Jump to content

Talk:Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area

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

Untitled

[edit]

The people who come up with these silly inflated metro area numbers really should stop somewhere. I propose that we deem the whole planet to be "Earth Metropolitan Region" population 6.9 billion, and then we can forget about all the others. Luwilt (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other example - Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region. Silesian metropolitan area within Upper Silesian Coal Basin is similar - group cities and towns in industry and coal basin. LUCPOL (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Upper Silesian metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Very debatable" article name

[edit]

@90.80.18.81: As per your request to "be serious" and "see sources in Google".

I am serious. Let's make a Google search for "Upper Silesian metropolitan area".

For me it returns the following results:

To sum up:

  • Plenty of sources stating that "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is synonymous with "Katowice metropolitan area" or some little extension thereof.
  • No sources stating that "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is synonymous with Katowice-Rybnik-Bielsko-Ostrava etc. metropolitan area.
  • "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" seems to be a "common name" for the first area, not for the second area which is the topic of the article you want to be moved to the name.
  • There exists at least one source which assigns the name of "Upper Silesian-Moravian metropolitan area" to the larger area. Calling it simply "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is very confusing, since as one can see in the long list of links above, this term is basically exclusively used for the Katowice part of the area only.

Please provide at least one reliable source which states "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" or "Silesian metropolitan area" is a name that is used anywhere for the area that is encompassing also Ostrava if you want to state that the name is debatable, so we can actually debate… As you can see I've genuinely tried my best and failed.

--Dżamper (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you showed above, the term "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is used interchangeably for just the metropolitan area in Poland. Even apart from the fact that he name "Upper Silesian-Moravian metropolitan area" is never used anywhere, adding the word "Moravian" to the name of article is ridiculous and also breaks the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This metropolitan area has only tiny pieces that historically belonged to the historical land of Moravia. I would like to remind you that the administrative region of the Moravian-Silesian Region includes the Silesian areas adjacent to the Polish border and these Silesian areas (Czech Silesia) are part of the metropolitan area. There is almost no Moravia in this metropolitan area [1]. Moravia may cover (maybe) 1% of the metropolitan area, mainly as enclaves in Czech Silesia. More covers different region - Lesser Poland, which is estimated to cover 10% of metropolitan area. NPOV is break here in two respects:
  1. there is no proportionately, the use of the name "Silesian-Moravian" would be justified when the Silesian and Moravian parts were of similar size
  2. the part of Lesser Poland, which has a larger area than Moravia in the metropolitan area, would be omitted in the name of aarticle, why?
So this name is a dead end. Your proposed name is not the exact name from the source but its modification, so it is only partially supported by one source (20 years old). Such a source may be questioned in the present case as an insufficient source to support the name of the article, according to the standards of the Wikipedia.
However, I understand that you would like to use a different name so that the Polish-Czech metropolitan area is not confused with only the Polish part. I found a solution that:
  1. is a reasonable compromise
  2. is consistent with the actual situation
  3. is consistent with the source (ESPON) exactly like your proposal
  4. shows in the name the key information that the metropolitan area is composed of few parts
  5. It is compatible with NPOV
This solution is to use the name "Upper Silesian polycentric metropolitan area". The introduction of the article already contains several times information about the fact that the metropolitan area is located in Poland and the Czech Republic, information about administrative regions in Poland and the Czech Republic and historical lands in Poland and the Czech Republic, so article will be consistent and name of the article is completely neutral towards both countries. I think, that is a reasonable compromise. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort to reach a consensus.
1. Regarding the argument on why adding Moravia and not adding Lesser Poland and "Your proposed name is not the exact name from the source but its modification"
I'm not able to tell you why one is added and not the other, because it's not me who's making the call, as that would be Original research.
The name "Upper Silesian-Moravian metropolitan area" is provided in ESPON 1.4.3 report, on the pages 134 (without the word "Upper"), 241, 245 and 251. It's not my invention nor modification.
In fact, this is the only name used in that report to name the area when the report is speaking about its entirety, and the entirety is what the wiki articles in this and other languages currently cover.
Other names used in the report refer to only some part of it.
2. "As you showed above, the term "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is used interchangeably for just the metropolitan area in Poland."
"However, I understand that you would like to use a different name so that the Polish-Czech metropolitan area is not confused with only the Polish part."
Almost true: I would like to use a different name so that the Polish-Czech metropolitan area is not confused with what ESPON report calls "Katowice FUA", which constitutes only about a half of the "Polish part".
I could agree that this name is used "interchangeably" for the Polish-Czech area and the Katowice FUA only if you can provide a reliable reference that the term is used for the Polish-Czech area at all. Until that happens I'm convinced that it is used exclusively for just the Katowice FUA.
3. "This solution is to use the name "Upper Silesian polycentric metropolitan area"
I queried Google and the only places I can find this name being used are:
  • The very same ESPON report, but then it only refers to the Polish part, not the whole of the area described by the article
  • 2 enwiki articles and 2 outdated mirrors of them
  • This paper which covers "base geodetic control points" in Poland (so not a demographic perspective and describes Polish part only)
  • Statistics Poland report, which cites the very same ESPON report as a source for the term, and assigns it to the Polish part only (Silesian voivodeship part only to be precise, but that is identical)
Therefore I believe using this term would imply missing out on the Czech part and would be misleading.
4. Additionally, I would like to know what is your view on the term "Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area", as used in Brookings report on page 16? Seems as much NPOV as one can get.
--Dżamper (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De facto, (not counting mirrors) only one source in the world used the name "Silesian-Moravian" - ESPON, there are no other sources. I took a closer look at the ESPON' work. ESPON used name of "Silesian-Moravian polycentric metropolitan area" (page 134). However, as I mentioned above, the word of "Moravian" in the name of the article in the Wikipedia is unacceptable for several reasons (absurdity/nonsense, 2xPOV etc). That's why I tried to keep the name from ESPON, but removing the word Moravian, result is "Silesian polycentric metropolitan area". Previously, I want add word of "Upper" to more precisely defined region. If you think that the term "Upper Silesian polycentric metropolitan area" in other source is also used for the Polish part, we can omit this word. We can use the ESPON solution, without the ridiculous Moravian word - i.e. "Silesian polycentric metropolitan area". No words like "Upper", "Moravian" etc. Simply: "Silesian polycentric metropolitan area". I would like to remind you that in general, there are only two reliable sources describing the metropolitan area in the Polish-Czech Upper Silesian Coal Basin. This is not a concert of wishes. There is no perfect solution, we have to choose the most reasonable option. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not a wishlist concert. The fact that you personally don't like the -Moravian suffix and find it absurd isn't a factor determining whether it is (one of) the name(s) for the entity or not – and for sure not for removing it from the article content as being listed as a one of alternatively used names.
The only reason we're having this discussion is that you believed and accused me several times of me making up the names, providing Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Hoax and Wikipedia:Reliable sources as rationale. Even though the referenced sources for the names were there all along. Despite that rationale, I had to provide you for three separate times with the precise page in the referenced source on which the term was used for you to even have one look at it! This is not convincing me.
You say "only one source in the world used the name "Silesian-Moravian" - ESPON, there are no other sources".
Well, it took me a few minutes in Google to find two other ones:
So that is at least three.
Also, I've managed to find another source using the term "Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area" to describe the area described by the article (first one being the above-mentioned Brookings report), and that is a different report by ESPON: METROBORDER: Cross-border Polycentric Metropolitan Regions. So there are at least two for that name too. (It actually uses the terms "Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area" and "Silesian-Moravian polycentric metropolitan area" interchangeably, as can be seen on page 76).
Therefore, when considering names which have appeared in the discussion, for which more than one source was provided in the discussion, it seems we have the following names in the consideration:
  • Upper Silesian metropolitan area – the current name of the article is not sustainable in the long run, as there are numerous sources which unanimously attribute the name not to the whole of Polish-Czech polycentric metropolitan area the article is describing, but to the immediate metropolitan area of Katowice only (also known as Katowice FUA/LUZ), which is only one of the 4-6 metropolitan areas making up the polycentric area being the topic of the article, and also no source claiming otherwise was brung up during the discussion
  • Upper Silesian polycentric metropolitan area (sources: [2] [3] [4]) – better than the current one, passable, but not ideal – refers to the Polish part only in all of the sources
  • Silesian-Moravian polycentric metropolitan area (sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) – consistently used in all of the sources to describe precisely the area this article covers, but self-proclaimed by Special:Contributions/90.80.18.81 as "biased", "absurd", and "nonsense" in the talk page, and also as "original research", "hoax" and "not reliably sourced" in the revert edit summary
  • Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area (sources: [10] [11] [12]) – consistently used in all of the sources to describe precisely the area this article covers, but claimed by Special:Contributions/90.80.18.81 to be "original research", "hoax" and not used in "reliable sources" in the revert edit summary – I am still awaiting your opinion specifically on that name in this discussion on this talk page
If I've skipped any "contender" for the article name please correct me.
If you've found more source material concerning the name, be it one from the list above or not, please provide it, so we can make a more informed decision.
If nothing more pops up, it would be most reasonable to settle down on one of the three names I've summarised in the list as the article title, and providing the remaining two as an alternative name in the article content.
--Dżamper (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very nice that you still remind me of my descriptions of changes in a trolling way, but it only slows down the discussion. Your tone and sarcasm also leave much to be desired. Such statements are completely unnecessary and do not contribute anything to the substantive discussion. It's also worth looking at your own actions - you changed the name of the article without any proposal, discussion or consensus, and then massively changed wikilinks in other articles. This situation has the right to upset someone. This time it was me. You didn't even notice that I was reverting all your new changes in their entirety, and to be honest, I didn't notice in the thicket of code and in a hurry that you inserted an alternative name by Brookings. Sarcasm in your comment in this case means that you are also guided by emotions. Let's leave this topic and return to the substantive discussion.
As I suspected, you are wrong about the name "Silesian-Moravian". The name is truly idiotic and I doubted anyone else could come up with such a name. And I was right. Name of "Silesian-Moravian" has only one inventor - ESPON. All other publications are based on this ESPON database. Take a look at the sources you posted above. Two sources have the same author - ESPON, FIFO source uses the same name, definitions and symbols as ESPON and used ESPON database". Brookings source say directly in the same line as name, I quote: "ESPON 2013 database". The last source is unverifiable because the PDF is unavailable and there is no way to check what exactly this name refers to. So, "Silesian-Moravian" is just a name made in ESPON, nothing more. So I will never support the second option ("Silesian-Moravian"). The name is misleading, ridiculous, and violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in two ways. In my opinion, this is the worst name of the three options. The other two options are reasonable. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing. We can also solve your problem (yes, since 18 years the name didn't bother anyone else) in another way. Without changing the name of the article. Wikipedia has the tools like: Template:Distinguish or better: Template:About. Example description:
This article is about the polycentric metropolitan area in Poland and Czech Republic. For the Katowice area, also using this name, see Katowice urban area.
"you changed the name of the article without any proposal, discussion or consensus"
I admit that moving the article without discussion may have been a wrong move. But the current article title is clearly wrong, as there are zero sources assigning that name to that area, and multitude of sources assigning that name to its subarea. Because, as you've said yourself, "since 18 years the name didn't bother anyone else", I assumed nobody gave necessary attention to care about the differentiation between the two. So I used the source stated for the article name in last page move in 2011, found the actual name the source assigns to the area, and moved the page. I didn't add the "polycentric" word, as a polycentric metropolitan area still is a metropolitan area, and I didn't want to change the title too much. I believe that move implemented the spirit of WP:CRITERIA principles of "precision" and "concision" nicely. In my opinion back then, this was a totally uncontroversial move, and WP:NOTRM encourages the "bold" and "DIY" approach if that's the case. It seems now it was not.
"and then massively changed wikilinks in other articles"
This is actually a recommended action to take after a page move.
Additionally, I didn't just blindly replace the name page after page, I've manually reviewed all usages of this and related terms over several days, as the confusion between GOM/GOP/GZM/pre-2018-GZM/post-2018-GZM/Katowice conurbation/Katowice-Ostrava metro were common, and I changed the linked article where necessary.
Also, the name "Silesian-Moravian polycentric metropolitan area" was present in the article for over a year as far back in 2009-2010, and was added in and removed out by the same user with no reason given in both cases – It didn't seem to bother anyone then?
The distinguish template without changing the article title would be fine if the Katowice area was "also" using the name "Upper Silesian metropolitan area", but as all sources seem to indicate, it is exclusively using that name.
As for ESPON inventing the term "Silesian-Moravian" for the region, this is not true, e.g.: Norman J. G. Pounds – An Historical Geography of Europe (published in 1990): "The Upper Silesian-Moravian industrial region" (page 423), "coal mining in Upper Silesia-northern Moravia" (page 424), "mining in the Upper Silesian-Moravian coalfield" (page 426) – these are captions for maps that cover the exact same area which is the topic of the article.
Also, since many renowned sources are quoting ESPON as their choice for the "Silesian-Moravian" as name of the area (another one: [13]), then even though you believe that name is a "2xPOV", maybe you should consider that not only it actually is an WP:NPOVNAME that deserves and is allowed to at least be mentioned in the article content, but furthermore that WP:POVDELETION explicitly discourages deletion of such statements when they are properly sourced even if they are biased.
--Dżamper (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against to add the name of "Silesian-Moravian" to article as an alternative name, supported by core source by ESPON (as ESPON database). I wrote earlier in the discussion that I will never support such an absurdal, non-neutral and misleading title of the article. PS. Your new source [14] also is based on ESPON joyful own creativity, please see population: "5.294" (page 7), exactly the same figures as ESPON uses. I will say it directly: it seems that all sources writing about the Polish-Czech metropolitan area using the name "Silesian-Moravian" are simply based on the ESPON database.
I thought case over again, and this is my opinion: I will never support such an absurdal, non-neutral (POV) and misleading title of the article like "Silesian-Moravian". The current of the article name of "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" doesn't bother me just like all other users for the last 18 years, however, you did some good research which shed some more light on the situation. Current name may be misleading, as it is also used only for the Polish part of the metropolitan area. At the moment, I support the option:
  1. Name of the article of "Silesian policentric metropolitan area" + information (Template:About): This article is about the polycentric metropolitan area in Poland and Czech Republic. For the Katowice area, also using this name, see Katowice urban area.
  2. the name of "Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area" are supported by some sources. It appears that the name is largely neutral, but rather than elevate two cities above the others, I still prefer the generic name "Silesian". However, I think this is the only reasonable name (apart from the existing one).
90.80.18.81 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2024

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Silesian metropolitan area → ? – While "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is a common name, virtually all available sources, including academic papers (as I listed here), actually define the term as wikidata:Q125563738 (which is currently shortly described in Katowice urban area#Metropolitan area), while the article text describes a much bigger area of wikidata:Q3495359. Other names appearing for the latter area in academic and research papers are Silesian-Moravian polycentric metropolitan area and Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area. Sources and initial discussion about the names is available on the talk page. After the move, due to a long-lasting confusion, I propose that the "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" name should be a disambugation page between the two entities, looking for example like this. Dżamper (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My final opinion: as indicated in previous discuss, name of "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is used interchangeably for the Polish-only area, however, the alternative name of "Silesian-Moravian metropolitan area" also has more disadvantages than advantages (e.g. it breaks the NPOV in two cases). I think the option of "Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area" is reasonable, there are sources and the name follows standard Wikipedia names for metropolitan area (most use the names of cities, not historical lands). 90.80.18.81 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move to Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area. It fits Wikipedia's article naming criteria, most importantly it is precise and unambiguous. Furthermore, in more recent publications, it seems to be the preferred variant (among the two I've mentioned above) in English-language texts, and as for Polish- and Czech-language ones, it is consistent with their (however scarce) attempts to coin a name for the area. Dżamper (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Czech Republic and WikiProject Poland have been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It is strange how this has no pl interwiki. Pl wiki has articles on:
What we have here seems indeed to be a larger entity, but using a name that generally refers to Q48845691 (Upper Silesian metropolitan area = Metropolia Górnośląska).
As such, while I initially thought I'd oppose this proposal, I think in fact you may be correct and it has merit. I'd support a move, but I think Upper Silesian metropolitan area should redirect to Metropolis GZM (and that name may merit another RM discussion too). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. The side note concerning GZM is a different, but interesting and tricky topic. It is a 7-year old legal entity, covering most of the area of the "real" Upper Silesian metropolitan area, but not all of it (e.g. not the "core" city of Jaworzno – due to their own political interest), and the name "Metropolis GZM" is what the entity has chosen for its official English name itself – however weird the name might seem. So that distinction seems to be similar to "Rurhgebiet" vs "Regionalverband Ruhr", where dewiki has 2 separate articles, and enwiki has 1 common article – but contrary to their Polish cousins, they seem to get along on the concerned territory more nicely. But as you've said, if this thread should be continued, then probably it should be in a discussion of its own – this talk page has gotten quite long already… Dżamper (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katowice-Ostrava_metropolitan_area&oldid=1225303411"