Talk:Gdańsk/Vote/discussion

message: Vote proposals on cross-naming cover all history. This is awkward. Cross-Naming makes sense in pre-45 period, but is absurd for the contemporary articles like this one: List of cities in Poland. Therefore, the vote shuld cover only pre 45 period, or there shall be 2 separate votes.-- Mr. Wszedroik
I agree.  Perhaps we should split up the vote.  Chris, what do you think? john k 16:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote proposal problem (Cross-Naming) 

message: Danziger Willkür was the name given to the laws of the Hanse city of Danzig. In 1597 they were written as follows: Der See - und Handelsstadt Dantzig Rechte oder Willkuer 1597. In the year 1732 these laws were re-printed by Seelman in Danzig. After that they were several times reprinted at different locations. 
20 Feb 2005
:You are missing the point. The goal of wikipedia is not to record absolute truth. The goal is to record human knowledge. The goal of this discussion is not to decide, which name is absolutely correct to use for Danzig/Gdansk. The goal is how to make the rules, which will be fair enough and which will end the absurd revert wars.Szopen 08:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danziger Willkür (Danzig Laws) 

message: Albert of Brandenburgs duties to emperor and pope
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lqag5cL8YAAJ:department.monm.edu/history/urban/articles/State_of_the_grandmasters.htm+Casimir+IV+deutscher+orden&hl=en
------------
:Article is great, but somehow misses the point that before Albrecht all TO grand masters were supposed to be vassals of Poland. What Emperors and popes thought about that, from Polish point of view is irrevelant, since TO was treated as Polish (though unwilling and hostile) vasssal. Szopen 10:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Urban's article on Prussia 

message: Note that I have started to impose (German:Danzig) and 
 on pages that mention Gdansk. --JuntungWu 06:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an obvious corruption of the community consensus. It suggests that all Germanic languages (including English) use Danzig instead of Gdańsk. All those pipings should changed to  German: Danzig. – Kpalion (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community move 

message: Please take a look at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Halibutt 12:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
::I started to enforce the outcome of the vote on many pages on German cities. Most notably I started to add the cross-naming Polish names to the articles mentioning Dresden, which used to be the Polish capital. I would be really happy to receive support from the admins watching this page and enforcing the rule on other related pages, including User:Chris 73 and User:John Kenney. Halibutt 17:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::And farcically, the Polish names for Mainz, Koblenz, Aachen, etc, on the basis of a handful of low-grade google hits of English pages that mention the Polish name, often in passing.  This isn't "the outcome of the vote", is this disruption to make a WP:POINT.  Alai 20:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome of the voting 

message: I strongly oppose the use of multiple names for places such as Dresden, Gdansk, and such, on completely unrelated articles such as Bentley. If such double naming must occur, it should only occur where it is relevant - on the disputed articles themselves. Other articles should use the name  which the disputed article carries. Opinions? — Dan | Talk 17:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Note the difference between DANZIG and DRESDEN (two different cities). Mentioning 'Drezno' in Athlon is unnecessary at least. Conf 17:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-naming 

message: I'm curious if the results of this vote could be applied to Czech towns with German heritage. Since the situation there is so similar to Gdansk, it would appear to be logical. 
I've seen NoPuzzleStranger come out of the woodwork and start unilateral changes to formerly German towns like Budweis and Pilsen. He would single them out for some reason, but there are many other cities with similar history in former Czechoslovakia (including Prague) and it would be good if we had a consistent and generally accepted way of dealing with their German names. This would be good for both accuracy and consistency of Wikipedia, not to mention save a lot of time for everyone.
Jbetak 16:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Budweis]] and [[Pilsen]] 

message: Despite the fact that the article for Georg Foster contains the word 'Danzig',  Witkacy (a good example of a chauvinist in my opinion) has deleted the tag for the third time (, , ) by now from Talk:Georg Forster for the simply reason that the template is a "useless template" in his opinion. The template has been added by Administrator Gabbe in March and this inclusion has never been challenged until now by Witkacy. Before that Witkacy had a revert war - in which he never stated why he reverted - with Cadorna (, , ). The dispute was over in which order Danzig and Gdansk should be named. None of them referred to the rule, which relevantly states that For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945 and according to the wiki article Forster lived from November 26, 1754 until January 10, 1794, thus in that period. So when I reverted Witkacy in accordance to the rule, he simply deleted the rule from the talk page and reverted me in the article. Is it a case for Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress or what should be done in this case? Please help. NightBeAsT 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumventing the vote in the article for [[Georg Forster]] 

message: Who would accept to revise the conditions in such a way that they would be more fool proof, since some in the polish nationalistic fringe have decided to be painful about it; something we could actually use as a guideline for areas which changed hands frequently and not as a way to cut a single quarrell. Snapdragonfly 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, there should be a general rule for such territories, and not the individual one for Danzig area only. --Lysytalk 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Revision of the Vote 

message: All Poland was taken by Germans in WW2.
Prussia had Warsaw in 1795.
Those two occupations should be excluded from the vote.
Otherwise it will be legal to write Warschau(Warsaw).
--Januszewicz 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Can an admin please fix my old signature to remove the transclusion? (Change  to ). Thanks. -- Jordi·✆ 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: First of all, the decision was based on a simple counting of votes. I do not know what it was like in 2005, but we certainly do not make decisions in this way now. Moreover, the differences are negligible (e.g. for the period 1466 to 1793, it is 10 votes), which clearly indicates that there is no prevailing opinion.
What's more, the usus in relation to other cities with a similar history is quite different. Making Danzig and other Polish cities (Szczecin, Wrocław etc.) with a partly German history into special cases. Without any logically identifiable justification. For example, why is Prague not referred to as "Prag" in topics concerning the period when it was inhabited mostly by German-speaking people and was part of the German states? What about Maribor/Marburg? Why do we not use the name "Kijów" for Kyiv when it was part of Poland, or even when it was mostly Polish-speaking (mid-18th century)? What about Lviv? There are many other examples.
For me, as someone who started editing English Wikipedia long after 2005, this balance is incomprehensible. Above all in relation to cities like Gdańsk, Toruń, Elbląg, which from 1454 almost until the end of the 18th century were part of the Polish state. On what basis do we use the German names to them for this period?
It seems to me that this topic has taken on a new significance with regard to decisions made in the last few years on Ukrainian place names (most notably WP:KYIV), which clearly indicate that the preferred place name also in a historical context is the modern Ukrainian version "Kyiv". Only "unambiguously historical topics" allow for the Kiev version. Why not apply an analogous rule to Gdańsk and other Polish cities with a similar history? ( Incidentally, I should note that WP:KYIV does not provide for names containing the form "Kijów" even for the period when the city was part of Poland, e.g. Kiev Voivodeship. This is a separate topic, but shows the imbalance I am talking about). 
I hope that my proposal will be met with an open-minded approach and a willingness to have an informative discussion. Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the vote not become outdated?