Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Poland-related articles

Guideline

I'm boldly marking this as a guideline (please revert and discuss if there are any objections).--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposing guidelines and policies. It was not widely advertised to Village pump or mentioned on WP:NC.

It was advertised at the pump; I didn't think of mentioning it at NC, I admit.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just added this to the naming conventions page. There are some problems with it. The wording "do not have established English equivalents" and similar is not compatible with the naming conventions policy or with the Use English English guideline.

"For places now in Poland, use the current Polish name (including diacritics)," is not compatible with the naming conventions policy or with the Use English English guideline.

--PBS (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it not compatible? If there are no established English equivalents, we use local names. That's pretty standard, isn't it? In any case it describes exactly what we do, which is the main criterion for guidelines. --Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarked as a guideline under discussion (it was advertised for some time in various venues without objection, and the objections raised now relate to only a few details). Perhaps you could say exactly what you would propose changing.--Kotniski (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The devil is in the detail. What do you think "established English equivalents" means? Can we replace that with words lifted from Use English:

Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources. If no an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that no established usage exists then follow the conventions of the Polish language.

--PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could say that, but it makes it unnecessarily complicated when a much simpler rule suffices.--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the simpler rule? --PBS (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the one (or several) in the guideline at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For places now in Poland, use the current Polish name (including diacritics), except for Warsaw." This needs to be altered to fit in with English Language sources. There are several other points like this. But lets see if we can do them one at a time.--PBS (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur; use the common name in English. This will normally be the current Polish name, but there is no reason to assume Warsaw is the only exception. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an empirical statement. You always say that guidelines should reflect what we do; in this case this is what we do. If you can find another exception, then obviously we'll note that as well.--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski is absolutely correct with that point. Knepflerle (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline should not contradict the naming conventions policy that says use reliable English sources to determine the name. If people are naming places with Polish spellings when Reliable English sources have indicated that there is an English Language spelling that differs then that spelling then those pages need moving. --PBS (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction if there is no counter-example. Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this page should move from a proposal to a naming convention until such time as this issue is resolved. Whereas most Polish place names, I would think, would retain diacritics where they are an issue, I am not convinced that Kraków or Gdańsk are the most common spellings of these two cities in English. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What issue? What is your point? Kraków and Gdańsk are the names we use for these articles, and have been for years. This proposal is not supposed to change anything, just document the facts and thus help people. If the Kraków or Gdańsk articles get renamed, then naturally this page will be updated to reflect that. --Kotniski (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But using Kraków, instead of English Cracow, has never been consensus, merely the status quo. The proposed language would also guide to moving Birkenau to Brzezinka, which I am sure was not the intention of the compilers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would everyone be happy if we just put a rider at the top of the page saying that this page does not override WP's general naming conventions which can be found at... ?--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then just leave it untagged. This is a largely reasonable discussion of the problem by a WikiProject; it doesn't need to be a guideline.

I object to writing only Warsaw into a guideline, because it will get quoted as mandating current Polish usage even for cases where it is debatable, including historic articles where current Polish names might well not be used by reasonable editors (Ptolemy's central Europe, or an article on the Prussian administration of Breslau; at least we are safe from the Kaliningrad problem). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insist on its being marked as a guideline, though we can easily reword it to make it clear that "only Warsaw" refers only to the present era (and possibly to the present state of WP). The paragraph about historical usage could be improved anyway - I think that was copied with minimal change from the general geographical names page, and possibly could be clarified with respect to the Polish situation.--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Silesia, since it is a place and (mostly) in Poland. I thought about Masuria, but that's more obscure; if someone wants to change, fine. If someone wants to clarify that we want current usage, not before 1918 or 1945, that's fine too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT Kracow/Cracow is not usually spelt Kraków in reliable English sources, same with Gdansk/Gdańsk (the current name Gdańsk is contrary to the name agreed in the poll that was taken about which name to use). I agree with Septentrionalis, we should not write only only Warsaw into a guideline, because it will get quoted as mandating current Polish usage even for cases where it is debatable. --PBS (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it no longer says "only Warsaw" or "only Vistula". Anything else anyone thinks needs changing?--Kotniski (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK for now, as far as I'm concerned. But what's the case it needs to be a guideline? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was why we've been rewording it, isn't it, to prevent it being misused when it becomes a guideline? Once we've agreed it gives good guidance, it should be marked as such so people know they can rely on it (up to a point). Other pages like this are guidelines - any reason why this one shouldn't be? --Kotniski (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's enough justification? You may be right. If nobody objects in a day or so, see what WP:VPP thinks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody list in one place all problems with this convention? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all the problems have been remedied now? Any remaining objections to restoring the guideline tag?--Kotniski (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not (or if they are, they can still be remedied). Restoring the guideline tag.--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What type of guideline is this supposed to be? Is it a naming convention or a MOS guideline or some other type? --PBS (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No particular type, or rather a combination of naming/style/editing. I don't think it should be marked as any particular type of guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gmina

The guideline says to use gmina in its untranslated form, rather than the more familiar (to English readers) commune. What is the rationale for this approach in an English encyclopedia, and where is the evidence that this decision was arrived at by consensus? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 14:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was talked about several times, probably in the archives of WP:WikiProject Poland. Basically the arguments are that "commune" in that meaning isn't familiar to many English-speakers anyway, and that when it is familiar, it means something quite different from "gmina" (the French communes, for example, are more like sołectwos than gminas, at least in terms of size). Basically there isn't a good way to translate the concept of gmina into English that would increase understanding.--Kotniski (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm being very slow today. How can I find the archives of WP:WikiProject Poland? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of them in the "Archives" box at the top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. The last discussion was probably around 2007(?) But don't expect any great enlightenment from there; I doubt it came down to any more than the arguments I've given above. (There's another similar discussion in progress at the moment, if you're interested, about how to refer to the streets of Warsaw - using "ulica" or the English translation "street". That's also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME

I have tweaked the wording as regards subject names and diacritics to mirror what I believe to be current practice. The default would thus be shifted from 'use English spelling [sic] except when there is no commonly accepted English spelling' 'use Polish spelling except when there is commonly accepted English spelling'. It is currently arguable whether the article should be entitled 'Lech Wałęsa' or 'Lech Walensa'; the change in wording would leave less doubt that it should be 'Lech Wałęsa', if anything, out of respect for how the subject spells and pronounces his name. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating town names

In the section WP:MOSPOL#Towns and villages, it states "A town or city is considered primary with respect to Polish villages of the same name". Does this mean that a town such as Paczków, being the seat of a gmina, should not be moved to Paczków, Opole Voivodeship, whereas Paczków, Lower Silesian Voivodeship is properly disambiguated? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]