Talk:Piła

Untitled

Wik and Nico, why are you acting so childish ?

The name should be written, like on many other cities, folowing this standard:

Official name (language1:Name1; language2:Name2...)

so it should be:

Piła (German:Schneidemühl)

Bogdan | Talk 15:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. Nico 16:31, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Except it isn't the German name today. --Wik 16:55, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

It is the the German name. End of discussion. Nico 17:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even today the German name Schneidemühl is still used by current and former German inhabitants. Logically, you can only call a name former name when the last person who used it died. However, 1260 people used the name Schneidemühl in 2003 and 185 people used both names, so the name is still used and should be mentioned as suggested above. 217.225.116.151 13:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it the name that German inhabitants used, right ? Then it is a German name.

Probably similar to this case: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasov Bogdan | Talk 18:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There are still significant numbers of Germans living in Brasov. There aren't in Pila. The town passed from Germany to Poland, the population was exchanged, and it was renamed. Schneidemühl is the former name. No one in Pila uses it today, and no one but reactionaries use it in Germany, as the Google figures I posted before prove. Here's a typical example of a German report about a recent sports event in Pila: "Die DVV-Frauen-Nationalmannschaft scheint für die Qualifikation zum Grand Prix in Pila/Polen vom 26.-31. August gut gerüstet." [1]. You will have a hard time trying to find an equivalent saying "Schneidemühl" instead of Pila. Any references to Schneidemühl are historical. --Wik 18:44, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Wik is correct on this matter, but why don't we just settle in between: Saint Petersburg shows a good example of historical names... of course, the city is still called Leningrad by some, and it is a very historically important city (Battle of Leningrad, not Battle of St. Petersburg), so... maybe it's different. ugen64 01:12, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the word formerly is a good way to show a historical name. So make sure it stays in its proper place in this article. Ashibaka ✎ 01:39, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If Schneidemuehl is the former German name (the present German name being Pila, I presume), then it should be noted in the history section, not the header. Otherwise we'd have to list all alternative or historical names for all cities in all headers. Consistency... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:12, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Important historical names are always listed in the header, for example Saint Petersburg mentions Leningrad and Petrograd. What is the problem here? Gzornenplatz 02:34, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Please consider joining the discusion at WikiProject_Cities/Names_issues Bwood 07:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection and new version

While you guys were playing your games I prepared a new version of the article. Too bad the current version got protected again before I saved my work. Fortunately it is now available here. Hopefuly one of the admins could replace the current version with it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Your version still has the wrong "German Schneidemühl". It is a former name! Gzornenplatz 21:31, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

So please be so kind as to explain it to me, because the term "former name" is ambiguous. Piła (formerly Schneidemuehl) has several meanings:

1. Up to certain point in time it was called Schneidemuehl, then the name of the town was changed.
2. The town was known in German as Schneidemuehl, but the German name was changed.
3. The town was known in English as Schneidemuehl, but now it's not.

The first case is out of the question since it would be equally right to say Piła (formerly Piła). I don't have any info on the other two cases. Anyway, I decided that the good old Talk:Gdansk compromise solution would do, at least until we establish some permanent Wikipedia policy on cities and their names. This definitely is the German name and it needs to be stated. I stated it as such, expanded it in the city name section and I don't get what's wrong with it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:36, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that it is not the German name, it is the former German name. It is no longer used today. If you dispute that, see how many references to the present-day city you can find on the web which call it Schneidemühl. Gzornenplatz 00:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we just drop the German name and leave the article as it is now to avoid unnecessary conflicts.Rübezahl 02:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't know whether the name is still in use in German or not. The German article states clearly that the German name still is Schneidemühl, not Piła. Also, the only German site that is linked to Wikipedia is "Heimatkreis Schneidemühl". However, you might still be right. When was the name changed then? Although I appreciate Rübezahls proposal, I doubt it would serve the purpose. As a matter of fact, judging from my experience with various German users, it would only make the matter worse and expose the page onto even more attacks. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:39, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Locally, the name was changed in 1945 obviously. In German usage the old names were gradually dropped. It is easily verifiable through Google that German usage today is Pila, so Schneidemühl needs to be called a former name. And former names are relevant, so dropping it altogether from the article makes no sense either. Gzornenplatz 10:12, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, from Google it seems that both versions are almost equally popular, with only a slight margin for Pila. Search for "Pila" alone gave a huge number of irrelevant links (some other towns with Pila in their name, plural of latin pilum and so on) so I browsed for "Pila Polen" and "Schneidemühl Polen":

• Pila - 2450
• Schneidemühl - 1880

Also, it's either you or the German Wiki who is wrong, since that article states clearly that Schneidemühl is the German name, not the former German name. So, please first decide it in the German wiki and then come up with an answer ready. I see no point in discussing it here over and over again when the Germans themselves seem uncertain. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Your links use no quotes, so find pages where "Schneidemühl" and "Polen" may be used in different contexts. To make sure that reference is made to the present city, you have to connect the terms. Then I get 361 for "Pila Polen" against only 44 for "Schneidemühl Polen". The German wiki is just as wrong as the English one currently on this, but I'm not active on the German wiki. Gzornenplatz 12:02, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ok then, I corrected the project page. Are you satisfied now? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Piła, German Pila? Missing the slash is just a technical thing. "Pila" is not a separate German name. It's just the Polish name being used in German just like in English and everywhere else. And why do you not mention Schneidemühl as a relevant former name? Gzornenplatz 13:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it. First you say that the name in the article is outdated. Then you state that the German name is the same as the Polish name. So which names you think should be included in the heading? Also, the missing slash is not an error. Using the same criteria I used above, "Piła Polen" gives only 196 links ([2]), that is 10 times less than Schneidemühl and 12 times less than Pila (without the diacryte, which is AFAIK non-existent in German). Are you suggesting that the German name is Piła, but the webmasters simply commit this mistake so often, or what? Also, the whole name case is IMHO well-explained in the very first section of the article. Isn't it enough for you? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

You know very well what I think should be included, as I have reverted the page often enough to the proper version: Piła (former German name Schneidemühl). Yes, the slashed l does not exist in the German alphabet (nor in most other non-Polish alphabets) - so Germans (and everyone else outside Poland) writing the name will usually not bother to find out the Unicode necessary to display it. That doesn't mean that "the German name" is now Pila without the slash (otherwise it would also be "the English name" and "the Spanish name" etc. - why don't you note that in the article as well?). You have this obsession with the whole concept of "the German name". There is no German name (or English name etc.) for Piła in the same sense as "Warschau" (and "Warsaw" etc.) is the German (and English etc.) name for the Polish capital. Everyone just uses the Polish name. Gzornenplatz 18:34, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to disillusion you, but I usually ignore both the revert wars and those who take part in them. That's why I didn't know what is your preferred version. Thanks for the explanation. Now on to the topic: apparently don't like the German language Name idea. There are still some Germans who felt that your version is wrong and reverted them (Rübezahl, for instance) and the both the German wiki and the Google test remains uncertain. How about a temporary compromise solution? I'd suggest something like:

• • • Piła (1871-1945 Schneidemühl)

What do you say? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Google test is conclusive, Rübezahl and the German wiki notwithstanding. As to your compromise, where did you get the date 1871 from? I suspect the name is older. Gzornenplatz 21:15, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The name might be older, but the date marks both the foundation of German Empire and the start of repressions against the Polish language on all German-held territories. What date would you propose then? I'm tired of this discussion, please propose what would be the acceptable temporary compromise and let's end this. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know when the name Schneidemühl was first used, so we should just say "former German name". Gzornenplatz 08:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Can't you think of any compromise solution? Compromise would be a version acceptable to both you and me. So far you are proposing a version that is not acceptable to me. Please, make some effort to think of something better. Why not the date solution I proposed? If you don't like the date then let it be

• • • Piła (1815-1945 Schneidemühl)

The earlier date (1815) would be most probably false since at first after the partition of the Duchy of Warsaw the original local names were retained, but that would suit all German nationalists around here I think. How about that? Geez, why is it always me who has to work for a compromise... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

What is your problem here? You can't ask for a compromise when you can't say what's wrong with my version. Instead you want to pick dates out of thin air. Gzornenplatz 10:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've stated my objections to the version you warred for in the second comment of this section, should I bold it for you or copy it here again? Also, could you be more constructive? I showed my good will, now it's your turn. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

In the second comment in this section you complain that "Piła (formerly Schneidemuehl) has several meanings" which doesn't apply since my version says "former German name", not "formerly", and so it's quite clear what it means. Gzornenplatz 12:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

All right, I see that I'll have to state that more clearly: the term "former German name" is just as ambiguous as "former name". Also, it's you who claim that the current German name is different. German wikipedia claims otherwise and so does approximately 50% of German webmasters.

[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:29, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

• greetings from germany; as halibut was asking; the german name of the town is Schneidemühl. but as you can check here the name is not used very often today; at the german wikipedia we have the agreement that in case the (so called) HK is higher than 15 we use the current (foreign) name in this case Piła. also Piła is to be used in the article. for history we use the name which was used during the time (so when it was german than Schneidmühl).... i didnt read your discussion to carefull. hope it helps you somehow ...Sicherlich 14:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

for those who want to read the german "rule" read [Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen (in german of course) ...Sicherlich 15:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

50%? Where do you get this from? I told you the correct figures: 361 to 44, that's only 11%. And as you see below, the German wiki uses Piła too. Gzornenplatz 15:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sicherlich. That was a great help. Gzornenplatz, from the above comment it's clear that the German name of the town is Schneidemühl. The German Wiki uses local name which is different from the German name because that's the convention they adopted. However, the German name is still Schneidemühl. Not a former name, not a previous name. It's still the current name. Also, you are right, it's not exactly 50%, it's 76%. That doesn't change much, does it. It's not an outstanding odds, it's still a slight majority.

I don't want to continue this discussion any more, it has no sense. So, my last question is: do you want a compromise or not? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:55, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

You don't want to continue the discussion because you have been so utterly proven wrong. There is no compromise between truth and falsehood. And now you pull more numbers out of thin air - what is 76%? I repeat it is used in 11% of the cases. So it is obviously not "the German name". And if it were the German name then certainly the German wiki would use it, and it doesn't. They do use Warschau, not Warszawa. Because Warschau is the proper German name of Warsaw, Schneidemühl isn't that of Piła. Maybe you're confused about the whole notion of what a "German name" is. Since no official authority in Germany can prescribe what the name of a foreign city should be, the only question is what name is commonly used by Germans to refer to the present city. And Google conclusively proves that the old name is no longer used by the vast majority of people. So it's not "the German name". So, my last question is: do you accept the facts or not? Gzornenplatz 00:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response! Could I ask you one question more? From the German page you quoted understood that the German vs local name decision is based on some numerical rule called HK, although did not understand what is it exactly. Does it have something to do with the number of mentions in the press and internet? Please reply in my English talk page or the Talk:Pila. Halibutt

the HK is the number of mentions in the german press not in the internet. of course it is not the only thing we look at because sometimes a name is used by more cities. or in the case of Łódź: the HK for Lodz is 14 but Lodz is not really the german name (it is Lodsch) only the polish name written in german letters ... if you think it helps feel free to ask me on my German dicussion page ...Sicherlich 10:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And the guy from the German wiki who said loud and clear that: as halibut was asking; the german name of the town is Schneidemühl.? And the number of links I provided: Pila - 2450 vs. Schneidemühl - 1880? No, of course these voices do not count, you're right. You're the only person in the world who's right. Too bad so few people agree with you. But don't worry, some day we'll all see the light and follow your glorious vision.

And a revert war is also started in situations like these, when you know that you're the only person who support your version of reality while all the other users so far oppose it, yet you try to promote it on the article page instead of the talk page. Sorry, Gzornenplatz, this is starting a revert war. You might believe that you are right, but you should find someone more who would support your version. Perhaps you joined Wikipedia too late to remember the famous Talk:Gdansk discussion and the compromise we achieved. However, I thought that it was a good compromise. I also thought that any compromise is good. Too bad you want to block a decent article just because your version of reality is different from that of most of users. Anyway, I see no point in continuation of this discussion. Good day. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Have a good day in cuckoo land. Note to observers: Halibutt here admits that he can't read, as he repeats an assertion I have quite clearly disproved right above on this page. His Google figures are based on a search for Schneidemühl Polen without quotes, which of course may find a page which says (in German) "Schneidemühl is the former name of Pila in Poland." And on that he bases his contention that Schneidemühl is still the German name! When I, on the other hand, have shown that when you search for "Schneidemühl Polen" and for "Pila Polen" the former is only 11% of the total. This representative result, based on hundreds of web hits, of course trumps the single opinion of anyone. If Sicherlich wants to claim that it is the German name, then he is contradicting himself. How can something be the German name yet the German wiki does not use it as the title? He will say, because it is not commonly used. But that is the definition of "the name of something" - the word commonly used to describe that thing. So if Germans don't normally use Schneidemühl when they refer to that city, it is obviously not "the German name" of the city. Gzornenplatz 20:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

• The official Website Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt) of the Federal Republic of Germany calls the city also today still Schneidemühl

[3] --217.246.145.136 17:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) (ahz)

The German government is not in the business of defining official names for foreign cities, so this is just one singular instance carrying no particular weight. The overall Google results still show that Germans use Pila 89% of the time. Gzornenplatz 19:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

One possible solution is to format these entries with parenthesis like this: "former (German) name: Schneidemühl". It's not necessary to deal with what the current German name is in this part of the article. There is no English name, it's always what language the English speaker is most comfortable with. Also, why do we have to hyperlink "German". Everyone in the world knows what the word German means. It really distracts from the content. I could see it, if it were an obscure language. And noone is going to click on that link to learn about the German language.Bwood 13:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK with me. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

not okay with me .. what´s the point .. if even the goverment is using schneidmühl .. so? if this would be wrong or would slighly cause diplomativ trouble the goverment would not do this .. so the German name is today as Schneidmühl ..it is not the offical name .. but is Munich the offical name for München? (for so far not involved users please see as well Talk:Gdansk for a quite similar discussion) ...Sicherlich 18:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An attempt at compromise

I had a brilliant idea to try and end this ridiculous war with a compromise describing the controversy rather than entering into the controversy. I may not have the facts exactly right, but I hope that some very minor adjustments to what I have written can be mutually agreed here. Please try to chat about the proposal here before getting into a revert war about it in the article.

Additionally, I removed the "wrong name" template, because it's just incorrect. In English, the fancy letter 'l' with a slash through it does not exist, period. Therefore, the proper spelling in English is 'Pila'. We woud not have a similar disclaimer for the name of Tokyo, for example, even though to write it the way the natives do in their own language would require kanji characters. Jimbo Wales 16:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reinserted the "wrong name" template. The fancy letters like ç or é don't exist in English either. Does it mean we have to move Façade to Facade and Café to café? – Kpalion (talk) 13:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This "wrong name" template is a bad execution. It eats up too much space in the critical beginning area, it is worded in a way that gives the wrong first impression. "Technical limitations" is a poor choice of words. This is "making a mountain out of a mole hill". This smacks of resentment that Wiki decided to not allow "special characters" in the titles. Bwood 16:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can always reword the teplate if you don't like it. – Kpalion (talk) 16:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It will still take up too much space, unless there is a way to reduce the white space above and below. Bwood 18:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I can live without the template as long as the correct spelling is bolded in the first paragraph. I just think that the template may be a useful indicator of which titles need to be changed once the software is improved so that it can handle non-ISO-1 characters. – Kpalion (talk) 00:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, a bit awkward to have a separate paragraph for this instead of a short parenthetical mention, but it's acceptable. Since the same formula would have to be inserted into some 60 articles, maybe we can make a template out of it, so that we just have to include, for example, {{polishcity|name=Schneidemühl}}. Then any edit war over the exact wording could be restricted to one page (Template:Polishcity) as opposed to all 60. Gzornenplatz 17:01, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if i like the idea --> as it is to long for only one fact ;o) .... do you want to put this explanation as well for all languages you might use like Russian, Czech, Slovakian ...?? i was thinking about "historicaly in German XYC" .. but is wrong as well --> e.g. Danzig .. even the polish embassy uses Danzig on theire German page ... a bit i have no good feeling with this idea: there is mainly one person speaking about former ... and this persons makes as long edit wars until other give up or until we get constructions where we need "2 pages" to explain it ... where will it lead to in future? you need 2 hours reading an article because is written like law? .. On en i will care when you write former but if you want to have 2 sentensec .. it´s up to you .... on de my "home-wikipedia" i will not accept this and I'm sure most people would not as well .... still interesting is, that on pl nobody writes former name ...so we are political correct because of ? whom? ...Sicherlich 18:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poniewaz chodzi o miasto w Polsce, uzyje miejscowego jezyka (choc brak mi znakow specjalnych). Fascynujace, ze pan G. nie ma innych problemow niz nazwy miejscowosci w jezyku, ktorego najprawdopodobniej i tak nie rozumie - w kraju, ktorego najprawdopodobniej kompletnie nie zna. Pare uwag na ten temat:

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Pi%C5%82a
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Sicherlich#Deutsche_Namen_der_polnischen_St.C3.A4dte_und_umgekehrt

Podpisano: de:AN / pl:AN

Borrowed text?

Sections of this article (eg Queen Constance reshaping the town) have an odd turn of phrase and read as if they have been borrowed from a third party source. Anyone know the source? Rsloch (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)