Talk:Grand Duchy of Kraków

Requested move, 2007

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Großherzogtum Krakau → Grand Duchy of Cracow — Undiscussed move from the english name to the german name. It doesn't make much sense. There should be an english name, Großherzogtum is obviously a name for a political unit as a kingdom. —≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

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.

• Support per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, move was undiscussed and moved from English, reasoning was failure of a Polish name moved to proper English (doesn't make sense, does it?) Charles 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although Grand Duchy of Kraków would be ok too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Let's go with Piotrus's suggestion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Grand Duchy of Cracow per WP:UE. — AjaxSmack 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This is going to be another pointless discussion, along the lines Kraków versus Cracow. Who cares what is the canonical name of the page if the information is easily reachable by looking for the German, Polish, English or any other name? --Jotel 18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Cracau, Krakau or Krakow, but what I oppose is "Großherzogtum". ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. For the same reason, the issue at Free City of Kraków/Cracow was never whether it should be 'Wolne Miasto Kraków'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This RM is invalid; there is no need to discuss a move - if any, we should discuss moves from Grand Duchy of Cracow to a new name. PS. I moved the article to its original name per WP:SNOW. I suggest remaking the above RM to GDoC to Großherzogtum... to show how that move would completly lack any support. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea at all to interrupt this discussion by changing the move target, and I'd suspect you'll just be reverted if you try. The current proposal is perfectly valid; if you can convincingly show that this proposed move is to a bad name, then do so, either here or in a new move proposal. WP:SNOW seems to me to warn sternly not to do exactly what you are proposing. Andrewa 20:57, 30 August 2007 (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.

The consensus is clearly for the article to stay at "Grand Duchy…" and not "Großherzogtum…" --Stemonitis 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

latest move

I disagree with the latest move which was done without any discussion whatsoever. Unless somebody disagrees I will renamed it back.  Dr. Loosmark  18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment has been made without discussion and not in good faith. The change should be reverted immediately.--Mamalala 18:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus

This article should not be confused for a historical article. This article should describe the organization and structure of the former state, as - for example - Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth does. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Cracow → Grand Duchy of Kraków — The correct, modern English name of the town in question is Kraków, not Cracow (per the GA article sitting there, the sources and the discussion on talk). If you look at the Category:History of Kraków, this is the only article about the town's history that uses this old English name variant (modern is Kraków). For the same period, we have Kraków Uprising, not the Cracow Uprising. See also this Google ngram analysis that shows recent usage of Kraków vs Cracow. It is high time we eliminate this last, confusing vestige of Cracow on Wikipedia. PS. "Grand Duchy of Kraków" is used in English ([1]), so it would not be a Wiki invention. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The correct Polish name is now usually used in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Yopie (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose. What Piotrus' ngram shows is that (in the last five years) Cracow is tied with Krakow and Kraków together. That might be a reason to use Kraków for the city - or it might not; but our practice is that if an article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. Piotrus knows this; IIRC he wrote it. The subject of this article is not the modern city; it is an obsolete Austrian administrative division.

An ngram for the actual Grand Duchy of Cracow looks, as might be expected, quite different. I am pleased to observe that there are (less than two dozen) exceptions, which divide between Krakow and Kraków; there are over 300 instances of the Grand Duchy of Cracow. That the book Piotrus cites is published under the auspices of the EU is not surprising; the EU has a positive tradition of yielding to nationalist pressure from the member states.

Piotrus, I am disappointed; please stop this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

While you are right that for this particular entity the old, anachronistic name is still most popular, this is a singular exception to the widespread use of Kraków. As such, I see the benefit of using the still (but for how much longer?) more popular, anachronistic name instead of the standardized modern name as not sufficient to justify keeping this article as an exception in Category:History of Kraków. You may disagree, and perhaps so will others, but I see no reason to withdraw my argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This speculation is unhelpful IMO. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the diacritic form is unnecessary for starters. Either form without the diacritic is acceptable, but the Cracow form in this instance seems to be more common, and consistency for consistency's sake is mere brutality. --Bejnar (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A Wikipedia article is often the first item listed in a Google search for a topic. What a Wikipedia article says (and how it is titled) is incredibly influential on future scholarship. This requested move is merely an attempt to change English-language usage - and therefore future scholarship. If and when English-language usage changes from the "Grand Duchy of Cracow" to the "Grand Duchy of Kraków", then Wikipedia should change. But Wikipedia should not be promoting that change. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google web search [2] [3] books [4] [5] and scholar [6] [7] all favour keeping Grand Duchy of Cracow as the title. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 21 April 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.

Requested move 3 September 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. This is a difficult close. I do not say that flippantly - there are thorough arguments on both sides of the issue. Clearly, both names are sufficiently supported by sources to be considered legitimate alternatives, and WP:CONSISTENCY between supertopics and subtopics is a legitimate consideration. With these equities in mind, there is substantially greater support for the move, after extended discussion, than for the status quo (partially discounting the weight given to the opinion of one relatively new account). bd2412 T 03:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Cracow → Grand Duchy of Kraków – WP:CONSISTENCY with main article Kraków, Uprising of Kraków etc, and "Grand Duchy of Kraków" now used in English books on Poland. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —  AjaxSmack  16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per well-grounded arguments submitted by Piotrus in the 2011 discussion on this subject, directly above. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom and per the following big list of arguments - just in case the 2011 ones are not enough :P Let's try this again, seven years later. Since then, the situation hasn't changed except Kraków spelling getting more and more prominent. Unfortunately, Google's Ngram does not seem updated post 2008 (so I'll just derot the link: [8]). While it appears the usage is roughly same, here are arguments in favor of changing the name of the article: 1) there is no denying Kraków is the modern spelling; while there is no official decision by the city council about English name (AFAIK), I found 2008 newspaper which cited an official from the city promotion department saying that they prefer Krakow (22) and a 2015 blog of professional translator (23) which discusses pros and cons and notes that official website uses Krakow and that official websites should be taken as official positions in lieu of official statements. 2) That's Polish media/view. How about English mainstream usage? The cited 2008 article already ten years ago counted that NYT, Guardian, BBC, CNN, Fox News and Yahoo were leaning towards K-spelling over C-spelling by ratio of 60-90% depending on the platform. National Geographic, Lonely Plant, Eyewitness Books, Encyclopedia Britanica have also switched to the K-spelling in the last dozen years or so. 3) That leaves the argument 'historical context'. Well, counting use of 'Grand Duchy of C/K' is fallacious because most sources about in English are old, so the publication count will be skewed towards C since most older (up to mid-20th century sources in particular) would use C-spelling, and Google Book search for those terms favor C-spelling at a ration 5:1, through ironically Google (which has long treated Cracow as mispelling - check your gmail) does helpfully note in the search for "Grand Duchy of Krakow" Did you mean: "Grand Duchy of Krakow" :> But if we limit the search in books to 2010+, C gets 247 ([9]) and K gets 147 ([10]), so we are almost at the flipping point there as well (and let's not forget that this calculation is also skewed because reprints, but there is no easy way to dismiss them - but it is possible that for purely new works the flip has already occurred). 4) Finally, let's not forget WP:CONSISTENCY. Consistency is good for readers. This still remains the only article on Wikipedia related to Kraków-history spelled with C-spelling (well, ok, recently Free City of Kraków got renamed, but this happened due to canvassing by a now-banned editor, and will likely go back once we get around to a new RM there). So why is this the ONLY Wikipedia article on Kraków history with a C-spelling? (Just take a look at Category:History of Kraków, note also Kraków Governorate, Kraków Voivodeship, Kraków Department, Kraków District in the administrative history, with the current Duchy being again the only odd exception). Anyway, unless there is an official name change, there is no reason to use varying names outside of an etymology section and confuse readers. So since there is no official recognition for use of Cracow, also in the historical context, I think the consistency argument suggests that using Krakow everywhere is the sensible, reader-friendly thing to do. The argument that C was more popular than K in 19th century works so we should use it in this context is, to me, ridiculous - it's like saying that we should not discuss slavery in American in negative context until mid-20th century, because majority 19th century and other pre-abolitionist publications did not see it as a problem :/ Wikipedia should represent modern views and scholarship. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to make an argument that the trend is towards Krakow. That doesn't change the fact that the most common name for the Grand Duchy and Free City is still "Cracow". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If "Krakow" overtakes "Cracow" in this context, the article can be moved there. So far, that hasn't happened. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Snowball support per Piotrus. Please be advised that this article was renamed as the Grand Duchy of Cracow on 20 May 2017‎ by a BLOCKED user with 418 edits, probably in bad faith. Poeticbent talk 14:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • ​No, the article has been titled Grand Duchy of Cracow since it was moved from Großherzogtum Krakau in 2007. Note the previous move requests above. —  AjaxSmack  16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Separately, there was a move of Free City of Cracow (in May 2017). Power~enwiki (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:CONSISTENCY [sic]. Google Books shows that "Grand Duchy of Cracow" is far more common than "Grand Duchy of Krakó/ow" (3,800 hits to 604 hits) and "Grand Duchy of Krakó/ow" doesn't even show up on this Google Ngram result. In addition, while Wikipedia uses "Kraków" for current political entities, it still uses the English spelling for the Grand Duchy's predecessor, the Free City of Cracow, and this is by recent consensus as User:Power~enwiki points out. User:Piotrus's rationale would have articles like the Battle of Volgograd or the Free City of Gdańsk. (BTW, although I am an "idiotic POV-pusher and anti-Polish nationalist", I resent that my and others' opinions in the the Free City of Cracow move make us shills of a canvassing editor as implied above. I will notify all participants in that discussion of this proposal as well.) —  AjaxSmack  01:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not recent consensus, but a push by some editors, at least one of whose got banned for socking and is now sending trolling messages ([11] and simply vandalizing related articles) that you are encouraging and even inviting to this discussion (sorry, but that's one editor who is not going to help you anymore). Above I already discussed why ngram is a problematic tool above, and how we need to control the GBook results for age (newer publications increasingly favor K spelling, but sure, if you count the 19th century ones too you get a different picture...) so it seems to tat you simply didn't bother to read or reply to my arguments. And of course you ignore my apology and clarification for the 'idiotic' comment, in attempt to discredit the opposing side by turning this into an emotion-run battleground. Please don't treat this as a fight (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND), and please read and respond to other arguments if you want to be treated seriously. But as long as we are talking about emotions, it is worth remembering that the recent move of FCoK to FOoC was done by a now-banned editor who is now venting as an IP leaving trolling messages around like the one I linked - are you sure you want to be on the same side as him? As for your only 'argument' which I have not discussed above, 'User:Piotrus's rationale would have articles like the Battle of Volgograd or the Free City of Gdańsk.', aside from being a straw hat argument (I've never said so) it is also plain wrong, as in the first case we are dealing with an official city name, and in second, an issue long settled by WP:GDANZIG, so this either shows your lack of familiarity with relevant rules, or another attempt to discredit an opposing opinion by trying to make them sound unreasonable by attributing to them views they don't, in fact, share. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @AjaxSmack: I also note that you just notified the banned "English names" sock Genealogizer mentioned by Piotrus above. Genealogizer cannot !vote here because he is blocked. As for creating the impression of being a "anti-[insert foreign country] nationalist", rather than blame those who have gained that impression it would perhaps help if in all these discussions (not just Poland ones) if you addressed modern post 2010 book sources and did not simply rely on older data. We all know that older data generally supports older usage. And you have been asked in other RMs not to cite the pre-2008 Google Ngram as evidence against Gbooks, it is 10 years old and unreliable even for pre-2008 data. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As has been rehearsed in several of these discussions, "Cracow" is used by the best English historians and distinguished university presses. In historical contexts it is to be preferred. The desire to make "Kraków" (which unlike "Krakow" is barely used in English) the only name in use on Wikipedia is not motivated by a concern for good English. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: I note that you also were invited by AjaxSmack to come here. On what basis is Cambridge University Press not distinguished and "not motivated by a concern for good English"? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I note that how I became aware of this discussion is not relevant to the argument, and that you need to work a lot better on your English if you honestly think what I wrote implies either of those things about CUP. But I don't imagine you do honestly think that. This is just the kind of blatant intellectual dishonesty that convinces me that those pushing so hard for "Kraków" are pushing an agenda, not looking for how to improve Wikipedia. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually I do honestly think that. And am even less impressed with the last post than the former. Rather than casting aspersions on other editors, please look at modern history books, such as the CUP History of Poland I just linked. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the linked CU book explicitly notes that p.xvi, 2001 edition: ""...current usage tends to the adoption of Polish forms (Kraków. rather then Cracow..." and uses K not C spelling for all periods, including that of the Grand Duchy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice that your source actively admits to trying to encourage the use of Polish forms even when an English one is still common, therefore as a source for this it violates WP:NPOV Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to closer, for Academicoffee71 history see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per the very well-reasoned argument of the nom. We should maintain consistency here. AusLondonder (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Consistency with Free City of Cracow and the majority of sources? —  AjaxSmack  01:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per changing current usage in English language. The combination of this and the following relisting and opposing seems not quite correct. Agathoclea (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Although "Krakow" (without the diacritic) has increased in popularity for things relating to the modern city, "Cracow" remains the most common spelling in most historical contexts, including this one. The Polish spelling, with the diacritic, is almost never seen in English. As a grad student in history, I can say with full confidence that this is not unusual. See Battle of Leghorn vs Livorno, or Battle of Corunna vs A Coruña. In many ways, this is a similar case, although "Cracow" is a good deal more common for the modern city than either "Leghorn" or "Corunna" are. Importantly, "Cracow", like "Leghorn" and "Corunna" is still in somewhat widespread use for the modern city, unlike, say Peking or Sianfu. Academicoffee71 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

NB brand new user, Sock Puppet Investigation ongoing In ictu oculi (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support User:Keneckert I support Piotrus, who as a native Polish and English speaker and professor would certainly have an experienced sense for this. Krakow is the Google Maps spelling, is used in other Wiki pages, and is the familiar spelling in my public school and university history courses and textbooks. A Google image search shows that English postcards, blogsites, and memorabilia for the city generally use "K." The page can still mention or index the alternative spelling, and it might even be useful to have a page itself on disputed spellings for toponyms in non-English speaking polities, if one doesn't already exist. 20 September 2017

On Google books, "Grand Duchy of Cracow" outnumbers "Grand Duchy of Kraków" by about 5:1. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. A COMMONNAME argument would apply to the other articles and has failed there. This is another sock-laden putsch by the anti-diacritics zealots.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Except the common name of this historical duchy is still "Cracow", just like the common name of the interwar Free City is still Free City of Danzig not "Gdansk". Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Except that Danzig is a special case per WP:GDANZIG. (Also, it was inhabited by mostly German speakers then, unlike Krakow, which has never been significantly inhabited by English speakers :P). Anyway, irrelevant here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but English Wikipedia is primarily inhabited by English speakers which is why we have WP:UE as policy. —  AjaxSmack  23:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: Of course. And if you think Kraków is not English, then you should try to get that article renamed. Why don't you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Kraków" isn't English. The English translation of that word is "Cracow". However, WP:UE isn't the only naming policy, and on that page, the fact that "Krakow" (without the diacritic) is somewhat more common in modern news and diplomatic/political sources (although not in academic sources) was used to justify placing that article at "Kraków" per WP:COMMONNAME, which is odd, given that "Kraków" is by far the least common variant of the name in English. It's similar to the reason we have an article on Beijing instead of "Peking". "Beijing" is the romanized Chinese translation of the English word "Peking", but it has become more common in the last three decades, so our article is located there because of WP:COMMONNAME. However, in this case, WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME both point to "Grand Duchy of Cracow" as the proper title for this article. Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"A COMMONNAME argument would apply to the other articles and has failed there." Are you saying that we should ignore the 5:1 WP:COMMONNAME here because it is ignored in other cases? "This is another sock-laden putsch by the anti-diacritics zealots." The proposal for a move was made by User:In ictu oculi, who as far as I know, is not a sockpuppet and the request is in favor of using a diacritic. —  AjaxSmack  01:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There aren't enough sources to call COMMONNAME in either case, the sources that exist just follow the same spelling of the city they use in the main body of the book, i.e. they are consistent, as we might as well be. And yes, bloody annoying to have the "English name" socks from 2009-ish still active, but there is a process that SPIs need to be Check-usered and wound up before each new block. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the WP:COMMONNAME in book sources appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of the current title, per AjaxSmack's argument above, so there's no case to answer. Consistency would only apply if this were a close -run thing, but where there's an established English name for what is a historical entity, we should stick with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: How about the minor problem that Google Book search includes a lot of obsolete, 19th century books? As I noted above, we need to control for book publication dates, which Ajax did not do.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Even when you control for publication date, "Cracow" still outnumbers "Krakow" at a ratio of about 5:3. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ajax and Amakuru. This is a historical entity with an established name - exactly. We should follow the sources here. Dohn joe (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral. Both names are fine. Please expand the article instead of just moving it back and forth. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, for all the cogent reasons summarized by Piotrus and given by other editors. Why use an anachronistic medieval hangover instead of the place's present-day name? The article's title should be changed as proposed, in the interest of consistency and confusion-avoidance. Nihil novi (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, "Cracow" is neither archaic nor medieval, and is still used fairly regularly for the modern city. Secondly, historical place names are usually preserved in historical contexts on Wikipedia. For example, we have articles called Burma Road, Nanking Massacre, and Empire of Trebizond, even though our articles on those locations are called Myanmar, Nanjing, and Trabzon. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support The term is somewhat in-between proper name and descriptive name. If it were fully proper, then we would have called it "Wielkie Księstwo Krakowskie" in English 'as is'. Howewer the name is translated. Accordingly, IMO we have to use a modern translation. In English there is a consistent tendency to give preference to modern geographical names Pekin->Beijin, Burma->Myanmar, etc. Unfortunately Warsaw is not Warszawa yet, :-) but Cracow->Krakow is apparently a modern naming. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in English there is a consistent tendency to preserve historical names in historical contexts. For example. we have articles entitled Free City of Danzig, Treaty of Ryswick, and Battle of Corunna; even though the most common names for the modern cities are Gdańsk, Rijswijk, and arguably A Coruña (although "Corunna" is still sometimes used for the modern city). It is also worth pointing out that even for the modern city "Cracow" isn't archaic, or even dated yet, given that it is still used by several map publishers, dictionaries, and a considerable number of academics. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the examples that you cite in opposition to the move proposal are of singular historic events or quasi-events rather than of polities: Burma Road, Nanking Massacre, Treaty of Ryswick, Battle of Corunna. They are therefore not really germane to the question at hand. Nihil novi (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, compare Bombay State, British Ceylon, Principality of Antioch, and British Guiana with Mumbai, Sri Lanka, Antakya, and Guyana. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, as well established by commenters above. WP:CONSISTENCY is not a rule and does not overrule the use of the common name. I am also wondering if Piotrus will follow up this move proposal with further moving articles like Wilno Uprising (1794) and Vilna Ghetto to the modern name of the city, instead of their (rightly used) historical names. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @No longer a penguin: I am afraid the examples you cite just illustrate you are not familiar with the historical context here. Wilno a is the proper usages in pre-modern historical context, as back then the city was Polish, not Lituanian, so it was decided by the community long ago to stick with Polish names for that period, similar to WP:GDANZIG division by era. Vilna is a bit weird, and I may start a discussion on talk, as it is the Russian spelling and the least appropriate for the context. Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish or German versions would be better (unless Vilna Ghetto is the most common variant in English, something to check and consider later). Anyway, the point is that all those names for Vilnius have been used by its inhabitants in the past, but nobody who ever lived in the GD of C/K called it in English with Cracow spelling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean to equate those three examples, I am well aware that they substantially differ from the case here, as does the Gdansk/Danzig vote. All I wanted is to illustrate the limits of WP:CONSISTENCY that was your stated argument in the move proposal. In my opinion, WP:COMMONNAME beats it every time and the evidence so far is that Krakow spelling MIGHT become the common name in the near future, but it hasn't yet. When there is enough evidence of Krakow being the common name for the Duchy, I will wholeheartedly support it on those grounds. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Krakow is the most widespread English name.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • But "Krakow" is not the proposed title. And 3,800 hits to 604 hits for "Cracow" in Google Books hits says otherwise. —  AjaxSmack  23:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Both of these numbers - the 3800 and 604 - are complete nonsense. Actually each one clocks in at about 20. You can see that if you just hit the "next" button from the first page of search. The number given on the first page is NOT the number of hits, it's... actually don't know what it is, but it is a well known bug with Google books. Or see this. Notice there's only 3 pages listed so it CANNOT be 3800 hits (and the third page actually has nothing on it). Please strike your erroneous comment. Thank you. Volunteer Marek  04:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I get 12+ pages of hits with that link. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No you don't. Click on the "12", or anything past "3". Volunteer Marek  03:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. Even so, it's 3 real pages of results for "GD of Cracow" vs 2 pages of real results for "GD of Kraków", so "Cracow" is still about 50% more common in this context. Also, Google scholar has 32 hits for "GD of Cracow" and only 19 for both "GD of Krakow" and "GD of Kraków" combined. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajax, you do realize that those numbers aren't real? Add "was" into the string and get 1 hit. to zero visible results. There simply aren't enough mentions in post 2010 books to play the numbers game here. Best to just go with consistency and not feed the socks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

IIO, you do realize that a lot of books don't follow up the name of a political entity with "was"? Ajax's results are accurate. Also, I'm still not a sock, and it's more important to be consistent with reliable sources (Which overwhelmingly prefer "Cracow" for both the Grand Duchy and the Free City than with the Wikipedia article on the modern town (which I think should be at "Cracow", since "Kraków" is incredibly uncommon in English and "Krakow" is just an ignorant mash-up of the English and Polish spellings). Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You are a brand new account with few edits which appears to have been created specifically to participate in this discussion. Also, I'm interested, what led you to edit this article?  Volunteer Marek  04:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes press the "random article" button to see if there are any articles I can contribute to. For place names, historically relevant names in other languages should be mentioned, which is what I did there. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.