly, I'd think of the Himalayas. Alps maybe. The Andes also maybe. Rockies... but not Karkonosze.radek (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

since the bigger part of the Giant Mountains is in the Czech Republic, the article should be named Krkonoše if i use google.com in english, it returns 1.370.000 results for Krkonoše, 925.000 results for karkonosze, 395.000 for riesengebirge and 120.000 for giant mountains. so first, the bigger part of the mountains lies in the czech republic anyway, and second it returns much more results The second idea would be to name it giant mountains because that is the english name, and everyone can pronounce it, and this is the most neutral way, because in this area, three languages come together and it is stupid always to name it Krkonoše/Karkonosze just to satisfy everyone all the time, secondly, that way, the german name wouldn't be treated unfair furthermore, as far as i can see, almost each result for giant mountains in google leads to the czech/polish mountains, neither is the name giant mountains used for the himalaya or the alps, nor for any other mountains. that is, because big mountains would, if a t all, just be called gigantic mountains and not giant mountains. it's not possible to describe big mountains with giant in english, but only with gigantic... giant is the noun and it refers to the german name riese, what means giant... and not the adjective gigantic.... hence the argumentation not to call it like that because it could be confused, is not evident for me i think this article is called karkonosze because far more poles edit this article than czechs since im so glad to understand polish, you may want to know that the polish article even says that karkonosze was called Góry Olbrzymie earlier, what means exactly the same as giant mountains in the historical sections of the article, either giant mountains or riesengebirge should be usedJadran91 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would second a re-vote using preferential voting (similar to the recent Ireland vote) if anyone wants to open it up. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giant_Mountains/Archive_2&oldid=1089888081"