Talk:Kraków

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kraków was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 17, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

	Poland Portal Kraków 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!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Kraków:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit the article on Kraków/Cracow There are still minor problems with grammar and style. The article might benefit from copyediting by the League of Copyeditors. Y Done See comments and questions in Talk, below. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Polish pronuncation is given in IPA and English – in Merriam-Webster transcription. Converting M-W to IPA would be good for the sake of consistency. BTW, in Polish pronuncation, shouldn't the final w be unvoiced (['krakuf])? Citation needed Motto It turned out it was a motto of a different city. Y Done Factual errors Late 18th – end of 19th century. Kraków became part of Galicia during the Third Partition, after Kościuszko Uprising. Y Done It became part of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1809 when part of Galicia was annexed due to the Treaty of Schönbrunn. Y Done Expand Etymology. Add info that Kraków is a possessive form. History Early Kraków. Kraków as part of the Great Moravian Empire and Kingdom of Bohemia before it was conquered by Mieszko I. How Kraków became a bishopric see. Saint Stanislaus might deserve a mention. How Kraków became a capital city after Bretislaus's invasion. 17th-18th centuries. 200 years of history are missing. Late 18th – end of 19th century. The riots of 1848 and the great fire of 1850 might deserve a mention. Krakau, Austria. The long time until 1918, in which the town was part of Austria, requires better coverage with neutral wording (Cracow or Krakau, not Kraków) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 20th century to the present. Strikes and socialist movements of the interbellum might deserve a mention. No history after the construction of the steel mill in 1949. Geography and climate. Add info about environment pollution. Districts. Beside the info about internal administrative division, the article should also describe Kraków's place within the administrative division of the entire country, viz. that it is the seat of not only the Lesser Poland Voivodship, but also of two counties (powiat grodzki Kraków and powiat krakowski). The concept of powiat grodzki should be briefly explained. May be powiat grodzki should be explained somewhere, but the article about Krakow is not the right place. --Jotel (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Landmarks. Some info could be moved from the Districts section. Economy. IT services offshoring is the only branch of economy really described. Industry (Huta im. Sendzimira, Elektrociepłownia Kraków, Philip Morris, etc.), agriculture, commerce, tourist industry and other should also be mentioned. Parks. A little more about Błonia, a unique stretch of meadows wedged into the city center, could be added. Religion. Entire section missing. As a bishopric for over 1000 years, a place connected with the lives of many saints, as well as of Pope John Paul II, a site of important shrines including Divine Mercy at Łagiewniki and Holy Cross at Mogiła, Kraków is an important Catholic center. It also attracts many Jewish pilgrims as a formerly important site of Jewish scholarhip. Please use caution in expanding this article too much, rather than adding sub-articles and linking them from this article. Please consult WP:LENGTH for further guidelines. Thank you, Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added to Talk:Kraków by User:Kpalion (talk) as of 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC).
Priority 1 (top)

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 03:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Proofread by Finetooth (talk) – 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Vistulans 2 Old talk 3 Cleanup 4 Spam 5 Spelling / misspelling 6 More on the Kraków theme... 7 City government 8 Protection from IPs 9 Modern stylings 10 Krakow is in Germany 11 -ow, -owe, -gov, -gow, gowe endings 12 Top of Page 13 problem 14 Goal: GA 15 History: dates in (sub)section titles 16 Economy 17 Government 18 Template:Kraków 19 History section FAR too long 20 Metropolitan area: population 21 cracowonline 22 Konev and saving Kraków in 1945 23 Wilno but not Krakau 24 Demographics 25 References (surplus of) 26 Symbols of Kraków 27 Puzzled (references) 28 Old English 29 Minorities (and basic arithmetic) 30 4th century ?? 31 Sarcophagus 32 Economy: property prices 33 Old Synagogue 34 Motto 35 Part of Austria for many decades, as Krakau, which must not be denied 36 Stop the gratuitous mentioning of "Kraków" 37 Imperial 38 Districts 39 Rewrite? 40 GA Review 40.1 Current status 40.2 arbitrary break and since I committed to answer 40.3 GA failed 41 Infobox messed up 42 Reversion 43 References: quality 44 Centre of excellence 45 The heat is on 46 English name(s) 47 "leading citizens of Cracow were mostly Germans" 48 Sports 49 Statistics 50 Again (and again) 51 GA Review 2 51.1 Failure 52 Copyedit 53 Whatever spelling is chosen, please be consistent 54 "Advancing industrialization" 55 Why are the salt mines referred to as "royal"? 56 Moved second info box to fix edit bunching 57 City names box 58 No need for a {{cn}} tag 59 Table in "Demographics" section has a problem.

[edit] Vistulans

"Before the Polish state existed, Kraków was the capital of the tribe of Vistulans"

that's not true - there is no signle evidence that Cracow was Vistulan's capital. We know about Vistulans that they existed, we dont know what was their central city - we dont even know if Cracow was on Vistulans terrain (Vistula is long river). We should add word "maybe" to this text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.30.36 (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Old talk

Is there any reason to include a mention of the Balthasar Behem Codex here? It has a one sentence mention that says that it 'was recorded'. MichaelTinkler

---

Krakow article about Casimir III the Great is connected to Casimir II instead. Casimir II died 1194, Casimir III died 1370. There are several other places where Cas II and III are mixed up. user:H.J.

still, an impressive piece of work and well formatted

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this city called Cracow in English?Halibutt 13:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've also thought this way but see: Talk:Cracow. And as a matter of fact, Google search for Kraków/Krakow (English only) returns about 1,010,000 hits, while Cracow - only about 162,000. Kpalion 18:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was decided there to use Krakow, which is used about 8 times as often as Kraków in English (950,000 to 130,000 with an English language restriction on Google, more in favor if you confine it to English top-level domains). Looks as though it was discussed there, then Wik moved it to Kraków a month later, even though that's not the usual English usage. It used to be Crakow but that's fallen out of use, now getting only 3,220 estimated Google hits. It's unlikely that Kraków will replace Krakow in English text, because ó isn't on English keyboards. Jamesday 06:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why is the German town Hannover listed under Hanover then in English Wikipedia? Ah, I guess it must be because English keyboards do only have one n. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But if we write Krakow instead of Cracow then why not use the correct Polish spelling? Nobody forces English speakers to write Kraków but at least they will know that this is the correct way to write it. --Kpalion 08:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so don't force anybody to write Hannover and wear down the lonesome n key, and also let them enjoy ignorance is bliss in selected cases. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not able to find any reference regarding English transcription. I've searched interwiki and I found that in spanish it is Hanóver, with one n too. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here [1] Hanover is also used. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I've culled the following external links from the article. They have no place in it, but I don't have the heart to delete them entirely.

The most important schools of higher education are:

• Jagiellonian University [2]
• Akademia Ekonomiczna
• AGH University of Science and Technology (Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza)
• Akademia Muzyczna
• Akademia Rolniczna
• Akademia Sztuk Pięknych
• Panstwowa Wyższa Szkoła Teatralna
• Politechnika Krakowska
• Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna
• Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania i Bankowości

The most important and popular schools of secondary education are :

• V Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Augusta Witkowskiego
• I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Nowodworskiego

---

Perhaps the coplleges should not be there, but the Universities? Why not? Halibutt 11:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I added a {{cleanup}} tag to this article. So far it is more a repository of ASCII links than a wiki article. I believe most of the links should be either erased or simply moved to separate articles like Culture of Kraków, Education in Kraków and so on. Any volunteers? Any ideas? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

3/4 of the last 50 edits [3] are related to inserting and removing the www.cracowonline.com link. There are some ways to solve that problem without protecting the page, see: Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming (“If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, contact a developer: they can put in a site-wide text filter.”). Rafał Pocztarski 10:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added the request for a filer on meta.wiki. --Gene s 11:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling / misspelling

A Google search for "Krakow", "Cracow", etc + "Poland" -"Wikipedia" and restricted to English language sites, results in:

Krakow   1 120 000    
Cracow     257 000    
Kraków     190 000    
Krakau      26 000    
Kracow       7 870    
Crakow       6 300    
Cracov       4 300    
Krakov       3 800    
Crackow      1 170    
Krackow        705    
Krokow         574    
Krakoff        529    
Krakaw         302    
Krokov         135    
Kraców         131    
Crakov          88    
Cracaw          75    
Craców          63    
Krakóv          63    
Kracov          53    
Krackov         30    
Krakuv          16    

And now there's a question to native English speakers: which of the above are correct English spellings and which are mere misspellings? My own guess is that the correct, traditional English name of the city is Cracow which is, however, gradually falling out of use (I don't know why) in favor of the Polish name Kraków which English speaker usually misspell as Krakow. But I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this. – Kpalion (talk) 16:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only spelling I've ever seen in English is Cracow. I've seen no evidence that it's changing to Kraków (which includes accents unknown to English). Why then is the article headed Kraków? It seems that either Wikipedia, many involved in Wikipedia or a noisy few Wikipedians have decided that it is somehow rude to use English words for foreign cities when speaking English. Do Poles use London or Londyn when speaking Polish? They use Londyn. This does not offend me so why are they offended by Cracow? Avalon 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to countless other articles, I guess nobody is really passionate about whichever name we chose for this article. The rationale for chosing Kraków instead of Krakow was that this way we could have two squirrels in one hand. And the name apparently stuck since it's correct for the Poles and - to be frank - the Brits or Americans do not notice the diacrite anyway... Halibutt 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As a Brit, can I just say that I do notice diacritics? (But that's just me. I think you're right, Halibutt: most Brits either don't notice them or view them as quaint decoration.) I have noticed that "Cracow" is not often used in present-day British writing - it actually feels a bit antiquated or affected. It's almost always "Krakow" now, and hardly ever "Kraków" (which feels slightly affected). But personally I always try to use the diacritic if I can discover where it is on the keyboard. --A bit iffy 01:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we change Warsaw to Warszawa, or are we lacking enough google hits to do so? Dr. Dan 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I don't really get what's your point here. As has been proven above, the current title is quite good in that it's acceptable to both Poles and Brits. On the other hand you might want to propose to move the article (use Talk:Warsaw for that), though I wouldn't expect much support for that if I were you. //Halibutt 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is quite simple. The name for Krakow in English has always be Cracow, and has been so, for ages. Long before Wikipedia, the internet, and "google hits" were available. In the meantime, "somebody" didn't like the looks of Cracow or the sound of it, and decided to change it. Maybe the "Cow", was unacceptable. Maybe the "Crac". As for the line the current title is quite good in that it's acceptable to both Poles and Brits, give me a break. Its laughable. When this "group" of Poles and Brits decide to change Cow to Krowa, and there's a "vote" on it, I will abstain. Dr. Dan 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Names change, Dan. Live with it. For centuries the English name for what is not Vilnius was Vilna. And what? People use Vilnius nowadays. Same with lots of other place names in the world. I must say I like Cracow more as it's kind of old-stylish. However, the above discussion is quite instructive on the matter, isn't it. //Halibutt 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Dr. Dan's sentiments. Sadly though, I think Cracow has already lost out in a period predating the Polish wikipedia cabal. Krakow has largely replaced it; moreover, if you add the cabal's cherished slippery slope fallacy, this means the wiki title will stay at Kraków. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop accusing others of being a member of a cabal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasting your time, a Pheadair. Although you might like to suppress everyone who disagrees or opposes you, wikipedia is fortunately a western based organization which you have no control of. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Western society has also many psychiatrists who often help people with symptoms of paranoia - something you should keep in mind.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's reason enough to come visit us sometime then. ;) I should warn you all, however, that they can be expensive. Maybe we can get you an EU subsidy? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, Gents, Break it up a little, as one who can professionally comment on Psychiatry (without revealing unecessary personal details), let's not go there. A day or two off of this subject would probably be a good idea. Dr. Dan 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can Live with it (was not planning to harm myself over it), as for the "old stylishness" (kind of like Pan and Pani, maybe), my perusal of recent English encyclopedias shows Cracow still in use, and Rome and Moscow, and Munich as well. No Rzym, Moskwa, or Monachium. On the other hand Halibutt, I agree that Names do Change, and we will have to keep that in mind for people and places, in the future as well. Dr. Dan 16:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the choice of words, I meant no harm (not a native speaker, remember?). As to the topic - take note that it was actually yours truly to first ask why is this page not at Cracow - in March 2004. That is indeed long before certain users registered here and invented some Polish conspiracy.

As to your arguments: indeed, the name for that city has always been Cracow, much like the name for Warsaw is Warsaw, the name for Wilno used to be Vilna and the name for Poznań used to be Posna. I always liked the names as they were, but it seems people are right that Cracow, Vilna and Posna are coming out of use. While a simple google test is not a strong argument when it comes to propriety of any terms, it definitely helps measure the actual usage - and that's what is crucial here I believe. As all languages evolve, English is no exception... //Halibutt 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The English books I have read use regularly "Cracow". Krakow is like that idea of erasing just diactiticals. Cracow settles well in Western renditions, c in use, compare name in French, Latin and so forth... Shilkanni 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, drogi, I know you meant no harm, and you probably have noticed that from time to time, I use too much sarcasm and humor in some of my edits and responses. This is because there is often too much "Pomp and Circumstance" (not from you), that needs to be broken up with a laugh or some irony. I think it may be a "knee jerk" reaction on my part, sort of a resistance to "Pompous Blowhards" out of academia, that I have opposed, all of my adult life.

Yes, I noticed your March 2004 edit. I am not "in sync", with the explanation, nor the reason for the change. This is not some reactionary desire to stop the inevitable evolution of the English language, on my part, or a bias to to prevent any Polish incursions into the English language. (Perhaps you've read my copy edit to the recipe for Zupa ogórkowa). In all seriousness, although I'm not interested in changing Warsaw to Warszawa, this is exactly what's going on here. I think Kraków "slipped" through (diacritics and all), and needs a serious re- analysis. Like you, I mean no harm. Dr. Dan 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Never heard of Posna. Never.

Dan, perhaps I jumped up the gun. Lately there's plenty of people suggesting I'm part of some conspiracy just because I'm a Pole - and that my aim is to turn the English wiki into a Polish one just because I am who I am. While this is a huge update from the times when it was common in wikipedia to say I'm a moron just because I'm Polish, it's by no means more pleasant - and perhaps I simply overreacted.

In any case, if you really want to start some voting here - go on. You'll even probably have my vote for Cracow, though - as I said - I'm by no means convinced and I believe this is far from being an obvious choice.

As to Posna - one of my English teachers was 90 :) //Halibutt 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's officially "Kraków" / "Krakow" now. Link (in Polish). A 7 11:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Krakow is now to be the official spelling, which is only right considering there was never a king Crak, (which would have been pronounced tsrak and probably written down as tsrack in english. We shouldn't forget the /oof/ pronunciation on the final vowel either. I live in K. and absurd as they may seem these things are of importance to us here. --Garissonangel 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cracow is still quite a common spelling in English (it is far from dead as some people above think) and no native English speaker would dream of pronouncing it as tsratsof. In any case the Polish authorities have no authority over the English language. --86.133.247.156 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the spelling "Kraków" has the disadvantage that it has no widely accepted derivative. The web contains 22,000 hits for "Cracovian" (the traditional term), 984 for "Krakowian", and 806 for "Krakovian". (These results include only pages that mention Poland and don't mention Wikipedia.) The fact that "Cracovian" is such a clear winner is a strong point in favour of "Cracow". -86.140.131.100 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Krakow has been the correct English spelling for some 50 years. See Encyclopedia Britannica, Webster's, etc. Also, it's close to the original name of the city in Polish, i.e. Kraków. Also, it's widely in use. Whereas Cracow is dated spelling derived from the French name - Cracovie. By the way, Cracow is now a name of a town in Australia.

Cracow is now a name of a town in Australia. So what? There is a dozen (or so) Warsaws in the USA....--Jotel 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the Kraków theme...

...why isn't the IPA rendering of the word shown? It's used pretty much everywhere on wikipedia for such articles.--Deridolus 07:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is now :) //Halibutt

[edit] City government

There should be a section on city government, preferably merged with the Politics section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection from IPs

As I look at the edit history, 9 out of 10 IP edits seem to be linkspam, and this really messses up the page edits history. Would anybody object if I protected this page from ip edits?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern stylings

All of the pictures in this article appear to be of religious and/or classical buildings. Are there any images available of the more modern face of Kraków? I know Kraków is a modern European city, but this isn't shown very well in the article. Liam Plested 19:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Check commons:Kraków.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, modern Kraków is rather unremarkable. Don't misunderstand me, I'm seriously in love with the city of Kraków. But it's not like Warsaw. Since the capital moved from Kraków to Warsaw, Warsaw became a center of business as well as a center of government. Warsaw has a steel and glass downtown, apart from the medieval city center. When Kraków ceased to be the center of government, it remained largely a university town. The medieval city center really is the heart of Kraków to this day. It seems to me that "modern" Kraków is largely communist era apartment blocks. 140.147.160.78 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

[edit] Krakow is in Germany

Yes, it is - no need to tune into CNN for reports on unexpected Bundeswehr advances to the East, though. As discussed elsewhere regarding currency issued in the city we talk about here, it was found out that bills of 25 Pfennig and 50 Pfennig had been issued from 1916 to 1922 in Krakow - which refers to the town Krakow am See in Northern Germany. In addition, Northern Germany has two more places called Krakow (and numerous places ending in -ow due to Slavic heritage there, see Wends). The town which was part of Austria until the end of WWI before becoming a part of Poland, is called Krakau in German (there's also a Cracau near Magdeburg).

It seems some embrace this as another reason to insist on the funny thing on the ó, while I suggest to welcome the traditional and unique Cracow instead, and thus spare the city the dubios honor of getting frequently spelled abroad like German villages. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was part of Austria-Hungary, but it is too close view to the short last history, you should know that Poland existed a long time before May 3, 1791 when it was partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary. See Poland for reference. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, another theory confirming pure Prussian origin of Kraków. --Lysy^talk 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell us here, Lysy? Dr. Dan 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this note. Please give me some light into this. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Lysy, do you know something we should know? Please elaborate on confirming pure Prussian origin.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I know Kraków was built in 999 by Boleslaw I of Poland. I still don't understand to the point. Kraków is declined Krakus the founder of Kraków. And cities in Germany with the same names, it is simple - Krakus was a celtic God and Celts were spreaded all over the Europe, nothing special. It's not far to seek that those cities in Germany are of celtic or slavonic origin rather then vice versa. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] -ow, -owe, -gov, -gow, gowe endings

Just a short note on the -ow or -owe endings on a number of places. The w =uu = double u was for many centuries used in German languages. Thus many places in Switzerland, Holland etc show up on older maps and still as -gowe (instead of High German -gau or -ow or -owe- High German -au or Aue (a meadow, valley, where a town was founded.) It is today often falsely assumed that it is of Slavic origin. But the gowe, gow, gov gouwe (High German: Gau, Latin: Pagus, government territory, administered by gov-ernors) were establised by Charlemagne + 814 and can be traced back to German(ic) language administrations.

Yes, also Glasgow (another one of those 'should be Polish' cities ?) Labbas 12 January 2007

I think it is not a good idea to assume origin of the city by its name. In case of Glasgow it is a transcription of Glas cau (see Glasgow). If we will go more far to the history these languages came from Latin and we can go more far and more far. It is impossible to trivialize origin by this. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Tulkolahten, the Glasgow note was a joke, a sarcasm, because there is this large Polish group at wikipedia, that 'insists, that everything is Polish or at least should be'. It seems, that you have not read too much of those discussions yet. Anyway, thanks for your good input. Labbas 12 January 2007

Nice, but the most hardest thing on foreign language is to find sarcasm or irony. Each nation express this a little bit differently. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Tulkolahten,

An example: :Sure, another theory confirming pure Prussian origin of Kraków. --Lysy^talk 17:58, 12 January 2007.

This previous note by Lysy, is a real good example of sarcasm, irony, a joke. He knows and everyone else knows (or at least should know this much of history), that Krakow (the one in Poland Lysy is referring to) is not of pure Prussian origin. Therefore, when I input the Glasgow reference , I added (another one of those 'should be Polish' cities?)

Perhaps when one learns a different language, it is easy to get confused with what is really meant. That is probably also happening to a number of other wikipedia contributor. This is supposed to be the English language wikipedia and formerly people insisted that none-english speakers can contribute, but do not have the final say in the actual text. A whole group of Polish speakers has taken over and a great many people and places are described in Polish-English instead of factual names,. (Same thing happenes with other language groups as well). When English-speakers objected to this (almost all Polish)-English stuff, esp. SCA - Lysys answered, that this is an international wikipedia and the English speakers are outnumbered.

So the cheer volumne of mirror sites all copying every word, every version, all the nonsence written on wikipedia, is overwhelming the google search results. People , especially students, think, that wikipedia is an authority on facts, that can be trusted, but that is not so. Rather often Wikipedia is a rumor-mill, where false information spreads rapidly. Therefore wiki has these legal disclaimers on the bottom.

I see, that you are actively conversing in several languages. Good for you. Labbas 12 January 2007

To be honest, Lysy's sarcasm is obvious, but not yours - just because if you look into the history you can find interesting tribes and nation moves between 450-900 A.D., so although it is impossible to trivialize origin only by name, it is possible to use it as a guideline (but very deep in the history). You also, maybe soon, realize that even between native speakers written text has sometimes different meaning than talk. If you didn't meet with this phenomenon before be ready because it can be a surprise. I shall agree with your thoughts about groups on wikipedia but each case must be reviewed separately. I prefer original names of places and english as an alternative in the brackets for example, as you can see on the example of Gdansk discussion about names is usually driven into the flame war which is not good. But I must disagree with your criticism of wikipedia, because it is a simple payment for its principles. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top of Page

The way the images and the infobox are, the text does't show up at the top of the page for me. Either your need to move the pictures or something. Kevlar67 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Well, approximately done--it's hard to distribute the pictures to exactly match section borders. Freederick 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problem

there is a mistake in the article - lodz is the second city in poland (this is information from polish and english wiki) and has 776.000 poeple, here is written that cracow has 780.000 so either ths city is bigger than lodz or has less people....

[edit] Goal: GA

This article could become a Good article with a little effort. Interested editors are welcome to contribute and coordinate their actions here, I know User:Poeticbent is working towards that goal, and I will help with history section soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This article can not become a Good article unless the issues with naming and denial of history have been addressed. It is not acceptable that a POV version gets approval, no matter how many attempts are made to push it through. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History: dates in (sub)section titles

Wikipedia is written for an international audience, so "After the partition of Poland" is meaningless for 99% of readers as far as the history period is concerned. Section titles are there to help readers to decide whether to read or skip a section. If one has to read the section to find out the period it covers, the sections might as well be called 'section 1', section 2' etc. If "After the partition of Poland (late 18th to the end of 19th century" is too long (may be it is...), then just leave the first bit out and call it simply "late 18th to the end of 19th century".

Sorry, forgot to sign :-((
Jotel 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I get your point, but the subtitle is way too long as it stands, for a good read. For those who don’t know the history of Poland all that well, the phrase Partition is pretty much meaningless, unless they read more. Therefore, I find the actual dates to be of greater importance here and, as per your suggestion, I am rewriting the subtitle accordingly, into "Late 18th – end of 19th century". By the way, thanks for all your good work Jotel. --Poeticbent talk 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad a peaceful solution has been found :-))
Jotel 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I propose a more specific "1795/1846 - 1918 Austrian Empire" to make clear that the city was not always part of Poland. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

The economy section is long enough as it is (to put it politely...). It certainly does NOT need any more copying from the city's balance sheet. I suggest it's trimmed down: Who cares about 1% from tax on liquor sales permits or 1% in transfers to poorer district?
Now my second point: The last paragraph talks about growth, positive signs, falling unemployment. But all these claims are illustrated by examples which are at least 10 years old. Either this describes a past boom so the text needs rephrasing/deleting, or some up to date facts/figures need be quoted to confirm the glorious situation the economy is in at present.
Jotel 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

These are all valid points. Statistics originated from the article in Polish Wikipedia [4] based in a locally released data to the last percentage point which might be seen as excessive I suppose. However, personally I find it interesting what the revenue is from tax on liquor sales in Kraków and I’d rather use caution when slimming it down, same with the social housing and stuff like that. Meanwhile, the closing paragraph was based in a different source, a book published earlier and therefore it could be spruced up a bit at our discretion. The biggest challenge as always are the sources. --Poeticbent talk 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial stab: done. BTW, shouldn't the bit about IT firms flocking to K. be moved from history (last para, 20th cent.) to economy ? Unless somebody objects strongly, I'll have a go at it.
Jotel 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --Poeticbent talk 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Per my earlier comments, while budget of Kraków does not need explanation detailing in the Kraków article, if we have the info, we should split it to the subarticle, not delete it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

K's budget is in public domain, there is no need to regurgitate it annually into a separate (sub)article. Look at articles on London, Berlin, Prague, Warsaw: the economy sections there do not deal with trivia like EUR6,000,000 liquor sale tax or social housing.
Jotel 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the sources & references for a moment, let's think what there is to say.The economy section should contain something like: K. contributes nn% to Polish GNP; K. is the largest producer of dehydrated water in the EU, tourism is the main source of K's income (some of these suggestion are easier to convert into publishable statements than others :-). If we can't find anything worth shouting about (e.g. because the main economic activity is flipping hamburgers), than we should say nothing or very little. And certainly the section should not be padded with figures about tax collection and repairing potholes.
Jotel 11:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should find a way of combining smaller portions of K’s city budget into one-liners, as the so called “others”? I wonder, what would the smallest percentage point be, as described in detail under such conditions? Roughly 10%, or around 5%? --Poeticbent talk 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The economy section should give info on unemployment, big companies/employees in Kraków and primary type of industries/services in the city. Minor details can and should go into a subarticle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The information in the article should be clarified:

Projected expenditures ... included: 21% in city development costs and 79% in city maintenance costs with 39% toward education and childcare. ... development costs were subdivided in bulk part into 41% toward road building, transport and communication, and 25% to city's infrastructure and environment

Is the 39% toward education a part of the maintenance 79% ? It must be, otherwise the expenditure exceeds 100%... This needs to be reworded to avoid guesswork. Also it would make sense to state directly x% of the budget spent on education, y% on roadbuilding &c, instead of the reader having to work out a percentage of a percentage.--Jotel 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Please take a look. I reworded the maintenance percentage points to clearly indicate what is what. However, the source did not include further specifics. The road building, transport and communication seem to be combined into one part of the city’s budget. --Poeticbent talk 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Done indeed. IMHO the the text makes it clear now what is what. Thanks.--Jotel 06:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government

See Warsaw#Municipal_government for example of what information should be included.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kraków

Just a reminder that this template is not currently included in this article...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. The template contains little information of significance except for a barrage of red links. Subsection “Tourist attractions” listing peripherals (like Sigismund Bell) and oddities (like Smok Wawelski) would indicate, that the template is also terribly out of date. --Poeticbent talk 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - one of the reason for bringing it up is to see how we can improve it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Smok Wawelski is mentioned in the first sentence of Early history, so it's an important part of the heritage, not an oddity...
--Jotel 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section FAR too long

This section refers to the main article (History of Kraków) which is some 1600 words long. And the history section of Kraków is approx. 1200 words long. The 'compression ratio' is seriously wrong here. The section needs heavy pruning.
--Jotel 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest merging the current version with the subarticle and then doing major cuts to the current section here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The 15th – 16th century subsection reads like a visitors' book: X was here, Y was here, Z was here, etc. Only the last paragraph deals with the town history.
--Jotel 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan area: population

The main text says in the 1st para: 1.4 million. The infobox is more modest: 1.2 million. Don't know (or particularly care) which one is correct, but the figures should be identical.
--Jotel 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cracowonline

Wikipedia spam filter blocks the www.cracowonline.com web-site for some reason. I removed it as it does not allow to save the edit. --Irpen 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konev and saving Kraków in 1945

The argument that Germans planned to destroy many of Kraków's monuments and Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev with his suprise attack managed to force them out of the city before they were ready is pretty well known; however it is by no means undisputed by reliable historians. For example, Polish historian, Andrzej Chwalba([5]), writes clearly that Koniew did not save Kraków on purpose.([6]) First, there is no proof that any non-military buildigns were mined; second, Soviet encirclement manevrouver which forced Germans to evacuate the city was not done because Koniew cared about Kraków in particular, but because it was the right military choice (he could avoid costly urban warfare, and done so); third, it was later that Soviet and Polish communist propaganda started claiming that he did it out of his love for Kraków, as one of many examples how Soviets care about the Polish people, their culture, etc.; fourth, Koniew was actually expecting Kraków to be defended, and before German abandoned it, Soviets were intensifing their air and artillery bombardment of Kraków([7]). There is no denying that Koniew's efficient military leadership saved Kraków, but it was only a byproduct of war - just as, let's say, destruction of historical monuments in Dresden or Hiroshima was not the primary goal of the respective bombings. Further, if Germans decided to turn Kraków into a 'Festung Krakau', the city would be in much worse shape - so in the end, the city was plain lucky - that Soviets enveloped it instead of attacking directly, and German high command, instead of giving the order to 'defend the city until last men', gave the order to withdraw. Or, if you dislike lucky - that fortunes of war dictated to both sides that the city was not fighting in. Yes, I see no problem with mentioning that Soviet rapid advance contributed to the city escaping destruction that befall many other cities - but let's not overglorify Koniew, he was just doing his job - and nothing else. PS. See also interesting story, but only as see also in this argument. PS2. In case this is brought up: there were also no alleged negotiations between Soviets and Germans about making Kraków the free city, Polish archbishop suggest it to Hans Frank but was dismissed, end of story.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we were thinking/writing at the same time on the same subject. I noticed this at the text and was prepared to put notice on discussion board about my clarification about this myth.

Well I already put Chwalba's opinion that I found at Alma Mater.

Also information on mass rapes of Polish girls and women by Soviets was missing as well as brutal plunder that even communists installed by Soviets wanted to protest to Stalin himself. I added that information.

--Molobo 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All details belong in the subarticle (History of Kraków). I will move it shortly, there is no need for such details here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok agree with most, moved to subarticle, I only added atrocities as rapes shouldn't be described as 'damage'. --Molobo 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Molobo's stuff does not warrant a response. Pitorus, somehow, I am not surprised knowing your past habits. Every Russia-related articles should get all the Poland-related issues one can paste there. Every PL-related article can get all the issue that present Russians, Soviets and, sometimes Ukrainians, as murderers, rapists and suppressors of Poland. Fair enough. Here, we have a well referenced fact that the Soviet operation saved the city from destruction. No, does not belong here. Article about the city should not include the reasons why the city is still there. Why? Because it owes this to Soviets. On the backburner of course. Is this why Krakow shipped the monument to Konev to Russia recently?

Oh, and cut the "Soviet propaganda" stuff. Gareev is a respected historian and I can find plenty of more refs to this. I am restoring the minimum amount of relevant info and if you want the article about the city to be an FA and suppress the very reason why we have this city at all, anyone would doubt what your interest here is. Comprehensive and encyclopedic coverage or making sure that the articles are POVed "right". --Irpen 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, take it to the subarticle. This article simply has no room for details of Soviet liberation (with or without quotes). I believe that the single short phrase "Nonetheless, due to a rapid advance of the Soviet armies, Kraków escaped planned destruction during the German withdrawal and emerged as one of the few major Polish cities relatively undamaged at the end of the war" is enough to cover the point here; details of Koniew's strategy and its use or misuse by propaganda don't belong here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus I accept the current version of the article. --Molobo 03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Both of you?" I was not talking to Molobo. I was talking to you, Piotrus. Nice selective elimination. Konev's role removed but Molobo's "although atrocities and damage were inflicted by the Soviet garrison itself" left. None of my concerns are addressed in any way but a revert war. You now continue the war with yourself. The section is tagged and the tag is warranted until this is resolved. From past dealings with you, I would not be surprised if you now edit war to remove the tag of course. --Irpen 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen I see no reason for the tag just because article touches on Soviet actions. Unless you give some serious reasons the tag will removed. I can't help to notice you likely see also very little reason for the tag by trying to prevent it from delation with "I would not be surprised if you now edit war to remove" statemants rather then serious argumentation. --Molobo 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the anti-Soviet rant, which is as irrelevant as pro-Soviet glofirication of Konev. There is no need to mention Konev here, as this is just a brief summary with no room for mention of him - just as there is no mention of the commanders during the 1914 siege, commanders of the Kraków Uprising, notable mayors, and such. For the record, I believe that the "although atrocities and damage were inflicted by the Soviet garrison itself" sentence is too detailed for the article and can be moved to the subarticle too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First, please stick to the facts. In this edit you kept Molobo's valuable addition "although atrocities and damage were inflicted by the Soviet garrison itself". Second, I am not talking about "por-Soviet glorification of Konev". I am talking about well-referenced statements that include converation records of "Soviet stavka" that preventing the destruction of the city was made a priority. There is no other way to explain sending the ground troops without air-bombardment and artillery bombardment. If you know a least bit about the WW2, you would know that Soviets had a deadly advantage in artillery that they used to their advantage without hesitation. Leaving the Germans a path to withdraw made no military sense. This attack got in the military tactics text-books on how to act when avoid the damage is the top priority. Finally, I repeat, that I can find as many refs for this as you like. Please stop the revert war, let's agree on the content of this small issue, remove the tag and move on. I am tired of your edit wars. --Irpen 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to name Soviet prop-talk to a different name is not really an argument Irpen. The article has enough information already. I don't think we need to dwell on "saving" the city by Soviet troops who raped Polish women and girls afterwards and provoked even soviet installed communists to protests. As to references we all know Soviet mythology is widespread. I am sure you can find lots of refences. Suffice to say, article contains enough important information-I agree with Piotrus on that--Molobo 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the job of the commander to plan operations in such a way that Allied cities (especially major ones) suffer the minimum damage possible. Thus Konev was just doing his job in not destroying the city. Just like Eisenhower was doing his job by not sending heavy bombers to flatten Paris during the Allied advance across France, for example. Konev was simply a competent commander, not some great humanitarian. Giving excessive praise to Konev for sparing the city, something that he had to do under the circumstances of full and rapid German retreat unless he wanted to be considered a war criminal, and also something that was in the interest of the Red Army (since intact cities are more valuable than destroyed ones), is an interesting piece of mental gymnastics. Many if not most Polish cities were taken by the Soviet army without being significantly damaged by its artillery (Łódź, Katowice and Lublin come to mind), so trying to paint Krakow as a somehow exceptional case in this regard is invalid. Balcer 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, Piotrus. As I expected [8], [9]. --Irpen 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as disappointing as this. Will both of you stop this childish POV-pushing?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, earlier you compared Ghirla to Molobo. I was expecting that you would do the same with me at some point. So, here it came while I never compared you with, say, Nixer. Well, that's just your view on ethics, I guess.

Anyway, behavior of Soviets in Krakow did not stand out much compared to elsewhere in Poland. You want to talk liberation or rape and plunder, you got it all the same as elsewhere. The general history belongs to the general history articles. There are dedicated articles about "treatment of Poland by occupiers" as well and this stuff does not need to be repeated in the articles of each city or village.

Saving of the old Polish capital from destruction is what makes Krakow stand out and differentiates it from elsewhere. What is city-specific belongs to the city article. For the general Soviet brutality, there are enough articles you and your friends wrote already. Repeating this stuff in the articles about each town, village or house in Poland is WP:UNDUE. --Irpen 05:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen but atrocities of Soviet soldiers on citizens of Kraków belong to articles on Kraków. In what form and in what lenght in specific articles of Kraków is open to discussion. However I see no reason to delete them.

"Piotrus, earlier you compared Ghirla to Molobo."

Unlike Ghirla I never called anybody "Bulgarian pest" never said "f*ck* you" to any editor, please don't compare me to such offensive Wikipedian.Thank you.

"There are dedicated articles about "treatment of Poland by occupiers""

They are only articles about Soviet occupation of Poland till 1941 Irpen. And they don't contain information about mass rapes and plunder in 1945 naturally.

--Molobo 11:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's sourced quote "The Germans planned to blow up Krakow, which has many medieval buildings and museums, but they were foiled when the map of mines and explosives placed around the city, was delivered by a couple of Polish citizens to the Russians, who were closing in on the city" sounds like more Soviet anti-Nazi propaganda than anything else (wouldn't be the first or last), taking on verity through endless repetition. A "couple of Polish citizens" going to the Soviets after both the Nazis and Soviets raped their country?
  Minimally, can we at least present this according to earlier sources versus current scholarship? I would suggest to leave Soviet-era Soviet-originated sources out of this as they smack too much of propaganda. PētersV (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC) [Or specifically label as "Soviet accounts..."]

P.S. What I have seen that is plausible is that Soviet intelligence was able to provide Konev with German troop placement and movement allowing for maximum effectiveness in taking the city. Nothing about mines, planted bombs, etc. PētersV (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Irpen's text is sourced to Konev's memoires; primary sources - especially when contradicted by modern scholarly research, as is the case here - are not reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I find Vecrumba's showing up here at once after my edit amusing, but I am used to shadows. As for the sources, you do not get to disregard and disparage the sources for their claiming something you do not like. You either use both Russian and Polish sources or you use none. And additionally, several modern sources (well post-Soviet and some even non-Russian) support the common view on this event. The competing version presented by one Polish author is given with a due weight. He has no more credence than other sources here. --Irpen (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sadly, Piotrus, you do not even read edits that you revert. There are no Konev memoirs in my sources. --Irpen (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, sorry to disappoint you, I have quite an extensive watch list. At any rate, I did find the following interesting tidbit. Perhaps it might provide some additional fodder for further research and to help put the various accounts into proper context. The solution to conflicting sources is not warring or tagging, it's to keep digging until a resolution can be found which accounts for all sources. From a post which appears to be reasonably well informed (pending verification):

Hope this helps "both sides." PētersV (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't believe necessarily that Konev intended to save Kraków (had the Germans mounted an effective resistance I'm sure he would have leveled it), but it would appear fair to say that Konev's quick taking of the city spared it the damage which would otherwise have certainly been inflicted. PētersV (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that while "Germans retreated fast due to almost encirclement and they had no time nor reason to activate explosives", they seemed to have had time and reason to set up "About thousands tons of TNT under every historical building". Now, considering 1 kiloton of TNT per single building, brought there by ca. 30 Tractor unit trucks, about 13 to 16 historical buildings would have equaled the Little Boy bomb of Hiroshima. If Cracow had more than a couple dozen historical buildings, the whole Manhattan Project would have been out-blasted by this "Krakau Projekt". Yet, as in typical "the confident-of-victory villain braggs about his genius plan to the captured hero who then escapes and thwarts the plan" manner, a single "central cable cut by Golos group" stops all of the meticulously planned carnage. Brilliant. Storytelling. Too bad that this otherwise promising script does not make a "blockbuster" movie as not even a single building can get S/FX'd. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Exaggeration is quite evident in this story.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting story. Here's a Polish article that argues that Koniew was pressured by Stalin who was pressured by... Vatican. The truth? Who knows. What's the fact is that a very recent (2004) book on history of Kraków by expert reliable scholar (Andrzej Chwalba) notes that there was neither any German plan to blow up the city, nor did the Koniew did anything out of ordinary with regards to his military activities (i.e. that the city's saving was an accident, or a minor goal at best, later built into a propaganda victory). Hence unless other experts on history of Kraków disagree, or Chwalba is showed to be unreliable (or his work criticized in academic reviews), his argument should carry more weight that indeed popular but usually older and hardly written by experts on Kraków history mentions on the web or even in print (that said, they do constitute a widely reported myth).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin pressured by the Vatican... sounds more like the kind of stuff that's cooked up by conspiracy theorists! —PētersV (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, as was said before, you would be well advised to actually read what other editors write and, also, read edits that you revert. Your actions and comments testify that you don't. --Irpen (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I'm considered to be an über-nationalist in some circles, and as much as skepticism born of experience informs my personal opinions of Soviet and ersatz-Soviet and nouveau-Soviet proclamations, I do believe that all sources should be accounted for in a historical narrative if it can be done in a logical manner--that is, as a single narrative, not a "he said/she said" kind of faceoff.

   Irpen, as I recall, you and Piotrus in particular have been told by the Wiki-powers-that-be to deal with each other constructively. Perhaps you'd rather simply respond to the account I came across rather than berating Piotrus? I'd be interested in your thoughts (not a reactionary lecture). PētersV (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I believe that the section is pretty acceptable now. It mentions the German destruction/Konev's intervention version, and notes that it is questioned by modern research. With inline citations, the reader can follow the footnotes and see that it is Andrzej Chwalba's research who questions it. PS. In any case, this article is not a place for details of a controversial event; I moved the big version (expanded with the Vatican version) to History of Kraków.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilno but not Krakau

A question to Wilno-pushers into the articles related to the Lithuanian amd Vilnius history. Why the article does not call this city Krakau in the 19th century context? --Irpen 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Because unlike Wilno, Kraków didn't have a significant German speaking majority. And I am pretty sure Polish language was the official language of the Free City of Kraków.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, another "solid" "argument". Before 18th century you could hardly found any significant Polish speaking population in these areas. But this not prevent form Wilno-pushers to implement favorite name even in 15, 16 etc centuries to city Vilnius. And yeah, this article should be moved to Cracow, to its proper English name. M.K. 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see the opinion of the Lithiuanion editors on that. ---Irpen 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The usage of Kraków during the period 1846 to 1922 is inconsistent with the practice followed by the Tokyo (Edo until 1868) and Gdansk (Danzig) articles. These examples are specifically mentioned in WP:Naming conflict. Novickas 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to apply the same procedure to Lithuanian city-names ?--Molobo 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can agree on what the nineteenth-century city was actually called in English at the time, and still is most often in retrospect: Cracow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be OR-I believe it would be rather Cracovia. But as Kraków is acccepted name in English language it can stay.--Molobo 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I said English, and nineteenth century; not Latin, or Renaissance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I said Cracovia, frankly this OR. Kraków is accepted name in English language so there is no need for to create theories--Molobo 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The resolution of the Gdansk/Danzig issue involved tremendous amounts of time and energy on the part of many editors - I think that compromise should be respected. Per "was actually called in English at the time" see [10]. Is it worthwhile to recreate that problem? Novickas 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with the Gdańsk resolution that have not been solved, and remain open, also voting was subject to pressure of an admin with certain 'opinions' about Poland. Despite those minor problems,would you like to propose similiar proposal regarding former territories of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ? As to the link there is nothing about usage in english at that time.--Molobo 17:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We had discussed this issue in the past. There are arguments for using Cracow or Krakau in 19th century, yes. There are also many more arguments for using Wilno for pre-1918, and we should not forget about that aspect.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "how many arguments" you can find, or your personal opinion, P.P. This is about consistency in the English Wikipedia, and the ability of a reader to find information. This is not about some nationalistic or chauvinistic mind game. If you do not recognize that the English toponym, Cracow was the predominant English description of the city's name prior to 1975 (including in every Polish tourist pamphlet) then you are falsifying the truth. For me, a simple compromise is to let you use Krakow, but by keeping your edits concerning Vilnius, using the same arguments and logic, we will dump Vilna and Wilno, and have some simple consistency. Dr. Dan 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I;m afraid that Molobo's bold assertions do not match the facts. There are twice as many 19th century Google books with Cracow as Cracovia. What will not be so obvious to editors with a limited command of English is that most of the uses of Cracovia are nineteenth-century reprints of earlier sources, such as the Harleian Miscellany and the Anatomy of Melancholy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Google Book Search Cracow did not exist in the English language before the end of the seventeen hundreds, however, Cracovia did, even if marginally.

• Cracow Poland date:1000-1700 - did not match any documents.[11]
• Cracovia Poland date:1000-1700 - books 3.[12]. Here's an example:

The Present State of Europe: Or, the Historical and Political Monthly Mercury. Page 215: for the Month of July, 1696 This Prince was nam'd John Sobieski, the Third of that Name, King of Poland. He was the Youngeft Son on Sobieski, Palatin of Cracovia...[13]

--Poeticbent talk 04:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't the issue here as to what predominates in the English language from 1000 to 2007? Is it Kraków, Cracovia, or Cracow? Dr. Dan 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that there’s more than just one issue here. According to WP:NCGN: “The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article.” And, why the present title? We already know that. Also, please read about the so called "Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism" here. And perhaps consider the following qote from the same book, written by Jerzy Jedlicki: "no Polish scholar would dare to use the Polonized name for London or New York in a bibliographical note... thus we decided on “Kraków” and not “Cracow”..." --Poeticbent talk 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then someone should tell the Polish Wikipedia; they seem to have no problem using pl:Nowy Jork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, no one has satisfactorily explained why we still use Warsaw instead of Warszawa on English Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to use Polish for one, (Kraków), and the correct "historical English geographical toponym" for the other, (Warsaw). No reason at all. Where is the logic? Where is the consistency? Dr. Dan 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw is an accepted English name just as Kraków is.--Molobo 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Warsaw an "accepted" English name, or the only and correct version of the English language toponym for Poland's capital? Or do you think that Warszawa is an accepted English name just like Kraków? Dr. Dan 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Warszawa is as accepted as Kraków is. Perhaps it will be one day, then we will change it.--Molobo 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Americans who don't remember anything else about Polish cities, may remember that the capital is Warsaw. Thus Warszawa would confuse such a person more than any spelling of Kraków. I like the trend to use native names for foreign places, but logically the best known places should be the last to make that change. Art LaPella 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Art, if you stick around for a while, you'll find that logic and consistency of purpose gets quite a roller coaster ride when dealing with English gepographical toponyms (by certain editors) on Wikipedia. Or try and get an honest and straight answer from them to boot. Dr. Dan 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The name Kraków became accepted in English language possibly due to huge numbers of English tourists in the 90s lasting to this day, and its attraction as tourist hot spot.--Molobo 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:OR. --Irpen 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly?, WP:Weasel?, sure, and these English tourists said "Wow, this is a hot spot, let's change our language and call this city Crackoof. But let's make the "C"s into "K"s and add an Ó to our language. And oh, let the "W" sound in Cracow sound like an "F" sound (but only in this instance) in the English language. Hopefully the Poles won't object." Irpen, do you think my theory might be original research, or is that a plausible theory supporting Moplobo's explanation of the "Big Bang" that changed the English language in the 1990s, lasting to this day? Dr. Dan 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point that Molobo's personal opinions are irrelevant can be made in a less articulate way but I don't really think anyone buys his personal theories anyway.

So, let's return to the main subject. There are contexts in which our respected colleagues persist in using Kijow, Wilno, Kaniow, Lwow, Brześć, Nowogródek, and even Wolodarka (!). But at the same time, as far as Krakow (or Warsaw and Gdansk) go (plenty more examples), using historic names in proper context is opposed. What is this? Integral consistency or academic dishonesty. We better settle it now since this process brings in the outside viewers who could provide us with their take on this. --Irpen 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It will probably take the "outside viewers" (which is unfortunate), to resolve the matter. Too many mind games have been played with the cities you mentioned, that demonstrate a lack of sincerity on the part of certain editors, and will not permit a resolution to the problem at this point. Until this is resolved, the Cracow FA needs to be placed on hold. Besides, the article is still gramatically messy. Dr. Dan 03:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) A lot depends simply on is it an easy versus difficult transition? Convention is a fickle thing. For example, English language encyclopedia articles from before WWII refer to Helsinki as Helsingfors--the "correct" name. All the (main) spelling choices here all sound the same. "Cracow" is certainly (becoming) dated English usage as far as I've been able to check, so what's the big deal with "Kraków" over "Krakow"? If you want real naming controversy, check out Jagiełło.
   Remember that two decades ago books were still printed with hot type (lead poured into molds), it would be insanely expensive and mechanically impossible to, for example, have molds at the ready for all the letters and symbols we see at the bottom of our WP edit screens. A decade ago, most font files did not support more than the most basic code sets. As diacritical and other native language conventions become easier to use they will be adopted more quickly. And as the world becomes more cosmopolitan, people will gravitate toward using a single name for place names--its native name. For example, I much prefer the transliterated Moskva over Moscow.
   It would, however, be extremely useful to have a simple chronological table of names to assist readers with an interest in further research. Surely that's possible without arguing over which name is most appropriate. For example, no one calls Liepaja "Libau" anymore, but people should know during which period "Libau" was used so that they can conduct historical research appropriately, say, on the Russian Imperial Navy in the Baltic. All contemporaneous materials use "Libau" for its base of operations. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As "simple chronological table" the history sections should do. Have you noticed that there was/is a gap "Early 19th century to 1918" as editwarriors removed it repeatedly? Austrian(-Hungarian) Empire ruled over Cracow since 1795, with interruptions, then from 1846 to 1918 continuously, a time in which it was called "Krakau, Austria" even in English. Yet, some editors deny not only Krakau, but also Cracow, which is well-established in English and anything but obsolete or wrong. The only problem with it is the WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude of a very small, very busy group of WP:OWNers. Have you seen "Selected articles created and written by User:Poeticbent" and "My best work" by User:Piotrus? Lots of disputes all over Wikipedia, and the origin is here: the article is currently located at Kraków, and no other alternative naming is tolerated by some, even in historical contexts.

What is needed here is a policy like the Gdansk/Danzig vote: Cracow is the undisputed English name for any time and context. "Krakau (Cracow), Austria" is appropriate for that period or bios of native German speakers. "Kraków (Cracow), Poland" is appropriate for modern or purely Polish context. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Matthead, I noticed your inserting specific years for the Austro-Hungarian Empire when the article was simply organized by periods of multiples of centuries (to keep it simple for the reader).

  I doubt anyone is denying "Cracow" as a spelling for Kraków--however, Cracow is getting to be a dated spelling in English.

  Using "names (more names in parentheses)" is introducing far more clutter than needed. My suggestion for a table of names is quite simple...

Name | Period | (Language) As part of...

so, for your case:

Krakau | 1867 – 1918 | (German) Austro-Hungarian Empire

if I have my dates right. So, someone interested in Kraków during the period of the A-H Empire would know to search for information (in other sources, particularly ones contemporary with the S-H Empire) using the spelling "Krakau." However, in talking about Kraków, the article needs to stick with the current name only, regardless of time period, to keep with good writing convention. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why 1867 - 1918? Eventually 1846-1866, but later? Xx236 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of 1867 as the start of the "Austro-Hungarian" empire, but that's also about when the region was granted more autonomy. You're right, Kraków would have been best known by Krakau as of its incorporation in Austria in 1846. (See, this is why a table would be useful!) —PētersV 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An age old question. A little OT? No, because the title of this snippet of a debate is Wilno, but not Krakau. Our Polish friends continually try to remove or change the accepted English name Vilnius with the Polish toponym, "Wilno", whenever they can get away with it. This tactic (after meeting great resistance from many quarters) has been changed to now implementing the phrase, "Vilna" (modern Vilnius), presumably because "Vilnius" has an unpleasant ring to their ears. But their official argument is that earlier "English" publications used Vilna, and that Vilnius is a quite recent "Invention". If this is true, then logically it would follow that "Cracow" (modern Kraków), would be the correct way to handle the matter concerning this city on English WP, with the appropriate acknowledgement of Krakau in the proper context. Is this a solution? Is this consistent? Dr. Dan 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

The graph caption says Area: per 100 ha . That's nonsense. And further: Population density per 1000 Thousand what ?? And what consecutive 18 districts is supposed to mean? And square area?--Jotel 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done The graph has been edited for clarity and reloaded in Wikimedia Commons.[14] --Poeticbent talk 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References (surplus of)

I think it's pointless to give external references next to wikilinks, when the ext. refs. refer to the same material. For example, in the Late 18th – end of 19th century section there are external links to Matejko & Wyspianski, pointing to material which (possibly) should be included in articles on M. and W. Article on Kraków/Cracow/Krakau is not a place for these links.
BTW, the Wyspianski link is broken.
--Jotel 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols of Kraków

I'd suggest adding pictures of the seal and the banner to that section.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzled (references)

I am puzzled by this edit: reference brought back as per request. Why was this ref removed? If a source is judged as non-reliable, the referenced fact should also go; otherwise any removal of references is damaging the article (there is no such thing as 'too much references'). See also WP:V.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) It was me who removed it, because it did not point to the E&Y report, but to an estate agency page. (2) As to the "If a source is judged as non-reliable, the referenced fact should also go" statement, I strongly disagree: a fact has its own existence, and may be supported by another reference. (3) "there is no such thing as too much references": (a) a questionable policy (b) references, if present, should give relevant information from reliable and sources.
--Jotel 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old English

Please read the article. A city founded after 1190 cannot have an Old English name without a time machine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect - probably mistaken the date of Krakus legend. The first mentions of Kraków date back to 10th century, not late 12th.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The Old English was extinct by the 12th century, but up until then, Cracovia must have been the only spelling of Kraków available in the English world, as the much later English source would clearly indicate (see my quote above). --Poeticbent talk 03:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It would still require an explicit citation; a hasty read of the article may have missed the detail that the end of Old English is set when it is largely because there is very little English remaining from 1100 to 1200. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the English people stopped talking to each other from 1100 to 1200 about the outside world using English toponyms like Cracovia recorded in their own literature as far ahead as the year 1696 (see above)? --Poeticbent talk 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean that the (small) literate population in England between Henry I and Richard I was overwhelmingly literate in French or Latin, not English; there's a reason it's called the Norman Conquest. The assumption that Old English must have simply adopted the Latin name unchanged is also false; most placenames have an anglicized form, not the straight Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minorities (and basic arithmetic)

The Demographics section says there are 1572+472+50+22+1678, say 3800 in total, folks declaring themselves as non-Polish. Even if the number of Romas is 5000 instead of 1678, it's around 7000 'minorities'. The total population is over 700,000. So how to explain "3% of students who belong to ethnic minorities" in the same section? It's 1% at best...--Jotel 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's so nice to answer one's own question oneself: the response quality is guaranteed :-). Anyway, the reference quoted to support the 3% talks about the Lesser Poland voivodeship as a whole, not Kraków specifically. Therefore the corresponding sentence will be deleted as irrelevant anon.--Jotel 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are objections coming from editors other than yourself, I’d like to see some of the corresponding data reinstated in the article with further explanation. For example, I find it quite intriguing how the official census and the unofficial numbers of ethnic minorities living in Kraków differ from what the children declare in schools, when asked about their own background. Apparently, according to what the Ministry of Education says, even though only 1% of adults (estimated above) claim their status, as much as 3% of students participate in programmes designed for ethnic minorities. Let our readers decide what is more telling, the census and various estimations, or the proverbial pudding. --Poeticbent talk 15:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: max. 1% is in Krakow, 3% is in the voivodeship. So I see no contradiction here, apples and oranges come to mind. OTOH the article on Krakow is no place to discuss how various age groups declare their ethic background and which estimate of minority numbers is right or wrong. --Jotel 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why percentage points are so much better than absolute numbers is that they don’t grow the same. One percentage point of a million, like one percentage point of a thousand are still just one percentage points of a hundred. The percentage points of minorities living in metro Kraków and across the Voivodeship remain the same, whether it is 1%, 3%, or anything in between, and not 1% here and (therefore) 3% there. And please don’t impose your views of what the article on Kraków is supposed to be, without accommodating the views of those who put as much work into it as you do. --Poeticbent talk 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN, again? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4th century ??

The first para. says "This historic city, dating back to the 4th century...". Later on, in Early history it's "The earliest known settlement on the present site of Kraków .... dates back to the 4th century". But (a) the reference quoted in the 1st para. mentions either the Stone Age (1st settlements) or the mounds of Krakus and Wanda probably from 7th century (b) whatever was there in the 4th century, surely wasn't a city. So either a source supporting the 4th century can be found and quoted, or both texts need rewriting. --Jotel 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It still reads The earliest known settlement established on the present site of Wawel Hill dates back to the 4th century in this section. But the first sentence of ref.1 says: Archaeological findings provide evidence that Wawel Hill was settled as far back as the early Stone Age. And a minor point concerning the same section: what does the word 'actual' do in the sentence The first mention of the city's actual name dates to..... What's the difference between 'actual name' and the plain 'name' ?--Jotel 08:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten in the way consistent with references, hopefully for the better...--Jotel 12:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcophagus

Veit Stoss ... finished his work on the Great Altar ... followed by a marble sarcophagus for the king. Which king ?? --Jotel 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy: property prices

I do not think it's appropriate for an encyclopaedic article about a major city to quote prices: Residential prices in Krakow have doubled in three years and reached those of Warsaw (1,500 EUR per square metre). Unless somebody convinces me WP can/should be used to check property prices in various cities of the world, I'll delete this statement. --Jotel 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Synagogue

"Some of Europe's oldest synagogues, with the most prominent of them, the Old Synagogue, were built in the adjoining Jewish quarter of Kazimierz". But the WP article referred to says that the O.S was build either in 1407 or 1492. Is there a good reason why this sentence is not in the next section: 15th – 16th century?? --Jotel 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you moved the sentence, however, UNESCO states there is more than one "ancient" (their word, per ref added to article) synagogue. I was updating the sentence in the original location and ran into an edit conflict as you moved it. The sentence needs to move back to the prior section if the oldest synagogue predates the 15th century. The prior edit changing from "some" to only "one" was unnecessary and limited the scope of representing Kraków's rich history. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the sentence because the only synagogue mentioned explicitly was build in the 15th century. I wasn't aware of the document you mention (well, I was, but did not read it all...) at the time. Of course 'ancient' is so vague that it does not allow a firm assignment to any specific period, and is not synonymous with 'oldest in Europe' Ok, I'll leave it as is, there is enough edit wars already :-)--Jotel 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

... is supposed to be "Ex navicula navis " Isn't it strange it's the same as Łódź's ? Certainly it makes more sense for the latter ...
Comment for non-Polish speakers: it's a pun on the literal meaning of Łódź (English: boat) --Jotel 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of Austria for many decades, as Krakau, which must not be denied

This article must respect WP:NPOV and cover properly the times when it was part of Austria. This deserves a subsection in the history, for sure. Also, the name of Krakau has to be mentioned for that time. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Poeticbent (talk · contribs) did it again, deleting also known as Cracovia in Latin and Krakau in German -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there are the sections:

• 2.1 Middle Ages
• 2.2 15th – 16th century Golden Age
• 2.3 18th and early 19th century
• 2.4 1918 to the present

Once again, I propose a more specific

• 2.3 1795/1846 - 1918 Austrian Empire

-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the gratuitous mentioning of "Kraków"

Is the point of this article to enter as much mentions of "Kraków" as possible, or impossible? It can and should be written in better ways, without superfluous additions of the Polish name. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just using "it" gets to be tedious for good English sentence structure. The subject of the sentence should be repeated periodically even if it does not change in order to maintain a clear writing style, particularly when in a new paragraph. I wound up adding an instance of the word myself because "it" had nowhere to refer to prior in that paragraph. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial

... the imperial Poet Laureate Conrad Celtes ...: Which empire ?? --83.31.245.80 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire of course, not too many to choose from for many centuries. Is looking up his bio harder than writing a question? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Districts

The 1st and 3rd paragraphs of this section both describe the oldest districts. This repetition is unnecessary, the information should be merged into one para. --Jotel 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite?

I find it peculiar to see a German soccer fan rewriting Polish history with the quiet approval of the Polish editors like Jotel. Way to go, people. According to Matthead, Kraków was not the capital of Poland but rather “the capital of various incarnations” and it was “neighboring European areas” meaning, it was not neighboring the Moon in case you wondered. “Many works of Polish Renaissance art” have now disappeared from section History, but most importantly “the Polish throne passed to… other foreign based rulers in short time.” New section just popped up with the prominent Krakau in case you forgot. “The town was subject to Austrian overlordship in varying degrees”, however “'the Poles of Prussia can have nothing whatever to complain of, except that they are not citizens of a free and independent Poland'”. Section “20th century to the present” has mysteriously vanished, but Jagiellonian University has turned into a link to a link to a Cracow Academy (meaning, itself) instead. I feel sick just looking at this butchery. --Poeticbent talk 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down Poeticbent, and try reading the article with your eyes (and mind) open. The text which you selectively quote actually reads "capital of Poland from 1038 to 1596, and the capital of various incarnations of the Kraków Voivodeship from the 14th century to the year 1999". What's wrong with that ? The K.V. meant different things at different times, and there was a period when it did not exist at all. As a matter of fact I had played with the idea of making a change along the similar lines myself, but got distracted. The bit about Poles of Prussia is a comment, so for all practical purposes it does not exist. Besides, if you think your favourite passages have been removed, insert them again. Sorry, Poeticbent, but here, in WP, anybody can insert and/or delete anything. The fact that someone is a German football fan is neither here no there. I have no idea of (or interest in) what sport you are a fan of, you are judged by what you have to say on any subject of your choice.--Jotel 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As to "Cracow Academy", this was the official name for a good few centuries. Yes, it's commonly and informally said the J.U. was established in 1364, but strictly speaking this is not true: the institution is much older than its relatively modern name. And it's absolutely proper to use "Cracow Academy" in the 14th century context. As to Cracow Academy pointing to Jagiellonian University - well, what else should it point to? If you really think it deserves a separate article, go ahead and write it.--Jotel 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the editing process involves going through edits and reverts (per WP:BRD). If you disagree with something, change it and discuss it. But please, avoid personal attacks: Matthead may be a German soccer fan, but it's not relevant here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, according to his contributions Matthead is in fact particularly concerned with soccer. If you think that that's a value judgment, it is you who’s making that judgment by calling it a personal attack, not me.
Here's another gem for Jotel (to defend perhaps?) from the lead section of the article. "In English known as Cracow for centuries, also when it was as Krakau part of the Austrian Empire until 1918, the town has at times been been one of the leading scientific, cultural and artistic centres of the country, and neighboring European areas." Good luck with it. --Poeticbent talk 18:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And, finally, leave me out of your edit wars ("I find it peculiar to see [...] rewriting Polish history with the quiet approval of the Polish editors like Jotel"). I shall make my own edits, or refrain from making them, as I see fit, not because I feel any particular desire to form a united front with somebody against somebody else.--Jotel 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article is in excellent shape, and appears to mostly meet the Good Article criteria. However, there are a couple of issues that must be resolved first.

• All of the 'citation needed' tags MUST be addressed prior to GA status. Either a suitable reference should be found, or the material in question should be removed.
  • Done.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The lead could be improved. It's not bad, and provides a good, basic introduction. But I'm kind of lost somewhere in the third paragraph; the first sentence of which is kind of a very strangely written run-on sentence. It might also help to review WP:LEAD for suggestions here.
  • Could you be a bit more precise? We have done some edits, but I am not sure if this is what you wanted.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• The history section looks great! Well sourced, and well written. Some of the subsection headers are a bit long, and could probably be shortened. I would also recommend taking a look at WP:MSH to insure that they conform to the manual of style.

• The geography section looks good. It would help to add some basic information about total and area (sq mi, sq km) of the city limits.

See infobox. No need to repeat it. --Jotel 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Consider promoting the economy, demographics and culture sections. A good order of sections would be etymology, history, geography, demographics, economy, culture,... as these are the sections that readers would most likely want to see first. Parks & Sports should probably be moved to their own main sections, and not was subsections within culture.

• The 'twin cities' information should have a reference. Usually, these are actually called 'sister cities', not 'twin cities', as the latter term could be confused with the twin cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. So I would recommend changing the title of the section. A good reference for sister cities is www.sister-cities.org.

It's 'twin cities' almost everywhere in WP. In English you say 'X is twinned with Y'(from the BBC news website: Durban has been one of Leeds' twin cities, A new flight service from Bristol links it with Bordeaux - its twin city , Coventry has twin cities in the following countries &c) --Jotel 08:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, not it's not. Most of the articles I see refer to this section as 'sister cities'. The term "twin cities", to me, refers to two large cities that are in close proximity to each other, such as Minneapolis-St. Paul. The term "twin cities" is also a misnomer in this case as well; since "twin" implies "two" (not three, or four, or more). If you have a listing of several cities, the term "twin" is inaccurate. Dr. Cash 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• See also and Main article links need attention. If you scratch beneath (only just beneath...) the surface, you'll find some nasties:
  • List of mayors of Kraków points to a template, with 90% of entries in red (i.e. non-existent). As it is, this list should not be used to seriously support anything.
  • Main article: Education in Kraków: another joke of a source of additional information. It's a plain list of names, nothing more. Any real information can be found in the Education section of Kraków, not the other way round.
  • Main article: History of Kraków: there is a WP guideline that the Main article should be at least twice as long as the 'daughter' one. In this case they are too similar, with the whole sections copied from one to the other (e.g. from Renaissance to Golden Age, or from After the partition to 18th and early 19th century and 1794 - 1918 Austrian rule ). There is nothing wrong with some copying (after all it's abouh the same subject), but as it is, the History of Kraków does not add sufficient value to merit a link.
    --Jotel 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • While you are right in theory, Wikipedia's very nature is that it contains many underdeveloped articles. Eventually, they will become good; for now, they are placeholders - but as they exist in some form, we link them and use appropriate templates.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not agree with the notion that a Good Article can use underdeveloped articles for Main article and See also section. If/when these articles mature, they could/should be added, but not before. --Jotel 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • We cannot assess one article on the quality of articles it links. If we did so, we wouldn't have a single GA of FA article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the quality of the text in articles that are linked; we assess articles for GA status based on the article itself, not articles that are linked from it. Since many articles link to perhaps 50-100 other articles in their text, if we had to review the quality of everything that the article links to, there would simply be no good articles. Daughter articles can be brought up to par at a later date, and even nominated for GA status themselves (see Chicago as an example of this). Dr. Cash 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Once these issues are addressed, the article can be promoted to GA status. The time period for on hold status is no longer than seven days. Cheers! Dr. Cash 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At this rate (so far 35 edits and counter-edits today), the GA candidature might as well be withdrawn straight away :-( --Jotel 13:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad, indeed. It tried to counter the major changes Piotrus and now also Szopen try to force on the article, and also edited in the useful suggestions, but I quit now. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the intro's third paragraph to address the concerns above[15].

Besides, I wonder why Piotrus, shortly after this GA Review stating "This article is in excellent shape" was posted, reduces the article from 63,697 bytes to 61,862 bytes, mainly by erasing the Austrian part of "the history section looks great!", calling that "some copyediting"[16]? I recommend making only minor edits, with consensus, working cooperatively towards a successful GA status. This applies especially to the controversial question whether the English name of the town was/is Cracow or Kraków. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Does any 'real' WP user (someone who wants to learn something about the town) really care about the Only Real and Final Answer to the controversial question whether the English name of the town was/is Cracow or Kraków. ? --Jotel 08:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jotel is right - in the words of Bill, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet! Brisvegas 08:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not removing an "Austrian history part"; I am removing an unnecessary heading (per GA reviewer, who noted some are too long) and a sentence that repeats claim from a previous paragraph. We have a section on 18th and 19th century, no need for a subsection heading on Austrian rule (just as we don't have subheadings for Duchy of Warsaw, for example).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, Piotrus! You tried 3 times to enforce your major revert that also deleted over 1000 bytes of text on the Austrian period of the city, which must not be marginalized and hidden behind blurry section headings. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gadu-gadu wires glowing, apparently. Sorry folks, but this is ridiculous.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that one of the major criteria for GA status is article stability, so edit warring over content will result in the article's immediate failure. Dr. Cash 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

However one disruptive editor (now blocked for 48h for 3RR violation), going against consensus of several editors who are improving the article, should not be allowed to derail the article's nomination, I hope? As you can see, the article is quite stable now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, hold it! "one disruptive editor"! It was you who "derailed" the four day old consensus based on my last edit, to which 5 users (Jotel, Halibutt, Imperium Europeum, 24.169.10.83, Gimmetrow) had contributed, by starting to make "(some copyedits)" shortly after Dr. Cash posted a favourable GA review [17]. As described a few lines above, you were trying to hide this major change behind this innocent summary, removing nearly 2 kilobytes from the history section, mainly telling about the decades as Krakau, Austria, changing the intro, removing {{lang-de|Krakau}} etc., reverting most of the 18 recent edits I made from 20 Sep to 23rd. I've neutralized your ensuing reverts 2nd 3rd, merging in intermediate edits by Jotel and even ones from you if possible, after which the two of us had cancelled out each other within 3RR. That left the field, based on the four day consensus, to e.g. Jotel, who has proven to be quite neutral.

Yet, only 10 minutes after my 3rd and otherwise final revert, a user who has never edited this page nor its talk, someone "called anti-semite, Polish nationalist, chauvinist and whatever" showed up, reverting back to Piotrus three times [18] [19] [20]. Was it a coincidence that Szopen (talk · contribs) showed up and supported your changes? Besides, claims on "Poles in Prussia" hardly belong into an article on a town that was part of Austria at the time anyway.

Piotrus, I wonder how you managed to need only two minutes for noticing Szopens first revert, editing in numbers and references, and posting this edit. Did you spot the revert by chance and reacted quickly? Did you prepare this edit in advance, either to revert for yourself, or to put it on top of a possible revert by somebody else? Which was to be expected when, within hours, or minutes? Tell me, can the frequent use of Polish instant messenger Gadu-Gadu make editors quicker or even clairvoyant?

Anyway, it had been me who, a few days earlier, had defended this article against 207.102.64.214 (talk · contribs), who's IP range got blocked [21] for edit warring and stalking due to my page protection requests for this page (and Copernicus). Poeticbent protested [22] stating "no-one can stop him (Matthead) now". Same story in the section Rewrite? above. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current status

Ok, re-reviewing the article today, it looks like the article seems to have stabilized considerably; you guys had me a bit nervous for a while, but I think you'll be ok. I think it mostly meets the GA criteria, but there are still a few issues:

• The TWO 'citation needed' templates MUST be fixed. There's on in the history section (1918) and the other in the demographics section. Other than that, the article appears to be quite well cited.
• The order of sections is largely fine, but I would strongly recommend moving the transportation section further down in the list; transportation is largely an infrastructure-related item, and not as important as other things like government and population. It would also help if the demographics section was a bit closer to the geography section (not combined, but maybe immediately after), since basic geographical details and population would be sought after earlier as well. The education section could also be moved to right after culture and before transportation.
• The 'twin cities' section is fine. In the United States, we generally refer to these types of arrangements as 'sister cities'; it seems that other countries use different terminology.

Once these minor issues are addressed, the article can be promoted to GA status. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to remind about the major issue that some editors try to conceal the fact that the city was part of the Austrian Empire for about a century before 1918, and known as "Krakau, Austria" in English then (a link to 1000 Google book entries[23]had been deleted). Thus, I inserted the German name in the intro (again), and changed the history section heading that deals with the Austrian rule from the blurry "18th and early 19th century" one to a more precise "1795/1846 - 1918 Austrian Empire".

1. My two edits, and one by Jotel, were reverted after three minutes[24]. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Another removal[25] inspired me to make it more precise [26].-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Another deletion, of many intermediate edits, with the interesting summary (WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Names of European cities in different languages: I-L#K, encyclopedic style, layout) -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
4. more edit-warring against German name {{lang-de|Krakau}} WP:UNDUE, please see foreign names, German minority was NOT as significant as others in their numbers, see Names of European cities in different languages: I-L#K for a more comprehensive list)
5. Deletion of fact tags and references in three instances while claiming to fix one with (one of oldest - I have no problem with making the sentence shorter)-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for your stridency over simple issues, such as some versus one really old synagogue. "Some of Europe's oldest synagogues, with the most prominent of them,... ", the original sentence, was, in fact, quite correct and I have restored it with a UNESCO reference. Am I missing something here? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As "Some of Europe's oldest synagogues" is a superlative claim, I expect to see references for at least two within the Top-10 or so. Yet, the article synagogue does not even mention Cracow or Krakow, according to browser search with crtl-f. That Unesco PDF only says "the medieval site of Kazimierz with its ancient synagogues" anyway, which does not say naything about "oldest in Europe".-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matthead, perhaps your command of English really is as marginal as your user page suggests? "One" = singular, "Some" = plural, no specific number (as opposed to "a couple" = two, "a few" = three or more). The UNESCO article refers to Kraków, no purpose in needlessly repeating the name of the city, as you yourself contend, and references synagogues in the plural. Kazimierz is the old Jewish section of Kraków. There's nothing "extraordinary" about my "claim," it's only proper English usage. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Good editorial practice is to not use other WP articles as reference. That said, thank you for pointing out that Synagogue does not yet mention the treasures of Jewish heritage preserved in Kraków. I am sure that now that the editorial community has been alerted, that omission can be appropriately addressed. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for trying to teach me "counting beyond one for beginners". I'll update my userpage anyway.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that everyone reverts you, and you have been blocked already once for 3RR here, should make you pause. Please stop revert warring and introducing changes that evidently go against consensus of other editors.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone, it's mostly two editors who revert. As to the consensus, I do not always share your opinions, neither like your all changes; simply can't always be bothered to argue. WP:OWN & WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply to everybody equally. --Jotel 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jotel, if you disagree with me you have to tell me so and try to convince me to your viewpoint. This is how this project works :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, who have you convinced with your viewpoints? Rather than out-persisted or out-editwarred, namely with the coincidental help of editors who haven edited the article at all, or not for months, but showed up to revert to you or Poeticbent in short time? Just look at the No. 5 edit listed above, and its deceiving edit summary. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please stop with the conspiracy theories. Can't an editor take a look around Eastern Europe and just make some small contributions? In fact, my original attempt at a change wound up in an edit conflict, now isn't THAT a coincidence?

   Matthead, if I know the correct spelling of Jagiełło (see comment elsewhere) and have my keyboard enabled to support Polish as one of its language options, chances are I've visited Polish-related topics (actually, in my case, the history of Poland-Lithuania) before.

   And you're ranting over your #5 for nothing. I am sure Piotrus just changed the wording to eliminate the need for the fact tag (that is, more than one ancient synagogue). There's absolutely nothing wrong with that as a simple editorial fix. As it happens, I came along and thought there was more than just one and found a reference. Aren't you happy there's a proper reference now, and that the original statement of more than one synagogue could be restored? Or are you looking for something else? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the diff in question, or only at the edit summary quoted above? What about the other two removed fact tags & refs in the same edit of Piotrus? You call that nothing? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I feel obligated to make it absolutely clear that my only purpose was to look around. Having come across the article, as a matter of course, I always check recent edit history if I haven't read it before to get a feel for its current state, how many people are interested in contributing, etc. I came here to get away from all the Wiki-contentiousness. And what do I find? Make a simple contribution and I'm already part of someone's (Matthead's) Piotrus conspiracy theory.

  Matthead, you really do flatter yourself, I really couldn't care less. Conjuring up issues and conspiracies where there are none is fine if you keep it to yourself. But don't waste everyone else's time with your overblown and, in the case of my edit, utterly baseless, contentions. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pēters, I clearly addressed Piotrus above, not you. Regarding "always check recent edit history", I believe you should extend the "recent" as far back as Sep 23 for this article&talk to understand what I was talking about. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary break and since I committed to answer

re: Matthead's Have you looked at the diff in question, or only at the edit summary quoted above? What about the other two removed fact tags & refs in the same edit of Piotrus? You call that nothing?"

1. First section of diff = removal of fact tag after University of Kraków article reference and removal of associated comment regarding usage in Google books
   • Book title searches will never reflect contemporary usage because of how many old titles there are out there. It's a particularly bad means for determining contemporary usage, as eligibility for public domain reproduction starts 75 years (or is it 90 now?) after the author dies! The WP article is titled "University of Kraków" and is referenced as such--what fact is there to request a citation for? The fact tag and exposition in comment were misplaced at best. If you have an issue with the title of the University of Kraków article, take that up on the article title page. However, I rather suspect you will receive a similar response.
2. Second section of diff = Change from "Some" synagogues to "One of" and removal of fact tag requesting "some" be referenced
   • Editorial quick fix, fact tag no longer required since the one synagogue had a reference. I just happened to come by when I did, merely coincidence, no conspiracy, restored "some" and added UNESCO reference.
3. Third section of diff, part "(a)" = removal of fact tag after assertion of benevolent Austrian rule
   • This tag was superfluous, as both the autonomy (referenced) and granting of municipal (assuming self-)government (referenced) already establish the basis for "benevolence".
4. Third section of diff, part "(b)" = removal of "Poles have nothing to complain about" references
   • Seriously now, the first reference is from 1863, pre-dating the Austro-Hungarian empire, the other from 1871. Totally outdated. There is already the establishment of benevolent rule. And if the Poles were complaining (to produce a comment they need not) that's a different topic.

Again, on Google books, it is certainly convenient, but if you want to use references that old, then you will need to:

• present those as a contemporary account
• provide a basis for why the author(s) cited are reputable/noteable contemporary source(s)

neither of which you did. After all, we don't use the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a regular resource, and that's half a century newer.
  These are not edits regarding raging global geopolitical controversies or human tragedies, there should be a way to progress on these without what to an outside observer (me) appear to be a bit of histrionics on your part. I think you would do much better to work within the structure of the article to add information appropriately, and when you have a dispute, address it at the source (for example, the University of Kraków reference) instead of downstream in this article.
  It's unfortunate that the edit summary really rather dealt with only one of the three changes, but, just looking at the changes for what they are, in the context of the pursuit of producing an encyclopedic article, there is nothing malicious in the edits, nor should you immediately be looking for malicious intent. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. article is at Jagiellonian University, was founded as Cracow Academy, renamed in 1817. Besides, there are about five Universities in Cracow. "reputable/noteable contemporary source"? The reference is a family home page, <histrionics>for crying out loud! You want me to "address it at the source"? The only thing to be addressed is why the page "Designed by Sharon & Peter Pfeiffer Updated on May 18, 2000" froze my Firefox. Good Article status with references like that? No way!</histrionics>

4. This article is about a city then in Austria, it is not the place to make comparisons with other contemporary countries. Prussia and Russia need to get removed per WP:UNDUE. I already had deleted Prussia based on the old book references you dislike, but Prussia was reinserted by reverts on 28 Sep with edit summaries like "(Poles in Prussia had nothing to compain?! Are you kidding???)" and "and Poles from Prussia had much to complain too..)". The superfluous comparison of these countries is nothing but a drive-by-denunciation.

So, as "there is nothing malicious in the edits", "you call that nothing". Thanks for making that clear. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll go back and look at the diff again, but first part of diff had fact tag on a WP article title. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Found the ref after the fact tag and comment, hadn't been looking there. Well, personally, I prefer not to build articles based on web sources (unless they are reproductions of reference works). I did take a look in Daniel Stone's history of the Polish-Lithuania state--it's really focused on the geopolitical "stuff" more than anything else, but it does mention a third of Jagieołło's advisers being university trained, nearly all of them in Kraków. Stone starts with Jogaila (later Polonized to Jagieołło on his assumption to the crown), so I don't really have a source for before then.

   However, looking around a bit more, from a Boston University professor's site... "As I said earlier Casimir (Kazimierz) the Great founded the Cracow Academy in 1364 and it was refounded in 1400 by Wladyslaw Jaglello [sic] making it the oldest institution in Poland and, next to the University of Prague, the second oldest in Central Europe." To be found at the psychadelic http://www.bu.edu ... cracow.htm, but as a university professor's page, will probably do. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

Sorry folks, I don't have time for games. Based on the edit warring and the constant bickering on this talk page. The numerous discussion on this talk page point to WP:NPOV issues, and the article's history is now indicative of serious stability issues. I am therefore failing this article at WP:GAN per criterion 4 (WP:NPOV) and criterion 5 (stability) of the Good Article criteria. Please feel free to renominate this article once these issues are resolved (I think a good couple of weeks as a "cooling off" period is necessary before renominating). Dr. Cash 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article is not stable. But it is improving, so expect to see us again in a few weeks :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is improving. Perhaps in a few weeks we can Anglicize the article and call Cracow, Cracow on the English Wikipedia. Otherwise we'll probably have to soon call Prague, Praha, and Jerusalem, el Kuds. English, please. Dr. Dan 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, when it is improving, it is soon reverted by Molobo [27] and Piotrus [28]. Expect to see me again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox messed up

References to population (town & metropolitan area) are messed up, the last correct version seems to be this one. Could somebody more familiar with WP referencing tricks sort it out? I had a similar problem once, and gave up after a good few attempts.... --Jotel 16:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Infobox doesn't like cite.php.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This only shows how many people, and how often, check what's in the infobox :-(--Jotel 16:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I've taken the liberty of reverting to the article created by User:Simon J Kissane on 07:56, 5 December 2001. Put simply this article is more to the point and contains pretty much the same amount of encyclopedic information without all the clutter of the last article. I trust my bold actions will be appreciated by other editors 121.218.198.145 10:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As you are proposing a very radical change, I would suggest that we now follow the Bold Revert discuss cycle. Thank you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References: quality

There are about 100 references, so those who insisting on providing evidence for every other sentence should be satisfied with the quantity. But now the time has come to review the quality. I've done my bit, deleting two references resolving to Google hit counts. But there are more dodgy cases. Two references point to estate agency sites which supposedly support some points in the article. One of agencies is a 'leading real estate office', the other is more modest: 'Our services offer a one stop shop for the entire investment process' so they should really be authoritative on Kraków...
Well, when I come across links like that elsewhere, I immediately delete them as spam. And I shall not hesitate to do the same here. --Jotel 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Jotel 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor inserted offplanmillionaire.com: Our mission is to deliver you wealth creating property investment opportunities - now we've finally got a word straight from the respectable source's mouth.... --Jotel 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Poeticbent's comments in the next section
"you carry on with ... removal of viable references without replacing them". Guilty as charged. But there is no 'remove one, add one' WP rule. If delete a ref. and put nothing instead, this may be because I was unable to find a better one, or there is no good reference at all (e.g. because the claim it is supposed to support is false).
"a big real estate office is as good a source of background information on real estate". It is, but if, and only if, the information is hard facts (e.g. in 2006 X properties changed hands with the average price of Y, and the maximum price of Z). Otherwise, for estate agents, all properties and locations are either 'sought after', or 'desirable', or 'with lots of potential', etc. I'm sure you know what 'marketing hype' is, and estate agencies are probably the worst offenders here.

I challenge anybody to explain why this reference (currently no. 34 in the article) was supporting supports the sentence The occupation took a heavy toll, particularly on the city's cultural heritage, when many relics and monuments were destroyed or, like the Altar of Veit Stoss, moved to Germany. --Jotel 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Reference deleted --Jotel 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The above reference you unilateraly deleted in fact was already there long before some user added the Veit Stoss altar to the mix. The reference says: "Relics and monuments of national culture were destroyed and plundered."[29]. Are you on some kind of mission? Please bring it back. --Poeticbent talk 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of ± random references, supposedly supporting a point: Kraków became a Polish national symbol and a center of culture and art, sometimes known in Polish as Polskie Ateny ("Polish Athens") to which Poles would flock to revere the symbols and monuments of Poland's past. This is was followed by the reference (currently no. 23) to this interview (in Polish). There is no mention of Polish Athens or national symbols there, no flocking, no revering.... Is this some sort of a WP joke??? A Good Article? - let's get serious, folks ... --Jotel 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Reference deleted --Jotel 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Below is an excerpt from the above reference (in Polish). Jotel, let me know, if you need to have it translated word for word in case your Polish is not up to par: "Polski nie było wtedy na mapie Europy, a sprawy polityczne przez cały czas obciążały polskie myślenie. Do Galicji ściągali artyści, literaci, filozofowie ze wszystkich zaborów. Musimy pamiętać, że Kraków był stolicą Młodej Polski, że to były takie polskie Ateny." Please bring the reference back, or I will do it for you. And don't say things like "see discussion" in your summaries because you're not discussing anything with anybody. --Poeticbent talk 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems that reading difficulties affect one editor after another... At the top of every article there are 6 (six) tabs. What is the 2nd (second) tab from the left called? I'll spell it for you: d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n. --Jotel 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre of excellence

"Kraków has traditionally been one of the leading scientific, cultural and artistic centres of the country and Europe". Whether it's 'traditionally" or "at times" belongs to another round of edit wars :-)... Now I want to take issue with "leading centres of the country and Europe" versus "...neighbouring European areas". To be honest, I fail to see in the text ANY examples of K's influencing ANY neighbouring areas, never mind the whole Europe. Even the Golden Age is presented as the time when artists from (using today's terminology) Italy and Germany were coming to Kraków, not the other way round. There is no single mention of a Cracovian who made his/her name outside Poland. So shouldn't a more modest wording should be used ?? --Jotel 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Copernicus (educated there) come to mind? Try not to get carried away with your selective reading. The lead is there to highlight the actual content and not the other way around. And finally, I thought I've already stressed enough that there's a need to promote better writing skills than "...neighbouring European areas" around here. Wikipedia is overflowing with users who build little, but experiment a lot. I hope that that will fade away eventually. --Poeticbent talk 21:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This Copernicus fellow is mentioned for the first time in the 9th subsection as an author of a manuscript currently owned by the university library, so obviously he isn't all that important.... As to writing skills: well, tastes (and styles, and skills) differ & WP is (for better or for worse) open to all. Anyway, what's wrong skill-wise with the phrase "...neighbouring European areas"? --Jotel 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me see. What else is "...neighbouring European areas"? I pasted the phrase into Google and here's what I found: "the North Sea region in relation to neighbouring European areas," "the Iberian Peninsula and its relations with some neighbouring European areas," and "substantially lower fees than those in neighbouring European areas."[30] Not a single city. Actually, I was hoping to find Berlin "...neighbouring European areas", at least some areas, but I didn't find any. Secondly, I'm not sure why, in spite of our pleas, you carry on with your borderline removal of viable references without replacing them. For example, a big real estate office is as good a source of background information on real estate, as any big pharmacy would be with regards to pills. If they weren't accurate they wouldn't be in business. The ultimate goal is to move forward with what we do around here, not backwards. --Poeticbent talk 23:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who "experimented" and toned down the original rather patriotic wording to a more modest one, as Cracow surely was no leading centre on an all-European level (Veit Stoss did not quite lead da Vinci or Michelangelo), but on a national Polish level. Also, Cracow was not always part of Poland, and many important figures were from abroad - rather than the other way round. Regarding Copernicus, who is famous for astronomy (and being a matter of dispute between Poles and Germans, too), he did not acquire his astronomical skills here, but in Italy. AFAIR he did not get a degree from the Cracow Academy (his Wiki article got so beaten around that not only his education is poorly covered). He had send his manuscript (ref link broken, BTW) to Nuremberg where it was published, it was brought to Cracow only in the 1950s.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest replacing "of country and Europe" with simpler "of Poland". Europe had many such centers, and rankings are hard to come by, but nobody can disagree it was a leading center in Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to specify the timeframe for that claim. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeframe is quite difficult to define. First of all there were some 100+ years when Poland did not exist. Secondly, rankings are hard to come by (see above). Thirdly, if you say "Kraków has traditionally been ...", then it's impossible to say that the tradition was there between years X and Y, but not between A and B.
I suggest something like "Kraków has traditionally been one of the leading centres of Polish scientific, cultural and artistic life". This gets round the problem of Poland's non-existence. --Jotel 09:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Golden age, nearly all figures mentioned were international, most of them German. During Poland's non-existence, locals had Austrian citizenship, so "Polish" and "of Poland" do not fit. How about "the city has traditionally been a leading centre of scientific, cultural and artistic life, for ethnic Poles and others"?-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean don't fit? So there was no Jewish people in Europe? Space Cadet 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, "Germans" in the Cracow's golden age do not fit either: there was no Germany at the time. --Jotel 05:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"From the late 15th century onwards, the Holy Roman Empire was also known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are telling us that Poland and Polish people did not exist? Or what are you trying to tell us? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tulkolahten: yes, Poland did not exist between about 1790 till 1918.
Matthead: {Cracow's] locals had Austrian citizenship, so "Polish" [...] do not fit Veit Stoss did not have German citizenship, ergo he wasn't German.... --Jotel 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, but it doesn't mean there were not Polish people. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment was purely about the Polish state, not people. The main point here is that, particularly when talking about the 19th century (plus some bits at each end) it's necessary to keep in mind the distinction between the state and the people. --Jotel 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Polish" in "15th – 16th century Golden Age: ...numerous artists, mainly from cities like Nuremberg as well as from as far as Italy, came to work and live here." None of the mentioned artists Filip Callimachus, Conrad Celtes, Veit Stoss, Johann Haller, Hans Behem, Hans Dürer, Albrecht Dürer was Polish, leaving only the political figures, and these include Swedes, or Henry III of France. In most part of the 19th century, Cracow was a part of the Austrian Empire, which hardly can be called "Poland" or "Polish". For example, all parks featured in the Parks section had been founded between 1822 and 1889. I wonder who funded them? Donations and work by locals? Imperial taxpayer money? Nevermind the claim "perhaps as the first in Europe" in Jordan Park (de:Volkspark Hasenheide, Berlin, 1811). -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A note about Kraków drawing international (Italian, German, etc.) artists would not go amiss, but we should also be able to find more clearly Polish artists of that period. For example, as a site of the royal court, it was surely the place where Marcin Kober, Mikołaj Gomółka or Wacław z Szamotuł spent parts of their lives; and those are just a first three I reviewed from the list of Renaissance in Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

May be they deserve a mention, but let's be honest: they are not in the same league as Dürer or Stoss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotel (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, Renaissance in Poland implies that a time machine had been used by one of the figures mentioned. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The heat is on

The °F values in Kraków#Geography_and_climate are quite high, e.g. 85°F in August which is over 29° C [31]. The reason for that seems to be this edit - maybe a subtle comment about hot tempered locals/editors? The values could be written closer to each other for better comparison, or by using a handy template to display the same temperate in two units, e.g. {{convert|18|°C|°F|1}} yields 18 °C (64.4 °F). -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

At least that issue is fixed now [32]-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, using the weather channel data is okay, but using their choice of name "Krakow, Poland" is not. Also, it is necessary to display the data in 6 rows rather than collapsed into 3, for at least one of the reasons given by User:Poeticbent as (WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Names of European cities in different languages: I-L#K, encyclopedic style, layout) -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, so what are you trying to do exactly ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I find the current layout of temperature high, low, precip then another set of temperature high, low, precip quite confusing. I see no reason why the table should not be in deg. C/deg. F and in mm./inches. What kind of undue weight and "I don't like it" are you (Matthead) talking about? The current needless duplication is informationally and visually confusing. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check the diffs. I detected vandalism, fixed it, and also improved the format (collapsed) and inserted the name "Krakow, Poland" used by the data provider. This, and more in the same edit, Got reverted by Poeticbent.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English name(s)

This edit illustrates once again a really odd situation: the town with two English names, the traditional Cracow and the rather recent Krakow, is listed on English Wikipedia under a third, Polish name. It's (again) in the article intro since this edit removed the previous wording "Cracow or Krakow[1] (Polish: Kraków,[2] German: Krakau". Can a Good Article in earnest begin with "Kraków, English names: Krakow, Cracow"? And remain silent about "Krakau, Austria" under which it was also known in English when part of Austria from 1794/1846 to 1918? I understand that Jotel removed the reference to 800 Books hits due to the sloppiness of my addition, not the notability of that name version. As stated repeatedly, I prefer the consistent use of the well-established Cracow for all periods, Polish, Austrian, Ducal Warsawian, Nazi German or whatever, with appropriate mentioning of other names in use. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer Cracow or Krakow too, (I also expect to see Moscow, not Moskva, or Jerusalem, not Yerushaláyim/al-Quds in an English text) but I'm not sure this is worth starting another round of edits and counteredits. That's an example of how WP works in general: the most vociferous editors determine the contents. Never mind that Kraków Krakow-based institutions use Cracow in their official English names.... --Jotel 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As no other editor, "vociferous" or not, defends the current Kraków opening here, I suggest you to change the wording to begin with Cracow. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear whether this is 'singular you', presumably meaning me (Jotel), or 'plural you' ('yous' as some Americans say) meaning other editors. Doesn't really matter, this was your (Matthead's) idea, so you (Matthead again) do it. --Jotel 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw Jotel, when we use it, we spell it youse. Dr. Dan 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So one can learn a thing or two from Wikipedia.... --Jotel 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, in Brooklyn, youse rhymes with mouse. The proper spelling is yooz or the more formal yooze. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So what, the Polish word kał rhymes with cow, in krakoof, which rhymes with "crackgoof" in Brooklyn, alas. Dr. Dan 11:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. do looks up youse on Webster's Online Dictionary, youse'll find it don't rhyme wid da word mouse der eeder. Jes' laik da word, sword, don't rhyme wid da word, word.

Alas, Dr. Dan, it was only an apparently hideously failed attempt at humor regarding my Brooklyn birthright! Best regards —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's enough that Cracow, is misspelled on the English WP. Allowing youse to be misspelled would almost be sacrilegious. All is well. Dr. Dan 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, so I did it. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Survived 35 minutes (please stop renaming cities, POV reverted) -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit by Dr.Dan survived 48 minutes (try WP:RM first)-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's worth quoting (and keeping in mind) Dr.Dan's argument for his short-lived change: English Wikipedia, the English language does not include the letter '"L" with a line through it. --Jotel 05:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jotel, does the English language include an "L" with a line through it? No sense of humor, eh? Perhaps you think English contains an "O" with a slanted line over it? In any case, go to the articles Nuremberg, Moscow, and Warsaw on English Wikipedia and see how the matter is correctly resolved in so far as the English language is concerned. Then go to the French Wikipedia entry for Cracow and see how this joke is resolved there. Or to the Lithuanian Wikipedia, or German, etc. Dr. Dan 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthead, while pushing your POV with numbing repetitiveness you seem to be ignoring not only Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (geographic_names) #Widely_accepted_name, but also internet findings already quoted on this page. Please stop. --Poeticbent talk 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Poeticbent, how come this reminds me of Talk:John III Sobieski? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to play the internet counting game, the table at the beginning of the Spelling / misspelling section, shows Krakow winning by a factor of about 4 over Cracow, never mind Kraków... --Jotel 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Beancounters have been busy: searching news.bbc.co.uk, IMHO an authoritative source for English language use, produces 39 hit pages for Krakow and 4 pages for Cracow. Searching for Kraków simply produces the same results as Kraków, so it's inconclusive.
Economist.com gives 20 hits for Cracow, 13 for Krakow, and none for Kraków. --Jotel 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In Google Books, with a proper search term such as "of City" or "in Town" (to enforce use in an English sentence, rather than plain address listings or names of persons), Cracow beats Krakow and Kraków.

• 1660 on +"of Cracow" 1352 on +"in Cracow"
• 872 on +"of Krakow" 982 on +"in Krakow"
• 271 on +"of Kraków" 395 on +"in Kraków"

A scholar like Norman Davies, noted for his publications on the history of Poland, uses Cracow more often than Krakow, using Kraków once with a Polish co-author, or in a Polish language edition. See also his God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes online. The first page of Google Scholar hits for "in Kraków" lists papers written with at least one co-author having an apparent Polish name - the one by authors "JB Krakow, CB Kopp" being the exception. This pretty much illustrates the whole issue. For example, hits for "in Nürnberg" outnumber "in Nuremberg", yet that Wikipedia article still begins with "Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg)", while Talk:Nuremberg only discusses the use of Frankish vs. Franconian.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained, google books is a particularly poor reflection of contemporary usage. For example:

• Roumania - 9,280
• Rumania - 23,000
• Romania - 31,300

I could therefore contend that the "u"s have it (32,280 total versus 31,300 for Romania).

Moral of the story: google books for contemporary usage = bad bad bad no no no. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Moral of the story: not knowing how to use Google books for contemporary usage and trying to make a point from that is bad bad bad no no no. And even without that, one always should look into the results anyway, to detect false positives. I suggest to you to strike out your comments, also those in other sections. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's play it your way. Google books, 2007:

• books using the word
  • Cracow = 161
  • Krakow = 344
• books with the word in their title
  • Cracow = 1
  • Krakow = 5

But that's not the point. I suppose I have not been clear. My position is that using internet searches for any reason to contend anything encyclopedic should never be done. Tweak a search this way or that way, completely different results. In science that's call cooking your lab results. It's also a useless way to study a subject and come to some well-informed opinion. Any topic on Wikipedia where I have participated where there is some controversy, I have bought the best reference(s), read it/them front to back, and only then gone off to contend something.

  All I wanted to do was put in a little itsy bitsy reference that there really is more than one really old synagogue in Krakow/Cracow/Kraków. I didn't really care what the city was called. That said, if you ask me what I have surmised having spent time looking into it, Krakow is not only on the way in, it has arrived, and Cracow, while lingering, is definitely on the way out. Trust me, while it always warms my heart when English comes closer to adopting a place name in its native expression--wherever and whatever that is, I really don't care what the city is called (in English), or what the article is titled as. I am thoroughly [CK]+ra+[ck]+[aoó]+[uw] agnostic.

  And the Earth will not stop spinning over Kraków versus Krakow. The important thing is that redirects and disambiguations are organized properly. The mountains of time I have seen wasted on Wikipedia arguing over the presence or absence of diacritics (which otherwise change the spelling not one iota, its still the same letter, just with a smudge) boggles the mind. Krakow, Kraków,... Jagiello, Jagiełło,... —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As the only party here without an axe to grind (insofar as much as that is possible), I put the word order back at the outset of the article as Krakow then Cracow. Am now attempting to extract myself back to beyond the event horizon. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RM than. Or give that dead horse some peace.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about moving (renaming) articles. Nobody cares whether the article itself is called Cracow, or Krakow, or ayutd434YcR for that matter, as long as anybody looking for Kraków/Krakow/Cracow/Krakau is (re)directed to it. The issue is whether the article text should use primarily this form of the name or another. So multiple references to WP:RM are another example of mistreating an expired equine. --Jotel 05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to remind about Krakow pointing here, not to Krakow (disambiguation) or Krakow am See or Krakow Township, Michigan. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Same with Berlin, for that matter. It points to the capital of Germany, not to Berlin (disambiguation), Berlin part of Seedorf in Segeberg district in Schleswig-Holstein, or to some 20+ places in the US. Shall we fix that anomaly too?? --Jotel 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to compare that with Hanover hosting the article on the German city Hannover, not pointing to Hanover (disambiguation) with places in Germany, Canada, Chile, England, Jamaica, South Africa, United States, never mind the dynasty of English Kings or horses. How come Kraków is supposedly English, while Hannover is not? Surely because there is only one key labeled "n" on English keyboards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally I don't cite travel guides as definitive sources (!!!). That said, it is worth noting that current editions of both Lonely Planet and Berlitz (two of the biggest and most reputable publishers of such materials on the planet), both use Krakow.

• Lonely Planet Best of Krakow (ISBN: 9781741048223) - 2006
• Krakow Berlitz Pocket Guide (ISBN: 9789812680273) - 2007

also, professional proceedings, etc. indicating their location:

• 17th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications 4-8 September 2006 Krakow, Poland (ISBN: 0769526411)
• Applied Crystallography: Proceedings of the XIX Conference, Krakow, Poland, 1 - 4 September 2003 (ISBN: 9812387617)

Quite honestly, I don't see anything wrong with "Krakow (also Cracow) PL: Kraków" and leaving the title as is with the existing redirects. As I said, it's not like it's Jogaila vs. Jagiello vs. Jagiełło. (Tried to help there with the most up-to-date expert references available and got nowhere there, so my expectations are low here.) I keep threatening to go back to the Baltics articles but I'm becoming increasingly concerned I may have unwittingly crossed the event horizon. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I dont understand what you mean about threatening to go back to the Baltic articles and what that may have to do with the simple fact that this is English Wikipedia and Cracow has been the English name for the city for over 300 years or more. Dr. Dan 00:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Times they are a-changing. A table of place names would clearly show Cracow being used for 300 years. But I have to report that the trend is definitely Krakow. I'm only saying what I've found, again, not an issue near and dear to my heart either way. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Always liked the Dylan song, but it concerns the changing attitudes concerning racism, poverty, and other social issues, not rewriting the English language to suit some whim. If we are going to continue to call Poland by that name instead of Polska, or Lithuania by that name instead of Lietuva, in so far as the English language is concerned, then this edit war really is quite "lame". It's really not about having axes to grind. What the "trend" is, is not the heart of the matter, either. Best. Dr. Dan 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Wikipedians will still be "counting" Krakow vs. Cracow popularity in 2008. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Some will undoubtedly be "counting" google hits and the like well beyond 2008, but I'm afraid that we might be getting an explanation as to why Poland was partitioned three times by this joke. Dr. Dan 11:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern travel guides do use Cracow

• Cracow (Eyewitness Travel Guides), Teresa Czerniewicz-Umer, Penguin, February 2007
• Landmark Visitors Guide Cracow, Andrew Beattie, Tim Pepper, August 2003

As stated above, foreign spellings are sometimes used in English context when foreigners or foreigns places are involved, like "Proceedings: Nürnberg, Germany, October 16-18, 2000". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this isn't the only article afflicted with place name "problems" perhaps a better means would be to agree (at a higher level somewhere) that Wikipedia uses English place names according to, say, current online Encyclopedia Britannica. Or Berlitz, or Michelin, or Fodor guides. It would be better to agree on whatever the "definitive" source is and then just stick to it--or, better, a "vote" of a set of definitive sources with one more source in reserve as a tie-breaker. Just a Wiki-topia moment. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Do raise it at WP:NCGN. I have seen worse ideas :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Dr. Dan 11:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "leading citizens of Cracow were mostly Germans"

This had been posted [33] on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus. As more is said on the towns than the person in question, I share it here.

Angus Armitage, a British Copernican scholar, writes in The World of Copernicus (New York, The New American Library, 1951, p. 123):[34]

"Torun was founded by Germans; its leading citizens, like those of Cracow, were mostly Germans. Hence the astronomer may well have been of German extraction. The possible connection of the family on both sides with Silesia does not prove much either way for its population was a mixed one. On the other hand, the ancestors, especially on the father's side, must have lived for so many generations under allegiance to the King of Poland as to be, for all practical purposes, Poles. And Copernicus followed the family tradition in siding with the Poles against the Germans in times of crisis. In any case, it was Poland, and Cracow above all, that first nourished the youthful genius of Copernicus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

which only shows you can find a citation to support any statement... Of course that's enough for WP: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This principle should be included at the top of every article, and probably inserted every 50 lines or so... --Jotel 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not enough for Wiki, per WP:UNDUE (and WP:FRINGE). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that in Latvia there was Baltic German "domination" -- scholars like to use "hegemony." A central question would be what period(s) we are talking about. Kraków coming to be part of the Austro-Hungarian empire was--as many things before war became illegal for "settling disputes"--rather not too pretty. See sidebar on interesting reading on the phenomenon of Galician nostalgia here.

  If we're talking "leading citizens" earlier in history as part of a long-standing community (which would require suitable references), "leading" is appropriate. If we're talking after the A-H Empire took over, that would be a biased portrayal as it would be taken to refer to the new influx, or to the A-H E elevating current Germans to a higher social class. For example, "Russians were among the leading citizens of Riga" 18th/19th century/first independence versus "Russians were among the leading citizens of Riga" post-Soviet occupation. Or take, "Germans were leading citizens of Riga"... before independence = one meaning, during (first) independence = another meaning, Nazi occupation = yet another meaning (notwithstanding all the Baltic Germans had been repatriated).

   The mayors of Riga included, among them, a Brit. The moral is, there may only be a fine line between "cosmopolitan" and "foreign domination." But whichever it is, I would think it is worth noting appropriately. Just some thoughts from the fringe. Time to return to my Baltic editing!

P.S. Note the difference in sense in the use of "were among the leading" as opposed to "were leading", the former rather implies participation while the latter rather implies (by comparison) domination.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

Sports currently describes only football (soccer). Surely there is more to sport in Kraków than this?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and removed the unreferenced details on soccer teams.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

The demographics section has some unreferenced numbers. I found a reliable Polish-English source we can use to verify and expand the article: Biuletyn Statystyczny Miasta Krakowa - Statistical Bulletin of City of Kraków, updated quarterly (the most recent is II/2007). See also Urząd Statystyczny w Krakowie PS. Historical demographics of Poland has data (referenced and reliable) on historical population of Kraków.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again (and again)

Kraków is a current good article nominee. Is this a joke or what? The main contentious issue, Kraków or Krakow or Cracow as the principal name to be used, is as unresolved as it was the previous time. And just in case somebody missed that, there is a long 'to do' list, and it's not about grammar and spelling... --Jotel 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The name is a trivial and dead horse issue, start a WP:RM or drop it. As for the 'to do' list, it is hardly discussed and I don't see anything that needs to be rewritten. Of course, you are free to expand the article whenever you want.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to move the article, I don't care what is says on the box. I've been talking about which version of the name is used IN the article. And that particular horse is very well alive. For example the referee of the previous submission made his opinion very clear, somehow it got politely ignored.
As to the wishlist, I do not intend to expand the article, just the opposite: there are suggestions in the list which I would oppose it somebody else started writing them up. But one of the definitions of the Good Article is stability, and I don't see how you square that with a substantial wishlist.--Jotel 19:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wishlist written by a single editor represents just his/her opinions. I certainly never heard of a wishlist contributing to instability. As for the name in the article, our guidelines are clear: use the current name of the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As to my "wishlist", I just want to explain that it was originally meant as an explanation as to why I voted against promoting this article to FA. I never said I'm going to edit this article so that it complies with my list; I'm currently focused on other subjecs and don't want to distract myself too much. The to-do list is just my personal suggestion to the editors of this article, a list of issues that IMO need to be covered to make this article fully comprehensive. All it means is that if these to-do items are not done, I will oppose FA promotion the next time this article is nominated. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review 2

I've just done a GA review of the article. It is on hold, and it will be ready after the following things are done.

To do:

• Standardize the city's name throughout the article (probably as Kraków), except where the spelling Cracow is more appropriate.
• Please add a link to Kraków-Tarnów sub-region in the opening paragraph. It is not clear what it is, and a wiki search turned up no results.
• Perhaps mention which cities in Poland are larger than it, saying only third larges begs the question and a list was difficult to find
• I changed "During the Cold War this was attributed either to Poles getting in possession of a German master plan for destruction with mines and explosives[42], or to a rapid advance of the Soviet forces led by Marshal Ivan Konev.[43][44]", a nonsensical sentence which I found difficult to decipher, to "
• "Kraków has also 192 nature monuments characterized by their unique scientific, historical and aesthetic value." This doesn't make any sense as is. What is a nature monument, and I think the platitudes at the end need to be removed.
• "The western part of the city, along its northern and north-western side, borders an area of international significance known as the Jurassic Bielany-Tyniec refuge. The main motives for the protection of this area include plant and animal wildlife, its geomorphological features and landscape." Rework this into asserting its significance, and fix the links (probably reforming them into one); neither Bielany nor Tyniec links to the appropriate thing.
• Kraków is one of Poland's most important economic centres. Its population has quadrupled since the end of World War II.^{[citation needed]}
• "Residential prices in Kraków have doubled in three years and reached those of Warsaw attracting developers and banks with exponential growth" also makes no sense. This sentence needs to be parsed to read properly.
• There are eleven university- or academy-level institutions with 170,000 students and 10,000 faculty in the city, plus about a dozen colleges.{{Fact}
• Famous historical figures connected with the University include Saint John Cantius, Jan Długosz, Nicolaus Copernicus, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski, Jan Kochanowski, King John III Sobieski, Pope John Paul II and Nobel laureate Wisława Szymborska.^{[citation needed]}
• The less prominent Park Krakowski was founded in 1885 by Stanisław Rehman, and has since been greatly reduced due to rapid real estate development. It was a popular destination point with many Cracovians at the end of the 19th century.^{[citation needed]}

Let me know when these are done, or I'll check back periodically.-Oreo Priest 12:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failure

The GA review has been failed as no attempt at all has been made to improve the articles. I'm actually amazed that the only things capable of stopping the edit warring were constructive suggestions for improvement. -Oreo Priest 06:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors . The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Proofread by Finetooth (talk) – 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever spelling is chosen, please be consistent

Not going to get involved in the naming discussions, but when/if they're settled, please use that spelling consistently throughout the article, as mentioned by the GA reviewer above. It's very distracting to a copy-editor (whose duties include spell-checking) to see the same thing spelled several different ways throughout the article. Suggestion: Tokyo was once known as Edo. They explain that in the History section, with a link to Edo for more extensive information on the old city. Perhaps the same could be done here. Also, the same issue cropped up when this editor copy-edited Hezbollah, which has various other English transliterations (Hizbullah, Hizbollah, etc.). They reached a consensus on Hezbollah pretty quickly, with a to-do note to explain the spelling varieties in the intro. (Hasn't happened yet, but presumably, it will.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Advancing industrialization"

Re: "...the communist government ... ordered the construction of the country's largest steel mill ... thus advancing industrialization of the city by attracting a new working class." Wouldn't industrialization be advanced just by the act of building factories and other industries? (which would then attract workers) Without knowing the facts behind this statement, I might suggest re-phrase as something like "... spurred the industrialization of the area by ordering the construction of the country's largest steel mill". Growth of the new suburb from the workers attracted to these jobs could be mentioned in a separate sentence if deemed significant, and sourced. Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the salt mines referred to as "royal"?

"Points of interest outside the city include royal Wieliczka salt mine..."
It's not clear to me why the word "royal" is there. The linked WP article on the mine does not include the word "royal" or any reference to royalty other than as visitors, apparently. Please explain this word, or perhaps it should be removed? Thank you, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to vaguely remember a story about Wieliczka having been granted a royal charter sometime in the distant past, but I cannot find anything quotable. PL:WP does not mention anything royal either, so I'm about to delete the word.--Jotel (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting reading here... http://poland.as/Must_see,_must_be!/Wieliczka/311,,1,1,0,0-Wieliczka.html —PētersV (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved second info box to fix edit bunching

There are were three "edit" tags in the middle of the "Middle Ages" section. These were probably intended for the "Etymology" section and the top of the Middle Ages section. An editor involved in this article should apply the section edit tags where appropriate. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC), member, League of Copy-editors

• I gave myself a crash course in WP:BUNCH. The bunching problem showed in my Firefox browser. Moving the second info box seems to have fixed it, but anyone with more expertise in layout, codes, the fixbunch template, etc. is very welcome to put the infobox back where it was and to use one of the more sophisticated code-based methods to avoid the edit bunching. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City names box

I added a small box to the Etymology section. I think it's better then listing the city's names in various languages in the paragraphs. Languages are listed in alphabetical order. I used the following criteria for including a language in the box:

• Languages which have, or used to have, an official status in the city (Latin, German, Polish)
• Languages which are, or used to be, spoken by the majority or a substantial minority of the city's population (German, Polish, Yiddish)
• English, as this is an English-language Wikipedia.

Names in languages which do not fulfill the above criteria should be listed at Names of European cities in different languages which is where the More languages link directs to.

If y'all don't like it, do away with it. If it stays, it might be eventually made into a template and used in articles about other cities as well. — Kpalion^(talk) 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The box is ugly and totally unnecessary – no major city has anything like that, and for a good reason. However, the idea of sorting languages in Etymology according to criteria is a lot more interesting. --Poeticbent talk 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The esthetics can be improved of course. And if a standalone box is bad, how about integrating it into the Template:Infobox Settlement? Whatever the format, I believe it would be quite useful as it would give you all the historically relevant names at a glance and help ensure that they are seleted and sorted according to well specified criteria. What is the "good reason" other city articles don't have anything like that (beside the reason that nobody thought about it before)? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly just about aesthetics. The box looks like a picture of misery with 5 slots listing foreign names (like English) already expanded beyond that – right in the opening line of the article – thus rendering the box redundant. It is not comprehensive (see WP:MOS) and unencyclopedic. It is a bad idea. I suggest you look at featured articles on cities for guidance. --Poeticbent talk 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Latin and German names from the lead to reduce redundancy. Still, if there's some information in the text which is repeated in the box, I don't think that's wrong. Or are you going to remove the main infobox because it mostly contains the same infromation that is already in the text? Why do you think it's not encyclopedic? Which part of MoS says it's bad? I looked at featured articles on cities and yeah, they don't have boxes like this one. Maybe some of them should? You didn't answer my previous question: how about integrating the box into the Template:Infobox Settlement?

Anyway, if you want to add more information about the history of Cracow's name, please do. For me the box was the easiest way to clean up the mess that the Etymology section was. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No need for a {{cn}} tag

The sentence in question states: Kraków is known by varying names in different languages with the English spelling of Cracow becoming less and less frequent in printed literature.

Here are the new advanced search results:
Updated December 17, 2007, with "Poland" added to search in order to weed out non-English titles:

• Google Scholar Results 368 for allintitle: Kraków Poland.

If you cared to have an even more advanced look at the results, you'd find out that (a) results for Kraków and Krakow are lumped together (b) most of the works listed there are by Polish authors, specialists in everything but English linguistics, and they can hardly be described as setting trends for real (i.e. native) English. --Jotel (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Google Scholar Results 335 for allintitle: Cracow Poland.

Updated December 17, 2007, with "Poland" added to search for Kraków/Cracow:

• Google Books 934 on intitle:Kraków Poland.

Again, an advanced look (beyond the hit count) would reveal there still are many, many books in Polish (no, I have no idea how to weed them out). There also are such works as Legendary Cracow =Legendarny Kraków: Wersja Dwuje̜zyczna Angielsko-polska or Kraków =: Cracow = Krakau = Cracovie = Cracovia. --Jotel (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Google Books 535 on intitle:Cracow Poland.

On average, the spelling of Krakow is ten times more popular than Cracow among reputable English sources. Proof is in the pudding. Results copied and pasted from FAC discussion page updated. Btw, what is this obstructionism (below) all about? --Poeticbent talk 17:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond belief....
The quoted Google Scholar results return mostly authors' names, mostly spelled Krakow anyway.
The Google Books result are biased by books published in Polish.

Is there a WP award for the most selective quotation???

Encyclopaedia Britannica: the results refer to the style manual of a single publication.
Columbia: contains Kraków, Cracow and Krakow, so I fail to see a proof of anything here.
And now for more single publication results: The Times (UK), does not use Kraków. Ditto the Guardian. Ditto the Telegraph. The Independent: Kraków 5 hits, Cracow 23 hits. NY Times: Kraków 340 hits, Cracow 800+ hits.The {{fact}} returns. --Jotel (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of calling names, could you care to answer my point? What about newspapers results quoted above? So if somebody presents data inconsistent with your preconceived ideas, this is disruptive? Citation IS needed. --Jotel (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A positive (?) suggestion: let's drop the offending sentence altogether, instead of wasting time on finding evidence supporting one point of view or another. Changes of English usage are undoubtedly fascinating for some, but this matter hardly belongs to the article on Kraków (or Krakow or Cracow...)--Jotel (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done --Jotel (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table in "Demographics" section has a problem.

The population and density table in the Demographics section has a problem. It matches the reference just fine, but the reference has a problem too. The Population goes up about 105 thousand between 1970 and 1978, but the population density goes DOWN in the same period. I assume that the population density figure for 1970 is wrong, and instead should be about 1800 -- Ch'marr (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)