Talk:Free City of Cracow

message: The name of this country was Rzeczpospolita Krakowska, which could be translated as Republic of Krakow or Republic of Cracow. I've never heard the name Free City of Krakow. Could anyone provide some example?Halibutt 18:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See:  for the city-state's constitution (in Polish) and coins. You'll only find the name Wolne Miasto Kraków (Free City of Kraków) there, no mention of Rzeczpospolita Krakowska. However, it seems that both names were used interchangeably in everyday language or even some formal documents. Kpalion 18:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, thanks for the explanation.Halibutt 22:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic or Free City 

message: From my talk page: User_talk:Charles#Bone_of_contention, where the edit history () can be verified and checked if needed. Please don't copy and paste the entire discussion, it was had already. Plus, the formatting is awful and it is generally disruptive to just copy and paste an essentially concluded discussion. Charles 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, everybody! Please remember there is an Arbcom decision on Eastern Europe, advising reasonable and calm behavior out of everybody; and I do mean everybody. 
*This does seem an ideal test case for If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. Is there dispute this principle applies?
*This is the early nineteenth-century city-state; it was called Cracow in English then. Piotrus, what is your evidence that the Free City is called Kraków in English now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: His rationale thus far is that a move can only be accomplished when Kraków is moved to Cracow, which he will see to that it does not happen. The name is supported by the naming conventions and the EB even prescribes the name, but everything thus far has been distorted to "support" keeping this at a name using Kraków. I truthfully wonder if the various editors think we should have articles on the Kingdom of Hannover or the Duchy of Braunschweig. Do they even care about those places? Charles 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors do support the Duchy, or at least the Duke, of Braunschweig; IIRC they were outvoted. I disagreed with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very, very interesting link. I see Kraków comes up in it as well. Quelle surprise. Charles 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am advocating peace; I am also asking that this decision be taken in accordance with the guidelines we have decided upon after the presentation of evidence. Metaphors are not helpful. If it is impossible to do so, I shall post this discussion to Arbitration Enforcement, and let them do what they wish; I would deeply prefer to see this discussed reasonably, without imputations on motives (save it for ArbCom, if they care).  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, were we magically transported to Polish Wikipedia and talking about the Polish name, or are we discussing the English name of a historical entity? Charles 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles, let’s not repeat ourselves. We had this discussion already on your Talk page. Please read what I wrote above, on January 11, 2007, about The Canadian Oxford School Atlas (Oxford University Press, Don Mills; 1957; 1963; 1972; 1977; 1985; 1987) using Kraków for the last fifty years. Hardly a Starship Enterprise of a transporter. --Poeticbent talk 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that index listing referring the reader to Cracow and I see the errors in your dating of material on my talk page. You are trying to manipulate data to suit your POV. Why would a scholarly publication see the need to redirect one to Cracow if it is bad, wrong and forbidden? Again, you ignore that it tells one to see Cracow because that is where the entry is located. Charles 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous discussion

message: Where's the RM and vote? I'm sick of all the talk promoting "Krakuf", which is the way our Polish friends pronounce their "Kraków". Anyone ever heard that spoken, maybe in a BBC radio broadcast of 1978 "... and the new pope is ... the Archbishop of Krakuf"? There will never be a consensus as some "natives" will not cease to promote their local POV. Let's vote to move this and related articles, e.g. Cracow Uprising, to the proper English name, and get over with the endless talk. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight. Until a consensus is achieved on the naming of the article, it should remain at the naming convention determined by the original article creator according to WP:NAME.  This was the Free City of Kraków, and thus the article has been moved by an administrator, and will remain there until a consensus can be determined.  Unfortunately, not all participants are willing to accept a civil participation in the dispute. --Poeticbent talk 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. If only I could show you that I would be wagging my finger at you. STOP MANIPULATING naming conventions to support your biased POV. The naming conventions support and endorse a move back to Free City of Cracow. You, my friend, are hardly civil in your accusations and insinuations. I can hardly believe that you have the nerve to tell other people "how it is". Charles 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight seems to be a personal attack to me. Charles 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I believe I wrote that. Your quotation is out of date; it says nothing about "taking precedent". It continues "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain; if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail."  I add italics. This is not intended to confer ownership on the POV of the first contributor; we don't do that. It's intended to recognize that (Roman) Catholic Church is not soluble to consensus satisfaction; this is not so large a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *If it is indeed indifferent, then Piotrus' move was equally undesirable; but I don't think it is indifferent; and if the three of you take 12 hours away and have a  nice cup of tea, perhaps we can discuss it rationally.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The difference is, PoeticBent, you have shown yourself to try and manipulate another naming convention, which is for historical names and English names. It is painfully clear that it is a case of picking and choosing what to follow and then adding personal criteria on it. I really am sorry to say... This name is not protected by the naming conventions if it isn't the English term used for the subject. Historical and present usage for this territorial entity uses Cracow. Your previous arguments alongside Piotrus of moving the article "Krakow" to "Cracow" first or matching this article name to that one don't cut it. Do you feel that you are improving Wikipedia by keeping this article at the incorrect title? Charles 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Do attack the arguments, not the editor. (This is not intended to be condescending, just a helpful statement of the obvious.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed review would be great, as 12 editors thinks that Cracow should be used. M.K. 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to [[Free City of Cracow]] 

message: Some impartial anglophones should examine the evidence and come to some conclusions about this article because the move was incorrectly concluded and its location is an affront to many of the conventions present here on Wikipedia. Charles 22:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed review would be great, as 12 editors thinks that Cracow should be used. M.K. 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-examination

message: *Free City, Cracow as above. Nom vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting shopping list for upcoming moves. The 1st refers to French/Polish departement, 2nd to Russian subdivison, last is medieval international treaty, and 3rd was German 1939 to 1945, meaning that you also promote the Polish Oświęcim concentration camp for English Wikipedia? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *How so? Charles 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :*Wikipedia is not consistent and this article is not about the current city, but a historical entity. If they were indeed the same thing there would only be one article. I urge everyone to play the devil's advocate, drop their preferences and examine the evidence. Charles 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As far as I understand, it is about the same city, and the article describe a part of its history when it was a(n almost) sovereign state. -Ulla  23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The boundaries might be close, even elements of the name, but they are not the same. Indeed, as you say, it was almost a sovereign state, a city-state. Today there is no city-state. Please read the naming conventions on historic names (WP:NCGN), #1: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. The Free City of Cracow does not exist anymore and the widely accepted historical English name uses Cracrow. Please make note of all of the evidence provided. Charles 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The city name was and is Kraków. It is only because Cracow was dominant in older English publications, and because the Free City is an obscure topic, that Free City of Cracow is more popular then Free City of Kraków; but - just as Cracow has been replaced by Kraków - so should FCoC be replaced by FCoK.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would have thought an admin would know that what you just said is a big load of BS and refrain from saying it, but it is obvious that you do not understand the naming conventions for historic places. The fact that you just admitted, that FCoC is more popular, is all that matters because than indicates the primary English name. Again, you can't retroactively rename such a thing (a historical entity). Must we have an article named Isle of Mumbai? Or an Iraq campaign? Charles 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is the same. Then it was a state, now it is a municipality, but it is still the same city. It has not changed its name either, Cracow is just an anglizised form for Kraków. The choise is thus not between two different names for the same city, but for two different ways of writing that name – the traditional English way or the contempoary Polish way. Wikipedia might not be consistent, but I am; if the choise of Wikipedia would be to name the article about the city "Cracow", then I would also second the idea to name the article about its time as a free state as "Free State of Cracow". -Ulla  13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! This article isn't in contemporary Polish. It's historical and it is English. If Cracow for this state is tradition (and more widely known), why do you insist on shoving Krakow down English Wikipedians' throats? It should be noted that every single editor that erroneously pushing Krakow save for you is seemingly Polish and the lot of you do not speak English as your native language. Nothing wrong with being Polish or a non-anglophone, but are we supposed to see a correlation here? Please answer my question: Again, you can't retroactively rename such a thing (a historical entity). Must we have an article named Isle of Mumbai? Or an Iraq campaign? Charles 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name of the entity was Polish. This is English Wikipedia, so we use translation if available. When most common translation of Kraków to English was Cracow, Free City of Cracow was the dominant translation. With recent change and Kraków not being translated anymore but used in its original spelling (well, minus the diactric, usually), Free City of Kraków is the 'modern' name of that historical entitry. If you write an article about older historiography of this entity, yes, it would use Cracow. But modern uses Kraków. What's so difficult to understand here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is difficult to understand is if you really think I am falling for story to mask obvious bias. Everything you just said is not Wikipedia policy and you are flouting the naming conventions by posting this drivel. You do realize, but fail to acknowledge because you like Krakow better, that Free City of Cracow in its entirety is the correct name of the article. You cannot split it into "Free City" and "Cracow" and then change "Cracow" to suit your painfully obvious biases. The fact that you avoid any number of questions on this page speaks volumes as well. Charles 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, both name are more or less as accurate. In the case of such a tie I prefer the modern name, particulary as it is more familiar to me. What I fail to understand is why you won't admit that your logic is the same: you prefer Cracow, because you are more familiar with it, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the "Discussion" heading, you have said nothing other than a note about WP:NPA. Do you believe that if you do not acknowledge the evidence against this title, and provide nothing for it, that it does not exist and you'll have your way? Are you going to acknowledge the evidence and answer the questions? Of course you're more familiar with Krakow, you're Polish! But when you allow bias into editing (as you have admitted before) that becomes a problem. I am a native English speaker, of course I am more familiar with the other name. This is English Wikipedia. Get it? Are you going to rename the French article to Krakow? It doesn't matter what I prefer: Cracow IS English, particular in the name of this historical entity. Charles 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the English Wikipedia, but as it is so, why then is not the name of the city spelled in what you claim to be the English way of spelling it? English is not my native language, nor is Polish. I would find it quite all right to find the city of Kraków under the article name Cracow on English Wikipedia, if that is the English name of the city. BUT there seems to be a consensus that the city should be spelled Kraków in this English language encyclopedia, thus Wikipedia consider this spelling to be the most correct one in English. As long as it is spelled like that, I think everything else regarding this city should be spelled the same way. If you want the Free City of Kraków to be spelled Free City of Cracow here, I suggest you start by requesting a change of names for the article Kraków. -Ulla  20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not consistent

message: I am grateful for Ulla's comments, although I profoundly disagree with them. She holds a simple position; that we should impose an artificial consistency, one name for one city, whether English does or not. Piotrus seems to hold the same position, but he has not said it so clearly; I am not sure whether he regards it as obvious, and has not formulated it, or realizes how preposterous native speakers of English will find it. 
This position is contrary to policy; more seriously, it ignores how both English and Wikipedia actually work. 
On the WP side, this is the mindset that produced the Gdanzig folly in the first place: Lech Walesa, Saint Adalbert of Prague, and Günter Grass all lived in the same city, so we must use the same name for it. The German and Polish Wikipedias both appear to do that, but we don't, and shouldn't. Likewise, we use Nanjing and Treaty of Nanking; see Talk:Treaty of Nanking for the unanimous discussion.
In English, that mongrel language of a mongrel people, we take advantage of such accidents: Only one book uses Kraków because English doesn't; it uses, by and large, the nineteenth-century name for a nineteenth-century place. This is both a good and a normal thing; when English has two words for the same thing, it normally splits one off for a sub-word with a different shade of meaning; that's a good thing, called differentiation. 
Piotrus makes another fundamental error:  This is a popularity poll among words; that's what correct English is. English is not like  Swedish or French: we do not have an Academy to decide correctness for us; it's decided by usage, and usage only. That's how English can differentiate; it's a very wiki process, the end-product of a lot of separate minds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Swedish is my native language, I can assure you that it is not the Swedish Academy who decides on the Swedish language. It is the Swedish people in Sweden and in other countries. If a geographical place has a name in Swedish, that name is used in Swedish. We do not usually use different names for the same place. We do however use historical names for historical places sometimes, but only if the name is different, not if it is just a different spelling of the same name, as is the issue with Cracow/Kraków. Don't you see this difference? Cracow is, as far as I can see, not another (historical) name, it is just another spelling of the same name. -Ulla  05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We English-speakers quite routinely do. I agree that the differentiation here is merely a  change of spelling; so is the change at Nanjing. Both differentiations  are done, because both are useful; and the differentiation should be preserved. An English Wikipedia should be written in English, following English customs; the Swedish Wikipedia need not follow us.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Artificial consistency

message: Charles insists that we keep this note in the article following each occurence of Kraków: The Polish variant of Kraków is occasionally retroactively applied in English to the historical Free City. I think it is OR, and incorrect, and should be removed unless it can be sourced. Your comments?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it is OR or incorrect. The evidence shown on this page states that the name of the Free City in English was Free City of Cracow and even admissions of "Well, it's Free City of Krakow now" (which it isn't, but I digress) is an admission of it having been the Free City of Cracow, but with the name Free City of Krakow retroactively applied. Charles 20:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the evidence would show that, then this page would have been moved. Because no consensus was reached, the note can be seen as having approval of concenred editors. Further, if it is based on this talk discussion, then it is obviously ORish and as such, inappopriate for the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, the evidence DID and still does show that. Let's not start a new section on this old topic. You are tryign to suppress any instance of Cracow that you can. I have yet to see a valid, reasonable argument against this with evidence to support it. And speaking of inappropriate OR based on talk... Charles 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR note?

message: Phew, glad to get past all that Cracow/Krakow Krap. (As if we're all too stoopid to figure out what the article's about if a variant name is used).
Anyway, I'm just starting a new section here to let people know I've found a page with some info about this place's constitution. I see from the article that there's a link to a yet-to-be-started page about it. Thought it might help a little. Cheers --~ ~ :  Lincoln Cooper : ~  ~ (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful source material

message: I deleted sentence,that Free City of Kraków was the first modern republic in Eastern Europe. Kraków is NOT situated in Eastern Europe. Kraków is situated in Central Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.145.73 (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It doesn't take hindsight to know that the Free City would become a center of Polish Agitation. So what rationale did the three powers have for establishing it? 
There is something about a drop in Prussian textile exports after its demise so I guess all three powers expected economic benefits? But of course the article shouldn't be based on speculation so if someone knowledgeable could take some time off of the bs edit wars about the name and work something about the original motivation of the three powers into the article, that would be great...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1E40:12A0:BC79:3095:C086:EE89 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for it's establishment? 

message: It was decided that this article belonged at "Free City of Cracow", not "Free City of Krakow", let's keep the spelling consistent throughout this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.42.87 (talk) 11:48, August 10, 2017‎ (UTC)
:There is no consensus for that. Several other request moves for this change failed. While we did, sadly (IMHO) get some consensus for renaming this article, there is no reason it should be the only article with the usage of the word Cracow. That word is deprecated in Wikipedia, with the only exception being the phrase 'Free City of Cracow' (per RM above). Redirects should be avoided, hence 'The capital of Free City of Cracow is Krakow'.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense. It was agreed to use Cracow for this article, so let's have internal consistency. Notice that Britannica does it the same way. (https://www.britannica.com/place/Republic-of-Cracow) Genealogizer (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the text match the title is typical practice at Wikipedia, especially if it is in line with WP:UE.  Wikipedia also uses the English spelling for the Grand Duchy of Cracow.  "Deprecated in Wikipedia" is the application of original research as the English name is not deprecated in reliable sources (seen here).  —  AjaxSmack  01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having this to be the only article to use Cracow just illustrates the problems caused by the idiotic POV-pushing move to Cracow, move that has for years been pushed by certain anti-Polish nationalists who don't like seeing Polish names anywhere in this project. Shrug. These days I really have better things to do than to stress over those kind of issues. If you want this low visibility article to use outdated terminology that's inconsistent with every other Wikipedia article, so be it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith. I have nothing against Polish, as evidenced by the fact I don't try to push English names where there is a Polish equivalent in Polish wiki. Stop trying to push Polish names where there is an English equivalent in English wiki. And once again, Cracow is not outdated, as evidenced by the fact that even for the modern city, "it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third. And many works that use Kraków for the modern city still prefer Cracow for this 19th-century political entity. " Genealogizer (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As both an idiotic POV-pusher and anti-Polish nationalist, I still have policy, i.e. use reliable, English sources, on my side.  Go over to Polish Wikipedia and propose a move of Tuluza to Toulouse, Moguncja to Mainz, or Bolonia to Bologna and see how far you get. </small> —  AjaxSmack  03:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus -- I am really not an "anti-Polish nationalist" (and whether I am or not, there's no evidence available to you on the basis of which you could validly conclude that I'm one).  What I'm opposed to is the importation of endonyms which barely have any established existence in the English language, especially in a historical context where the endonyms would be completely anachronistic.  By the way, the German language uses "Krakau", so "Cracow" really says nothing about Poland vs. Austro-Hungary. AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  When I said idiotic POV-pushers, I was referring to some long-gone and banned trolls, not present company, with which I may disagree but which I certainly don't consider idiotic, so my apologies for anyone who was offended by my indeed too-easy-to-misinterprest comment. Now, while it is true that the use of Krakow and Cracow is, roughly, tied, I do believe there are several good reasons to stick with only one, modern name. First, unlike let's stay Constantinopole/Instanbul, there is no official name change, and in fact while I couldn't find an official decision, I found 2008 newspaper which cited an official from the city promotion department saying that they prefer Krakow () and a blog of professional translator () which discusses pros and cons and notes that official website uses Krakow and that official websites should be taken as official positions in lieu of official statements. Second, Wikipedia:Consistency is good for readers. Unless there is an official name change, there is no reason to use varying names outside of an etymology section. Both articles linked above (sadly, they are in Polish) cite several experts and usage counts in favor of Krakow, noting that Cracow is historical, but loosing ground. So since there is no official recognition for use of Cracow, also in the context of the past, I think the consistency argument suggests that using Krakow everywhere is the sensible, reader-friendly thing to do. The argument that C was more popular than K in 19th century works so we should use it in this context is, to me, ridiculous - it's like saying that we should not discuss slavery in American in negative context until mid-20th century, because majority 19th century and other pre-abolitionist publications did not see it as a problem :/ Wikipedia should represent modern views and scholarship. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't let city promotion departments dictate what names we use - see Bangalore. Genealogizer (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man argument, plus ignoring all my other points. Thank you for conceding to my points, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Ludicrous. Childish. And all those ludicrous childish English publishers printing books that say "Krakow is" more than "Cracow is". We need to use Wikipedia as a bastion to fight against this growing internationalism and multiculturalism in English books and turn back the clock to proper English names for foreign cities. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  "Its standard English name" according to whom? You? Because the official city website uses Krakow, not Cracow, and as noted in , already ten years ago NYT, Guardian,  BBC, CNN, Fox News and Yahoo were leaning towards K over C by ratio of 60-90% depending on the platform. National Geographic, Lonely Plant, Encyclopedia Britanica - ditto. Need we go on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So now a Polish city gets to decree English usage? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony aside,  are you a native English speaker? Because as a native English speaker I also learned "Cracow" "Bombay" "Minorca" "Calcutta" when young, and yet because I have kept reading English sources it now looks "ludicrous" to see those names. I cannot understand how anyone can keep reading newspapers and not have got past this? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

text: And the argument about usage by mainstream English language media - I guess you chose to ignore it because it is inconvenient, yes? It is really hard to discuss things with people who have such selective vision :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In ictu oculi, once again "even for the modern city, Cracow is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third. And many works that use Kraków for the modern city still prefer Cracow for this 19th-century political entity. " Genealogizer (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm innocent until proven guilty. Stop trying to link me to random discontinued user accounts because you don't like my views. If you wish to continue this discussion of my user account, this is not the appropriate place for it. Do it either on my talk page or the investigation page. Genealogizer (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of being guilty, you are guilty of WP:CANVASSING editors - you notified only people who strongly agreed with you: , . At the very least you should know this is bad practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm innocent until proven guilty. <-- that's a ... very interesting defense you got there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the thing is, I won't be proven guilty because I'm not guilty. As much as you would like me to be a sock puppet so that you can get rid of me, unfortunately for you, I'm not. Genealogizer (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, gee, it seems Genealogizer have been judged guilty and blocked. I think we should start a new RM, particularly given the canvassing that has been ongoing, as noted by me above and by the closing admin at the SPI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. Well the result wasn't a surprise. However in terms of relisting, the problem of canvassing will still linger. I would leave it a couple of weeks and aim to demonstrate in the proposal whether modern WP:RS sources since 2010 are WP:CONSISTENT, i.e. they don't start speaking about the Free City or Duchy as "Cracow" and suddenly become Krakow. Incidentally, did anyone notice that DK guidebook on Amazon see how DK changed from 2007 to 2015. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Based on the above evidence it seems the best way forward is to move the article back as it was an organized canvassing campaign by banned sock-puppeteer that led to the change. If you look at the vote and discussion they were throw away accounts involved as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure anyone can "just move the article back" other than via WP:MOVEREVIEW or a new RM. The classic example (to me at least) on en.wp of the "English names" thing is a Serbian tennis player who was WP:RMed to an English name without ć at an RM attended by only "English name" activists, and she's still there, uniquely among 1000s of East Europe bios 7 years later as a special case. Another "English name" case Talk:Minorca/Menorca was recently RMed, in a move I proposed I should admit, and then reopened, so WP:MOVEREVIEW works both ways in regard to this kind of titling. There are possibly others but I can't think of them at the moment. If you scroll down the list of English exonyms in most cases en.wp is in line with 2017 guidebooks you would find on Amazon.com and with 2017 newspapers like The Guardian and NY Times. the above sock made edits down the list that illustrate the thinking. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Cracow