Template talk:Polishcity

Hmmm... does it have to be that long and does it have to be in the header? In most cases this template is as long as the header of the articles it is placed in - or even longer. Isn't there any way to make it shorter? Halibutt 00:57, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, just write "former German name". But some people have issues with that... Gzornenplatz 01:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Or let's forget the German names altogether. But both: "former German name" and the contents of the template, have been proven wrong in the past. Rübezahl 02:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How to improve this

 * Initially I wanted to simply list this template for deletion, but then I scratched my head and thought to myself "what the hell, why not improve it instead". The most important problem I have with this thingie is that it's much too long. The wording seems fine and is quite balanced, but placing the template in the header of an article makes it look like the most important information about such a town, while this is but a sidenote. Also, in short articles (like Dzier&#380;oniów, for instance) the template is almost as long as the rest of the article.
 * So, how about cutting the text of the template to In the German language, it has traditionally been known as Blahblahblah. This name may be falling into disuse over time, though it can still be found in current use in Germany. ? Halibutt 07:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK to me.Rübezahl 15:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, this is already a compromise. I agree the length is ridiculous, but your cut would make it unbalanced. You just want to remove the fact that the old names are not just German-language variants, but were the generally used ones when the cities were part of Germany (and accordingly are falling out of use because the cities are no longer part of Germany). Of course, you're still free to agree to the short formula "former German name". Gzornenplatz 16:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the template as it is, long and all. Complex issues need complex explanations. "Former German name" is still unacceptable to me.Space Cadet 17:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So how about shortening the template as proposed and instead linking to the article that would explain Gzornenplatz's POV, with all its complexity and detail? Halibutt 02:32, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * If we link to an explanation elsewhere, we might as well remove the whole paragraph and just link "former German name". Gzornenplatz 11:18, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gzornenplatz, you'll have to decide yourself: either you believe that the matter is too complex and important to be ommitted and has to be included on every single page or it's not. If it is, then the former German is too short (and is still highly questionable, especially that so far you're the only person here on wikipedia to support that idea).
 * Can't you think of any compromise solution? So far you gave me a choice of either accepting your false version or constantly revert to the neutral one. On the other hand I still believe that a compromise can (and should) be reached. I'm extending my hand towards you, it's up to you whether you'll accept it or not. Halibutt 19:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can turn this right around. It's your version that's false, and I could either accept your false version or revert to my neutral one. The present solution by Jimbo is already a compromise. I don't think the matter is so complex that it has to be explained in that length on every page. But if you don't accept a reasonable short formula, that's what he have to do. Gzornenplatz 19:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Jimbo proposed a general solution (which I accept, as can be seen from my comments above), but not the wording. I simply thought that if you oppose the rest of us and believe that the German names of cities in Central and Eastern Europe are no longer in use, then perhaps you could be willing to cooperate on a short article that would explain both your point of view and the matter. Halibutt 21:34, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is largely Jimbo's wording. I have sufficiently explained my view on this. Nothing against a special article about the matter, but that still leaves the question on what text to leave in the city articles. Gzornenplatz 21:59, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * the change done by GZ is wrong or maybe his hope; ... there is no proove that it will fall into disuse one time .. and e.g. Warschau oder Szczecin i dont believe it will fall in disuse in the next 50 years--> Szcecin might fall in disuse in the german language; as soon as all Germans speak Polish GZ:; chyba uczylesz sie juz polskiego? ... lub wiesz jak oswiadczac to?...Sicherlich 16:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly right, and I proved it before (Talk:Pila etc.). And I don't see this template being used on Warsaw, or even Szczecin (a borderline case where I won't insist on using the template). Gzornenplatz 16:24, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * and so the use will be decided by whom? ... and it is not perfectly right as it is just guessing and you guess it will .. i simply say and guess it will not ... so who is right? the future will show ... and so you have to say it as well; "it may be" ...Sicherlich 16:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not guessing, it's proved by properly targeted Google searches that the old names are falling into disuse (being already down to less than 10% use in many cases); no one says it has already fallen into 100% disuse. Gzornenplatz 16:45, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * your proves; the only one who accepted them had been you .... and if it is used then it is used, if not then they are not used anymore at all ...Sicherlich 21:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The only ones who don't accept them are you and the other obvious German and Polish nationalists. I can't do more than prove it to the satisfaction of every reasonable person (ask John Kenney, 172, Bwood, Sca, or Jimbo who made this compromise).  Gzornenplatz 23:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * In where I live calling someone a nationalist is highly offensive and I kindly ask you not to repeat that. Thank you.
 * As to the main topic of this discussion: I perfectly agree that the German names are gradually falling into disuse, just like the Polish names for German cities are also disappearing, especially among common, uneducated people (compare with, for instance). However, the degree to which the change occur is a matter of personal oppinion, and especially so because no Google search is apparently conclusive. That's why I prefer the solution with a page explaining the phenomenon - but without any gradation. Let's stick to simple facts: report that in some instances the name might be falling into disuse, but both names are still in use and it's hard to measure to which extent. Halibutt 09:07, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I call 'em as I see 'em, and you are a Polish nationalist. Why else would you try so hard to hide the fact that those cities used to be German (otherwise they, at least the minor towns, would never have gotten a German name!) and the German names were then universally used, and that, accordingly, now that the cities are no longer German, those names become obsolete, internationally as well as, in a slower process, in German? Obviously you're trying to give an impression of them as being historically Polish cities, which just happen to have a separate name in German (always had, still have), in no other way than Warsaw has a German name. The Google searches are perfectly conclusive, you just flat-out refuse to acknowledge it without being able to say what should be wrong with it. It's nonsense to say a name like Schneidemühl "might be" falling into disuse. It is falling into disuse. In 1945 "Schneidemühl" was still used in 100% of the cases, now it's down to 10%. That's a pretty clear fall. Gzornenplatz 16:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope that you are aware that what you are doing aims to contradict the very claim you make in your template. You claim that the "former German name" is falling out of use, yet here you are working strenously to paste it into every relevant city article you can. Say you succeed, and as Wikipedia becomes more popular, your template shows up prominently every time somebody Googles the given city, and so the "former German name" becomes more prominent, not less.  At this point, sir, you contradict yourself :).  The name you claim to be used less and less actually becomes used more frequently (such is the power of Google).


 * I would compare your efforts to painting graffiti on the most prominent walls of the city saying "Graffiti use is declining". I hope you see the element of absurdity in this. Balcer 00:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The names are relevant to mention as former names, and I don't think their mention on Wikipedia will stop or reverse the process of them falling out of use in German. Even most Germans who are fully aware of the historic names will not use them for the present cities. It just sounds anachronistic to say something happened today, for example, "in Schneidemühl" - a place that neither belongs to Germany, nor has a German population, nor is of any general significance that would justify it having a separate name in German. Gzornenplatz 01:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, that's it: either prove I'm a nationalist with diffs and links or apologize - and better do it now.
 * I'm afraid that trying to explain my views to you is a waste of time. Unfortunately any attempt of comming to terms with you or reaching a compromise has failed so far. I lost any hope you'll get sane any time soon, so I'll simply do my job and go forward. I hope I won't have the doubtful pleasure of meeting you again. Good bye. Halibutt 10:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just explained it above. You really have a reading comprehension problem. Reaching a compromise has failed because you have rejected three compromises so far - by John Kenney, Bwood, and Jimbo. Gzornenplatz 01:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * GZ: "most Germans who are fully aware of the historic names will not use them for the present cities." .. .. say Szczecin .. please do it for me .. record it and put it online .... PLEASE or make it more simple .. lets take ... hmmm &#321;ód&#378;, Wroc&#322;aw, Bydgoszcz, ... man face it there is not only the historical reason for german names ... there are others; Germans have enourmous problems pronouncing it  ... maybe you start studing polish; as soon as you are able to pronounce correctly differences between sz cz rz &#380; &#378; &#263; zi and a simmple r ... we can maybe start talking again ... Sicherlich 19:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This edit war is so childish. Gzornenplatz, you do know that Poland is now in the European Union.  You should also know that around October, 2007 the Schengen treaty will be fully implemented for Poland, and the Polish-German border will for most intents and purposes disappear.  Some time before 2010 any restrictions on Poles working in Germany will also have to be lifted.  There will be no more border checks, there will be completely free flow of people, with Poles moving to Germany and Germans moving to Poland as they see fit.


 * This really will be an unprecedented situation in modern Polish-German history. Given this, nobody really knows how the relationship between Polish and German societies will evolve.  Maybe some of the descendants of expelees from Schneidemuhl or Stettin will move to, or at least buy homes in, the cities of their grandfathers (most likely at least some have already done so).  The German name of the city might then come into more prominent use once again. I would certainly hesitate to even speculate what will happen to the usage of any particular Polish or German place name.  Hence, leave the "may be" in the template, please.  Balcer 03:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That is pure speculation. If and when it happens, we can report it. But so far, the use of those names has only been falling. Gzornenplatz 13:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Usefulness?
Methinks "this template may be falling into disuse over time, though it can still be found in" an underwhelming two articles, Chojnice and Chodzież. Besides, it should have been called "FormerGermanCity" anyway. W -- Matthead DisOuß   11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Banned user artifact, we can consider TfDing this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion would erase the quite interesting discussion and all. Some of the people involved three years ago are still around, some are gone, like User:Gzornenplatz in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wik. -- Matthead DisOuß   11:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:CSD, point 1-8. Nothing would prevent you from userfying this discussion before this happens, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)