Talk:Duchy of Oświęcim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Duchy of Oświęcim is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Czech Republic. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] Name

I believe that per our policies (WP:NCGN and Gdansk vote) Oświęcim is correct as it has no shared German history till times of partitions of Poland. Hence we should use Polish, not German name, for what was through its history a Polish, not German, principality.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you offended because the ENGLISH name happens to have the same spelling as the German name? Ridiculous really, it's stunts like this that make me hate editing. Thank you for doing your bit as usual. Charles 02:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Note, if necessary, I will gladly present past incidents which fully justify the above comment. Charles 02:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No thanks to you for assuming bad faith and replying with personal attacks instead of presenting evidence to support your argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. After believing and assuming good faith for so long, time after time it's a huge disappointment. Charles 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Piotr has not supported his argument at all. A "belief" which is clearly opposed by scholarly usage is not good enough for Wikipedia. Charles 03:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Our policies make a pretty good belief. Unlike a Google test.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
What are our policies, Piotrus? How about WP:UE? English usage is at the very least Duchy of Oswiecim, not Duchy of Oświęcim. In scholarly literature it seems to be Duchy of Auschwitz, a spelling adopted into English as the English name. Charles 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Reversion

I have reverted the article to readd "Duchy of Oswiecim" as an English name, as demonstrated by use in numerous English sources. It has not been demonstrated that Oswiecim is a misspelling in English (whether it is in Polish is irrelevant to the English usage). Long-standing English practice shows that native forms can evolve into English forms without diacritics and these are considered correct in English. Charles 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A name without diacritics is not 'another' name, it's just a misspelled name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In Polish, perhaps, but not always so in English. Please provide evidence that this is a misspelling in English. Charles 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note the following edit summaries: [19], [20]. Provide a reason for them, otherwise they are baseless. Sources support the use of Oswiecim in the English language. Again, whether this is a misspelling in Polish or not is irrelevant to English usage. Charles 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See:

  1. rejected proposal to limit the use of diacritics on en Wikipedia;
  2. beating a dead horse;

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

1) I am not for mandating the removal of diacritics but where forms exist in English without them (especially if prevalent), they ought to be presented. Just because a proposal has been rejected, it does not mean that the elements within it that might have been banned have been cemented as mandatory. 2) That is a matter of your opinion and seemingly a way to lock an article in to the version which best suits your views. Your "argument" isn't an argument at all. In fact, it says absolutely nothing. Charles 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Oswiecim an accepted English form for Auschwitz/Oświęcim?

Oswiecim is present in a large number of English sources discussing the various incarnations of Oświęcim/Auschwitz. Are Polish spelling conventions applied to the English language or is Oswiecim as much an English form as any other English language place name for a "non-English" location? The issue discussed here (there are others, above) applied to including Oswiecim as an English form. Charles 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

With zero hits, "Duchy of Oświęcim" is even unverifiable original research. "Oswiecim" is incorrect in Polish but why should it be in English or since when are the letters ś and ę part of the English alphabet? But that's not the only time where names are simply coined - see for example Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna‎ or Battle of Poniec. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sciurinæ, your assumption is false due to Google's faulty optical character recognition algorithm. Please take time to read a detailed analysis of Google Books' results provided for your convenience by User:Knepflerle in Section Survey right above. Not all English books listed in hits [21] feature limited preview, but among those that do, about half spell Oświęcim with Polish diacritics. The best examples are listed in my rationale for the Oppose vote. --Poeticbent talk 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my first sentence is indeed faulty (which doesn't change the truth value of the others, though), Poeticbent. I apologise. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Elimination of diacritics from the article title has the advantage of making the URL work with older equipment and software. 70.51.9.71 (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The important thing is that it would reflect English usage. Charles 14:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The important thing should be accessibility. 7-bit ASCII should be preferred for all article titles, because it increases accessibility. However, that is not policy, so we use English usage, which instead should be a header on every article at the top. In any case, anything with diacritics will appear in some English language publications, if it ever appears at all in English, without diacritics. Weighing the diacritic and non-diacritic usages seems to be difficult, from the discussion here. (aside from claims that correct Polish must be correct English renderings, even though correct English renderings aren't always correct, depending on where you live) 70.51.11.191 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am prepared to accept it as an English version in use. Those English-language books where it is so, convinced me enough. Henq (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason we have {{R from title without diacritics}}. Titles without diacritics are misspellings, common they may be, but that doesn't make them correct.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, titles without diacritics are not always mispellings. In Polish, maybe, but this is not Polish Wikipedia. {{R from title without diacritics}} exists for cases where a term with diacritics is predominate usage, but has forms which do not use diacritics or general misspellings. English usage is for Oswiecim, not Oświęcim, however, and therefore it is not a misspelling in English regardless of its status in Polish. Charles 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That has not been demonstrated. Oswiecim is an English usage. Oświęcim is another one, however. Look at the (otherwise useless) Google Books results, and that is what we see. And prevalence of one has not been demonstrated. The paucity of evidence doesn't prove any stronger statements on English usage. Knepflerle (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps it might be helpful to to ascertain how many Dukes and Duchesses held the title, Duke or Duchess of Auschwitz vs. Duke or Duchess of Oswiecim (with or without diacritics), in English sources. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Closing as an outright fail for this move. Consensus to default. --Maxim(talk) 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)