Talk:Kraków grosz

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On Casimir, III or I ?

If it was introduced in the reign of Casimir III, why does the Latin text refer to "KAZIMIRVS PRIMUS"? -- Securiger 09:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing, indeed. It's not the only strange aspect about the coin now shown in the article, taken from Polish Wikipedia:

the number III could have been attributed to him much later, when the roles of previous Casimirs were "reviewed"
the name is misspelled "grosi cracoviensess", with an "s" missing in the first word, and one "s" added to the second
the coin looks not quite like silver to me -- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the title

Regarding the move to "Krakau Groschen", see Talk:Prague grosh/Talk:Prager Groschen for evidence for this name in English. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is English, not German, Wikipedia. 1 Google hit for Krakau Groschen (not even used in German webspace!), 217 for Kraków Grosh. If we want an even more popular name, consider 917 hits for 'grosz krakowski...', used also by Britannica.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you are in a hole which you have created yourself by introducing your original research term into wikipedia, and thus the internet, as the Google hits are mirrors of your Original Research. Contratulations for this success, courtesy of wikipedia - but stop digging now! Polish wikipedia has an article pl:Grosz krakowski that produces Google hits in Polish, which are utter meaningless for English wikipedia. The proper German name is "Krakauer Groschen" with 15 hits like moneypedia, but this not relevant either. Britannica does not know your invented term. It may cite the Polish term in italics once, but it does not elaborate on the coin itself. As written on your talk page, which you have chosen to ignore, American Numismatic Society's curatorial database of coins [1] does not know your invented term. It lists some grosz, mainly from the 20th century, not the 14th century coin in question, which is clearly refered to as "Krakau Groschen" in 61 instances:

Record contains: grosh No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: grosze Search returned 2 records
Record contains: grosssi Search returned 5 records
Record contains: grossus Search returned 13 records
Record contains: groszy Search returned 20 records
Record contains: grosch Search returned 15 records (truncated, not singular of Groschen)
Record contains: grossi Search returned 44 records
Record contains: grosz Search returned 81 records
Record contains: groat Search returned 330 records
Record contains: groschen Search returned 2908 records

Record contains: kraków No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: krakowski No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: cracov No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: cracovienses No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: cracoviensis No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: krakow Search returned 9 records (2 of them refer to the town Krakow am See in Germany)
Record contains: cracow Search returned 12 records
Record contains: krakau Search returned 61 records

Record contains: krakow Record contains: pfennig Search returned 2 records.
Record contains: krakow Record contains: groschen No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: krakow Record contains: grosz Search returned 1 records
Record contains: cracow Record contains: grosz No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: cracow Record contains: groschen Search returned 3 records
Record contains: krakau Record contains: grosz No records in the ANS database match your search
Record contains: krakau Record contains: groschen Search returned 61 records

Piotrus, stop beating the dead horse you spawned to push your Polish POV, and move/change the article back to the name that is used by English experts, which is "Krakau Groschen" [2] (database returns results in lower case). This name may be similar, but it is not identical to the German name, which hopefully may appease Anti-German sentiment. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, I find it impossible to understand how can you argue that we should use a name that has only one google hit. If you think that the fact that ANZ uzes the words 'Krakau' and 'groschen' in separate articles (because you fail to show they use the name 'Krakau groschen' anywhere) is enough to convince anybody that we should adopt that name, I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. As I wrote above, I'd rather think we should consider adopting the name which can be clearly seen in the publications, like Briannica. As for your accusatuions of anti-German sentiment, please note that for such personal attacks you may find yourself reported at WP:PAIN: please stick to the argument instead of offending others and attributing some sentiments (or anti-sentiments) to them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr, why do you start talking of personal attacks? I accuse the introduction of "Kraków grosh" without evidence, and the defence of that name with the Google hits it generated (or the hits generated by the Polish WP article).

Also, what do you mean with separate articles, is the list above hard to comprehend? At the top are single entries, at the bottom those permutations which appear within a single record (The database will look for records that match all criteria. This means that if you enter "tiberius augustus", you will see recrds that contain both words). Among the ANS database fields (search by fields) are "Mint" and "Denomination", but no additional "Name", maybe because they consider the name obvious and covered by "Denomination". As listed above, both "Krakau" and "Groschen" appear within 61 single records. I've listed additional combinations for your convenience.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krakau Groschen used in English language Numismatic

http://data.numismatics.org/cgi-bin/objsearch?kw=Krakau+Groschen&header=simple&dep=any&fld=any&orderby=objs.ce1%2Cobjs.ce2%2Cobjs.m&format=fullims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANS American Numismatic Society uses Krakau Groschen
ANS American Numismatic Society uses Krakau Groschen] English Wikipedia article should be under: Krakau Groschen, Polish: grosz krakowski, Latin: Grossus Cracovia?, German Krakauer Groschen, Labbas 10 January 2007

Labbas, ever heard the expression 'sounds like the broken record'? ANS database is a mess, and it as has been shown above, we have many, many more sources for other variants.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That database of the ANS is hardly consistent: it uses grosz too, including Krakow grosz; and Cracow groschen also. In order to consider those results, first we would need to know what parameters does the ANS use to fill its database. - Best regards, Evv 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ANS database, be bold: This tool is very much under development and should be considered experimental. Comments are very welcome.) -- Matthead ^discuß! O 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books in English

Trade and Urban Development in Poland: An Economic Geography of Cracow, from its Origins to 1795, by Francis W. Carter, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-521-412390, see preview books.google.com
(p.34-35) From the outset it was decided, for the sake of clarity and reasonable uniformity, to utilize the contemporary version of place names within the present boundaries of European states, rather than a Polish version throughout the text, e.g. Košice not Koszyce. It was also decided not to use former German place names if a contemporary Polish version existed, e.g. Gdansk not Danzig, Wroclaw not Breslau. The exception to this general rule was only applied when a familiar English form was available, thus Cracow not Krakow, Warsaw not Warszawa, ...

(p.38) ...adapted using its design to form the silver 'Cracow Grossus' (Grosz). Poland's first...

(p.38) together with much foreign currency brought in by merchants. One of these currencies was the ‘Prague Grossus' which the

(p.67) In 1338 the large Cracow grosz (Grossi Cracovienses) was first minted, with...

(p.67) ... continued debasement by the royal treasury and greater stability enjoyed by the Prague groschen (grossus Pragensis), unfortunately failed to achieve ...

(p.75) one of the minor Polish princes, Wladylaw Lokietek ..in 1306 ..laid siege to the Czech garrison in Cracow ..and with support ... from Hungary occupied Little Poland. Lokietek inherited ...fiscal reforms initiated in Bohemia (1300), based on the Prague groschen (grossus Pragensis), provided a stable coinage .. during his reign there is evidence that silver groschen were brought to Cracow (quotes source 87 here)"

(p.375) introduced into Poland during the reign of Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great 1333—70), as the ‘grossus Cracoviensis

The Price of Freedom: a history of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the present, by Piotr Stefan Wandycz, Second edition, Routledge, 2001, ISBN 0-415-25491-4, p.40:
...the Cracow grossus was a Polish counterpart of the Czech coin...

Guide to Museums and Collections in Poland, by Stanisław Lorentz, Interpress Publishers, 1974, (Translation of Przewodnik po muzeach i zbiorach w Polsce), p.151:
...a half-thaler coin of Sigismund III, a Cracow grosz and many others...

Best regards, Evv 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Britannica used Kraków grosz. This is another one of those cases where English literature has not decided how to call something, and we can have several sources for every variant. We may want to check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Currency and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics/Style#Article_titles. Use the local name for the denomination even if there is an English translation is interesting and would advocate grosz krakowski, I guess. Not sure what to do with Prague and generic grosh, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comment: English books appear to use "Prague groschen", and my gut feeling is that the generic one should be at "Groschen" too - but I may be too used to the German mentions of it... - Evv 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there appears to be no prevalent English usage. I mentioned the books above as the only three examples I have found so far. Anyway, rules and statistics aside, I really like Britannica's choice on this one :-) which is, after all, an English rendition of grosz krakowski. Personally, for the moment Kraków grosz is my favourite. - I will read that guideline now (thanks for pointing me there :-) - Best regards, Evv 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says: Use the local name for the denomination even if there is an English translation (e.g., "Czech koruna", not "Czech crown"). This means no "Koruna česká" either :-)

In our case, it would be "Cracow or Kraków grosz", not "Cracow or Kraków groschen/grosz/grosh/whatever", and not "Grosz krakowski" either. - Best regards, Evv 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as grosh. It is either Groschen or, or grosz, or grossus, but no such thing as grosh.

Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition shows Groschen, the coin, like we explained on wiki or gross-LateLatin grossus=thick, dense etc. no grosh at all.

Labbas 9 January 2007

Therefore we would seem to reach the conclusion that Kraków grosz is the name we should be using?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. Britannica is pretty much alone regarding this coin. No wonder the 1911 edition is praised so much, and people rather write their own encyclopedia than buying it. See Francis W. Carter above, he wrote a booke on pre-1795 Cracow, uses Groschen/Grossus/Grossi for the general type, and gives also Grosz as an alternative for the Polish coin in question. Regarding the town name, he gives no "mixed messages": its Cracow. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems, Piotrus :-) The three books I found so far (a negligible quantity) use Cracow grosz, Britannica uses Kraków grosz. I think that for consistency with the article on "Kraków" we would do well following Britannica's example in this article. If at a later moment better evidence is found demostrating that Cracow is prevalent in this context, a proper move request (via WP:RM) can always be arranged. - Best regards, Evv 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia article on Cracow may be titled Kraków currently, but that does not mean that this name is preferred or even appropriate for historic use. See Francis W. Carter statement for Cracow above, and Talk:Danzig/Talk:Gdansk/Vote for a hard-fought related case.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I'm open to have the article at Cracow grosz, provided that better sources are found to back that move. For the moment, with only three books and Britannica, I prefer to have the article at Kraków grosz for consistency with the city. - Having said that, if it were up to me, I would move that article from "Kraków" to "Cracow" in ein Augenblick :-) - Best regards, Evv 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the roots: grossi cracovienses

The Polish Wikipedia article has pictures of the actual coin (hopefully from Casimirs reign in 14th century), and I uploaded them to commons. They are marked "grosi cracoviensess", but I guess this was an unintentional mistake, and think its safe to say that the intended name was "grossi cracovienses", in properly spelled latin.

Regarding the English wikipedia article name, I suggest to use this name as (almost) documented on the coin, it is used in English texts, eg in Carter's book cited above, and a webpage hosted at kasprzyk.demon.co.uk in Britain, with an apparent Polish background.

English literature and databases use several combinations of the town name and the denomination. Of these, the "Krakau groschen", suggested by me due to the entries in the American Numismatic Society database, faces opposition, thus I offer the original name as a solid compromise in order to render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading the photographs :-)

Grossi Cracovienses would be a good name for the Latin Wikipedia's article :-) Our job as editors consist in reflecting what we find in our sources (per WP:V). The few English-language books presented so far use Cracow grosz (Cracow grossus is Latin too), and Britannica uses Kraków grosz. From what I have seen so far in those books, it seems that grosz should be used for Poland-related articles (like this one), and groschen for German-related ones (like in "Prague groschen"). - Best regards, Evv 23:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evv, caution has to be applied with attributing articles to one country or language. Cities like Prague/Praha/Prag/*, Cracow/Kraków/Krakau/* (English/currentlocal/German/*) have an interesting history, they belonged to various countries, the ethnic composition has (or was) changed. Applying current political conditions and names (e.g. the Czech Republic separated only 14 years ago) for e.g. coins that originate in the 13/14th century is not quite appropriate in many cases. The town in question is in Poland and called Kraków there, and it is claimed that English native speakers choose this name (including the diacritic) over the traditional Cracow, as it is claimed for Gdańsk (diacritic again) over Danzig. This might be acceptable as an option when refering to the present town, but not in most historic contexts. On the other hand, Köln, München, Nürnberg, not even Hannover are accepted as English Wikipedia titles, while the ß, ubiquitous in German street names, is literally banned from some articles, see Talk:Vossstrasse. Also, the Austrian Groschen was replaced by the Euro a couple of years ago, while Poland still has a grosz as the country is not scheduled to join before 2011. Assuming that the modern day Polish words Kraków and grosz were used 600 years ago is contradicted by the coin itself. English numismatic literature on this specific coin seems scarce, so books that were translated from Polish to English, or published by Polish authors, might be overrepresented. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, I agree on all counts (I like, in general, the "Danzig vote"; and deeply dislike the reform of German orthography - Schifffahrt looks horrible). And yet, for the specific purposes of naming articles, Wikipedia policies and guidelines require that we restrict ourselves to faithfully reflect what is stated in our sources. - Even if we believe that the sources are wrong, we are obligued to write it down "wrongly" in the corresponding Wikipedia article.

The generic name of the coins seems to be groschen. But in two books the coin is specifically named as Cracow grosz, and Britannica uses Kraków grosz. We don't have yet such clear and unambiguous mentions of Krakau groschen or Cracow groschen (although I like your examples below, in that section that should have a more polite name).

It's not about what we think is right, but only about reflecting our sources, even when we think they're wrong. - Anyway, I guess that the time has come to file a proper move request, and hope that other editors to will collaborate providing their imput here :-) Best regards, Evv 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...Poland previous to the year 1300 had only coins of leather"

Some other related sources, compiled and commented by -- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Warszawa and the Wiadomosci Numizmatyczne (Numismatic News) report about a hoard found with: "half-groschen and Groschen struck chiefly by Polish rulers in the Cracow mint ...Foreign coins: Teutonic Order (9 pieces) and Ducal Prussia (18 pieces)"?

ALLEN G. BERMAN, PROFESSIONAL NUMISMATIST offers Silver Cracow half groschen for $22.50 (Kasimir IV 1447-92), later ones $16

The Cambridge Medieval History, 1936 reports about the pact of Kassa in 1374, to exempt the szlachta from all taxation, except two Polish groschen per hide of land, and uses Cracow for the city

"Polish groschen" is mentioned in historic records, e.g. "The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667 ...so many kreutzer groschen, a kreutzer being a coin of three old Polish groschen ... entrance fee was two Polish Groschen from three till nine, including Danzig beer ..." (1907 edition). There were editions in 1914 and 1919, but its the 1925 edition which indicates the political changes of the time, as a footnote is added: "The old Polish grosz was worth about three farthings English."

JewishEncyclopedia.com has 27 hits for groschen, in old biographies King Casimir Jagellon at the time of his death owed 415 kop groschen and even a proverb In hell an ox is worth a groschen, but no man has that groschen., compared to the single hit Károly Grosz founded the German periodical "Pannonia,". For the city in general: 50 hits for Cracow, 6 for Krakau, 0 for Krakow or Kraków.

The "Foreign Quarterly Review. Volume 25. Published in April, 1840" gives some interesting background: "Professor Poplinski .. denies that Poland previous to the year 1300 had only coins of leather (aspergillorum) .. ; but that ... about the year 1333 the small groschen were first introduced, called by Miechowita, the polish historian of Cracow, asperioli; and further, that previous to that period (1300), the barter between the Poles and the more northern tribes, was effected by means of skins, hides and furs."[3]

Nobody is denying that a phrase "Polish groschen" might be used by some sources, but "Polish grosz" is about 10 times as popular. Thank you for showing us that ;p --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr, the jocular quality of these Google games is puny. The "Austrian groschen" was replaced by the Euro in 2002, yet has still the same number of hits as the Polish grosz, which is a coin currently in use. On the other hand, "Polish zloty" has nearly two Million hits as its the current Polish currency. Do you want to call the coin Kraków złoty now? - Hey, according to that, there was a Kraków grosz in 1835, thank you for pointing that out. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move request - preliminaries

It may be time to file a proper move request, in the hope that new editors help us decide this possible move. I propose the following format (plagiarized from Talk:Côte d'Ivoire :-)

This is not the actual survey, but only a discussion on what target the move request should use. Do not vote yet :-)

Add #'''Move''' or #'''Keep''' in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation (with further comment in the "Discussion" section), then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Kraków grosh -> Kraków grosz or Cracow grosz or Cracow groschen or Krakau Groschen.

Survey - Move to Kraków grosz
Survey - Move to Cracow grosz
Survey - Move to Cracow groschen
Survey - Move to Krakau Groschen
Survey - Keep at Kraków grosh

Possible additions proposed by Matthead:

Survey - Move to Cracow grossus
Survey - Move to Grossus Cracoviensis

This is not the actual survey, but only a discussion on what format the move request should use. Do not vote yet :-)

In the nomination, the case for each one would also be as brief as possible, with wikilinks to the appropriate sections of this talk page. - Any comment, suggestion, modification ? - Best regards, Evv 10:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully reverted Matthead's edit for clarity. - Let's agree on the request format first, file a proper move request at WP:RM later and only then proceed to give our opionions ~~voting~~ :-)

On this, in his edit Matthead proposed to incorporate two more options (in Latin): Cracow grossus & Grossus Cracoviensis. - Best regards, Evv 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully reverted Piotrus's edit for the same reason as above. - Having understood my mistake, I added the purple message to prevent this to happen a third time :-) Best regards, Evv 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a standard RM to one of the names, then repeat the process until a descision is reached. Those discussions are going on in circles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead suggested the same thing on my talk page. I think that a multiple one (with three or four options) would simplify the choice by avoiding such possible repetitions; but then I have no practical experience on how such move requests actually fare, and thus my idea may be just wishfull thinking :-) If you manage to agree on which option to try first, let's do it tonight. - In this case, I would ask Matthead to nominate Krakau Groschen or Krakauer Groschen and see what comes out of it :-) Best regards, Evv 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preferences for order. If Matthead wants to go with something else first, no problem, if not, I'd like to see voting on Kraków grosz.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the format

I propose to incorporate at least one of two options (with sources in English literature) that comprise the original name in Latin as used on the coin:

In addition, I request the removal of

Kraków grosh - the current name of the article shall not be offered for approval, as it comprises an unsourced hypothetical English name made up by original research
Kraków grosz - this was from 1835 to 1846 equal to 1/100 of the Cracow zloty (as English Wikipedia should IMHO move the Kraków złoty article to), the currency of the free Republic of Cracow (see Britannica Online article). This also illustrates that Britannica's use of the same name for the 14th century currency is at least confusing without proper disambiguation, if not misleading or, as I said and say, simply wrong. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The article should be moved to Kraków grosz or possibly Kraków grosz (medieval) if need for disambig exists. The names you propose would be possibly acceptable on de/latin wikis, but not on this one, per all the discussion above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree on removing "Kraków grosh" (editors should be allowed to !vote for keeping the article under its current name) and "Kraków grosz" (mentioning the possible ambiguity of this name would be enough, then we allow editors to make their own minds about it).

Excuse me Evv, but you are puzzling me. For one year, the article exists under a name without reference, and you defend that rather than question it - or report it for deletion? See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". I repeatedly asked for references, other the the Google hits it generated. Do you know something I and others don't? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the current name is inadequate, and I don't defend it at all :-) My preference to include the "Survey - Keep at Kraków grosh" option in the move request is based solely on my belief that editors should always have the possiblility of saying "keep", "don't move", for whatever reason they may have. - Best regards, Evv 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two Latin forms, Cracow grossus & Grossus Cracoviensis, I agree with Piotrus' remark above, and believe that it would only make the process more confusing. Having said that, if you [Matthead] really wish to include them, it's ok to me. - Best regards, Evv 08:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evv, it was you who conveniently marked the various names used in English literature above (I added some). You "forgot" some of them in the first list, and now you concur to eliminate them, including Cracow grossus? This is probably the least controversal English name for the coin, using the original latin name rather than the very common general Groschen (and I have to remind again of anti-German sentiment versus the many Groschen minted in Krakau registered in the American Numismatic Society database again), not the inappropriate Polish word grosz which was not yet coined in 14th century, and not used by Polish currency for centuries to come? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, as I mention above, if you really want to add these Latin forms it's ok to me (thus at 08:21 UTC I included the possible addition in the proposed format - diff.). - As already mentioned in the "Back to the roots: grossi cracovienses" section above, those names are in Latin, and thus, for the specific purposes of naming this article, I think that they don't comply with WP:UE - nor with WP:NC's common English usage.

Keep in mind that this is not about "the Polish POV name vs. the German POV name vs. the Latin NPOV name", but merely reflecting the common Englih usage we find in English-language modern reliable sources (which excludes whatever names were used for these coins in the Middle Ages). - My personal take on the three books mentioned above in "Books in English" and Britannica's article on Casimir the Great is that this common English usage is Cracow grosz or Kraków grosz.

Glaubt mir, dies hat nichts zu tun weder mit Germanophobie noch mit irgend einer "Entdeutschung Wikipedias" :-) Es geht nur um meiner Interpretation von WP:NC. - Best regards, Evv 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policies I linked above, we should use the English name of the city and the local name of the coin. The latter one is grosz, the former one is Kraków (until it is proven on that article's talk page that it should be moved to Cracow). Thus, Kraków grosz is the variant we should use.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow is in Germany

Yes, it is - no need to tune into CNN for reports on Bundeswehr advances to the East, though, the American Numismatic Society database will do: of the listed 9 records containing Krakow, 2 actually refer to money of the town Krakow am See in Northern Germany, bills of 25 Pfennig and 50 Pfennig issued from 1916 to 1922. In addition, Northern Germany has two more places called Krakow, and numerous places ending in -ow due to Slavic heritage there (see Wends). The town Cracow, which was part of Austria until the end of WWI before becoming a part of Poland as Kraków, is called Krakau in German (there's also a Cracau near Magdeburg). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, those are excellent reasons to use Kraków, not Krakow. Thank you. PS. The Talk:Kraków#Spelling_.2F_misspelling discussion may be interesting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but a continued use of the well-established Cracow would spare the Polish city the fate of being spelled like German towns. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German ? Like Litzmannstadt ? --Lysy^talk 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Germany are called and spelled Krakow, just to repeat the fact for your convenience. Regarding spelling and NPOV in Wikipedia, I'd like to remind of the fate of Teschen, a town on both sides of a river that was part of the German-speaking Empire of Austria until 1918. One side was made part of Czechoslovakia as Český Těšín in 1920. In 1938, after the Munich Agreement, Hitler ocupied the Sudetenland, and also Český Těšín was by force occupied and reunited with the other half of the city. One has to admire the neutral and complete reports the current Wikipedia articles give on this aggression. No relevant fact is left out, and the name of the culprit it not concealed at all.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is touching - perhaps you should write to Kraków city council and suggest an official name change?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the city administration. They can decide to call the town "Rada miasta Kraków z Jan Matejka i Karol Wojtyła" or whatever anytime, but they can not order people abroad to use this when refering to the city.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an even better reason to use Cracow, the English name for the city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Than move Kraków to Cracow first... and create Wikipedia 1950 - because that's the old name, used less and less now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Kraków grosz or Cracow grosz

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was moved to Kraków grosz. I retained the spelling Kraków in order to stay consistent with Kraków, and as it appeared non-controversial. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kraków grosh → Kraków grosz or Cracow grosz — To reflect usage in English-language sources.

Kraków grosz is used in Britannica's article on Casimir the Great and in one English-language book, as illustrated in the "Sources" sub-section below; it would also be consistent with Wikipedia's article on Kraków.
Cracow grosz is used in two English-language books, as illustrated in the "Sources" sub-section below.

Best regards, Evv 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add #'''Move''' or #'''Keep''' in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation (with further comment in the "Discussion" section), then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Move to Kraków grosz

Support because as I stated above this is our policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Currency and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics/Style#Article_titles: Use the local name for the denomination even if there is an English translation (which gives us grosz) but use English name for the city (which gives us Kraków, and anybody who argues for old Cracow is welcome to move Kraków to Cracow first).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Cracow grosz

Support per evidence below; as for Cracow, one battle at a time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at Kraków grosh

Sources

Google Print test

Searching for "Kraków grosz" or "Krakow grosz": 0 books.
Searching for "Cracow grosz": 2 books in English (mentioned below).
Searching for "Kraków grosh", "Krakow grosh", "Cracow groschen", "Kraków groschen", "Krakau groschen", "Krakau grosz": 0 books.
Searching for "Krakauer Groschen": 0 books in English (3 in German).

Google Scholar test

Searching for "Kraków grosz" or "Krakow grosz": 0 results.
Searching for "Cracow grosz": 0 results.
Searching for "Kraków grosh", "Krakow grosh", "Cracow groschen", "Kraków groschen", "Krakow groschen", "Krakau groschen", "Krakauer Groschen", "Krakau grosz": 0 results.

Amazon.com test

Searching for Kraków grosz or Krakow grosz: 1 book in English (mentioned below).
Searching for Cracow grosz: 1 book in English (mentioned below).
Searching for Kraków grosh, Krakow grosh, Cracow groschen, Krakau grosz: 0 books.
Searching for Kraków groschen or Krakow groschen: 0 results (one book mentions the [...] attempt Casimir the Great to issue large groschen at Krakow in Poland...).
Searching for Krakau groschen: 0 results in English (1 in German).
Searching for Krakauer Groschen: 0 results in English (1 in German).

Best regards, Evv 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books in English:

Britannica's article on Casimir the Great mentions that "the introduction of a new currency, the Kraków grosz, stimulated the economy..."

The Polish Way: A Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, by Adam Zamoyski, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1987, ISBN 0-7818-0200-8, p.38:
...with the introduction of the Kraków grosz in 1338. In the...

Trade and Urban Development in Poland: An Economic Geography of Cracow, from its Origins to 1795, by Francis W. Carter, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-521-412390, p.38 & 67:
...adapted using its design to form the silver 'Cracow Grossus' (Grosz). Poland's first...

In 1338 the large Cracow grosz (Grossi Cracovienses) was first minted, with...

Guide to Museums and Collections in Poland, by Stanisław Lorentz, Interpress Publishers, 1974, (Translation of Przewodnik po muzeach i zbiorach w Polsce), p.151:
...a half-thaler coin of Sigismund III, a Cracow grosz and many others...

The Price of Freedom: a history of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the present, by Piotr Stefan Wandycz, Second edition, Routledge, 2001, ISBN 0-415-25491-4, p.40:
...the Cracow grossus was a Polish counterpart of the Czech coin...

Best regards, Evv 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.