Talk:St. Florian's Gate

message: right|100px|Holstein Gate |thumb
The proposed move: :St. Florian's Gate → :Florian Gate has been posted at  Wikipedia:Requested_moves on January 17, 2007 (a few days ago) with the reason which for present purposes can be rephrased along the lines of a popular expression used by User:logologist. What is good for Holstein Gate of Lübeck, is good for :Florian Gate of Kraków. I’m moving the article to its original title and removing the "Requested move" notice from the top of this page. Questions remain unanswered with regards to what the most common English name is, rather than should be (to quote from the comment made by User:SigPig). However, in lieu of a straightforward answer with regards to the alternative name of Florian Gate in the English language, Wikipedia editors ought to adhere to well established conventions, such as the one used by Encyclopedia Britannica quoted at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046190/Krakow --Poeticbent  talk  16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The object of this article is named after St. Florian.  It is St. Florian's Gate.  It might have been Florian Gate — had it been named after something called "Floria."  logologist|Talk 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully submit you both have the wrong end of the stick. Just because another gate is or is not named a certain way, it does not follow that this particular gate should be named the same way. (St)(.) Florian('s) Gate should be named whatever is the most common name in English. Indeed, that may take a bit of digging. Then again, this does aspire to be an encyclopedia, so-o-o...Gentlemen, start your shovels. -- SigPig |SEND - OVER 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing comments

message: Dear logologist. You have yet to produce the first, even mildly respectable English language source in support of your claim. Please, do not create the impression that you, and you alone, have all the answers. However, your suggestion with regards to a possible survey conducted by User:Piotrus seems worth the attention. I have already done at least part of your homework originally and searched the Internet for a viable English language proof of your assertion. I have found none. --Poeticbent  talk  20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, it's my encyclopedia against yours.  My Encyclopedia Americana says, under "Kraków":  "The line of the ancient city walls has been replaced by a continuous line of parks, the Planty, though the impressive gate of St. Florian survives."  logologist|Talk 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And now for a history book:  Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way:  a Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, New York, Hippocrene Books, 2000, , p. 60, photo 20, captioned:  "The Barbican of St. Florian's Gate, Kraków, built in 1498."  logologist|Talk 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What is there to check out?  logologist|Talk 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where’s the beef

message: As someone who came here via spotting the move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and as a complete newcomer to this debate, but having stayed on Ul. Florianska for three months, I always saw it referred to by guides / read it in guidebooks / etc as Florian's Gate.  Not (the) Florian Gate, nor St. Florian's Gate. That seems to be the most accurate translation of the Polish term in terms of both meaning (the Polish name for the gate doesn't contain 'saint') and transliteration (in English, the possessive "'s" is appropriate).  Proto::► 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm getting at, is would these be an acceptable compromise?  There seems to be no single, definitive right answer on how to precisely translate the meaning of Brama Florianska.  (A side note, any Polish natives - the Polish for 'Saint Florian' is Swiety Florian, does that mean Florianska means "Florian's"?  Nie mowi po polsku dobrze ..) Proto::► 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Florian's Gate" might actually be a good compromise. As Art LaPella pointed out, it also appears to garner the most Google hits (see Addendum 4 to my lengthy entry on Google hits), lending it a certain "popularity factor." It also would match the German translation which is "Florianstor." - tameeria 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it helps 

message: All this fuss about one simple "-s"... I've been trying to understand why this blew up into such an argument, and I think what happened is:
* Based on "Florian Gate" having precedence as the original article title, I feel the discussion should have been whether "Florian Gate" should be replaced by "St. Florian's Gate" in the first place and not the other way around.
* I see the argumentation has its flaws on both sides and votes have been cast based on such flawed argumentation, thus rendering their neutrality questionable.
* As a result, it all boils down to POV and popularity contests.
For example, in the move request Poeticbent stated: "The new name reflects the appropriate way of referring to buildings named after a saint in the English language." This statement certainly does not hold up to scrutiny and as such is as red flag inviting predictable opposition. However, as user SigPig later mentions, proper names follow their own rules, so simply applying English grammar rules to determine whether a proper name is "wrong" or "right" does not have validity in this discussion in any case.
I see lots of rhetoric such as proof by example from both sides and appeal to consequences mainly from logologist. These are logical fallacies and as such are invalid. I also see logologist countering an Encyclopaedia Britannica reference in favor of "Florian Gate" by declaring the entry as invalid because erroneous. This strikes me as POV trying to discredit a published reference that's inconvenient for his side of the argument. The only truly valid reference in favor of "St. Florian's Gate" before the two votes in its favor were cast was a history book by Adam Zamoyski. In conjunction with the Encyclopedia Britannica, this only proves that both versions are in use and equally valid. However, its use to declare "Florian Gate" to be "wrong" is just another logical fallacy of the type "If A is correct, then B has to be wrong" where in truth neither A nor B is wrong.
So in conclusion, I am not convinced yet that "St. Florian's Gate" as a page title is superior to "Florian Gate" and I question the neutrality of the votes that have been cast in its favor. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way and that's why this has been dragged out into such a long dispute. There probably should be a revote on the issue, but I see that neither Quuxplusone nor AjaxSmack, who supported "St. Florian's Gate" with their votes, have participated in the discussion. In addition, the version "Florian's Gate" might need to be taken into consideration as well.
Therefore, I suggest a ranking procedure to put some closure on this. Instead of just voting "support" and "oppose" maybe we can create a list of preferences to see which one garners the most support.
Here's a list of all the possible spellings mentioned so far:
*Florian Gate - original page title
*Florian's Gate
*St Florian Gate
*St. Florian Gate
*St Florian's Gate
*St. Florian's Gate - current page title
*Gate of St. Florian
*Saint-Florian Gate
*If there are any that I'm missing, please add.
And just for starters, here's what my top three preferences would look like in order:
*1) Florian's Gate (as a compromise and also most used online)
*2) Florian Gate (as it has more printed references than "St. Florian's Gate")
*3) St. Florian's Gate
Once everyone has posted their top choices, we can summarize them and see who comes out on top as the most preferred. Maybe this will work? - tameeria 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I truly admire tameeria’s ability to search for the middle ground and I am willing to take part in the re-vote for the most preferable answer, as suggested. However, due to actions taken previously by both, logologist and Septentrionalis, the formal arbitration process might be necessary, if only for the further discussion concerning the title of this article to be taken seriously. Septentrionalis has already been involved in edit wars for which he’s been banned from Wikipedia   and therefore I question his willingness to abide by our joint decision alone. Logologist on the other hand has changed the title of the article without prior discussion and “move” request and seems content with the present status quo, being what he wanted. I do not wish to engage in an edit war instigated by those who dislike tameeria’s idea of searching for the middle ground, and who might not respond to this proposal at all. Steps should be taken to ensure the lasting quality of the outcome. --Poeticbent  talk  19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Banning policy states that "Bans should not be confused with blocking...". Septentrionalis had some one day blocks - he wasn't banned. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy states "4. The Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes", that is, not article content. I really can't imagine them accepting an "'s" case. Art LaPella 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I’m preparing to launch my Request for arbitration not about the “s”, but rather, against Septentrionalis who — one week ago today — renamed the article from Florian Gate to St. Florian's Gate  under an exaggerated summary . — Septentrionalis did not take part in our discussion since January 24 and disagrees to mediate this case. Yes, Septentrionalis has been blocked before for violation of the Wikipedia:three-revert rule and in this instance, has placed the burden of proof on me, while accusing me of not adhering to “policy nor practice” of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. I will not engage in revert-wars with experienced Wikipedians regardless of their attitude. --Poeticbent  talk  01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-vote / list of preferences? 

message: Until a consensus is achieved on the naming of the article, it should remain at the naming convention determined by the original article creator (WP:NAME).  This was Florian Gate, and thus the article has been moved, and will remain there until a consensus can be determined.  As not all participants in the dispute accepted the participation of the Mediation Committee, I have tried to suggest a compromise solution (Florian's Gate), please see above.  
If this compromise is not acceptable,  there are (better) alternates to going to the Arbitration Committee.  These include Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.  Proto::► 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states: “When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?” — I use Google dozens of times a day, however, I would have to be mad to want to put into the search box “St. Florian's Gate” in order to find it. I was born and raised in Kraków and — even though I no longer live in Poland — I care equally for Polish and English language with their respective history and conventions. That's why I'm shocked by logologist's recent attitude in this matter; tactless and groundless accusations of ignorance made against opponents; logologist’s use of Latin phrases for the sole purpose of intimidation; the repetitive employ of non-existing examples in order to ridicule the opposing points of view; appeals to imagined consequences, logologist’s theatrical rhetoric steming from biases, fallacies and most of all: flawed logic regarding the meaning and purpose of the name Florian Gate, which does not refer to an object of religious devotion. I will NOT be intimidated like that.     But first of all, I'd like to thank User:Proto for taking preventative measures and protecting Florian Gate article from being tampered with in retaliation at this critical stage of our discussion. Attempts at mediation failed. Appeals to reason lost their urgency. Encyclopedias were belittled (both:  Britannica, and Collier’s). At least I'm glad I no longer have to invest time and energy in lengthy arbitration with Septentrionalis. From my point of view, it’s progress. --Poeticbent  talk  19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you now "belittling" Encyclopedia Americana ("gate of St. Florian")?  logologist|Talk 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So... St. Florian's Gate was not named for St. Florian?  Then why the bas-relief of him on his Gate?  logologist|Talk 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is denying that Florian Gate / St. Florian's Gate / Florian's Gate is named for St. Florian, logologist.  The discussion is not what you think the name ought to be based on your opinion.  Nor is it what Poeticbent thinks the name ought to be.  Nor is it what anyone else here thinks it ought to be.  It is what the bulk of English language non-trivial coverage of the gate translates the name as.  Can you agree that it is ambiguous, and there are differing opinions and differences across sources?  Proto::► 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I'm removing this article's listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves because the article is currently at the title that was requested.  It's not clear that we have a consensus, exactly, but if any further moving is required, someone can make another move request.  For now, I'm clearing it out of the backlog. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting at [[WP:RM]] 

message: The current issue (2007, no. 2) of The Polish Review, a scholarly quarterly published in New York City by the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America, features a cover drawing of Kraków's Brama Floriańska.  In the table of contents, the object is identified as "St. Florian's Gate."  Nihil novi 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Florian's Gate, revisited

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on St. Florian's Gate. 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:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tpm-WQkcqGMJ:www.cracowonline.com/45,A_Must-See_Guide_for_Krakow_New.htm+cracowonline.com+Florian+Gate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca with https://web.archive.org/web/20161130064254/http://cracowonline.com/45,A_Must-See_Guide_for_Krakow_New.htm on http://www.cracowonline.com/45,A_Must-See_Guide_for_Krakow_New.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified