Jump to content

Talk:Łódź

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Lodz)

Untitled

[edit]

PLEASE COULD SOMEONE MOVE IT BACK TO LODZ??? THX!!! SORRY THOUGHT IT WORKS :o( ...Sicherlich 12:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that some of the pictures form this article may be deleted soon due to copyright issues. See Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements#Images.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population density

[edit]

What? 13,280 people per sq. km? That has got to be wrong...is 280 meant to be after the decimal?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.65.123 (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on the "liberation"

[edit]

[1] There are several witness reports on how Red Army soldiers beheaved in the area of Lodz. --Molobo 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people from Łódź

[edit]

I'm not sure about the meaning of having "Famous people from Łódź" and "others" mentioned separately. Are the "others" not famous ? Then why they ar mentioned at all ? --Lysytalk 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torino??

[edit]

Why the reference to Torino in the first paragraph. I don't even get it, coat of arms are by definition symbolic, you could list dozens of other entities with CoA elements derived from their names.

Tank parade photo

[edit]

The basic problem with that photo is that it is completely generic. It simply shows some Soviet-produced tanks, a completely anonymous crowd, and some cobblestones. No Lodz landmark is visible. A photo like this could have been taken anywhere in Poland in 1944-1945 during the entry of the Soviet army. In short, the photo contributes nothing to this article, and should not be here, especially since we have better images related to World War II, which are recognisable as being taken in Lodz.Balcer 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that when the Lodz Ghetto was liquidated in August, 1944 and its 70,000 remaining inhabitants were sent to their deaths, the Soviet army was a mere 120 km away. If the political decision had not been made to stop the Soviet summer 1944 offensive on the Vistula (to let the Germans crush the Warsaw Uprising and to send the Red Army into the Balkans before the war was over), much of Lodz's prewar Jewish population might have survived. This is one more reason to avoiding presenting the Soviet entry into the city as a glorious liberation. Balcer 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion: Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Picture_caption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: considering the controversial nature of the photo, I do think that the best solution would be simply to remove it from the article. I am sure we can find non-controversial WWII photos from Łódź if needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture controversial itself, or your interpretation of it? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this all about? The picture is a documentary chronicle, thankfully preserved in the archives. It's opposer never brought any sources disputing its authenticity, while the source is reliable. Labeling it "propaganda" as done by Lysy is nothing but, again, unreferenced personal opinion. If we allow removal of information per WP:IDONTLIKEIT we could strip the Wikipedia from entire content. --Irpen 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No answer here, Piotrus and Molobo? Just reverts. Is Gadu Gadu involved by any chance? --Irpen 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

title of this article

[edit]

Why is this article titled "Łódź"? Shouldn't the article title be what the city is called in the English language? For example, compare Florence (not Firenze), Montreal (not Montréal), or for that matter Warsaw (not Warszawa). Certainly I understand that in its own language the name of the city is Łódź, but in English it is called Lodz, so shouldn't that be what the article is called? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --Mathew5000 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn the history first before throwing around with guidelines just for the sake of formality! The form "Lodz" is heavily linked to Nazi Germany and is therefore discouraged in today's usage. --2001:16B8:2E2D:1000:2906:EB5:A350:DC8D (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are scholary

[edit]

Resources removed ? --Molobo 04:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit War?

[edit]

The recent flak over the photo of the Red Army entering Lodz seems strange to say the least. Is it really propaganda? If so, just how was Lodz "liberated" from the Nazis? Was it by the AK or the Armia Ludowa?[[:image:Lodz liberation3.jpg|thumb|200px|Red Army enters Łódź January 1945]] How's this caption? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No answer? OK, I am restoring the picture and I hope there would be no more removals based I WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Irpen 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very important and interesting photo. Why exactly is it being removed? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Łódź"

[edit]

The last sound in the word "Łódź" is a voiceless affricate, so the aproximate English phonetic transcription should be "wootch", not "woogde"! You pronounce the word "łuć" not "łudź", if you are a Pole it is obvious. Pippirrup (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The sound file included in the article is wrong, too. The final sound should be devoiced (Polish has final devoicing), so the pronunciation of the city's name with a voiced consonant in the end is a case of hypercorrectness. Oddtail (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The IPA is also wrong in that sense. --我輩は犬である (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Hunters

[edit]

"In 2002 the city came to national attention due to the "Skin Hunters" scandal: doctors and paramedics in one of the city's hospitals were caught murdering patients and selling their details to funeral homes for them to contact the relatives."

Actually "scandal" took place not in the hospitals but in the ambulance cars. It was a really great scandal but, still, I'm not sure is it import information to put in such article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Lodz Ghetto in English

[edit]

The Wikipedia article on the Lodz Ghetto is entitled Ghetto Litzmannstadt. See [2] . Surely, in English the name is Lodz Ghetto. An advanced Google search (English language sites) yields:

Lodz Ghetto - 88,600 pages
Litzmannstadt Ghetto - 6,640 pages

The difference is certainly striking. I have also raised the matter on the talk page at [3]. The use of Litzmannstadt as the place-name seems anomalous and POV. The word order, with Ghetto placed first, is German and is contrary to English usage. Norvo (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest a move at Talk:Ghetto Litzmannstadt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

completely unwarranted move

[edit]

There is no reason to move to the non existing "Lodz". And yes, "Łódź" is used in English, for example, Ghettostadt: Łódź and the making of a Nazi city, or Łódź Ghetto: a history. Use of "Łódź" is no different then including the accent in "Vendée", the use of umlauts in Düsseldorf and many other places. Why is it that Polish cities or names always get singled out for this treatment? Please move it back.radek (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this move to be misguided.
In this case the difference in pronunciation between 'Łódź' (roughly 'Wudz') and 'Lodz' is significant
Using Lodz is IMO increasing the potential for confusion and inaccuracy in the encyclopaedia.
I second the motion to move it back. Marek.69 talk 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved it back. An editor had requested that the page be moved (tagging the redirect as G6). From reading WP:PLACE, it was my understanding that "Lodz" indeed would be the best title since that was the term mainly used in English, so I moved the page. Following the cycle of WP:BRD, I've reverted the move. Sorry folks, and best of luck :) JamieS93 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that (due to GBooks poor handling of diacritics) we can indeed judge whether Lodz is more or less popular than Łódź. See also m y comments on Jamie's talk - and thank you Jamie for reverting your changes. Feel free to continue this discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I came here from what is (possibly) an irrelevant reference in the rugby union world. However, I would suggest that it (sorta) demonstrates how it is almost impossible to manage Polish diacritics in English. Therefore, anyone who would like to make references to this city (as a concept, not this article as an independent thing...), while speaking English will be far more likely to type in "Lodz" than ... I can't type it in but you know what I mean AshleyMorton (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but people are also more likely to type in "Dusseldorf" rather "Düsseldorf" or "Bernauer Strasse" rather than "Bernauer Straße" but that's not an argument for a move.radek (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point (well taken), and you might be right - this is not something close to my heart, and I would be happy to be wrong, but I've got to be convinced first! :) So - I will argue that the names of cities, towns, other things that would reasonably used while speaking English should be presented as an English speaker would type them - That's why the concept of a Voivodship (which, really, only exists in Polish) should hold as many diacritics as you feel like, while Lodz, Warsaw and other cities that would commonly be typed without diacritics by English speakers (because they have already been an element of the English language, before anyone built an airport or formed a voivodship, should contain only English-typable characters.AshleyMorton (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As an English speaker would type them" - well, I'm an English speaker and I type in Łódź. More importantly I don't think this is the criteria that Wikipedia uses for what title articles should be under - it is not used for German, Czech, Serb, Slovak, Slovenian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Estonian etc. So this is a WAYYYYY major and controversial move.radek (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that most people will type in Lodz rather than Łódź (whatever language they speak), but that's irrelevant - we have a redirect anyway, so if you type in Lodz you get to the same article. If you look around Wikipedia, you'll see that diacritics from foreign alphabets are almost universally used, except in cases where there's an undoubtedly established English form as with Aragon or Napoleon. It provides extra information without making it any more difficult to find the article.--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think that really I should be taking this up at the page where naming conventions are discussed, in general. There needs to be some more systematic way to handle names that do not have "English versions", yet cannot be represented by English letters. I disagree with the conclusion you folks have clearly come to, but I also clearly understand that I am in the minority, and won't continue the fight over this specific entry until / unless we can come to a different consensus, either here, or at a more general location. AshleyMorton (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in the past, and the end result of those discussions was the conclusion presented above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I would like to take this up more generally - Piotrus, you say that this was discussed in the past, and I've found three proposed policies: Wikipedia:Use diacritics, Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) - but every one says in big letters across the top "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community." Is there a policy that I'm missing somewhere? ...because I can't conclude that there was/is an "end result". AshleyMorton (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's always been a lot of opposition to these spellings, though it has never been concentrated or energetic enough to prevail (in contrast to the activities currently under review at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list). Łódź is a word with four letters, only one of which can be typed from a normal keyboard in the English-speaking world. No-one in English is gonna write that unless they have some dedication to "accuracy". I don't personally mind too much ... users from Poland seem to think the diacritics are important, so I just normally respect that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get to this page, use standard letters 'Lodz' and Wikipedia redirects here, as Kotniski has already stated.
In order to type the name in correctly, just use copy/paste, as I suspect everyone who has 'typed' Łódź on this page has done.
I am also British and I don't see the problem. -- Marek.69 talk 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't really whether someone gets here by typing "Lodz" or not, or whether we could copy-paste the diacritics in - it's whether these diacritics are English. We all agree that we're supposed to Use English - that's the easy part. The tough part is reaching any sort of consensus about what the "English name" of a place that's not frequently discussed in English is. This is complicated by the fact that many editors here of Polish articles have familiarity with Polish, and thus see "Lodz" as not only "anglicised", but explicitly wrong (I understand the problem - I see "Alesund" and "Bodo" as "wrong", too, because I speak Norwegian. However, are Ålesund and Bodø (correct spellings in Norwegian) English? I would say "no", but as I've agreed above, it's a discussion for another place... AshleyMorton (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I would actually think that Ålesund and Bodø are the "correct" forms in English. Part of this has to do with the fact that there is no "official" English, unlike say French - it's a language governed by convention. Which is part of what makes it so flexible and adoptable. So I wouldn't say that an "Ł" or a "ø" are "not English" - they're just rarely used in English. But that makes a lot of difference, particularly when reliable sources use these.radek (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the cases of significant Polish place names, there is no question that the non-diacritic version is more popular in English. But as I've argued elsewhere, it shouldn't overcome issues of accuracy (Lo and Ło are different sounds) so long as there are redirects. English has no authentic name for Łódź, and if we were in pre-mass literacy days with no German influence it would probably emerge as something like Wodge or Woodge. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to refer to another example, Ełk, another town in Poland. Would it be of benefit to the encyclopaedia to rename/move it to Elk or, (as I as suspect) would that just create more ambiguity? -- Marek.69 talk 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be Elk (Poland). Hmmm, we can just move Łódź to Boat (Poland)... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, surely you mean Łoś (Poland)? ;-) -- Marek.69 talk 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike any diacritics, be it Polish, Czech, or German, and in articles written by me, I never use them. However, as Piotrus wrote, since google automatically redirects us after typing Lodz, I do not think this redirect is needed. If we create a precedent, then we will have to move almost all Polish cities. Tymek (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we'd have to move many German, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, etc etc etc cities and names too. It just doesn't make any sense at all. The situation as it is now is the best possible solution. Loosmark (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you. Tymek (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that is the most effective argument, really, against removing diacritics - that it would be so bloody much work to actually 'implement' the policy - work of the most mundane, bureacratic type, which could have been used adding content to Wikipedia. The thing that worries me with that argument is the degree to which Wikipedia is used as an authority on English names for things. It's a way more reliable translator than almost anything else for place names and technical terms - go to the place name you know in your own language (say, "Venise" in French), then click the interwiki for your language of choice (Say, Danish), and "poof" (we now know that they call it "Venedig"). We on the English wiki always talk as if we are slaves to common usage (and most of us try to be, most of the time), but more and more we are in fact the arbiters of what common English usage is. that means that if we're getting it wrong, we should be fixing it, even if it's a lot of boring work. AshleyMorton (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Elk argument above is fairly frivolous. All Polish place-names will usually be spelled without diacritics in English, irrespective of any amusement side-effects it may occasionally have to Polish speakers, and the idea that such anglicization necessitate "translating" the names is complete straw man, as this never happens by principle. Inbhir Nis is Inverness, not Nessmouth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Elk example, I was simply trying to use a little ‘humour’ to illustrate my point, i.e. that using diacritics is simply more accurate, and will avoid much confusion. (as well as disambiguation pages)
The main reason, historically, why diacritics have not been more widely used in the English language, is that English typefaces did not contain them before the advent of the computer. (with the exception, maybe, of the é)
As this created a difficulty in printing them, they were simply left out and not used. This is however changing with the introduction of computers with international typefaces. Words such as née, fiancée, façade and déjà vu are becoming more commonly spelt with their appropriate accents. (maybe this is happening more in the UK than in the US?)
Now we have the ability to use diacritics relatively easily, I see no reason why we shouldn’t. -- Marek.69 talk 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review failed

[edit]

This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to missing key sections (ex. culture) and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout

[edit]

Constituency

[edit]

Someone please edit the constiutuency details - the MPs are from before the 2011 elections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.243.35 (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Łódź. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 7 external links on Łódź. 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) 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle under photo compilation is not correct

[edit]

I looked at the compilation picture above the article, and it has little to do with the subtitle under it. I found the "Manufactura" building on the second row on the right, while it should be the first from left to right. The number of subjects does not correspond with the number of photo's. What happened here? Has the photo been changed? Could not find anything in the history. 77.250.88.234 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is (better late than never...?) there actually was a change made to the photo montage on 31 August 2017 – see Special:Diff/798235517. Reverted 15 September Special:Diff/800719516. --CiaPan (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Song

[edit]

There is an old song "about" Lodz that has a version that was very popular a few decades ago. It is "Theo, wir fahr'n nach Lodz" (pronounced with an L and written with no diacriticals). is this worth mentioning? Information about the song can be found on the German Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should: WP DE and PL have it pl:Theo_wir_fahr'n_nach_Lodz Zezen (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers and Zezen: It should be described if it is notable, and it is notable if it has a decent coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia (dewiki & plwiki) is not a source reliable enough for Wikipedia (enwiki). What is well known or even important for Polish or German culture may be of no meaning for the English-speaking part of the world. So seek appropriate sources and if you find them, then add information here. --CiaPan (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, us are too lazy. Just FYI that there are sources in the PL/DE/* wikis. Bows Zezen (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy but not tooo lazy. Here are some sources: https://www.kulturforum.info › de › beitrag › 181-1000175-theo-wir-fahr-n-nach-lodz, https://sachsen-net.com › veranstaltungen › Sonderausstellung-Theo-Wir-Fahr-N-Nach-Lodz-Sachsen-96672.ht

Sorry, but I do not see how this is central to this article. It's largely trivial. Merangs (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not central to the article, but it is relevant. (There is a lot of content to the article that is not central.) The song is fairly significant in German pop music history and very significant in the career of the singer. Pop culture references are common in Wikipedia articles. Kdammers (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is even an entire section on the city in literature and film. I think that is practically an invitation to add information about it in other art forms. Kdammers (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 December 2021

[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: Snow closure: there is consensus against moving the article to the proposed name; see also WP:DGUIDE, which mentions the usage of Łódź/Lodz in dictionary and encyclopedia entries. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Łódź → Lodz – The proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this city. This is shown by the use of the broad usage of the proposed name in agencies such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the Guardian, BBC, and Aljazeera. Spekkios (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you’ve created at least four of these RMs. The whole issue of WP:DIACRITICS has been discussed to death on Wikipedia and spamming these requests can become disruptive at some point. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have continued to state that without providing any evidence that the issue of diacritics has been decided by consensus, especially because WP:DIACRITICS states The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. As per the reliable sources presented "Lodz" is the name we should use, so WP:DIACRITICS supports a move. To claim that these RM's are disruptive is absurd as I am not "spamming" them at all: I have created four. That is hardly spamming. --Spekkios (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for the same reasons as at the Wroclaw discussion; per the sources provided in the nomination and my own search, it is the clear WP:COMMONNAME.
In regards to GizzyCatBella's !vote, if this were the Polish Wikipedia then they would be correct - "Łódź" would be the correct spelling, and "Lodz" would be inaccurate. However, this is not the Polish Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia, and in English, per reliable sources, "Lodz" is the correct name for the city. I would also note that no policy justification has been provided for their position, while "Lodz" is supported both by WP:COMMONNAME, by WP:UE, which states that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage", and by WP:DIACRITICS, which states that the use of diacritics should "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". If they, or other editors, disagree with this, then I would suggest that they seek to change WP:UE or WP:DIACRITICS, rather than trying to overrule it with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk)
  • Oppose (as I do oppose similar move votes, I've noticed there are quite a lot of them taking place these days). If there is no clear standard name, we should prefer the Polish versiuon with diacritics, otherwise it would seem kinda like mutilating the real name.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that in the discussions you reference, you base your position solely on Ngrams. While I personally find such a limited basis insufficient, you have appear to find it sufficient, and so I have to ask why you oppose this proposed move, when Ngrams suggests that "Lodz" is the common name? BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, i admitedly did not check the ngrams for this one, but that said articles should be titled consistently across polish cities—namely with diacritics. Moreover, based on the current sate of the ngrams it is likely that 'Łódź' will soon be most used in the English corpus the same way that others have become more common in the last few year—blindlynx 16:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For languages using the Latin alphabet, it is preferable (and frankly more respectful) to use the existing names, as long as no established English alternative name exists (such as Venice, Rome, Gothenburg, Copenhagen etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spekkios, there is no need for you to jump in and argue with every user who opposes your proposals, as you are currently doing across several talk pages. Another user already pointed out to you earlier today that your behavior is veering towards becoming disruptive (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). You've made the proposed moved request, other users are perfectly free to disagree. As the starter of this thread, you are not the person to judge other users' motives. Period. Jeppiz (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their defence, while others are free to disagree, they are supposed to disagree with a policy based arguments, supported by evidence if necessary, which doesn't appear to have been done here; the closest you came to a policy based argument is the assertion that there is "no established English alternative name", but that seems contrary to all the evidence so far, and you failed to present evidence refuting that evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already explained, my argument is that (1) there are no established alternative English forms (a spelling without diacritics is not an alternative name, such as Copenhagen or Gothenburg are), (2) there is no need to transliterate names already in the Latin alphabet, and (3) I do think that respect for local usage is relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there is a policy I am not aware of, neither of those arguments seem to align with policy. (1) and (2) go against WP:DIACRITICS, which establishes that our use of diacritics should follow the use in common sources, while (3) seems to be a WP:RGWs argument. If I am mistaken and their are policies in support of your position, could you please cite them? BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are mistaken on several accounts. Your most serious mistake is your adherence to WP:PETTIFOG, adapting a very narrow and legalistic reading of policies to push your own view, while displaying little understanding of said policies. Second, your assumption that WP:DIACRITICS and WP:COMMONNAME favor a move is your interpretation. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica uses Łódź and, with all due respect, I dare say the editors of Britannica are far better versed in English usage than you are (or than I am, for that matter). Jeppiz (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeppiz, I am responding to each of these opposition statements because none of them cite any sources for their common use claim nor cite any policy or guidelines. That is not disruptive nor is it turning into a battleground. I am not being uncivil in any of these discussions, nor am I judging the motives of anyone anywhere. That claim is simply absurd. I find it quite curious that instead of supporting your statement with relevant policy, guidelines, or sources, you have resorted to an ad hominem.
In response to your claim that this is WP:PETTIFOG, I have already quoted the relevant portion of WP:DIACRITICS above. Is there something wrong with my interpretation, and if so, what is it? I don't see how follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language} and if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources can be interpreted any other way. As for WP:COMMONNAME, that clearly states that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. Can you also explain how that does not support a move in this case? --Spekkios (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britannica is an data point towards establishing that "Łódź" is the name that "follows the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" required by WP:DIACRITICS. By itself, however, it doesn't establish "general usage". What does is a systematic review of reliable sources, as has been conducted by the nominator, a review that is backed up by the less direct evidence provided by Ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit beside the point, but being an academic I must point out that 'systematic review' has a precise meaning (see systematic review) and nothing even resembling a systematic has been presented here. We have seen a few references to some media usage, and I am happy to agree that that is already relevant, but it doesn't even begin to constitute a systematic review. And while the likes of Bloomberg and Al Jazeera are relevant, their usage isn't even nearly as relevant as Encyclopedia Britannica (in case you're new to Wikipedia, it's been standard practice for over a decade to look at Britannica's usage in cases related to English usage for foreign names). Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a good point; I don't know how the nominator selected their sources. As such, I will conduct an actual systematic review, by using this list to select my sources, removing aggregators and those that are considered unreliable by WP:RSP. Examples are provided solely for purpose of example, but are representative of the overall result.
  1. BBC - Lodz
  2. MSN - Lodz
  3. CNN - Lodz
  4. NYT - Lodz
  5. Fox News - Lodz
  6. The Guardian - Łódź
  7. India Times - Lodz
  8. NDTV - Lodz
  9. Washington Post - Lodz
  10. CNBC - Lodz
  11. News18 - Lodz
  12. Times of India - Lodz
  13. ABC - Lodz
  14. NY Post - Lodz
The results are not unanimous, but with just a single exception the results are clear that "Lodz" is the term that "follows the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". As for Britannica's usage, I think it has been standard practice to check what they use, but we don't blindly follow them if doing so is out of line with general usage, as to do so would violate policy which requires we follow "general usage". BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about UNESCO? --> They seem to spell Łódź correctly [5] GizzyCatBella🍁 03:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think providing singular examples is very helpful, as we are required to follow "general usage" and singular examples do not help us with that; a broad overview of neutrally chosen sources, as I provided, is what we need. I would also note that UNESCO is inconsistent, and I am uncertain whether they prefer "Lodz" or "Łódź". BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here is BBC page using Łódź... and here's a CNN one [6]. Here's The Guardian: [7]. I am sure we an find examples for more publishers from your list, I just chose three at random and all can be seen using both Lodz and Łódź without much consistency. Some journalists are lazy and don't use diacritics, some are more true to the original. Fortunately, at Wikipedia, we don't have to be lazy and dumb things down. Diacritics are a thing, and we use them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read my list, you would see that it classifies the Guardian as using "Łódź".
And yes, there are occasional articles using the other form. For instance, when I reviewed sources from the Guardian, I found that for every five articles using "Łódź", three would use "Lodz". I would note that this was the closest split I found; every other example showed a considerably greater preference for their chosen form. For instance, I found that for every three BBC articles using "Lodz", there was one using "Łódź" - if you believe it would be useful, I can provide the ratio for every source listed above? I did think I made it clear that not every source used "Lodz" or "Łódź" every time, with "representative of the overall result", but in retrospect I could have been clearer. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal - In 1939, the Jewish community of Łódź numbered nearly 200,000 people, roughly 30% of the city’s population. Does the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum count? Do you like this source? [8] GizzyCatBella🍁 10:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal - Look at this -->[9] - I believe we should spell Łódź accurately and not duplicate errors from newspapers around the world Billed Mammal. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you bring up the Lodz Ghetto, as I actually looked into it earlier in this discussion to determine whether in connection to the Ghetto "Lodz" or "Łódź" was preferred. I consider this slightly off topic, so I won't present the full evidence unless requested, but this Ngrams is reflective of the overall result; in connection to the Ghetto, "Lodz" is preferred over "Łódź" even more than it is in general.
This brings me to what I mentioned before; that while the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is a reliable source, it is a singular source, and one that based on the above appears to be selected because it uses "Łódź" rather than selected and then checked, and so is no more useful in this discussion than if I pointed at Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial and museum, who uses Lodz. This is because we can both provide sources that back the position we are arguing for until this RM is closed by some unfortunate editor, and so what we need is to do what I did above - conduct a systematic review by finding a suitable list of sources and then checking whether they prefer "Lodz" or "Łódź", as this method will show us which name is in "general usage", and thus which name we are required to use by WP:DIACRITICS. BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look BilledMammal you would have to move 100’s of other Polish cities, villages, counties etc. as well if you get your way. Cites such as Gdańsk, Białystok, (and Białystok Ghetto) Łomża, Toruń, Rzeszów, Giżycko, Gorzów, Zielona Góra, Chorzów, Płock, Racibórz, Wieluń, Wyszków, Wałbrzych, Słubice, Ełk, Pruszków, Sokółka, Tuchów, Wrocławek, Świdnica, Piątnica, Elbląk, Świnoujście, Piła, Przemyśl, Ostrołęka, Chełm (and Chełmno Concentration Camp) etc.etc.etc..- I can keep going and going. What’s the point of doing that for Christ Sake? Those are all correct spellings. Neee, I don’t think so. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And these too - Łódź Voivodeship, Łódź Film School, Łódź Władysław Reymont Airport, Łódź insurrection, Łódź Cross-City Line, Łódź Ring Road, Łódź East County, Łódź Circular Line, Łódź Voivodeship (1919–1939) etc. - no way, sorry - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the current policies are flawed, then could I suggest opening an RfC to change WP:DIACRITICS? Alternatively, if you want a more limited change, could I suggest proposing a new naming convention for Polish locations, that would state that in cases where the difference between the common English name and the Polish common name is diacritics, the Polish common name should be used?
Until then, policy is unambiguous on this, and I don't believe it would be appropriate to overrule them with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah, and let’s not forget about this one Łódź Ghetto - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and the consensus seems to be here, let me see, let me look again... o yeah. Stays as Łódź. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy support at all for that, no policy tells us to "use the English alphabet". Jeppiz (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ESTABLISHED states that "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." The evidence above is that Lodz is established in English and the other form isn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and snow close this obviously is not going to happen just because two editors are not familiar with the consistent and universal use of full Latin fonts on the en.wp. To keep the RM open is pointless and byte wasting. Close and get back to more productive activity 17:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)
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.

Pronunciation guide

[edit]

I can see there has been much discussion along these lines. But not having any pronunciation guidance in this article currently is a big fail, IMO. This is an English-language article, and it ought to offer some guidance for how to say "Łódź" in English; even if there are disagreements about that, those can be part of the guidance. Lobosolo (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Łódź 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Łódź 1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 26 § Łódź 1 until a consensus is reached. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Łódź&oldid=1247789281"