Talk:Greater Poland Uprising

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move This note has been added since this move request was never closed. Septentrionalis 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on proposed move

WP:UE is binding and the region of Polish Wielkopolska is called Greater Poland in English

• Nominate and support. Halibutt 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support "Greater Poland Uprising" per nomination. AjaxSmack 18:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Categorically oppose "Greater Poland Uprising": Barring, perhaps, rare exceptions (as a concession to popular inertia), a personal or geographic name should not be "translated" but should be left in the authentic spelling used by the people with whom it originates. If Belarus can remain "Belarus" and not be "translated" to "White Rus," I see no reason to "translate" Wielkopolska to "Greater Poland." Readers unfamiliar with a name's authentic spelling will be redirected from whatever version they are familiar with. logologist|Talk 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Languages change and develop like everything else. It's true that it was common to make English or Polish names for everything, but it's not the case anymore. So when a name is so well established like Warsaw in English, then it's obvious that it should be Warsaw Uprising, but I seriously doubt that most of educated Brits, Americans etc learn about Polish provinces at all. So it's not a well established name, it's just one of three names, and probably none is widely known. There are names like "Wielkopolskie" in Britannica and "Great Poland", no "Greater Poland". Why should we ever go there? Also, we have in Polish Jerzy Waszyngton but George Bush, as in English there is Thaddeus Kosciusko but Andrzej Wajda (not Andrew Vayda). We have Londyn but London Bridge, and London Eye. There is a 19th century British novel "Thaddeus of Warsaw". It was popular enough to make the inhabitants of one of the Warsaws in the US to name their town after it. There are names in the book like Villanow or Mariemont. Does it mean we should change the names now, because in 19th century many people read the book?--SylwiaS | talk 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proper names should not be "translated" but should be left in their original form, with redirects provided as needed. An encyclopedia should inform and educate, not talk down to readers. KonradWallenrod 05:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all the above opposition arguments. Anatopism 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose We shouldn't translate everything(Charles Wojtyla anyone ?) --Molobo 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

As per what Logologist wrote above: I don't really get his arguments. English language, just like any other language in the world, has got its own set of toponyms. If there is a widely-accepted English name for the region, then why exactly should we use the name that is not used by anyone in English? Warsaw is not called Warszawa in English and we don't plan to move Warsaw Uprising to Warszawa Uprising, are we. Similarly, the region of Greater Poland is rarely referred to as Wielkopolska in English and we'll have to live with that. Using Polish for personal names or toponyms without a widely-accepted English name is ok with me, but not in the case of places that do have their English names. This is an English language wiki after all. Halibutt 12:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, Logologist and I struggled with this a little while ago (see our discussion).

Wielkopolska is used in the English literature, but it is not the most common version. The situation is complicated by the fact that there are two corresponding English toponyms: Great Poland and Greater Poland.

Also, Google books returns one hit for "Wielkopolska uprising", and none for the other two variations.

Although there exist English language toponyms for many places on this planet, it is now common to use the original language except when the English version is favored overwhelmingly. This is why my English language map of Poland shows every city name (with the exception of Warsaw) in Polish (even Kraków, for which there exists the toponym Cracow). Since Warsaw is the sole exception, no one is suggesting we rename Warsaw Uprising to Warszawa Uprising. However, it's perfectly ok to say Free City of Kraków. In light of this convention, and the lack of a single common English version to trump the Polish version, I think using Wielkopolska is appropriate. Appleseed (Talk) 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is appropriate. However, I'd oppose promoting the name at all cost by naming articles that way. A simple redirect could suffice IMO. Halibutt 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Now then, I took a look at your discussion and I'm sorry I didn't know of it earlier. For sure both of you have a point in that some of the modern media (especially the press) tend to use local names for the sake of clarity or brevity, or for whatever reason. Same thing happens in Polish language where the youngsters (and, sadly, the journalists) do not even understand the Polish names for, say, Akwizgran, Getynga, Chociebuż and such, and they use the original names instead. However, at least in Polish this notion is still rather informal, with the dictionaries pointing to the proper names rather than their German, English or other spellings. It is now acceptable to call Stanisławów "Iwanofrankowsk", though the dictionaries would mention the earlier name as Polish. Of course, this could be blamed on inertia of the world, as Logologist put it, but that's how it is.

I guess the same applies to English language, and especially its international version we use here. As a modern lingua franca, English has to adopt all the words people import from their own languages and use them in their own English. Hence the problem with "Wielkopolska" an educated Brit would most probably never use. It might indeed be used in the media or over the web, though I bet in everyday speech such a term would simply confuse a native English speaker with no knowledge on Polish language. On the other hand it's nothing more than my assumption and I'm by no means a native speaker of Shakespeare's language. Anyone? Halibutt 16:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally against the move, but as the closing admin, I don't want to have the vote that decides between "move" and "no consensus", so I'll abstain. —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The vote has been extended until 12 March 2006. —Nightstallion (?) 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening?

Mh, actually, it seems this possibly should have gone on a few more days. Would anyone object to opening the debate for, say, three more days, i.e. until 11 March? I've been approached by Appleseed about this, and looking at the dates of the earliest comments here, I suspect it may have been filed under the wrong date at WP:RM. —Nightstallion (?) 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. logologist|Talk 06:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved all per consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Wielkopolska Uprising → Greater Poland Uprising — Use the more common English toponym Appleseed (Talk) 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also included:

• Wielkopolska Uprising (1794) → Greater Poland Uprising (1794)
• Wielkopolska Uprising (1806) → Greater Poland Uprising (1806)
• Wielkopolska Uprising (1846) → Greater Poland Uprising (1846)
• Wielkopolska Uprising (1848) → Greater Poland Uprising (1848)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is policy, and wise policy, to use English words. We are not here to hold our readers' noses, and ladle knowledge down their throats; we are here to communicate with them, in English; readers of Polish are using the Polish wikipedia. I would strongly support; but I suspect that the English here is Great Poland. Septentrionalis 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And, analogously, "Małopolska" is "Small Poland." logologist|Talk 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't trust analogy: Lesser Poland. Septentrionalis 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. One doesn't "translate" "Pan Kowalski" to "Mr. Smith." Why "translate" "Wielkopolska" to "Greater (Great?) Poland"? logologist|Talk 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Because English does.Septentrionalis 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Why "translate" Great Britain to Wielka Brytania ? - Evv 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should resume "translating" "Belarus" as "White Russia"? logologist|Talk 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because the idea is not "translating" names, but merely reflecting common English usage. - Evv 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom in general, although in particular in my understanding the more common term is Great Poland, as Septentrionalis mentioned above. - Evv 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support usage of Great Poland or Greater Poland. Olessi 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Slightly off-topic comment: I hadn't noticed before the articles on Greater and Lesser Poland. Those names are widely used, but as far as I know "Great" and "Little" are the more common ones (and Britannica's choice, often mentioning Wielkopolska and Malopolska in parentheses :-). - Evv 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Google Books inquiry: "Greater Poland" (261); "Great Poland" (257). Olessi 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When I made the proposal to move, I was under the impression that "Greater Poland" is more common than "Great Poland", but perhaps this requires a closer look. Google Books is a good start. Thanks, Olessi. Appleseed (Talk) 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The first result for "Greater Poland" is actually

"Then came the World War, and with it a miracle. Poland's prospects were not bright. If Russia won, the Poles could only look forward to a greater Poland ..."

This is not the province; and about the third of the results seem to be similar uses (like Greater Bulgaria). All of the Great Poland results seem to mean the province. Septentrionalis 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this helps: Google Print for "Greater Poland" Wielkopolska (24 books) & "Great Poland" Wielkopolska (60 books). - Evv 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Replacement of "Wielkopolska" with either "Great Poland" or "Greater Poland" will create ambiguity in the context of the Uprisings ("Great Poland Uprising"), as the naive reader may assume that the adjective "Great" (or "Greater") refers to "Uprising," rather than to "Poland." Such ambiguity does not arise when using the original Polish term, Wielkopolska. logologist|Talk 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If this were an actual problem, we could use "Great Poland uprising". Does anyonre else think it is? Septentrionalis 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I can see the possibility of confusion Logologist mentions (that is, before reading the article's first paragraph). But I find Wielkopolska even more confusing for anyone not familiar with Slavic words :-) I knew of Velká Morava, Velikiy Novgorod & Великая Отечественная Война, and yet didn't made the connection with the "Great (Greater) Poland" I'm familiar with.

Anyway, for readers familiar with Slavic terms, any such confusion would be put aside by following using "Great/er Poland (Wielkopolska)" in the article's body. - Evv 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Great Poland," and "Little Poland" — as in "Little Italy"? logologist|Talk 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, as in Little Russia, Little Armenia and similar to Asia Minor. - Evv 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.