This vote has ended. Please do not vote any more. The voting period was 18 February 2005 to 4 March 2005. Comments and discussions should be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion.

This page is a vote to decide the usage of the name of Gdansk/Danzig. This is a source of edit wars on dozens of articles mentioning the city on Wikipedia. There is a lengthy discussion on Talk:Gdansk and its archives, listing nearly every argument imaginable. Numerous previous attempts to reach a consensus have been unsuccessful, hence requiring a vote to end dozens of disputes and edit wars. Due to the complexity of the problem, there are six periods to vote for, plus three additional clauses. To avoid further edit wars, an enforcement is also voted on, allowing the revert of edits that violate the guidelines determined by this vote.

• The vote will start on Friday, February 18 0:00 and end after two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00
• An absolute majority (50% or more) wins the vote, where neutral and abstain votes are excluded.
• Each vote below contains two options, any user of Wikipedia in good standing may vote once for every of the question voted on.
• Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion" or at Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion.

There are a total of 10 points to vote on.
The voting Period starts on Friday, February 18 0:00 and ends Friday, March 4 0:00

City document seal of 1224 states: Sigillum Burgensium Dantzike Before 1308: A city in Pomerania, part of Poland. The name used to refer to the city before 1308 should be:

This is incorrect. Since at least 1181 Pomerania was directly under the German emperor, who passed on liens, ref. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12225a.htm (unsigned comment by 24.7.152.227)

West Pomerania was, indeed, a fief of Roman Emperor between 1181 and 1185, but Gdańsk is a city in East Pomerania. -- Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Danzig (Polish: Gdansk) was founded in 1224/25 as a German city within the Principality of Pommerellen", see short history of Danzig (in English): http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56#danziger

I'd tend towards "Danzig" myself, but the ZGV is a lousy source.--Stephan Schulz 21:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Founding the city? period before 1308

1. Smerdis of Tlön 04:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. RickK 06:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Scott Gall 07:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Korath (Talk) 05:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
6. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
7. Schwartz und Weiss 18:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • <20 edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
8. Johan Magnus 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) - In all other cases, it's pretty self-evident. Gdansk after 1945, Danzig before. This is trickier. Consider the parallell of Haithabu/Hedeby. I would think that Danzig, that was a well-known town for hundreds of following years, hence better is called Danzig.
9. Ejrrjs | What? 21:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. ugen64 08:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Wolfram 01:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (what Johan Magnus said)
12. Stirling Newberry
13. Audiovideo 13:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Either really so here for balance
14. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Commented on Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
15. A.D.H. (t&m) 19:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
16. --Pmeisel 14:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Vote changed given the evidence it was founded as a German city. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 14:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    I wonder what evidence you are referring to? Gdansk was founded as Slavic city. It was then "relocated" (meaning, given new set of privileges) to "German law", the fact which is sometimes referred by German speakers as "founding" of Gdansk. Szopen 17:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) Well then, call it Gdansk for the period before 1224, and Danzig for 1224 to 1308!

    It is to be noted that most (if not all) cities in Poland were re-located back then and all were given the so-called German law. Kraków, Poznan, Gniezno, Lwów, Czersk, Płock, Lublin... to name just a few. Halibutt

18. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (for consistency with standard English usage for the city in the early period, irrespective of whether it was majority Slav or German, and what Slavs and Germans called it at the time)

1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. --Roo72 00:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. john k 03:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Chris 73 Talk 03:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. -- Esbi 04:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Note: User has a total of two contributions so far, both on this page. ([1]) -- Chris 73 Talk 04:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

9. --Bart133 (t) 04:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Lzur 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Szopen 08:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. JerryW 08:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
14. Halibutt 09:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Ryan! | Talk 11:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
19. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Closest to the Pomeranian (not Polish!) name.

21. Shimmin 12:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
22. – Kpalion (talk) 13:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Krzych 13:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 8 edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. tukan 15:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

27. Silthor 19:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only ~10 edits since 2003 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
28. --Rje 19:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
29. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Dbiv 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
33. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
34. Marcika 14:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Theo (Talk) 19:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
37. Superm401 04:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. Radomil 10:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Cohen the Bavarian
40. --Monoet 14:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
41. Circeus 02:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
42. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Neigel von Teighen 15:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. tsca 21:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46. Mrc 08:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (in this period city was a part of Polish state or independent Slavic spoken Pomeranian duchy)
47. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
48. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
49. Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
50. 83.29.182.130 07:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Anonymous users are not permitted to vote -- Chris 73 Talk 07:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
51. --Akumiszcza 10:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
52. Rjt 01:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 4 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 03:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
53. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
54. Bratsche 21:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
55. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) Polish name should be used without a doubt.
    • Vote by 24.37.0.236—please sign in if you want your vote counted. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I did sign in, my nick was clearly written during my vote.
56. Logologist 09:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners.
57. Kpjas 20:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
58. Aegis Maelstrom 20:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) (obvious for me; shame to vote..)
    • 28 edits total, including this one -- Chris 73 Talk 23:59, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Votes for Danzig: 16 votes (excluding 2 votes due to low edit count of the voters)
• Votes for Gdansk: 48 votes (excluding 10 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city before 1308 is Gdansk, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

1308: Teutonic Knights: The name used to refer to the city between 1308 and 1454 should be:

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp | Talk 00:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. --Bart133 (t) 04:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Smerdis of Tlön 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. RickK 06:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
11. Scott Gall 07:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. JerryW 08:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
16. Halibutt 09:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Ryan! | Talk 11:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
21. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Shimmin 12:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
25. Karada 12:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. – Kpalion (talk) 13:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Krzych 13:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Timrollpickering 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • no other edits to English Wikipedia. john k 17:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. --Rje 19:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
32. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Dbiv 20:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. llywrch 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Korath (Talk) 05:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
37. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
38. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
39. Marcika 14:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
40. Lee S. Svoboda 17:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Theo (Talk) 19:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
43. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Superm401 04:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Cohen the Bavarian
46. --Monoet 14:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
47. Schwartz und Weiss 18:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <20 edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
48. ugen64 08:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
49. Circeus 11:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
50. Neigel von Teighen 15:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
51. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
52. Wolfram 01:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
53. Mrc 08:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (city of state of Teutonic Order)
54. Guettarda 20:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
55. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:50, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
56. Johan Magnus 12:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
57. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
58. --Pmeisel 14:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
59. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
60. Kpjas 20:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
2. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
4. Audiovideo 13:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Either really so here for balance
5. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Jwanders is right. --Akumiszcza 11:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
7. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC)
   • Vote by 24.37.0.236—please sign in if you want your vote counted. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I did sign in, my nick was clearly written during my vote.
8. Logologist 09:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners.

• Votes for Danzig: 54 votes (excluding 6 votes due to low edit count of the voters)
• Votes for Gdansk: 7 votes (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between 1308 to 1454 is Danzig, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

1454: Prussian Confederation: The name used to refer to the city between 1454 to 1466 should be:

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. RickK 06:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
9. Scott Gall 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
11. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. JerryW 08:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
13. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Ryan! | Talk 11:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
16. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Shimmin 12:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. – Kpalion (talk) 13:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Krzych 13:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Timrollpickering 15:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

25. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Dbiv 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. llywrch 20:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Bart133 (t) 05:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Korath (Talk) 05:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
32. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
33. Marcika 14:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Theo (Talk) 19:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Superm401 05:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
38. Cohen the Bavarian
39. --Monoet 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
40. Schwartz und Weiss 18:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <20 edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
41. ugen64 08:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Neigel von Teighen 15:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Wolfram 01:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Guettarda 20:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:52, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
47. Johan Magnus 12:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
48. Pmeisel 14:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
49. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
50. Kpjas 20:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Szopen 08:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) votum separatum :D
2. -- Esbi 04:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • Note: New user, only edits so far are on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. --Rje 19:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. Circeus 02:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
5. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Mrc 08:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
8. Audiovideo 13:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Either really so here for balance
9. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Jwanders is right. --Akumiszcza 11:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
11. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
12. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote by 24.37.0.236—please sign in if you want your vote counted. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I did sign in, my nick was clearly written during my vote.
13. Logologist 09:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners.

• Votes for Danzig: 44 votes (excluding 6 votes due to low edit count of the voters)
• Votes for Gdansk: 11 votes (excluding 2 votes due to low edit count of the voters)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between 1454 to 1466 is Danzig, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

Danzig info also on Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion 1466: Second Treaty of Thorn returns the city and Royal Prussia to Polish suzerainty/overlordship. It is de facto a self-governed city republic, mainly with German inhabitants, using the German name Danzig or something similar: The name used to refer to the city between 1466 to 1793 should be:

1. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Chris 73 Talk 01:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Most english language textbooks use Danzig when they refer to the then German speaking city. See discussion below
3. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. RickK 06:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Scott Gall 07:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
10. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Shimmin 12:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
13. Carrp | Talk 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC). john k's argument is persuasive.
15. Timrollpickering 15:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) I also find John's argument persuasive.
17. Dbiv 20:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Korath (Talk) 05:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
20. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
21. Marcika 14:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) - German-speaking city that was probably widely and usually referred to under its German name
22. Aleph4 14:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The discussion convinced me. John's claim that the city was linguistically German at the time seems to be undisputed.
23. Eugene van der Pijll 15:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Theo (Talk) 19:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Superm401 05:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
28. Refdoc 15:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. ugen64 08:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. This is the most tricky time period to choose. Do we have any contemporaneous documents showing what the inhabitants of the city called their own city? At the moment, I'm persuaded by the argument that it should be called Danzig for this time period. -- The Anome 12:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
31. Kaldari 16:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. --ALargeElk | Talk 21:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'm convinced by the discussion below.
34. Wolfram 01:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Stirling Newberry
36. Audiovideo 13:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Either really so here for balance (now 36-36 so might move later)
37. It is referred to as Danzig in English for this period, and this is the English Wikipedia. Noel (talk) 15:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. Bogdan | Talk 20:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Guettarda 20:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
40. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
41. Johan Magnus 12:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. JYolkowski 23:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Mustafaa 05:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Pmeisel 14:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (close call, but don't want to keep changing name throughout history)
46. gcbirzan^talk 05:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
47. Stephan Schulz 20:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) - for reasons of consistency and simplicity (just one name change, corresponding to a poulation/language change, not three, corresponding to political changes), common usage.

1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. --Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. -- Esbi 04:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • Note: New user, only edits so far are on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Szopen 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. JerryW 08:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • only ten edits to articles other than this one. john k 05:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Halibutt 09:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. --Roo72 09:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Ryan! | Talk 11:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. – Kpalion (talk) 13:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Krzych 13:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. tukan 15:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Julo 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

20. Silthor 19:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only ~10 edits since 2003 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
21. --Rje 19:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
22. --Bart133 (t) 05:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
24. Space Cadet 18:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
26. Radomil 10:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Cohen the Bavarian Tough, this one, but I'll go with the sovereignty.
28. --Monoet 14:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. john k 19:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Mononoke 18:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Schwartz und Weiss 18:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <20 edits. john k 19:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. Circeus 02:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
32. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Neigel von Teighen 15:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. tsca 21:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Mrc 08:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (part of Poland in this period, no doubt)
36. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
37. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Jwanders is right. --Akumiszcza 11:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
40. Rjt 00:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 4 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 03:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
41. Flyers13 01:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
43. Yebnu
    • Non-existent user, added by User:83.27.224.111 -- Chris 73 Talk 01:24, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
44. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) Again the German propaganda on wikipedia is beyond belief.
    • Vote by 24.37.0.236—please sign in if you want your vote counted. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I did sign in, my nick was clearly written during my vote.
45. Logologist 09:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners.
46. Kpjas 21:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
47. Tirid Tirid 05:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • User has made 24 edits in 33 months. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
48. Pibwl 21:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Votes for Danzig: 46 votes (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)
• Votes for Gdansk: 36 votes (excluding 12 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between 1466 to 1793 is Danzig, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

1793: Second Partition of Poland. Becomes a part of the Kingdom of Prussia, and again from 1813/1815 to 1920. Free City of Danzig from 1807-1813/1815 and again 1920-1939. From 1939 it is reannexed by Germany. The name used to refer to the city between 1794 to 1945 should be:

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Curps 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Henrygb 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Timrollpickering 02:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Smerdis of Tlön 04:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. RickK 06:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
13. Psychonaut 06:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
15. Lupo 07:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Szopen 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. JerryW 08:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
19. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Ryan! | Talk 11:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
22. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Shimmin 12:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
26. Karada 12:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. – Kpalion (talk) 13:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Krzych 13:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. AN(Ger) 15:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

32. --Rje 19:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
33. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Dbiv 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. llywrch 20:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. Korath (Talk) 05:15, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
38. --Bart133 (t) 05:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
40. Aleph4 12:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
42. Marcika 14:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Theo (Talk) 19:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
45. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46. Superm401 05:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
47. Cohen the Bavarian
48. Refdoc 15:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
49. Schwartz und Weiss 18:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <20 edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
50. ugen64 08:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
51. Neigel von Teighen 15:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
52. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
53. Wolfram 01:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
54. Mrc 08:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
55. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
56. Johan Magnus 12:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
57. Mustafaa 05:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
58. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
59. Pmeisel 14:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
60. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (obvious choice; official name, name used by majority of locals and - critically - standard English name for city in this period all coincide)
61. Kpjas 21:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Scott Gall 07:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
3. --Monoet 14:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) , From 1939-1945 Danzig
   • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
4. Circeus 02:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
5. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
7. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Jwanders is right. --Akumiszcza 11:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
9. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC)
   • Vote by 24.37.0.236—please sign in if you want your vote counted. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I did sign in, my nick was clearly written during my vote.
10. Logologist 09:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners.

• Votes for Danzig: 56 votes (excluding 5 votes due to low edit count of the voters)
• Votes for Gdansk: 8 votes (excluding 2 votes due to low edit count of the voters)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between 1793 to 1945 is Danzig, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

1945: Seized by the Soviet Army, given to Poland: The name used to refer to the city after 1945 should be:

1. Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. RickK 06:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme

1. Curps 00:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. --Roo72 00:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Henrygb 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (usually without a diacritic)
7. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (and I'd prefer the diacritic consistently to be used)
8. john k 01:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
10. Timrollpickering 02:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) This one, at least, is obvious.
13. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. -- Esbi 04:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: New user, only edits so far are on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 14:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
16. Scott Gall 07:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Lzur 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Lupo 07:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Szopen 08:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. JerryW 09:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 edits beyond this page, last other edit July 2004 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
22. Halibutt 09:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
23. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Ryan! | Talk 11:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
27. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Only when discussing the city after 1945.
30. Shimmin 12:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
31. Karada 12:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Charles Matthews 12:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. – Kpalion (talk) 13:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - with the diacritic (ń is in the first row in the "insert" table below the edit box)
34. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. Krzych 13:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

37. Warofdreams 17:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. Silthor 19:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only ~10 edits since 2003 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
39. --Rje 19:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
40. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Dbiv 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. llywrch 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Kaldari 22:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
46. Korath (Talk) 05:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) With the diacritic.
47. Aleph4 12:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
48. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
49. Marcika 14:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
50. Theo (Talk) 19:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
51. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
52. Superm401 05:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
53. Radomil 10:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
54. Cohen the Bavarian
55. --Monoet 14:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
56. Schwartz und Weiss 18:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • <20 edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
57. Circeus 02:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
58. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
59. ugen64 08:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
60. Neigel von Teighen 16:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
61. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
62. tsca 21:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
63. Mrc 08:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (this is Gdansk now, Polish city)
64. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
65. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
66. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
67. Johan Magnus 12:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
68. --Akumiszcza 10:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
69. --max rspct 02:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
70. Rjt 01:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 4 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 03:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
71. Mustafaa 05:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
72. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
73. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (again, obvious choice - majority of inhabitants, official name, English usage coincide)
74. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) What's really unfortunate is that arguments based on the German propaganda voiced out by people like John K. and RickK are generally based on either German readings or English-speaking documents often written by people of German ancestry. Hopefully that type of propaganda has little or no impact on Gdansk of today and the true legitimate arguments will prevail :o)
    • Vote by 24.37.0.236—please sign in if you want your vote counted. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I did sign in, my nick was clearly written during my vote.
75. Logologist 09:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners.
76. Kpjas 21:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
77. Stephan Schulz 20:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) Easy call.

• Votes for Danzig: 3 votes (no exclusions)
• Votes for Gdansk: 67 votes (excluding 10 votes due to low edit count of the voters)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between after 1945 is Gdansk, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Henrygb 00:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) For 1945 and earlier, otherwise just Gdansk
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (I'd support Danzig for German persons after 1945 as well)
6. john k 01:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Psychonaut 06:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Lupo 07:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Szopen 08:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. I don't think I've ever seen a more logical proposal on this subject. --Ryan! | Talk 11:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Double names only at the first occurance, once per article.
19. Shimmin 12:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. – Kpalion (talk) 13:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Krzych 13:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits to pages other than this one. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

24. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Anytime the city is mentioned in the context of (1) a person of German or Polish nationality or (2) a period when the city was dominated more by Germans ol more by Poles, use the the city German or Polish city name accordingly. All other cases, alternate equally or let whoever contributes new text employ their preference.
25. Qualified agreement. Yes, biographies of German-language people ought to call the city "Danzig," regardless of historical period. But my opinion is that "Danzig" is not only the German name, but also the Anglicized name. I would also resist attempts to impose Werszawa, or for that matter Göteborg or Firenze over the English names of those cities as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Julo 15:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • But there's no suffrage requirements for this vote, and given the nature of the vote, I believe it would not be surprising for users of the German and Polish encyclopedia to jump over and vote here. JuntungWu 12:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Dbiv 20:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Double naming is preferable at least once as readers may not have realized the two cities are the same.
29. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Jmabel | Talk 00:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
32. Korath (Talk) 05:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
33. I cannot place Danzig/Gdansk on a map but I do not like edit wars, so I am only voting for the policy-related votes. JuntungWu 12:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. Marcika 14:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. Cohen the Bavarian
38. --Monoet 14:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
39. Refdoc 15:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
40. Mononoke 18:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Neigel von Teighen 16:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Wolfram 01:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Sean Curtin 00:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
45. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
46. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
47. VicFromTheBlock 03:30, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC)
48. Kpjas 21:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. RickK 06:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Use the name as it is approved in the vote above. Don't double name it.
2. Scott Gall 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Don't double name it. If the person was born before 1793, their birthplace was Danzig. If the person was born after 1793, their birthplace was Gdansk.
   • Why 1793? --Henrygb 00:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. Halibutt 09:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Timrollpickering 10:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. -- Forseti 11:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - people live in given community not their own universe.
7. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. --Rje 19:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), it should be the name of the city in the year of their birth, as decided above.
9. Superm401 05:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) something like what Rje said, except the name of the city when they first came into contact with it.
10. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
11. Circeus 02:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC) Agree with RickK above.
12. Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ditto
13. What RickK said. ugen64 08:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion.
15. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Very silly proposition. In a biography of, say, Lithuanian, should we name the city Gdanskas? -- Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Use the name as it is approved in the vote above. Don't double name it.
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
18. Johan Magnus 12:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Jwanders is right. --Akumiszcza 11:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
20. The name appropriate to the period in question (as decided above) should be used. -- Emsworth 01:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
21. Logologist 09:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners. Reader can look up the name's history.

• Votes for Agree: 44 votes (excluding 4 votes due to low edit count of the voters). One voter explicitly expressed preference of Gdansk only after 1945. This caveat was opposed explicitly by one voter
• Votes for Disagree: 19 votes (excluding 2 votes due to low edit count of the voters)

The proposal is accepted. In biographies of clearly German persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.

Notes: This applies to both before and after 1945. Linking to Gdansk would be useful. Minor variations of the text are permissible, i.e. Danzig (now Gdansk) instead of Danzig (Gdansk)

The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig)

1. Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. The first mentioning does not hurt, even after 1945, I think -- Chris 73 Talk 00:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
   • In a purely modern context with no reference to German history or culture, this would be as out of place as putting Straßburg in every article where Strasbourg is mentioned or Königsberg in every article where Kaliningrad is mentioned. -- Curps 00:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • I have now edited a bunch of articles in accordance with the proposed stipulation that all post-1945 references must also include Danzig. For instance, I have edited List of airports in Poland, List of cities in Poland, List of major corporations in Gdansk, Transportation in Poland, Demographics of Poland, the pages of several Polish political parties such as Social Democracy of Poland, Alliance of the Democratic Left, Citizens Platform, biography pages such as Lech Walesa, Jacek Kaczmarski (born 1957), Pawel Adamowicz (born 1965, mayor of Gdansk), and a few sports teams such as Lechia Gdansk and Energa Gedania Gdansk and Nata AZS AWFiS Gdansk, as well as European Parliament election, 2004 (Poland). I have added Danzig to each of them, and thrown in a few Stettins and Breslaus for good measure. Plenty more remain to be done, see Category:Gdansk for instance. This is not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... every single one of these edits will be mandatory according to this proposal (unless qualified not to include post-1945). I think this is a recipe for nothing but trouble. -- Curps 07:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
     • Remaining inline discussion moved here at Chris 73's suggestion. -- Curps 12:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Henrygb 00:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) For 1945 and earlier, otherwise just Gdansk - as Curps
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (ditto Gdansk post-WW2)
6. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Conditional -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - only if past German names would point to present Polish names.
8. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Agree, but with Curps's proviso. Both names should be mentioned only for historical (pre-1950ish) references. Psychonaut 06:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. Lupo 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) See my comment on Cross-Naming General. Respect historical context and use common sense: even though an article on Günther Grass (which, BTW, is very poor) could be construed to deal primarily with post-1950s events, I'd find it strange if only Gdánsk was mentioned.
    • But his birth there was pre-1945. Any mention of the city in a pre-1945 context does not involve a "post-1945" qualification. -- Curps 11:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Timrollpickering 10:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) but agree with Curps.
17. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC), but after 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone.
18. Niki K 10:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Ryan! | Talk 11:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Only at the first occurance, only once per article.
23. Charles Matthews 12:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. – Kpalion (talk) 13:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - except when talking about post-1945 Gdańsk, unless it's about modern Polish-German relations (in other words, agreeing with Curps)
25. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (support Curps' suggestion
26. Krzych 13:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits other than on this page. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

28. Absolute The exception Curps made is going to cause (or sustain?) trouble. For the sake of readers who are unaware that Gdansk and Danzig are not two different cities, we must clue them in to the fact that Poles and Germans largely prefer "their" language's name for the city. Also, include a note that Wikipedia does NOT take sides on what the "proper" name for the city is; specifially, that "double naming" in the title or text of an article does NOT endorse or reject the propriety of (a) any single name or (b) the idea that city "really" has two equally valid names. We really have to be scrupulously neutral about this, if we intend to settle the matter! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, this exception is needed to prevent edit wars from spreading to an entirely new set of articles. Suppose we have articles on the Gdansk shipyard where Solidarity was founded or the Gdansk accords, or the Glos Wybrzeza newspaper published in Gdansk, or Lechia Gdansk football club... according to this vote, every one of these articles must mention Danzig. If a museum is built five years from now and becomes notable enough to include in Wikipedia, its article must mention Danzig, despite no connection whatsoever to German history or culture. This is a recipe for future trouble. Shall we also insert "Straßburg" into the European Parliament article, and every other article that mentions Strasbourg? Do people realize what they are voting for here? Is this really what we want? -- Curps 06:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Julo 15:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. --Rje 19:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC). I agree with Curps, but it must be strictly adhered to. Both names must be used for any person or event that happened before 1945.
31. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Dbiv 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Jmabel | Talk 00:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. On first reference only, of course. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
36. Korath (Talk) 05:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
37. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
38. Marcika 14:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Not after the first reference, though. --Bart133 (t) 15:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
40. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
41. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
43. Cohen the Bavarian
44. --Monoet 14:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
45. Mononoke 18:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46. Neigel von Teighen 16:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
47. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) After 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone, except if the article referes to something German too (e.g. about a German author like Günther Grass who after 1945 writes a book about Gdansk)
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
48. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
49. This is needed to prevent confusion among readers. Bratsche 21:25, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
50. Not all readers will be aware of the dispute, and the names Gdansk and Danzig don't look that similar. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
51. Rossami (talk) 00:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Stephan Schulz 21:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) - I think after 1945 (or maybe 1950), Gdansk alone is fine. For other time periods, I would not make cross-naming mandatory, but I would like a stipulation that it should not be removed from the first occurance in an article. Thus, whenever someone feels strong enough about it to do the work, fine.

1. If pre-1945 English language sources consistently used a name, that name should be retained without regard to historical borders or claims. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Only one name. RickK 06:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Use the name Danzig for an event that happened there before 1793, but Gdansk for an event that happened there after 1793. I was told in a History lesson last year that the name was changed to Gdansk in 1793. Scott Gall 07:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • The name was changed to Gdansk in 1945. Wolfram 01:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Gdansk should be used for the city in Poland. Danzig should redirect to Danzig (band). Danzig rocks! — Brim 01:41, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
5. I don't see why a modern-day mention of Gdansk and Wroclaw on a page such as Demographics of Poland would need to include Danzig or Breslau. For pages that mention it in a historical context it's okay, but not for *everything*, so this proposal is an overgeneralization. --Joy [shallot] 13:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Too general. This is often useful, but there are cases (such as List of Polish cities) where it is just silly. Shimmin 16:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
7. Superm401 05:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) This does not need to be a rule.
8. One name. ugen64 08:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. I agree with those who say this is a good idea for historical contexts, but not for discussions of present-day cities. john k 14:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Again, I think "formerly Danzig" in the case of "Gdansk" headings would be much more logical and helpful to casual readers. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion. Two name explanation need only appear on the city's page.
12. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Johan Magnus 12:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Disagree - for the reasons pointed out by Curps Halibutt 02:53, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
16. Conditional -- Forseti 22:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) - if used two-way regardless of period.
17. Disagree. Mentioning its modern name may be useful - though scarcely essential - but references to "Danzig" are unhelpful in most contexts. - Mustafaa 05:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Disagree I do not believe German name should be used at all at the beginning of the article. German is not a mother tongue of even 0.2 % of the Gdansk citizens. German wikipedia can use this name if they desire to do so. VicFromTheBlock 03:40, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC)
19. Logologist 09:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners. Reader can look up the name's history.

• Votes for Agree: 46 votes (excluding 5 votes due to low edit count of the voters) Nine voters expressed preference of Gdansk only after 1945. This caveat was opposed especially by two voters.
• Votes for Disagree: 19 votes (no exclusions)
• Abstain votes: 1 vote

The proposal is accepted. The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above.

Notes: This applies to both before and after 1945. Linking to Gdansk would be useful. Minor variations of the text are permissible, i.e. Danzig (Gdansk) instead of Danzig (now Gdansk). This rule is to be followed in the case of a dispute, if there is no dispute, deviations from this rule are possible.

The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), including after 1945
2. Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Szczecin alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Carrp | Talk 00:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) (and no objection to post-War use of Stettin (now Szczecin) in articles other than its own)
   • List of cities in Poland needs a complete makeover then, and a whole lot of other pages too. -- Curps 08:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. john k 01:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Conditional -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - only if historical German names would mention present name. Continue with policy on presenting commonly used national names of place in the first paragraph of place's article.
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Gabbe 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
12. Lupo 07:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) It should be possible to find such articles using Google (or other) searches using either name. Hence double naming makes sense: it is helpful. But limit to historical context, for articles on recent developments (post-1950s), prefer current name only.
13. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Szopen 08:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Ryan! | Talk 11:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. – Kpalion (talk) 13:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - agree with Curps and Lupo
20. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Again with Curps' suggestion
21. Krzych 13:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only eight edits other than the ones on this page. john k 14:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

23. Julo 15:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Timrollpickering 15:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Curps' point.
25. --Rje 19:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC). I agree with Curps.
26. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Dbiv 20:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
30. On first reference only, of course. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
31. Korath (Talk) 05:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
32. --JuntungWu 12:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Aleph4 13:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
35. Marcika 14:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. --Bart133 (t) 15:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. Magadan 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. fizbach 10:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-existent user. The above was posted by 83.27.46.145 (talk · contribs)

    • actually, she does exist, but she should have signed as pl:Wikipedysta:fizbach ;) Forseti

39. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
40. Cohen the Bavarian
41. --Mononoke 18:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Neigel von Teighen 16:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) with the same exception as mentioned above about cross-naming Gdansk after 1945
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
44. Agree Stirling Newberry 07:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Jonathunder 00:21, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
46. Can't hurt; do it on the first appearance. Antandrus 01:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
47. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
48. --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (first appearance only, of course)
49. Kpjas 21:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
50. Rossami (talk) 00:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Disagree, just link to the article in question.--Roo72 00:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Disagree, link to the article in question. If pre-1945 references in English use a specific name, that name should be the one always used. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. RickKUse the German name until 1945.
4. Scott Gall 07:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Actually, use German names for everything until 1793, then use the Polish name.
5. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) As per Roo72/Ihcoyc
6. Too general. Having German / Russian / Ukrainian / whatever alternative names for every entry on a page like List of Polish cities is an example of where a foolish consistency would become our hobgoblin. Shimmin 16:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
7. Superm401 05:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Again, don't need a rule.
8. German name until 1945. ugen64 08:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Changing my vote - use parentheticals in historical contexts, but not for references that are purely about the contemporary city. john k 15:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Again, "formerly (German name)" would be in order and helpful to casual readers. Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Current English name should be used throughout to minimize confusion. Multiple name explanation need only appear on the city's page.
12. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. VicFromTheBlock 03:11, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) No German name is necessary IMO.
15. Johan Magnus 19:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Only when helpful to the reader. Stettin might be such an example, and historical contexts might call for this, but the basis for Wikipedia usage must be clarity and understandability first, not political correctness, and pragmatic avoidance of internal Wikipedia disputes only second.
16. Conditional -- Forseti 10:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) - if used two-way (Szczecin<->Stettin), regardless of period
17. Logologist 10:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). Defer to current owners. Reader can look up the names' histories.

• Votes for Agree: 44 votes (excluding 5 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting, one voter also changed his vote) Six voters explicitly preference of Polish names only after 1945. This caveat was opposed explicitly by two voters
• Votes for Disagree: 17 votes (no exclusions)

The proposal is accepted. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Notes: This applies to both before and after 1945. Linking would be useful. Minor variations of the text are permissible, i.e. Stettin (Szczecin) instead of Stettin (now Szczecin). This rule is to be followed in the case of a dispute, if there is no dispute, deviations from this rule are possible.

Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted as simple vandalism. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted as simple vandalism according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes are not considered simple vandalism. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Note: The wording has been modified slightly to reflect the numerous voters opposing the label vandalism. Please see #Results on VOTE: Enforcement below. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

1. Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp | Talk 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. with the (obvious?) caveat that if there comes to be a consensus that the policy isn't working, it can be changed. john k 01:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Austin Hair 02:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Timrollpickering 02:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. -- Forseti 02:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) - and do enforce it
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Adam Bishop 03:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Lupo 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. Wanted ♂ 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Szopen 08:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. TOR 09:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)#
15. zoney ♣ talk 10:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Ryan! | Talk 11:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. --MatthiasGor 17:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Only one edit so far -- Chris 73 Talk 03:01, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
18. ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
19. Fjl 12:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. – Kpalion (talk) 13:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) (what's the point of having a consensus which can't be implemented?)
21. Przepla 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) agree with John's caveat
22. Qualified: Switching the name from one to the other (or "double-naming") in accordance with the majority vote is good, but let's not not call this rv vandalism. That will open old wounds. Contrariwise, if someone switches the name from one to the other or "un-double-names" it, in violation of the majority vote, let that be, er, "repairable on sight" (conform to naming policy). No "notice" needed, unless the person reverts the repair. Then we ought to alert them as described above. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
23. Julo 15:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • only two edits to English wikipedia besides those to this page. john k 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. --Rje 19:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
25. Absolutely, this is a perennial problem with Posen/Poznan on the Hindenburg page. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Dbiv 20:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. Qertis 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. Jmabel | Talk 00:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
29. Neutrality^talk 05:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
30. Korath (Talk) 05:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) per Uncle Ed.
31. --JuntungWu 12:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
32. Lesgles 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
33. Marcika 14:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Revert on sight, but use an appropriate and descriptive edit summary, please...
34. --Bart133 (t) 15:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) - With obvious caveats.
35. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC) - if the policy changes then we can change it.
36. Cohen the Bavarian
37. --Monoet 14:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ~10 edits to not-this-page; only one in main name space. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
38. --Mononoke 18:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Circeus 02:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
40. Neigel von Teighen 16:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Jwanders 10:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with the spirit, although the label of vandalism is too strong if the editor was not aware of this page.
42. Noel (talk) 14:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. Agree with Jwanders. Foobaz·✐ 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. Agree. But don't call it vandalism, merely a deviance from standards or something. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
45. John Anderson 11:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree. It's unfortunate but might be necessary. I also think, like Radiant, that it shouldn't be called vandalism, merely a deviance from standards or something.
    • User has 14 edits since yesterday -- Chris 73 Talk 00:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
46. Johan Magnus 12:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
47. I wouldn't call it vandalism but otherwise it's ok. PS: I happen to be born in Gdańsk, I work here and live nearby and this issue is quite important to me. I don't mind people using Danzig as a name for my city in German periods, but I agree with Jwanders that it should be called by its current name. Using Danzig in current period is very annoying. Once I received an official letter to me addressed with the name Danzig. I threw it away immediately and I believe most people here would do it also...--Akumiszcza 11:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits besides this page -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • So what? --Akumiszcza 12:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
48. Jonathunder 17:45, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
49. Knutux 09:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
50. Kpjas 21:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Geni 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Disagree - policies can change over time, nothing is set in stone forever --Roo72 00:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • This vote is here because in previous compromise attempts, some parties just ignored any majority decision. The goal of this question is to give more weight to the majority decision. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
     • "More weight"? Either something is agreed or it isn't. If one is set to ignore any agreement no amount of "weight" is going to stop a person like that. Policies are usually set after a period of discussion (in that case read “reverts” instead of discussion). Perhaps some time in the future a new wave or generations of Wikipedians will decide to change the policy and they will start a discussion – they should not be treated like vandals.--Roo72 01:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
       • I don't believe this policy is meant to last until the end of time. If this policy is accepted, but it turns out that it doesn't work well, surely a new policy could be discussed and voted on. Carrp | Talk 01:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Henrygb 00:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Roo72
4. Scott Gall 07:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Although I know everything changed to Polish names in 1793, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have double names between 1785 and 1800 - this is a transitional period, just like when the euro was being adopted between 1999 and 2002.
5. Jordi·✆This old sig should not have been transcluded. Please subst: it so the transclusion stops. 12:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Bensaccount 15:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Roo72
7. Kaldari 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Superm401 05:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) I will not have a simple mistake called vandalism. If someone in the future makes an edit, completely unaware of this rule and enouraged by the Be bold in editing idea, do we really want to punish them? To me, that is like saying that it is vandalism to use a contraction because it's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
9. someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
10. Audiovideo 12:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Prohibiting teaching about evolution is bad enough. Trying to prohibit evolution itself is just stupid.
    • I agree, but how does that relate to this enforcement question? Carrp | Talk 15:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It was just a quip. But it seems that any attempt to do something novel, interesting or (perhaps even) better at any stage in the future will be treated as vandalism and will be culled on sight to preserve the purity of any decision taken here. That looks deliberately designed to prevent evolution of policy and presentation. --Audiovideo 15:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. ugen64 08:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. I agree some system to prevent wanton vandalism should be in place, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with rigid rules regarding ANY change, as the introduction of the former German or currently Polish names could be inappropriate or irrelevant in some cases. On the other hand, I'm not involved enough in the working of Wikipedia to have a better suggestion, so I guess I am salving my editor's conscince here. This vote is more an abstention than a "nay." Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Good intentions. Bad precedent. -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
14. Strongly opposed. This proposal is different in kind from the others, and should be discussed at the project level, not at a specific topic level; specifically, it has not been specifically advertised well.
    1. New users will be bitten as "vandals".
    2. Legitimate users will be intimidated from editing topics related to this part of the world.
    3. Trolls, on the other hand, will be attracted here.
    4. Trolls will also get into further disputes to provoke similar knee-jerk reactions in other areas. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Disagree with the formulation. Making an exception from 3-revert rule because of previous community decision -OK, name calling -not OK. Mikkalai 21:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Disagree. I don't think this consensus (presuming there is one) is any different from any other consensus on Wikipedia, and there is no need for a special enforcement mechanism that labels a particular POV as "vandalism", or any other specific meaning for the consensus. If the vote establishes a consensus regarding nomenclature, then that should have the same meaning and significance for editor behaviour as any other consensus has. If someone makes an edit that contradict a clear consensus, then other editors should be able to respond to this not as "vandalism" but simply as behaviour that evidences ignorance of, or perhaps, lack of due regard for the consensus. Also, it isn't appropriate for ad hoc changes to Wikipedia precedent and policy to be made in obscure votes on RfC's. --BM 00:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. Each case should be decided on its own merits. RickK 00:52, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
18. Sean Curtin 01:03, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
19. Although I can understand the reason for the suggestion, I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. This will affect more than just the Gdanszigk aricle - potentially hundreds of articles, in fact - and needs discussion beyond this page. Grutness|^hello? 23:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Changing my vote, I think. I don't think this is necessary. john k 01:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose labeling as vandalism. If you said "can be reverted without counting towards your limit in terms of the three-revert rule" then I'd probably abstain instead of opposing. If somebody who is unaware of the convention makes a change that is not in accordance with the convention, their change should not be called "vandalism". —AlanBarrett 06:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. This is not the appropriate forum to change the definition of vandalism! Whatever the result of this vote, it should have no effect.--Silverback 11:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Agree with Silverback, this isn't the place to do this. JYolkowski 23:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Absolutely not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
25. Strongly oppose Arguably there may be a need for an enforcement mechanism for naming conventions, since ignoring them seems to be an increasingly popular field sport. However, this isn't the place to do it, as it's not even a naming convention page, much less an editting policy one. And 'vandalism' is inappropriate and intemperate language. Alai 16:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
26. Agree with Silverback and Alai --VivaEmilyDavies 19:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
27. VicFromTheBlock 03:50, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC) I disagree because I believe these acts will occur in the future and despite not being constructive, will continue because most Poles truly believe their arguments are legitimate which is IMO the case.
28. Logologist 10:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC).

• Votes for Agree: 44 votes (excluding 5 votes due to low edit count of the voters, one voter also changed his vote) . Five voters explicitly opposed the label vandalism
• Votes for Disagree: 28 votes (no exclusions). Eight voters explicitly opposed the label vandalism, some Disagree voters would agree to a 3RR exemption.

The proposal is accepted. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Note: Many voters disliked the labeling as vandalism. Hence the wording of the vote was modified slightly, still having similar effects but avoiding the label vandalism. In case of problems, assume good faith, don't bite newcomers, and inform the other user about the results of this vote. Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule. Only persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. This may include blocking users that persistently oppose community consensus as established by this vote.

Dear Wikipedians!

Every article mentioning Danzig must refer to Gdansk for is equally difficult to find Nieuw Amsterdam on popular maps. Mentioning Danzig in post-45 articles is surly as awkward and certainly more irritating for it’s inhabitants than the eventual “New Orleans (Nouvelle-Orléans)” tag in the US city list. IYKWIM!

And let me warn you: omnipresent cross-naming of all secondary towns, then villages, rivers, mountains, caps, islands and lakes according to all the historically and linguistically tenable variations to make justice to all tribes, nations and groups that have once inhabited those places may lead to confusion, insomnia and nervous disorders! -- Mr. Wszedroik Feb 19, 2005

In English the name was New Amsterdam and was and is New Orleans without the diacritic. --Henrygb 11:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The vote is aimed to resolve a large number of naming disputes. Of course, future votes may override the outcome of this vote. Until then, valid results of this vote are the community consensus, and should be enforced. I think the enforcement is possible even without an extra vote on enforcement, but to be on the safe side, I have added this as a vote topic. Previously, any compromise or majority view was ignored by one party, leading to dozens of revert wars. This vote is there to stop revert wars and to enforce community consensus. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as the current vote is 13-16 to use Gdansk for the 1466-1793 period, but almost unanimously to use Danzig both before and after, I thought I'd recopy my argument from Talk:Gdansk at why we should use Danzig:

1) English language sources generally use Danzig when referring to the city at this time. General use textbooks like John Elliott's Europe Divided 1559-1598, Geoffrey Parker's Europe in Crisis 1598-1648, William Doyle's The Old European Order 1660-1800, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, Jeremy Black's The Rise of the European Powers 1679-1793, and so forth, all refer to the city as "Danzig". A JSTOR search shows a limited number of references to the city as "Gdansk" - only 61 articles total mention "Gdansk", and many of those are references to the city since 1945. There are, on the other hand, 552 articles which mention "Danzig", and many of them are discussing the eighteenth century and earlier. [this is a JSTOR search of articles in the 56 journals that are classified as historical. A few of these articles, but not very many, will be from before 1945]

2) This English usage makes sense. The city was primarily a linguistically German city from the early 14th century on. Since 1945 it has been a linguistically Polish city. It makes sense to make the name switch only in 1945, because this corresponds to a major shift in the city that did not occur in 1454 or 1793.

3) These two factors alone should be sufficient to make the case. Now, one might argue perfectly rationally that it would make perfect sense to just call the city "Gdansk" throughout, or to complicatedly switch it depending on whether or not it was under Polish or German sovereignty. But only one usage has the support of common English usage, and that is using "Danzig" for the city for the entire 1308-1945 period. If it was common in English to use "Gdansk" for its whole history, or for its history before 1793, it would make sense for wikipedia to do that as well, whatever its inhabitants may or may not have called it. But that is not how it is done. "Danzig" is the main name used for this period, and Wikipedia should follow that usage. john k 14:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) Being honest, I don't understand your point. I am not a historician {so probably you) so I do not question your conclusions but I can question your argumentation. "English language sources generally use...", well, so what? the fact that they ARE traditionally biased does not make it fine. I dare say Polish, German, but also Russian, Japanese etc. sources have their own policies of calling mentioned cities. Russian policy will probably use Gdańsk (!) only (esp. in propaganda times), on the other hand English authors will tend to use Danzig than Gdańsk as to UK is Germany geographically and culturally closer than Poland. What is more some of them probably even do not know how to pronouncate Gdańsk... Even in this debate all of you talk about sth called "Gdansk" instead of proper Gdańsk...

The problem is that nowadays English is not only for Britons, other nations of Commonwealth or Americans but it is more and more lingua franca. It is undoubtful that while using names we create reality. The question is will we create it fair or not. There is the saying stating that "the winners are these who write the history". Shall we stop it?

2) It makes much more sense for me but it's still controversial - most of people in XII century believed that the earth is flat. Should we write it is 3D since... - and this is next question - since when? Copernicus? :) Here the case is much more complex as great number of Polish cities were totally or partly settled by Germans, Dutchmen etc. but they were in Poland, under Polish king and law and known with their Polish names... Danzig/Gdańsk citized agreed to be Polish subjects - even asked for Polish help. And to make it even more complicated - in many documents, esp. in Medevial Ages, latin was used. Maybe these names - from location acts (mostly on German law!) etc. - would be most fair?

3) Being common does not make something right. It is not an argument.

4) Something that hasn't been mentioned here - most of German names of these cities are more or less precise translations or "germanized" versions of the original, slavic names. For instance - Stettin and Szczecin. We may use such a form instead of original but we must be sure it does make sense...

Certainly it is not the end of such disputes - to mention only Polish/Ukrainians or German/French names. Every language has its own tradition here but if we want to build a truly multinational, fair, NPOV project we have to overcome obstacles like these. The best thing is we are discussing them. Best regards! --Aegis Maelstrom 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, john k, don't count my contributions as you used to... :) not everybody must be logged in here...

I definitely Agree with you Aegis. Furthermore, John Kenney's claims that this is an English speaking internet side should have no impact on how is the city named. In fact, the city is a matter of importance mostly to Poles and Germans and not the Americans. Moreover, as you said in the English-speaking World there is a tendency to favor German speaking "propaganda" simply because it is more accesible or should I say, tangible and also because it's either the German translation, in German or especially written by people of German ancestry. As of 2005, it is of course the largest ancestry in the United States. Another argument is that in fact, Germans are culturally and linguistically closer to the English-speaking nations while Poles, as a Slavic nation is further away in both linguistic and cultural spheres. I believe that part of the modern-day arguments on Gdansk were in fact constructed by German Americans and adjusted to the Anglo-Saxon way of thinking or should I say the anglo-conformity of the Middle America. There is another point that John Kenney is raising, with regards to the pre-1945 Polish name of Szczecin and while he claims that is of little importance as a matter of fact it is in fact not the case because this name was already present in the Polish language since the 16th century and not under its 11th century archaic, Pomeranian spellings. Perhaps John Kenney should know that the towns that were once under a Polish Pommeranian rule before the 12th century and before being germanized actually had Polish names ( although some of them under what is now considered archaic forms ) and yes, that includes also some towns in today's Germany ( Stralsund/Strzałowo, Rostock/Roztoka, Wolgast/Wołogoszcz, Demmin/Dymin, Pasewalk/Pozdawilk, Lebus/Lubusz ) and many smaller towns as well. Those names were not created by any post-1945 propaganda. I understand John Kenney's fascination with everything German but let's face it, even in this article, talking VERY specifically about Gdansk's name, he used the word Gdansk without a ń in it, while in this same article he managed to write Köln with an umlaut. Perhaps it's not significant to some but think again Köln is not part of any linguistic discussion or hardly an "expected" comparison. Also, John Kenney, do not erase my discussion page again as you did on the Tallinn, Estonia page when the issue of the German name was discussed on the 31st of January 2005 and when in fact, Mr. Kenney erased my discussion with no answer or no legitimate argument in favor of his pro-German argument in the discussion section, when I clearly inquired about the name as can be seen in the talk history on this page. [[2]] VicFromTheBlock 04:55, Mar 02, 2005 (UTC)

Aegis - you seem to be missing the fact that policy on wikipedia is to use the forms most commonly used in English. I'd also add that the fact that the city of Gdansk/Danzig was in Poland in the 18th century and earlier says very little about what we should call it - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not a nation-state, and as such, being part of the Kingdom of Poland did not mean that the Polish language had very much to do with the city. As to counting contributions - it is unfair if users from the Polish wikipedia flood the vote here. I would not vote on the Polish wikipedia in a similar instance. john k 18:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should just try to be coherent here. If we have articles named Munich (not München), Cologne (not Köln), Copenhagen (not København) and Gothenburg (not Göteborg), Naples (not Napoli), etc. it would to me only seem rational to use Danzig instead of Gdańsk on the English Wikipedia if Danzig was the main name used in English at the time, regardless of what the Polish name at the time was. That is why I voted for Danzig prior to 1945. —Gabbe 09:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that the idea that "Szczecin" is the original name of Stettin is absurd. That spelling was never used until 1945. (well, maybe Polish people used it when referring to the city, but that's irrelevant, as it was not part of Poland). john k 18:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it seems to me that the question is not "what was used at the time" in English, the question is "what would be used by an English language book written now about that time" and "what would a modern English speaking person look for". The answer seems to me that Gdansk is always possible for any period when someone looks up the history of the place they are (you go to Gdansk, Lech Walesa lived in Gdansk etc.) but that Danzig is also possible in quite a few contexts ("Hitler linked up the Danzig corridor") ("my Great-Grandmother came from Danzig, I wonder where it is"). These things can quite easily be different now from the situation 10 years ago, let alone 60 or 250 years ago. Mozzerati 09:39, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

This is my feeling as well. I would say that the answer to the first question is mostly, but not entirely, Danzig for the 1466-1793 period, and always Danzig for the 1793-1945 period (I don't know enough about medieval historical literature to guess at what its called prior to the 16th century or so). The question of what a modern English-speaking person would look for is, as you say, less clear cut. I do think that this should be less of an issue, because we will of course have redirects, and, presumably, parentheticals, to clarify that the two cities are the same.

Another point: For those of you impressed by the fact that Gdansk/Danzig was under Polish sovereignty from 1466-1793, notice that we don't use this as the basis for how we name cities in other early modern contexts. Most of modern day Belgium and Luxembourg were under Spanish control in the 16th and 17th centuries, and then under Austrian control in the 18th century. We don't refer to their cities by Spanish or German names in those periods. Nor do we use Spanish or German names to refer to Italian cities under Spanish or Austrian rule in the same time period. Of course, many (but not all) of the big cities in these regions have English names of their own, and it is not as though Brussels was emptied of its French and Flemish speaking inhabitants in 1945 and replaced by Spaniards, but the comparison seems adequate enough. john k 14:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there's no consensus on this period, then I suggest solving this issue the way we do with British vs. American English (indeed, this is the case of Polish vs. German English) – use Gdańsk if the article is mostly about Polish issues, and Danzig if it's about Germans. Or, if this cannot be determined, follow the usage of the first major contributor to the given article. – Kpalion (talk) 22:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is perfectly fine for most articles. But there remains the question of what to do about the articles Gdansk and History of Gdansk. john k 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user 67.182.169.44 added this to the intro of this vote's section. I moved it here because poll options should not be changed after voting starts. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1466 and 1525 agreements were not authorized nore recognized by the HRE emperors, nore the popes, the supreme overlords.

John, the Low Countries example is nice, but we have also an example of modern towns in the US of A inhabitated mostly by non-English speakers. Following your logic, the WP should honour the local inhabitants and use the local, unofficial name rather than the English name of the places in question. Halibutt 02:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt: A) Can you name any such town? There are certainly towns in Texas, like Brownsville, that are in areas mostly inhabited by Mexicans, but I have never heard of Spanish names for them. However, I think there is an enormous difference between a modern state and an eighteenth century one. The idea of a national language simply wasn't present in the eighteenth century, certainly not in a state like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the idea that because a city was in that state, it should be called by its Polish name, is a retrospective application of current ideas of the nation-state onto a state that doesn't fit such a pattern. I used the example of the Netherlands because it is from the same period as Danzig/Gdansk under the PLC. On the other hand, Brownsville, Texas, is just not directly comparable (and I have yet to see proof that Chicanos there call it something other than Brownsville, in spite of being 91% Hispanic). Furthermore, this has never been my main point, at any rate. Whether or not the inhabitants of Brownsville call it something in Spanish, the basic fact remains that it is universally called Brownsville in English language sources. The same is not true for Danzig from 1466-1793; most sources call it Danzig, and not Gdansk, although I would love to see a citation of sources that call it Gdansk - there's certainly a few on JSTOR, but not terribly many, and not nearly as many as call it Danzig. john k 06:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can give you a better example: Green Point, a part of Brooklyn, is inhabitated mostly by Poles and I've yet to hear of any of the local inhabitants calling it otherwise than "Jackowo". But still, the area is known and referred to by its official name.

As to the official language of the PLC - I'm not really sure I understood your argument. The languages used in the offices were Polish, Latin and Ruthenian. Such was the law and as far as I remember it, it did not differ much from the modern Polish "Polish Language Act".

--Halibutt 14:30, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that Polish envoys at least ONCE demanded that Danzigers would talk to them in either Polish or Latin. So the "official language" concept was not totally foreign to them :) Szopen 15:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course, that example is rather a double-edged sword, no, since it implies that the Danzigers were trying to speak to them in German? At any rate, my point about official languages is such: sure, the PLC conducted its own affairs in Polish or Latin, or what not. But, this does not imply that every city within it must have one of those languages as its official language. Danzig is a notable instance of this, as the municipal government almost certainly did its transactions in German (or Latin, perhaps). While Polish, Latin, and Ruthene may have been the national languages, that doesn't mean that the use of German within Danzig was somehow unofficial, like the use of "Jackowo" in Green Point, Brooklyn. In this period of time, many different linguistic usages can coexist, and claiming that the modern designation of Polish as the official language of Poland is not substantively different from the situation in a very loosely constituted early modern state remains unconvincing. So, at any rate, given that Danzig has not been proved to be a nickname like Jackowo, I think that your argument doesn't work. At any rate, I'm going to go back again to the "English usage" issue, and once again note that English usage is to call it Danzig. Calling it Danzig until 1945 and then switching is also a sensible position, because mass population transfer is substantively different from a simple transfer of sovereignty. john k 16:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Several wikipedians have questions about what English users called the Hanse city of Danzig, particularly in the 1466-1793 timeframe. Here is a book, that documents Scotland-Germany trade and immigration to the Prussian Hanse cities of Elbing and Danzig http://www.electricscotland.com/history/germany/commerce.htm

---

While on most of the poll questions we seem to have vast majorities one way or the other, no matter how it turns out, the question of what to call the city 1466-1793 looks like it will be closely divided. How is this poll to be interepreted? Should it be simply 50%+1 wins? That seems unsatisfactory. (And how do we deal with voters who are, uh, new to the English wikipedia?)

You seem to have problem with that users. Actually, I haven't seen such an amount of accounting in any other vote. But English Wikipedia isn't exactly a matter of Anglophones but - as English is lingua franca nowadays - rather international edition. We can't reasonably expect that all the foreign contributors would contribute to the growth of en: but be denied the right to vote. What it matters how many edits the user has at en: if he has plenty at pl: or de:? The number of edits is a way to ascertain the credibility of user's uniquness, if the user has high number of contributions it most likely means he is experienced. So, do you really want to keep experienced users from contributing to growth of en:? Would not be very constructive, I think. -- Forseti 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forseti, it's not a matter of non-native English speakers. I wouldn't cast doubt on your or Halibutt's or Szopen's or whoever's votes, because you've been around. But the vote should be a vote of those of us who are working on this wikipedia project. If users from the Polish wikipedia want to have their votes count, they should have to do their due diligence by contributing to en for a while first, as you have done. It is simply packing the vote to bring in a lot of users from pl who have never contributed to en before, and whom we have no guarantee will ever contribute to en again. Like anybody else, they ought to be asked to contribute for a while and show themselves to be real editors here. john k 15:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually if anybody contributed to any wikipedia he already have shown he is real editor because he contributed to WP's body of knowledge, he knows rules and markup and above all, he accepts WP's ideals. You just can't know if any person would continue to contribute to Wikipedia but if newcomers would be denied equal rights from the start, they are pretty sure to leave en: since they will be treated as second-class wikipedians.

Moreover, you seem to indicate that only real contributors have the right to vote, setting arbitrary limits like 10, 15 or 20 contributions as mark of this 'realness'. Isn't it introducing the division between 'equal' and 'more equal' in the middle of voting? Again: do you want to keep users from other wikis, specifically pl:, from contributing to en:? -- Forseti 03:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I want to keep users from pl from voting on polls in en without being actual contributors to en. If they want to contribute to en, that is wonderful. But voting in a poll is not the same thing as contributing. john k 05:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, you answered my last question while avoiding responding to the rest. Could you please assume an attitude to the rest of my statements? -- Forseti 10:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any other rule, standard policies should apply: votes have to be bad faith to be excluded, which means sock puppets etc. These voters can't be excluded on those grounds so should be accepted. Personally I don't think that a vote is always a crrect way to establish consensus and 50%+1 isn't a valid decision. Mozzerati 23:08, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Is it a good faith edit to come and vote on English wikipedia when you aren't actually an editor on English wikipedia? That seems to me to be the basic issue. I know such votes don't count on VfD or requests for adminship, as a rule. I'm not sure why they should count on a survey. I would certainly agree that 50%+1 would not amount to a consensus. The question becomes what we do. For other articles, it seems like a live and let live policy is appropriate, especially if we use the "use Danzig for articles about German things, Gdansk for articles about Polish things" method, which seems to have strong support (for biographies, at least). But the Gdansk article and the History of Gdansk article will remain problematic - some decision has to be made. john k 02:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the opinions of regular contributors of the Polish wikipedia are extremely valuable. If a person is making valuable contributions to any Wikipedia, they are part of our community. If they live in Poland, i consider their vote even more valuable than someone in a more Anglophonic country, because it's their city. Foobaz·✐ 03:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But there's no guarantee they even speak English, and most of them certainly have no knowledge whatsoever of English usage (obviously, I am not referring to the Polish-speakers who do use en, to whom I give the benefit of the doubt, although I think some of them are not particularly familiar with English usage either). Do you think it would be fair if a bunch of en users went to the French wikipedia and voted that they should call Londres "London"? john k 06:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally I have no view on the actual dispute, but I am against disenfranchising someone from another wikipedia on the grounds that they have not contributed (or have not contributed a lot) to en. --JuntungWu 12:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a dispute about English usage in the English wikipedia. I don't see why people who have not proved their actual competence in the English language (much less the vagaries of usage for historical names of cities), and who do not contribute to the English wikipedia, should have a say in our naming policies here. If I went over to the Polish wikipedia and started arguing that they should call the place Danzig during the period when it was part of Prussia and Germany, and a free city, because it was part of Germany and inhabited by Germans and this was the official name and this is how we do things in English, that would be wrong - each language should get to set its own policies based on usage within that language. Preferably, things like naming policies would be decided upon by people who are familiar with the vagaries of English usage on the particular subject at hand. Since we can't do that, at least not in a survey, we can at least make sure that the people involved are actually good faith contributors to the English wikipedia. john k 16:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A further question: given that 1308-1466 and 1793-1945 at Danzig look to be pretty set, I'd be interested to see how those of you voting for just the 1466-1793 period to be Gdansk would have this dealt with in the history section of Gdansk. It strikes me that this would be a horribly awkward way to do things, and I feel that there should be some presumption on those of you supporting it to at least make a case for why and how we would do that. (If we had a strong force to simply call it "Gdansk" before 1793, or to call it "Gdansk" throughout, I would not be asking this, as either of these would be a fairly simple solution. But calling it "Gdansk" only from 1466 to 1793 seems like the worst of all possible worlds - we don't use the name which is most commonly used for that period, but we also have to switch mercilessly and confusingly between names in 1466 and 1793. I'll add that this is a problem really only with the Gdansk article itself and the History of Gdansk article. In other articles - especially given the likely-to-be-voted-in-rule about biographies and the use of parentheticals - there is no real problem with calling it whatever one wants whenever one wants.) john k 07:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some inline discussion moved here, from #VOTE:_Cross-Naming_Gdansk.2FDanzig. -- Curps 12:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. To reiterate: The former German names of places now in Poland, and now Polish, are germane first to general entries about the place, second to historical accounts, and third to entries about people who grew up in or lived in these places in German times. I don't think the former German names are particularly relevant to entries about Polish people who grew up in or lived in these places after 1945, when they came de facto under Polish sovereignty, soon to be transformed ethnically (prime example: Lech Walesa, who never lived in German Danzig). But historical veracity demands ample reference to the German names of the places in any context related to the period in which they were essentially German in character. From what I have been able to find in extensive reading, this applies to Danzig for more than six centuries before 1945; this history cannot be erased.

Sca 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

It may be noted, that when English hired craftsmen from Danzig/Gdansk to their first colony in America, they were called as "Pollacks" (at that time it was not derogative it seems) or Polonians. It means that either ethnic Germans considered themselves Poles, or they lived enough Poles in Gdansk to hire them for colony.Szopen 09:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It means nothing of the sort. It means that English people called the residents of Danzig/Gdansk Polacks, because they were from Poland. This implies nothing about their ethnic origins or self-identity. At any rate, even if they considered themselves "Polish" (in the sense of being part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) that does not mean that they considered themselves to be "Poles" in the sense of ethnicity or nationality. john k 21:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But we're not discussing anyone's ethnicity here, are we? The main problem is with the periods long before the very idea of national identity was established... Halibutt 07:51, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would say it was a period somewhat to considerably before the modern idea of nationalism was established. But there were certainly ideas of national identity about. The Polish nobility certainly saw itself as Polish in a sense not too far off from modern senses of national identity. Now, the question of what the national identity of the inhabitants of the city under discussion was is interesting, but not really relevant, because the idea of linguistic nationality had not yet been developed. That is, the German-speaking inhabitants of Danzig might very well have considered themselves Polish in some sense, but that doesn't mean that they thought their city ought to be called Gdansk - in the 18th century and earlier, language and ideas of the nation are not yet interrelated in the way they become in the 19th century. So you can perfectly well have quasi-nationalistic Hungarian nobility who can't speak Magyar, and so forth. Of course, ideas of national identity themselves are less established, too, but that's a secondary point, since the basic point is that the national identity question simply isn't important in a discussion of what language the name should be discussed in. If that makes sense. john k 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we will look on langauage of majority in cities we can have some paradoxes. According to this idea Paul von Hindenburg was born in Poznań, not Posen, because in 1847 Poles were majority (see Historical population of Poznan). Radomil 21:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or were there more votes here before the crash? Everyone should check and make sure their votes are still there. 130.91.46.11 23:15, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC) (sorry, that was me. john k 23:19, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC))

All looks fine to me. I was checking the contributions edit for edit since the very beginning (since sometimes a server timing error removed a vote with a subsequent close edit example). There were about 50+ votes before the crash, and it is about the same now. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think they're all back now, but weren't there when I wrote my note. The wikipedia seems to have been in an intermediate state at that point. But I'm fairly certain that there were some votes missing at the time that I wrote. john k 04:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Open Facts Wikipedia status comments. The latest edits were restored only slowly, but should be all here now. Since the Wiki was read only during the restore, no temporarily missing edits were overwritten (I hope). I checked all edits here one by one, and there were no removals of votes. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

As there seems to be some agreement to my opinion that one name should be used throughout, I figured I'd might as well try to expand on it. First of all, I was only drawn to this page by the notice on Goings On, so although I haven't witnessed any of the original edit wars nor been through any of the discussion they prompted, I do have the advantage of seeing this issue from the point of view of an outsider. To me, it seems that the discussion of when the city was Gdansk and when it was Danzig is a very interesting one, full of valid arguments from both sides, but should not have any impact on how Wikipedia refers to the city. The English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, and as such should always use the current, English, names to refer to foreign places. Any discussion of other names and when they were used should be reserved exclusively for the main body of that place's article.

If this seems incorrect, consider inproper nouns: if were talking about apples from France, does it make sense to refer to them as "pommes" instead? Or maybe "apples (pommes)" or "pommes (apples)"? I don't think so, and I don't think there's a difference between that and the case in question. --Jwanders 14:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First place - my argument is based on the fact that the current, English name used to refer to the city of Gdansk before 1945 is "Danzig". In the same way that the current, English name used to refer to St. Petersburg between 1914 and 1924 is "Petrograd" and the current, English name used to refer to it between 1924 and 1991 is "Leningrad". Look at any recent history book that mentions the place - I suspect you will not be able to find any that refer to it as "Gdansk" during the period when it was part of Prussia or a free city, and I would think it would be rather difficult to find any that refer to it as "Gdansk" before that. Yes, Gdansk is the current, English name for the present day city. But that doesn't mean it is the current English name for the pre-1945 city. Your argument about improper nouns is neither here nor there - it seems to imply that we shouldn't even mention the native names of cities, when clearly we should. Cologne should mention "Köln" as the German name, and Warsaw should mention "Warszawa" as the Polish name. Point is - my level of caring at what the city was "actually" named at a given time is relatively low. What I am concerned about is the fact that in English, we refer to it by a particular name when talking about it at a particular time. Obviously, though, there are situations where to follow standard usage would become too confusing, because there's no logical way to explain why you've chosen a particular point for the name change, and most of the argument has been around this point, I think. Finally, to attempt to convince you again, I'd push you up to my original argument for using Danzig between 1466 and 1793 - the main point was a list of books in English that do the same, not an argument about city seals or official languages. For the 1793-1945 period, there aren't any books in English that will call it Gdansk. john k 15:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are not writing a book, but an encyclopedia, and English language encyclopedias refer to the city as Gdansk even for the period 1793 - 1945. And your Leningrad example, is about a city that has been renamed! Gdansk was always called Gdansk since its foundation in 980. Space Cadet 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When a city is inhabited by people who call it Danzig, and they are all kicked out and replaced by people who call it Gdansk, that is equivalent to a name change. At any rate, Jwanders didn't make any distinction - he said we should always use the "current English name" for any city. That would include St. Petersburg, as far as I can tell (and Petrograd is a translation of the original name in much the same way that Gdansk and Danzig are two versions of the same name). As to English language encyclopedias, we've been over this before, but only Britannica is consistent in using Gdansk, and it only uses it as the primary name in the Gdansk article itself. (That is, Günter Grass is listed as being born in Danzig, not Gdansk). The others (Columbia, Encarta) are highly inconsistent about which name they use. At any rate, the rule is "use the most common name in English," not "use the most common name in English encyclopedias." I will agree that the example of Britannica is the strongest argument for using Gdansk consistently in this article, but I still think to follow this precedent would be a violation of common name policy. English common usage, I will admit, is inherently unfair - French names for French cities is de rigueur, and we've started to use German names even for German cities that we used to know by their French names (c.f. Aix-la-Chapelle, Mayence, Treves, Ratisbon). But, as a rule, we use the Polish (and other Slavic) names as little as we can manage, because, to put it frankly, Polish names look weird to English-speakers. We don't know how to pronounce them. There are strange diacriticals over consonants. So, when there's a city that used to be in Germany, and used to be inhabited by Germans, English-speakers tend to use the German name for that period of time (and, until relatively recently, overall). This does seem to be changing - historians who actually speak Polish certainly are much more likely to use "Gdansk." For instance, I just discovered a book on the First Partition from 1966 that uses "Gdansk" throughout. (Does Davies, as well?) But this is still the exception rather than the rule for this period. And, aside from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Gdansk, I don't think you've pointed to a single source that consistently uses "Gdansk" for the 1793-1945 period. john k 19:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll grant that the current English for the city is different for different time periods, that using one name throughout would produce inaccuracies. But isn't that the lesser evil when compared to defining a policy around all the name changes? The changes just produce so many difficult policy questions. For examle, in an article about Joe Somebody, you would have to say "...Joe left his hometown of Danzig in 1943... ... ...Then, in 1968, Joe returned to his hometown of Gdansk..." and either leave a bewildered reader or have to explain the history of Gdansk in the middle of an article about Joe. And this is just one example of many.

Maybe the history books are all meticiously careful in their usage, but they only have a small handful of editors. We have thousands. Our policies must lean towards simplicity and clarity or they will not be followed. --Jwanders 20:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if Josef left his hometown of Danzig in 1943, the fact that by 1968 it was Gdansk would have become terribly important and significant - all of his friends and family would have ceased to live there, and been replaced by Poles. Most likely, Josef is living in West Germany and is a supporter of the expellee party, and wouldn't either want or be able to return to Gdansk. That is to say - the name change in 1945 is shorthand for a very significant change in the city. As such, in any case where you are referring to the city both before and after 1945, the name change is significant, and deserves to be discussed. BTW, are you arguing that we should refer to every city by a single name? Do you think we should discuss the siege of St. Petersburg in 1941-1944? Because that seems to be the import of your argument. On the other hand, I think your point is right on target for the 1793 issue. It doesn't make sense to say someone left Gdansk in 1790, and then returned to Danzig in 1795. john k 20:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me be a bit clearer - in your example of Joe leaving in 1943 and coming back in 1968, "explaining the history of Gdansk in the middle of an article about Joe" is absolutely necessary, at least to the extent of a very brief explanation of "he returned home to what was now the Polish city of Gdansk", or some such. An example of someone leaving in 1790 and coming back in 1795 I think does pose problems, because there's much less need to explain the history of the city (see, for instance Arthur Schopenhauer, for problems of that sort. john k 20:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey look! Pie!

I had to consider your St. Petersburg reference three times before I thought, "Oh! Maybe St. Peterburg was called something else when it was under siege!". I had to look it up to confirm. Until today, I'd been assuming they were completely different cities!

My "one name only" argument was made as a complete outsider. Now that I realise that there are cities whose common-English name changes based on the time period, the argument really falls apart. But, then again, I'm not as much of an outsider anymore, am I? So, I'm going to sleep on it, and if it's not against Wikiquette, might adjust my votes tomorrow. --Jwanders 22:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing votes is generally okay, I think - I've changed a couple of my votes. Of course, the issue becomes that there are questions of degree. One would never talk about how the crusaders took Istanbul in 1204, or about the great Battle of Volgograd (that is, Stalingrad). On the other hand, one does, sometimes talk about Gdansk in the 16th-18th centuries, and there are certainly examples (including Space Cadet's example of Encyclopedia Britannica) of simply using Gdansk throughout. I'm voting as I am because I think the balance of usage supports calling it Danzig before 1945 (except maybe for the pre-1308 period, which I'm not really sure about since it's so infrequently discussed), and because it's much simpler to just use Danzig 1308-1945 than to switch up twice in the middle. It's definitely a judgement call, though. john k 00:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Your opinion this page (organisation at all) is NPOV? No coment! Radomil 11:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There were repeated attempts to find a compromise, see Talk:Gdansk. this vote is not to find the truth, but to determine the usage of the names in order to stop lots and lots of edit wars. I don't expect everybody to be happy with the results, whatever they will be, but I hope the majority can live with it. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Explaining the confusion:

Gdansk existed as Slavic city since X century at least. In 1224 it was given new set of privileges, which is referred by Polish historians as "relocating" the city , or "moving to German law" (or Magdeburg law), while Germans usually are calling this date "founding" of Gdansk. However, Germans were living is city before 1224 too, and in 1224 it had not became suddenly German city, the Slavic inhabitants were not expelled/exterminated. The city was under suzerainty of Pomeranian (and therefore, indirectly, Polish) princes. Szopen 07:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Danzig/Gdansk before 1308 There were East-Germanic tribes besides Vandals, Burgundians at the Baltic coast between Oder and Vistula river, the Gothic, Gutone, Guddic people for many centuries living and traveling along the Vistula river to the Black Sea and further. The direct neigbors were the Aesti-Prussian Baltic people, specifically the Prussian Vidivarii (Goth-Gepid-Balts). Oldprussian name for Goths-Guddai. The area around the Vistula delta was recorded by Tacitus and others as Germania and by Jordanes as Gothic coast Gothiscandza. The names in the area are reflective of that. The old name for a settlement Gdansk (and others) is a reflection of Gothic presence. Slavic people did come to live and received offices in the empire and European ruling houses are very intermarried.

The problem with that idea is that we DON'T know where GOthisdandz was, and second, not only Goths were living there. Poles had not founded nwew city probably, the Slavic settlement was there before.

The only reason the year 997 is prominent, is because of the successfull rejection by the Prussians (and Pomeranian) of one of the many Polish rulers conquest attempts. Poles just dug up the old name(s) and re-use them. They certainly neither founded a city named Gdansk nore Danzig in 997. The most they can say is, that they conquered a settlement around 997.

• 995 AD Boleslaw I Chrobry's soldiers came up north and conquered the area around the Vistula delta going. They build a fortification in order to conquer more land.

• 997 they were stopped by the Prussian, who got rid of Adalbert of Prague. However Boleslaw I seems to have held on to the area around Danzig/Gdansk for some years and emperor Henry had to battle him for 18 years.

There is not recorded attempt of conquering the Prussians. The only thing you got is PEACEFUL mission of st adalbert and nothing more.

The emperor then gave the lien to Canute/Knud, a son-in law.

Line of what to whom? The source?

1046 Zemuzil was made Dux Bomeranorum. For the first time in history the name Pomerania was used by the empire, when Zemuzil at the palace of Merseburg came before emperor Henry III and became his vasal.

Source please.

1120 we find that Boleslaw III of Poland conquered Stettin and Bishop Otto of Bamberg comes in 1124 to christianize. It did not last and in 1128 Otto of Bamberg was sent by the emperor Lothar and all of Pomerania is christianized.

Not by emperor, but again by Boleslaw on behalf *this time) of emperor.

1135 Boleslaw II at the Reichtag -imperial diet at Merseburg becomes vasal of Lothar

1138 Boleslaw II died and Pomerania was again rid of Polish suzerain.

Nope. It laster few years. Western Pomerania finalyl get rid of POlish suzereinty at XIII century, Eastern Pomerania was (nominally) Polish vasssal until 1308.

1164 Henry the Lyon grants Pomerania as lien to dukes Kasimir I and Bogislaw I

1181 Emperor Frederick L Barbarossa grants Pomerania as lien to duke Bogislaw

1184 Denmark forces Bogislaw I to recognize Knut VI

But them what fdoes this have to do with Gdansk? Gdansk was in eastern part of Pomerania.

1224 Danzig is founded

Not founded. Is given new set of privileges. It's legal status has changed. City was there centuries before.

1227 Battle of Bornhoeved ends Danish conquests in Pomerania

1231 Emperor gives the supreme soverainty (Oberlehnsherrschaft) over Pomerania to margraves of Brandenburg, which in 1236 Wartislaw III recognizes

Strangely this was not recognised by either Pomeranian dukes or later trials.

1250 the margraves of Brandenburg now hold the souverainty over Pomeranian dukes Barnim I and Wartislaw III

They are not. They have claims on it, that's all.

1338 at the Reichstag-imperial diet at Frankfurt aM emperor grants Pomerania 'Reichsstandschaft' and Brandenburg inheritance rights. and so on and so on

Again, that means they had claims not recognised by Poland or Pomerania (Or Bohemia, for that matter).

You seem to think that if Emperor would gave someone right to rule Kiev, it would authomatically mean that Kiev is vassal of HRE (pardon anachronism) and current rulers are illegitimate. Well, here is a news for you: while Emperor had pretenses to be supreme ruler over wqhole christendom, that was rarely recognised by any ruler who has any wishes to be sovereign. Polish rulers since XII century were not recignising Emperor as their overlord, and earlier they were doing that either from part of their territoy (as Mieszko, who was vassal of Emperor from unspecified part of his state, but not of whole state (usque Vartha fluvium...)) or in short period of times. Eeech are you Helga by chance? Cause I saw all these "arguments" before and I thought we were finished with them. I'm sure the answers and discussion is somewhere in history. Five years ago there were the same "arguments", case of Barndenburg falsifications, false claims of TO, question of Gdansk/Danzig massacre and so on and so on Szopen 08:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)