From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Karkonosze)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was: a new poll was held (see below). —what a crazy random happenstance 07:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

KarkonoszeGiant Mountains — Despite the long-winded previous discussion, English names should be strongly preferred on English Wikipedia. For this reason, the Giant Mountains is an obvious choice. With all due respect to the Polish, "Karkonosze" is the least suitable name for this article. Black&White (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strong support. Keeping the least relevant name of the article, "Karkonosze", is not a solution. Black&White (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: nothing, but nothing has changed in usage since this was last discussed. As nothing has changed, I'll repeat some of my comment above: Personally I have seen these mountains referred to most often in English-language texts as the Krkonoše, occasionally as Karkonosze or Riesengebirge and practically never as the "Giant Mountains"; this title would certainly surprise me somewhat. The cost-benefit analysis of this move doesn't stand up - the change to the user experience if we move is minimal given the existence of all the relevant redirects and a thorough explanation of all the different names in the text. Moving the page however will create a number of problems as regards disambiguation from all the other Giant Mountains, and then a slog through hundreds of links to redirect a large proportion of them to the right destination.
I think this is yet another misapprehension of WP:UE, where it is incorrectly assumed that a translated name is "an English name" and everything else cannot be - this is utterly wrong. Mont Blanc is English for Mont Blanc, and White Mountain is not. It is certainly true that Giant Mountains is used much more in English than the neologism White Mountain is for Mont Blanc, but the current title is used often enough in English just as Mont Blanc is - and calling what English writers use in English language texts "not English" is nothing more than linguistic prescriptivism, which is rightly given short shrift in a project based on recording use in sources.
So in summary: we would gain nothing but increased ambiguity and decreased stability for next-to-no-benefit, mainly due to a misunderstanding of our naming policy. Bad idea. Knepflerle (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Knepflerle got it about right, I'd say. The usage of the term "Giant Mountains" is negligible in English. It is universally recognised by its Czech/Polish name and it should be kept at one of those titles. This situtation seems like another Czechia- an attempt to introduce a little used "English" word as the new name for something. <tt>[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</tt><tt><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></tt> (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    Actually it's more a German attempt as Giant Mountains is almost exact translation of Riesengebirge. - Darwinek (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All main arguments appeared in previous Requested move (see archives of this talk page). User:Knepflerle also stated well the reasons for not moving the article name. Polish and Czech variants are eligible ones in English. Also please note that the Polish name is not in contradiction with geographical naming conventions of the WikiProject Czech Republic. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you compare the Czech and Polish area and admit some historical circumstances, then the Czech name fits better. But please, keep your arguments until this Polish/English thing is solved. Black&White (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It may not contradict WikiProject Czech Republic conventinos but it does contradict WP:UE. — Kpalion(talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It contradicts only your incorrect and non-standard interpretation of WP:UE, that would have us move Livorno to Leghorn. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Knepflerle, where exactly did I write that I would move Livorno to Leghorn? It's your idea not mine. I'm not trying to convince everybody that you would like to move Germany to Deutschland, so please stop putting in mouth something I never said. — Kpalion(talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. If an English name exitst, it should be used as the article title. Giant Mountains is not a made-up translation like *White Mountain; it's certainly widespread enough in English-language literature. — Kpalion(talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "If an English name exitst, it should be used as the article title" - this is a commonly heard fallacy, and it still remains untrue to this day. Leghorn is an English name for Livorno - we do not use it. Why? Because it is less commonly used than Livorno. Same for Ratisbon, Elsinore, Coblence, Marseilles - the existence of an English exonym does not automatically mean it is a preferred title. Knepflerle (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that "Giant Mountains" is less commonly used than the Polish and Czech names? And another question: how many English speakers will bother to read the title "Karkonosze" or "Krkonoše", let alone the rest of the article? — Kpalion(talk) 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It was rejected not long time ago. "Giant Mountains" is too generic and Google maps (as pointed to geographic names and not to generic "giant mountains") returns 1382 results for Karkonosze/Krkonoše and only 9 (nine) for Giant Mountains. --Yopie (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • So which one is more generic, again? — Kpalion(talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Knepflerle. Nihil novi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - this has been already discussed and decided, consult the archives for the arguments. Besides, WP has a clear policy on geographic names, and in absence of a "widely accepted English name" ("Giant mountains" certainly is not one), a local name should be used.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysy (talkcontribs)
    1. I consulted the archives and saw that the only argument against "Giant Mountains" was "I don't like it."
    2. The claim that "Giant Mountains" is not widely accepted English name is not true (consult archives).
    3. Please sign your posts. — Kpalion(talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • " I consulted the archives and saw that the only argument against "Giant Mountains" was "I don't like it." - I doubt many people who take the time to read the archives would agree with you. That's hardly accurate. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, sorry; I forgot to mention such wonderful arguments as "Oppose linguistic-imperialist names", "isn't appropriate anymore whatever EB is using", "I am always opposing sneaky attempts to Germanize toponyms in Slavic countries". — Kpalion(talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The name Giant Mountains is not in wide use in fact it is almost non-existing.  Dr. Loosmark  18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support using "Karkonosze" as the article title here on en.wikipedia is just as rediculous as using "Giant Mountains" would be on pl.wikipedia. Note also that even the Polish article apparently says that the English title for the mountain range is "Giant Mountains"! I'll tell you what, these parochial article title arguments are the height of WP:LAMEness.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "just as rediculous as using "Giant Mountains" would be on pl.wikipedia" - that's just an incorrect exaggeration. Karkonosze is used often in English - just check Google Scholar - but Giant Mountains is not at all in Polish. That's as incorrect as saying "Giant Mountains" is never used in English. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that "Giant Mountains" is used in English after all? — Kpalion(talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst I'd prefer the Czech name to the Polish one, the English name is wholly unsuitable and largely unused. —what a crazy random happenstance 00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. While slightly preferring the Czech name, both "Giant Mountains" and "Krkonoše" are unquestionably better than the current name. Over 70% of the said mountains lies on the Czech side, not to mention that the current Polish name is a relatively new Polonized variant of the Czech one. Qertis (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support see User:Qertis - here is`nt the polish Wikipedia! the most of this Mountains are in Czechia. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Striked out a comment added long after the poll had been closed. — Kpalion(talk) 13:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


"Other Giant Mountains"[edit]

I strongly doubt that any issues concerning "other Giant Mountains" arise, as Knepflerle suggests. As you can see, the Giant Mountains article is redirected to this page. Mont Blanc is an "utterly wrong" example in this case ;-). There are a few good historical reasons for Giant Mountains to be named this way, and many local websites mentioning this range in English use this name. Black&White (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"many local websites mentioning this range in English use this name" - and many do not. Usage is mixed.
"Mont Blanc is an "utterly wrong" example in this case" - no it isn't wrong for the point I was actually making. I wasn't saying that Giant Mountains was a neologism in English, I was saying the converse: that "English" names (i.e. names used in English texts by English-speaking writers for English-speaking readers) can include words of non-English origin. Karkonosze and Mont Blanc are regularly used in English texts by English-speaking writers for English-speaking readers. Knepflerle (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Kneplerle. Mont Blanc is used regularly, whereas Karkonosze is not used regularly by any English speaker. Even the Poles didn't know what it was until 1946. That makes the difference. < Black&White > unload! 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Other languages[edit]

Well, if you affirm "Giant Mountains" isn't exactly "after Google's own heart"... Why are then the articles on other Wikipediae named as follows:

  • Dutch: Reuzengebergte
  • French: Monts des Géants
  • German (obviously): Riesengebirge
  • Portuguese: Montanhas dos Gigantes
  • Spanish: Montañas de los Gigantes
  • Swedish: Riesengebirge

and even

  • Esperanto: Gigantmontaro

All of these languages are widely used in the Western Europe. All of these use a translation of "Giant Mountains" (= "Riesengebirge"). Why are you so keen on leaving this article under its Polish name? Isn't this a little bit weird? Why, for God's sake, is the English equivalent listed in the fourth place on the English Wikipedia? Well, either the English name exists, and then it should be mentioned as the name of the article. Or not, and then it shouldn't be there at all.

"The Karkonosze in Polish, Krkonoše in Czech, Riesengebirge in German, and Giant Mountains in English) are a mountain range (...)"

Anyway, a lesser part of the Giant Mountains has been part of Poland no longer than since the end of WW2. In the history, the range belonged either to the Czech Lands or to one of the German states. Hence, there is absolutely no reason why "Karkonosze" should be kept in place any longer. It is pretty logical that the "Giant Mountains" are an English translation of German "Riesengebirge", since before 1945, this area was inhabited mainly by (Sudeto-)Germans. And, what's more, Bohemia was governed from Vienna for 3 centuries. Therefore, the main official language in the Giant Mountains was German. Do I have to go on explaining, why the proper English name doesn't sound like "Curcohnohsheh"?

Black&White (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with all the coloured boxes for your statements?
"either the English name exists, and then it should be mentioned as the name of the article. Or not, and then it shouldn't be there at all. - no, see the examples of Leghorn and Marseilles above. This is the same mistake Kpalion made. All English exonyms should be mentioned in the text of course, but it shouldn't necessarily be the title.
"All of these use a translation of "Giant Mountains"" - different languages do different things. If I want to find out the name for something, I don't go to other languages' Wikipedias and translate the results.
"the range belonged either to the Czech Lands or to one of the German states." - irrelevant. English gets the name of Vienna through French, regardless of the city's ownership.
"since before 1945, this area was inhabited mainly by (Sudeto-)Germans" - irrelevant. Vienna was inhabited by Germans, Prague by Czechs, Venice by Italians. English names do not necessarily reflect ethnicity of the inhabitants.
"why the proper English name doesn't sound like "Curcohnohsheh"" - and then we get down to it. Whether you find the name "proper" is your opinion, but nothing more. Knepflerle (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Coloured boxes: Think it makes this mess organized.
Vienna was inhabited by Austrians (Vienna is just Wien, fitted to the mouth of an Englishman). Prague (Praha in Czech, btw) was then inhabited by Czechs, generally speaking German. As for Venice, you're right. BUT, tell me, what's the connection between what you state (which is absolutely correct) and what I'm saying:
(1) "English gets the name of Vienna through French, regardless of the city's ownership." and
(2) "The Giant Mountains hadn't got their name through Polish." ?
Both the statements are true. But there's no relation between them. And if you say history is irrelevant, then... ok, that's your choice. But the world is based on historic moments. If it weren't, 30 % of the Giant Mountains would be yours - German.
As for proper: Please, don't pick me up on words. I can see just rejection here:
- "No, Giant Mountains isn't used!"
- "No, this has already been discussed!"
- "No, we won't change the name!"
- "No, historical explanations are irrelevant!"
- "No, because the fact the range is called absolutely similarly in all the cognate languages doesn't really matter..."
- "No, all other explanations are irrelevant, too..."
- and finally: "No, proper is not what you think it is. It's something different!"
> Btw, Knepflerle and others: tell us, why - exactly - do you think the Polish name is the one?
Marseille+Livorno: Not the same case. Besides, there's ambiguity between Czech and Polish name. Why the unified and for centuries established English name can't be chosen? As for google: by renaming this article, both Polish and Czech inhabitants/business people in the Giant Mountains won't be puzzled while setting up their own website. And I can guarantee all of them check Wikipedia before, and they are confused. They know their region is called the Giant Mountains in English. But how can they call it like this, if Wikipedia mentions Karkonosze? Noone in the Czech Republic will use Polish name (why should they, after all), vice versa. It's a tourist area and uniformity is then highly appreciated. This article on Wikipedia is quite a nice one. I just think think it should be educating as well. The English name exists. The Czech/Polish names aren't widely used either - I'd feel foolish if I thought we can base our decision on a few vs a few more results in Google search on the UK TLD. So, go and pick up your chance to educate, not to bang your head against a brick wall! Tell the people that these mountains do have their English name! Let the local people from both the Polish and Czech side harmonize the region's name. Do you really have such a problem with it? Black&White (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"I can guarantee all of them check Wikipedia before, and they are confused." - I really should hold you to that "guarantee" some day! Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, come on, dear Knepflerle. And apart from this beneficial comment, what's your opinion on what I've written above? Any objection? < Black&White >talk 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

moved down from the RM header[edit]

If the result of this poll is "oppose", I suggest that we consider moving the page to "Krkonoše" instantly. Black&White (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we just discuss one target name at a time, please? Having a discussion on a move to "if A else B" is confusing. Knepflerle (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That's what we are doing right now, I think... Black&White (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but people opposing the move to Giant Mountains are not necessarily supporting a move anywhere else, and this banner incorrectly gives the impression that they might be. Please remove the banner and the confusion - you can express your wish for a move to Krkonoše in your survey statement below. Knepflerle (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - let's remove this banner, and keep the RM header clean. The RM should not be here in the first place, anyway (unless any new arguments are brought). Moving it down to the discussion subsection. --Lysytalk 09:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This was meant just for information. So that the people interested in this article expect another voting. It is not "When A, then B, and when not A, then C." Please, just go and look up the word "consider" in a dictionary. I think both of you might use books a bit more, because google's not necessarily the best source of everything... Black&White (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I know what it was meant for - but it was ambiguous as to what the result would be if this move were rejected. Your speculation on my reading and vocabulary are better kept to yourself in future, if you don't mind. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed and decided before[edit]

Black&White, consult the text that you have archived yourself just before requesting the rename anew, for the arguments. This has all been already considered and discussed before (several times). Unless there are any new arguments not mentioned in the previous debates, I propose to close this RM instantly, as we're only wasting our time here. --Lysytalk 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss it again ;-). And if you feel you're wasting your time here, you can do anything else instead. And just the last comment, which (and I want to highlight it) isn't meant to offend you, but: don't be such a Poland-o-phile. We have the right to discuss such things here. Black&White (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I just read the previous discussion and I see that, generally, those who favored a move to an English name had valid argumets ("Giant Mountains" is used in current literature, incl. Opera Corcontica, Encyclopædia Britannica and Norman Davies). Those who opposed it, didn't really have any argumetns except that they didn't like it or that the English name is a calque of a German name – as if that mattered (as Knepflerle wrote above, "English names do not necessarily reflect ethnicity of the inhabitants"). Sadly, it looks like commons sense and well-reseached arguments will lose again to parochial nationalism. — Kpalion(talk) 11:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can honestly say that everything I've written in objection above is just "parochial nationalism" with a straight face, at least be assured that most people taking the time to read the discussion will not agree with you. Proclaiming a non-existent "rule" that would have Marseille at Marseilles and Livorno at Leghorn is not well-researched argument, either. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, please refrain from putting in my mouth something I never said. I didn't write that all you've written is just "parochial nationalism"; I wrote exactly what I wrote. — Kpalion(talk) 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Right Kpalion, I hope next you will propose to the following renames:
Sierra Madre --> Snow mountains
Sierra Nevada --> Mother mountains
Wetterstein --> Storm mountains
Andes --> High mountains
Appalachians --> Mountains on other side of river
oh and maybe even Mississippi --> Big River  Dr. Loosmark  18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference between these and "Giant Mountains" is that the latter is actually used in English (no matter how strongly you refuse to accept it). It's used by Encyclopædia Britannica, one of the most popular and most cited encyclpedias in the world; that's already enough to establish that the use of "Giant Mountains" is nowhere near "negligible" or "non-existing". And please stop using silly and irrelevant examples. — Kpalion(talk) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
These examples are incorrect for the reason Kpalion gives
"please stop using silly and irrelevant examples. - however, they're about as accurate as your above summary of the archived discussions, and just as helpful. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, dear Knepflerle. Do you really think you are better than the experienced editors, who check Britannica before publishing an article? Are you at least a native Englishman? I strongly doubt it. The main difference between those examples and the Giant Mountains resides in what we call 'general knowledge'. If there were tens of thousands hits on Google, entries in the world's most prestigious encyclopaedias and the name was "employed", there'd be nothing to talk about. But it's not. There are a few hits on Google mentioning "Krkonoše/Karkonosze", and a few mentioning the Czech/Polish Giant Mountains. If there are relevant sources, that claim something different from what you think, what - according to you - is more credible? You? Come on! And besides, Google's not a know-it-all, even though it's the easiest way for people who don't know much to claim the opposite. < Black&White >talk 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
So basically what are you saying Kpalion is that only Polish mountains should have an anglicized name while Spanish, German etc are fine as they are? Excuse me but that's not very convincing.  Dr. Loosmark  22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
So basically what I'm saying is that "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." (WP:PLACE#Use English). — Kpalion(talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Only that this name is anything but "widely accepted".  Dr. Loosmark  23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Karkonosze is widely accepted???? Sorry, but you can't mean it, can you? < Black&White >talk 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Widely accepted name[edit]

The whole discussion boils down to the question, what is the widely accepted English name for this mountains range? Well, we have a guideline about it: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) #Widely accepted name. Let's take a look:

  1. A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". We don't happen to have a source with such a statement at the moment. What then? Without such an assertion, the following methods... may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name:
  2. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. Britannica has "Giant Mountains". Columbia has "Krkonoše. Encarta doesn't exist anymore.
  3. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted. Google Books: "the Giant Mountains" 867, Karkonosze 798, Krkonoše 803, Riesengebirge 1,437; Google Scholar: "the Giant Mountains" 675, Karkonosze 1,200, Krkonoše 1,420, Riesengebirge 949 (some are actually in German even when restricting search to English). None is three time as popular as any other by this count.
  4. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for. I tried the Library of Congress country studies, but they don't mention the mountain range in question. Norman Davies, a native English speaker who can hardly be accused of anti-Polonism, uses "Giant Mountains" in his Microcosm.
  5. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. I have no access to Lexis-Nexis, but we can try Google News Archives. "the Giant Mountains" 218 (includes generic use), Karkonosze 38, Krkonoše 258, Riesengebirge 78. No clear winner here either.
  6. If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted. That's a clever idea. Let's check Google hits for the following phrases: "known as the Giant Mountains" 26,900, "known as Giant Mountains" 1,990, "or Giant Mountains" 9,630 (usually following the Polish, Czech or German names). This seems quite convincing.

A little lower down the page, our mountain range is even used as an example of how careful one must be with using Google for verification: Search engines will find hits when a paper in English is quoting foreign text, which may well include foreign placenames. This often occurs when citing a paper by title. For example, hits which are in fact citations of German papers which use Riesengebirge are not evidence of English usage, either way. I'll add that the same goes for Karkonosze and Krkonoše. — Kpalion(talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The problem with your point 3. is that "the Giant Mountains" gets tons of hits for where the term is used for something unrelated, for example: [1]
2) I think Norman Davies uses "Giant Mountains" in Microcosm in quotation marks which underlies the fact that he is translating the German name. (you can see the quotation marks in the Google books preview: [2]) In his other works he uses Karkonosze: [3]
3) Points 5. and 6. are obviously affected by a similar problem to point 3.  Dr. Loosmark  23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad 1) Your example happens to be related. The Shepherd of the Giant Mountains is an English translation of a German ballad about, well, a shepherd who lived in "huge mountains which separate Silesia from Bohemia". — Kpalion(talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ad 2) Or maybe he put it in quotation marks because these mountains are not so giant after all? We may never know. — Kpalion(talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Come on, just because a name doesn't exactly represent its meaning literally one doesn't put the name in quotation marks.  Dr. Loosmark  23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the target now. < Black&White >talk 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, it's a name borrowed from German. That's it, and that's how it works. If you're still wondering why, please look above. Where's the problem? You won't change it. Neither of those options is more or less used. And if it is so? Why to stick with a foreign name? "Karkonosze" is in Polish, and the only things relating Poles to these mountains are roughly two hills and two lakes. < Black&White >talk 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Advantages of keeping "Karkonosze" in and the "Giant Mountains" out[edit]

Guys, I've created a special section for you, so that you can freely tell us why you think the name "Karkonosze" SHOULD sustain. Go ahead!

I've found out an interesting thing on the Polish Wikipedia:

"Karkonosze (pol. n. tradyc. do 1946 Góry Olbrzymie, czes. Krkonoše, czes. gwar. góral. Kerkonoše, niem. Riesengebirge, ang. Giant Mountains)"
"Karkonosze (traditional Polish name until 1946: Góry Olbrzymie (= the Giant Mountains), Czech: Krkonoše, Czech Local Highlander dialect: Kerkonoše, German: Riesengebirge, English: Giant Mountains)."

That's nice. The name you stick so much to is a 60-year-old Polonized equivalent of the Czech "Krkonoše". As you can see, "Giant Mountains" has been used in every single language with some relation to these mountains, except for Czech. Or, at least it had been, before you came. :-) < Black&White > talk 04:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop vote[edit]

I propose this vote be immediately stopped, and a multi option preferential voting plebiscite be held instead, much as happened with the Irish dispute. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite reasonable. But this procedure would require a constructive debate, which unfortunately hasn't come yet. Shouldn't we get things straight and finish this poll first? < Black&White > talk 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid the results of this poll will just be (ab)used to kill further discussion. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this will gain quite the same amount of interest as the Irish dispute;) Honestly, if people could stop getting emotional about this (it's not like some nationality wins or loses because we end up using a particular title) and just collect some evidence about how this range is referred to in recent English sources (I don't see how any other arguments are relevant), then we could arrive at a conclusion. If no name is particularly dominant over the others, I suggest leaving the title as it is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If not "Giant Mountains", then at least "Krkonoše" is definitely more frequent than "Karkonosze". < Black&White > unload! 13:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I completely agree with Kotniski.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried to gather some evidence (see #Widely accepted name above) and my conclusion is that English sources use at least four names (German, Czech, a Polish variant of the Czech name, and an English calque of the German name), none of which is particularly dominant over the others. Given that, I think it makes sense to use the English name as the article title because it's, well, English. — Kpalion(talk) 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... if the others are equally often used in English sources, in what way are they less "English" than the one you call "the English name"? (One way to approach it is to ask which name would be best recognized by English-speaking readers who know the range. Although we all recognize the words "Giant Mountains", how many people recognize them as referring to this particular range? Compared with the number of English-speakers who recognize Karkonosze/Krkonose - if you know one you'll probably reognize the other - as referring to this range.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Good solution in theory, not so good in practice. You'd have to poll a representative sample of native English speakers and then publish the results in a reliable journal. Still, there's a risk that none of those polled has ever heard of this mountain range under whatever name. — Kpalion(talk) 13:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase here. Someone go to a library or something, grab an English, general auduence Atlas, turn to a map of Europe/Poland, and then come back here and tell us what they use. It's just the stupid article title, there's no real need for these meta issues here, and so I for one am perfectly willing to accept whatever is in widespread use within English atlases.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, Kpalion has already presented some encyclopaedic data, that is clearly in favour of the English name. < Black&White > unload! 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To me it doesn't seem clearly in favour of anything. All it shows to me is that any of the three names (I exclude the German one, as it's obviously dated) is a perfectly acceptable title, so we ought to be very happy that whatever choice we make isn't going to be a bad one:) (as long as we don't do something stupid, like the "Sniezka-Snezka" double-barrels we used to have). If no-one comes up with a particularly strong argument for changing, I'd say stick with the status quo, but I wouldn't mind too much if it's changed.--Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The German name would be principally politically incorrect. However, there are English encyclopaedias that refer to these mountains as the "Giant Mountains". Why can't we stick to that so as no to make an exception? < Black&White > unload! 17:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with modern English-language atlases is that they tend to use local names even when very well established and widely used English equivalents exist. So if you're going to use an atlas, first make sure it calls Prague "Prague" and not "Praha". — Kpalion(talk) 13:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point... I have to admit that these geography/political related RM's kind of tick me off. Or rather, the people involved in them seem to grate on my nerves. Another similar example is occuring at Talk:Hala'ib triangle#Article_moved_without_discussion right now. It's like people are trying to dragoon the RM process in order to refight (in this case) the Battle of Mohacs, or whatever petty, parochial, nationalistic conflict may be somehow related to the actual article. Anyway, I just read your analysis above and I tend to agree with it, but then I already said that I supported a move earlier, so I doubt that will be convincing to anyone.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm going off-topic here, but what does the Battle of Mohács have to do with the Giant Mountains? Or with the Hala'ib triangle for that matter? — Kpalion(talk) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I grabbed Battle of Mohács as nothing more then a semi-random illustrative example, and the comment about the discussion at Talk:Hala'ib triangle#Article_moved_without_discussion was made simply to illustrate the similar tone that these RM's tend to take.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all rather off-topic, so back to my original question: would people support of a preferential poll? We don't have to go all formal and advertise it all over the place like the Irish did, all I want is that the poll above be put on hold in favour of a better and more definitive one. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. — Kpalion(talk) 09:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, you'd rather rehash a debate that's been going on for years and has never led anywhere, because then everyone will just tire out and the article will remain status quo. I'm afraid there's an inherent limit to discussion, and 5 years is such a great number. Yes, I agree, a poll is not a substitute for discussion, in the same way red meat is not a substitute for tofu. There comes a point where you simply won't get further by just talking. At that point there are two options: edit warring or a poll. Since you're so fond of this debate, I'm just going to accelerate the process by outlining the debate for you: Editor 1: "there are 5 gillion google hits for option A" Editor 2: "Encyclopaedia X uses option B" Editor 1: "Your research is flawed" Editor 2: "Your mother." There. Let's vote now. We may not be a democracy but we're damn close. PS: This is me being friendly, I'm not here frothing in a neurotic fit, so, you know, read every sentence with an imaginary smiley face appended or whatever works for you. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced, but let's wait and see what others say. — Kpalion(talk) 10:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Happenstance, I'm in. < Black&White > unload! 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've implemented an adapted version of the poll and contacted all editors with votes in the above section to recast their votes under the new poll - there should be minimal disruption. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll II[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was to move the article to Krkonoše (B). —what a crazy random happenstance 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Happenstance for managing the poll. I've made a {{db-move}} request at Krkonoše, to enable this article to be moved to that title (if any admins are watching, they could perform the move).--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ballot options[edit]

  • Option A: Karkonosze
  • Option B: Krkonoše
  • Option C: Giant Mountains
  • Option D: Riesengebirge
  • Option E: Krkonoše-Karkonosze (or vice-versa, TBD)

Procedure for voting[edit]

  • This vote will close at 04:30UTC on Friday, 5 February 2010.
  • Please vote using preferential voting (i.e. rank your preferences in order e.g. "A, B, C, D, E")
  • To do this you may use the template * {{stv-ballot|A=0|B=0|C=0|D=0|E=0|sign=~~~~}} — Select it from the asterisk * to the last curly bracket } and Copy, then Paste when you go down to the Balloting Area below. To make your vote, simply put the number with the appropriate letter (X=1 is your most favourite, Y=5 is your least favourite, Z=0 gives no support at all to an option).
  • You are not obliged to express a preference for any of the options that you do not wish to support (or have no preference about); it is easiest to leave the number as zero, i.e. Z=0, rather than deleting the letter.
  • Sign and date your vote but do not append any comments to your vote; they will be removed.


Voting area[edit]


Round 0:
A  3 (17.65%)
B  8 (47.06%)
C  5 (29.41%)
D  1 ( 5.88%)
E  0 ( 0.00%)

Total: 17 (100%)

E eliminated with no first preference votes

Round 1:
A  3 (17.65%)
B  8 (47.06%)
C  5 (29.41%)
D  1 ( 5.88%)

Total: 17 (100%)

D eliminated with 1 vote redistributed to C

Round 2:
A  3 (17.65%)
B  8 (47.06%)
C  6 (35.29%)

Total: 17 (100%)

A eliminated with 3 votes redistributed to B

Round 3:
B 11 (64.71%)
C  6 (35.29%)

Total: 17 (100%)

B wins with 64.71% of the vote
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion II[edit]

If there can be only one winner, then we can't use the single transferable vote method. We should use instant-runoff voting instead. We must also decide the tie-breaking method for eliminating the lowest ranking candidates (e.g., if more than one candidate receive no first preferences). I suggest eliminating all tied candidates simultaneously. But this should have been really decided before we started to vote. — Kpalion(talk) 09:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What about weighting the score? We have 5 options, so the first preference of every voter gets 5 points, the second one 4 points, ... and the last preference just a point. Then we'll sum it up and announce the winner. Is that ok? < Black&White > 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, by 'preferential vote' I was referring to instant-runoff. I've corrected the header accordingly. I didn't realise that the Irish vote was held using such a different voting system, I copied the header without really thinking about it - sincere apologies. I'm not sure we can use your method Black&White - it would be a fairly significant change to already cast votes. I would agree with Kpalion that all options with no first preferences cast for them should be eliminated simultaneously in the first round. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. < Black&White > 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. Keep running polls and changing the process until you beat down the opposition is no way to foster a collegial attitude.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) PS.: Whomever it was that archived the original Requested move above, you didn't do it correctly...
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And you didn't vote correctly. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Happenstance, I don't see how Ohm's vote is incorrect; it's clear he has only one preference and that's option C. It's not clear, however, from the way you archived the previous poll, what the result was. All I can see is "The result of the poll was". Could you please correct it or, if necessary, ask someone who knows how the template works (I don't) for assistance? — Kpalion(talk) 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Had Ohms law's vote been cast in a real election, it would have been a spoilt ballot. It is equivalent to scribbling the name of your preferred candidate in large letters all across the ballot paper. But I digress, and I've corrected the archive tags. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows what the "spirit" of his vote was, and that should be enough for our purpose. < Black&White > 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to the Electoral Commission in real elections when they discard your vote as 'spoilt'. Correct use of the template makes these votes much easier to tally. There isn't any reason to get our knickers in a knot about this - I don't really care that intensely, but I find it rather humorous when I am chided for incorrectly closing a poll by an editor who voted incorrectly just to be special and unique. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ohm's Law, I reformatted your vote to make counting easier. I hope you don't mind. — Kpalion(talk) 10:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly this mountain range should be the named in Czech or Polish, not English and even less German.--Replyentry (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, yes, that's pretty self-evident really. After all it's a Czech or Polish Wikipedia, not an English Wikipedia, let alone a German one! — Kpalion(talk) 09:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Why the sarcasm? So far, most voters are agreeing with Replyentry, to judge by first-choices—6 for "English" (Giant Mountains), 7 for Czech (Krkonoše), 9 for Czech and Polish (Krkonoše + Karkonosze), 0 for German (Riesengebirge).
Why was Replyentry's vote canceled out? Nihil novi (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Because it's their first edit ever in Wikipedia. — Kpalion(talk) 11:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Name it as you like, after all Giant Mountains is an artificial invention, directly translated from German. You can even create your own name if you like... Greetings. Kicior99 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your substantiated contribution, Kicior99! I was looking forward to hearing something like this since we started the discussion! < Black&White > 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In Polish? Why?[edit]

I'm just wondering why some people here still stick to the Polish name. I may be missing the point, especially after what was mentioned before.. Is there kind of nationalist sentiment or what among the Poles? This is an English article on the English Wikipedia, so, why then? < Black&White > 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that. I was wondering if taking this vote to WP:RFC or a similar venue might help to get a broader consensus. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 01:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Most editors agree that since the mountains are located in Poland and the Czech Republic, it is natural that the title of the article should be in Polish or Czech. The name in English is too vague and the German name is completely unnecessary.--Replyentry (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Replyentry, have you noticed that the oldest geographical names very often are generic and "vague"? The Giant Mountains is no neologism. Just bother to research... The German name is useful to mention with regards to history and tourism. < Black&White > 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just like Great Wall, very vague, right? And since it's located in China it is natural that the title of the article should be Chángchéng (or 长城)... SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 07:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ergo on the English Wikipedia the Buddha should instead be called "the Enlightened One," and Christ—"the Anointed One." Nihil novi (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
People have heard of the Great Wall; they haven't generally heard of the Giant Mountains. If we think that the few English-speaking people who have heard of this mountain range are more likely to have heard of it as "K(a)rkonos(z)e" than Giant Mountains, then Giant Mountains is no more "the English name" than the other one.--Kotniski (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Something unrelated: per WP:PLACE the alternative names in the first sentence of the article should be in alphabetical order. Is there a reason why they are not? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:PLACE (and, more importantly, common sense) is a bit less simplistic than that. Anyway, let's leave it for another couple of days to see how the poll turns out - whichever name is chosen as the title of the article will be put first in the lead.--Kotniski (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, there is no rush. I was just wondering. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've found something that might explain why the Polish name is still the one. Here is the first edition of this article from 2002. It was created, propably by some Polish editor, under one of the mountains official names - the Polish Karkonosze. The motives of that editor are propably untraceble by now but it is worth mentioning that this article functioned under the name Karkonosze for nearly 8 years. It was usually unliked by editors who prefered the English translation of the former, German name. Yet, as the official name changed the English translation of the former one schould not be treated as the official English name. If this kind of policy would prevail we would have to still use the translation of Κωνσταντινούπολις (Constantinople) rather than İstanbul becouse the first one was used from the 4th century till the 20th and is therefore much better known :). The Czech name is as good as Polish becouse its official and current. (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no such thing as an official English name of these mountains. Secondly, even if it existed, it wouldn't matter to us, because the Wikipedia policy is to use the name most commonly used in English, which may or may not be an official name. The only problem is that we are unable to determine which name is particularly common in English. And since most of us can't be bothered by analysing as many reliable English-language sources about these mountains as possible, we decided to settle the matter by a poll of our personal preferences, which incidentally often correlate with our nationalities. — Kpalion(talk) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I largely agree, except for one important point: "giant mountains" is not merely the translation of the German name (though there may be the origins of the term), but also (one of the) English terms historically and currently used. Examples are or this book search. Web search results:

Skäpperöd (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Skäpperöd, you've hit the nail on the head! < Black&White > 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
@Skäpperöd: Many English-language sources mention Krkonoše, not misspelled to Krkonose. --ŠJů (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


This is Replyentry's first edit in Wikipedia. — Kpalion(talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to emphasize that my voice should not be crossed. I don't see any principle prohibiting new editors from voting. I signed up recently but have already edited wikipedia as anonymous editor. It seems that it is unjustified discrimination.--Replyentry (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Editors are usually disenfranchised on Wikipedia until they have at least made a few dozen edits, or at bare minimum have been autoconfirmed by the system. Your account was registered 31 January 2009, two days after the commencement of this poll and there is too high a risk that you may be a sockpuppet or otherwise be attempting to manipulate the vote. That is not to say that we think you are a sockpuppet, but as a matter of routine new users aren't usually allowed to vote so soon after joining. It is not the best of ideas to have your account's first edit be a vote, especially on low traffic polls such as this one - it tends to send the wrong impression, even if you mean it well. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I totally understand the concerns some people may have that someone who already voted registered new account just to cast his vote again. I'm new, correct, but I edited Wikipedia before and I signed up in order to cast this vote. I think that my vote should count because there is no such rule that anonymous or new editors have no right to vote at least I'm not aware of one. Please take my voice into consideration. Thanks--Replyentry (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This would not be such an issue were this a discussion (like WP:AfD and WP:RfA) rather than a numeric tally (like the Irish poll). As you can see, the Irish vote had visible guidelines on who can and can't vote - perhaps we should have put those up here too, however to many of us they were implied. I'm sorry if you feel like your voice has not been heard, that was not the intention. However, it's a moot issue: the poll has now been closed, and as you can see from the #Results, even if your vote had been counted, it would not have changed the final outcome. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Krkonoše / Karkonosze[edit]

Apparently, wiki !votes beat UNESCO. Regrettably, UNESCO written answer is nothing more than common sense. Poeticbent talk 07:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: UNESCO cannot decide the problem. UNESCO can not give instructions for the language policy of the Wikimedia Commons project. Both names, Krkonoše in Czech and Karkonosze in Polish, are correct and official. Btw., historically, the mountain range lies on the border of the former German-speaking part of Bohemia and the German-speaking part of the Lower Silesia, Duchy of Jawor. --ŠJů (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


For being reverted don't I deserve an intelligent and grammatically correct edit summary? Gdansk vote is why I'm here, so don't tell me to go see it. There are still some geographical places here that share German Polish history and are not double named. Fix the it! I noticed "Snezka" by accident, You're welcome. Rübezahl (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Chapter Colonization: Polish, Prussian or Austrian ??[edit]

This chapter deals with the 16th and 17th century. Silesia came to Prussia in 1742, so it was not Prussian in the centuries before.

It came to Poland after 1945, so it is now (2018) Polish.

But at the time of the colonisation it was not Polish - what the now Polish suggests, (and not Prussian).

Therefore I delete that sentence.--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)