The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The !votes are pretty much split evenly between support and oppose, and both sides make valid arguments. The main argument for "support" is that historically most sources used the C form, and it's consistent with "Free state of Cracow". The main argument for "oppose" is that it's consistent with the modern name of the city, and that more recent sources use predominantly the K form. I don't see a consensus either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kraków uprising → Cracow Uprising – Free City of Cracow is the preferred title of the city-state that was involved in this uprising, as determined by consensus through WP:RM, so this article should probably be at Cracow Uprising instead of Kraków uprising (notice the capitalization of Uprising, since it is part of a proper noun) Genealogizer (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're assuming Cracow is the English version. It isn't. Overwhelming usage in British English is now Kraków. Despite the claims below, Cracow is now seen as outdated in British English, even if it's not in American English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cracow isn't archaic in any variant of English, and n-grams attests to it's continued use in British English.Genealogizer (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't address the suggestion that Cracow is English and Kraków is not. They clearly both are, so WP:USEENGLISH does not apply in this case. You may also note that many of the "British English" books in that n-gram that use Cracow are actually by Polish authors who probably wrongly think that Cracow is the standard English term (just as many foreign editors on Wikipedia don't seem to realise that many native English-speakers now use native names for many cities - many of the people who cite USEENGLISH in RM discussions clearly aren't native English-speakers). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cracow is still a standard English term for this city. Nowadays, so is Krakow, but the Polish spelling Kraków is the least common of the three. And from a linguistic standpoint, Cracow is much more English than Kraków will ever be. Genealogizer (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It really is not. "Cracow" is actually pretty rarely used these days. It's either "Krakow" or "Kraków". And if you're gonna try to decide between these latter two you're bsically re-opening the whole diacritics can of worms, which frankly, just isn't worth it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, Cracow is still fairly common in modern use. As I said before, "Cracow isn't archaic. Even for the modern city, it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third." Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in ngrams - yeah, but man! Look at that trend. "Cracow" has been falling dramatically since... 1974. Not exactly sure how this is suppose to support your case (and as already mentioned, the diacritic is a separate issue). Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Krakow has also declined a little from 1995 to 2008 - my guess is that the city has been written about less in the English speaking world since the end of the Cold War. And I admit that Cracow is less common than it used to be, but there's a huge difference between less common and obsolete and archaic. In terms of currency and obsoleteness, Cracow is somewhere between Calcutta and Copenhagen. Genealogizer (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Krakow has also declined a little from 1995 to 2008" - No, actually it hasn't. Look at it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • According to n-grams, Krakow was at 0.000757258 in 1995, and 0.0000582720 in 2008. That's a fairly significant decline. Genealogizer (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per WP:COMMONAME. 'Cracow Uprising' + 1846: ~350 Google Book results: [1]. 'Krakow Uprising' + 1846: ~2000 Google Book results: [2]. Krakow, not Cracow, is the common name used in English sources for this event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at sources from the time of the uprising. Genealogizer (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Google n-grams finds no results for any spelling other than Cracow. See here Genealogizer (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what version of Google you are using, but when I look on Google Books I get 396 results for "Cracow Uprising"+1846 and a grand total of 3 (rather than 2,000) for "Kraków Uprising"+1846. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the first hits for "Krakow Uprising" are for travel guides and other works that mention the event in passing and presumably just spell "Krakow" the same throughout for consistency, while the first hits for "Cracow Uprising" are to dedicated coverage such as Henry Weisser's "The British Working Class and the Cracow Uprising of 1846", Polish Review 13:1 (1968), 3-19, the Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945 (1996), p. 90, a book called Nation and History: Polish Historians from the Enlightenment to the Second World War, edited by Peter Brock, John D. Stanley, Piotr Wróbel (Toronto University Press, 2006), etc. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this discussion was taking place in 1968 then that'd be relevant but it's not. I don't know what version of google books you're using but the first hits for "Krakow uprising" (with diacritic) are Polish Political Emigrés in the United States of America, 1831-1864 (2002), Visible Cities Krakow (2002), Historic Monuments in Poland: 30 Treasures of National Heritage (2006). The second one I guess could be described as a "travel guide" but it's a pretty high end one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you argue that there has been a revolution in the standard English usage of reputable historians and academic publishers since 2015? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unlike such case as the Battle of Stalingrad which denotes the name of a historical event that occurred in a now-renamed city, the uprising in question took place in a city which still carries the same name. While most cities outside the English-speaking world that have been historically known by their Anglicized names (Beograd/Belgrade, Moskva/Moscow, Warszawa/Warsaw), are still known by those Anglicized names, a few such cities (Tiflis/Tbilisi, Cracow/Kraków) are now referenced by their local names. However, even the authors of recently published books may still tend to use the city's name as it was Anglicized in 1846 and continued in that form through the subsequent century.

Since Wikipedia prides itself upon its capability to reflect changing historiography on a daily basis, it is not bound to slavishly follow outdated historical references and continue to use outdated names. On the basis that the city's name was, indeed, rendered as the Free City of Cracow in the English-speaking world of the time, strong arguments were made in favor of returning Free City of Kraków → Free City of Cracow at the recently-concluded Talk:Free City of Cracow#Requested move 30 April 2017. The move proposal proved to be ultimately successful and all the points in favor and against the use of "Kraków" are there, with one of the participants, Necrothesp, seeing "the arguments for keeping the old-fashioned name for an historical entity", but also indicating opposition to "moving Kraków uprising, since this is the common name in modern British sources." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cracow is neither archaic nor outdated, and Tiflis/Tbilisi is a bad comparison. As I said in the Free City of Cracow RM discussion, "Even for the modern city, it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third." Now let's compare that to Tiflis. No modern Tbilisi-based institutions claim to be in Tiflis in English, no dictionaries or modern maps prefer Tiflis (although most maps of the Russian Empire prefer it for the same reason maps of the Soviet Union call Volgograd Stalingrad), and Tbilisi overtook Tiflis in 1979. Genealogizer (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice were you to favour us with an example of this current historical usage, which you assert has superseded the usage that is to be found in (for example) the 1996 Historical Dictionary of Poland – hardly an archaic publication. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various discussions on this subject, starting with Wikipedia's earliest years, may be found in the archives of Talk:Kraków, particularly in Talk:Kraków/Archive 4, starting with section headers "Names, lead" and "Cracow vs Kraków", with further exchanges continuing to the end of the archive. All the arguments and examples are there and the city article has remained under the main title header "Kraków" for most of its existence with, obviously, sufficient support as an aspect of the community consensus for keeping that form. We'll have to see if the same arguments that prevailed at Free City of Cracow with also prevail at Kraków uprising. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a requested move to Krakow (without the diacritic) failed, but I couldn't find a failed RM to Cracow. And all of that was 8 years ago, and consensus can change over time. Genealogizer (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been discussions going back to 2004, but no !vote. The discussion at Talk:Kraków/Archive 1#English name(s) is from 2007. Various examples are given — the European Union's English-language texts use Kraków, but then the EU also uses, in its English texts, such forms as Firenze and München. Same for the United Nations' English website where one form or the other is used, seemingly dependent on the context — historical or otherwise. Then of course there are guidebooks, most of which use "Kraków", but a few use "Cracow" — old forms die hard. In the instance under discussion, we should also try to correlate uppercase/lowercase "U/u" and use of parenthetical qualifiers, if any, in "Kraków uprising" as compared to "Kraków Uprising (1944)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that EU texts are a bad measure of English usage - they intentionally use native names for almost everything (countries being the major exception to this), even when the English name is much more common. As for the UN, it is actively trying to reduce exonym use, so the fact that it still uses Cracow fairly regularly shows that it is still a current and widely accepted exonym, unlike Tiflis. The point is, Cracow is still a current and common name, and good arguments could even be made for moving the article on the city to Cracow. Therefore, it is especially appropriate to use it in this historic context. Genealogizer (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because "Cracow" isn't outdated, even when talking about the city today, and is definitely more common for historical events. PolskaNation (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Most British sources, at least, now seem to call it the Kraków uprising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As noted above, "Cracow" is still more common in English sources than "Krakow" and far more than "Kraków". —  AjaxSmack  01:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It should be noted that, as the capital and the ancient/traditional capital, Warszawa/Warsaw and Kraków/Cracow have been the only Polish cities which have had corresponding English exonyms. Other than their historical/occupation German names (particularly, Wrocław/Breslau and Gdańsk/Danzig), the next ten largest Polish cities (Łódź, Wrocław, Poznań, Gdańsk, Szczecin, Bydgoszcz, Lublin, Katowice, Białystok and Gdynia) have not been referenced by a specifically-English exonym (in comparison to their English exonyms, Warszawa is known to German-speakers by the exonym Warschau and Kraków's German exonym is Krakau).

In the English-speaking world of 2017, however, only Warsaw continues to be entirely referenced by its English exonym. The modern-day era finds Kraków mostly referred to by its Polish name. Thus, unlike such official name changes as Constantinople, Leningrad or Stalingrad which must be kept in relation to their historical context, Kraków's name has always remained the same and the change in the English-spaking world has been the gradual move away from the use of the English exonym in favor of the local form which is now predominant in guidebooks, travel itineraries and media references.

As for historical events, since the city's name has remained unchanged, there is no need to reach for a gradually-dscontinued exonym to describe a past uprising (both 1846 and 1944) while also keeping in mind that if this header is moved from Kraków uprising to Cracow Uprising, it would additionally represent a glaring inconsistency from the header for the World War II event — Kraków Uprising (1944). I would, however, support an uppercase "U" for the 1846 event, per its use in naming the 1944 event. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Krakow (without the diacritic) has been gaining ground in English, but Cracow is still in current use, and slightly more common than Krakow. (Kraków, the proper Polish spelling, is a very distant third) A lot of academic works still prefer Cracow, and those are generally better researched than media or travel sources. Also keep in mind that travel sources tend to prefer native forms because those are the spellings that appear on the signs in the country, and some travel guides from the last 5 years still prefer Cracow. In addition, I've never heard an English-speaker pronounce it Kraków (CROCK-oof), i've only ever heard it pronounced Cracow. In other words, Cracow is a lot more like Turin or Kiev than it is like Tiflis or Peking. Genealogizer (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not based on personal views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Georgian capital Tiflis/Tbilisi which, being on the relatively remote cusp of Europe and Asia, rarely if ever appears on lists of major European cities, Kraków appears to be the only major European city whose name has transformed to a predominant degree in the English-speaking world from an exonym to an endonym. A number of European capitals, such as Sarajevo, Ljubljana, Skopje or Reykjavik, may be difficult for English speakers to pronounce and one (Chișinău) has two diacritics, but none has an English exonym, although Chisinau is very likely to be generally rendered without the diacritics.

As for travel sources preferring native forms, Kraków again seems to be an exception, since there is little or rather no possibility of seeing English-language guidebooks titled Warszawa, Roma, Bruxelles, București or Lisboa. Transliterations from non-Latin alphabets present varying forms of reasoning in that some (such as Kiev) exactly recreate the Russian (not Ukrainian) pronunciation of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, while others (such as Tiflis) create an English exonym for Tbilisi. Still others (Peking and Beijing) represent an exonym and a labored attempt to recreate the native sound of the Chinese capital's name.

Those knowledgeable in this area of discussion can point to argumentation, on the talk pages of numerous localities and geographic features, parsing the historical spelling and use of diacritics in rendering such names in English. One such discussion, at Talk:İzmir#Names, followed by "Why Turkish name?", gives examples of various accented headers for cities (São Paulo, León, Cádiz, Córdoba, Málaga) which are referenced in English without diacritics, but are still spelled the same, unlike Cracow/Kraków whose exonym/endonym spelling forms differ from each other, thus offering a presently unique case of a Latin-alphabet endonym which has gained such widespread use in the English-speaking world that a very strong argument can be made for its widespread use without creating a precedent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting as though Cracow is archaic and obsolete. It is neither of those things. And a lot of European cities used to be referred to by an English exonym, but no longer are, such as Mechlin for Mechelen, Pampeluna for Pamplona, and Doway for Douai. Those are virtually nonexistent in modern English, whereas Cracow is still used relatively frequently. Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - most modern sources have switched to "Krakow" (with or without diacritic) so I see no reason why Wikipedia should strive to preserve archaic forms.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cracow isn't archaic. See my response to User:MyMoloboaccount's comment below. Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT - I would like to remind everyone reading this that Volunteer Marek once said "I can never understand why some people think that archaic and frankly silly 17th - 19th century inventions like "Ladislaus" or "Stanislaus" and yes, "Cracow" (though that goes back a bit earlier) constitute "English usage". These are neither real Latin, nor real English nor actual Polish, just some weird-ass mix of all three that sounds horrible to anyone with an aesthetic ear. It's like a drunk two year old baby with a major speech impediment trying to speak... Latin, or English or Polish and slurring so badly that it speaks neither." Cracow is still used about half of the time in English, and therefore is not archaic, no matter how aesthetically displeasing he may find it. Unfortunately for him, "aesthetics" are not a consideration on Wikipedia. Genealogizer (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT SQUARED - And I would like to remind everyone reading this that it's extremely weird for a fairly recently created account to be able to dig up a quote from ... four years ago. In fact, it's just weird that an account would show up here and try to restart this decade old dispute in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • COMMENT CUBED - if you read this whole thread, you would realized that User:Roman Spinner directed me to look at the talk page archives of the Cracow article.Genealogizer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the English accepted name is Krakow. In addition we should review if some other articles use the outdated and archaic "Cracow" and rename them properly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cracow is neither outdated nor archaic, as it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third. Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make my living by ensuring the correct use of the English language in a variety of publishing and commercial contexts, and it is news to me that "the English accepted name" (sc. "the accepted English name") is "Krakow". In fact, the usual English name is "Cracow", but out of deference to Polish sensibilities English speakers frequently use "Krakow" as an approximation of the Polish name instead, and occasionally actually use the Polish name itself, "Kraków". None of these are either correct or incorrect in themselves, but context-dependent. Wikipedia's guidelines include WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH, so that is what we should do here – ruling out the use of "Kraków" entirely. Cracow is a city with the same sort of historic significance as Warsaw, Prague, Moscow, Vienna, Venice, Florence or Antwerp, and should linguistically be treated as such, certainly in historical contexts, rather than like a postcolonial Mumbai or Beijing. You can insist on Poland getting the same linguistic treatment as third-world countries, but I doubt you'll ever find unanimity for that position. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've already said, depends which country you come from. American sources do usually still use Cracow. However, British sources now usually use Kraków with the diacritic. And this is not American Wikipedia; it's English Wikipedia. So there's no special reason for assuming USEENGLISH only applies to American English. Given this article already uses Kraków, given the article on the city itself calls it Kraków, and given many English sources do use Kraków there is no reason to change the title. Doing so would be pushing us towards Americanising Wikipedia, which is not on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assumes facts not in evidence Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet Norman Davies is not American, nor is Oxford University Press. This is all so confusing: we keep being told that "Cracow" is obsolete in British English, yet the foremost British historian of Poland (whose book on Anders' Army only came out last year), and the foremost academic press in Britain (which published an Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania all the way back in 2015), seem not to have got the memo.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the first page of the Cracow uses alone, eight out of ten works are by Polish, not British, authors. So I fail to see why you're placing any store on that ngram. Foreign authors often wrongly assume that native English-speakers prefer old-fashioned Anglicised versions of names. It's very common. And Americans probably do. But they're not representative of all native English-speakers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One again, Cracow isn't old-fashioned. And just because someone isn't a native speaker of English doesn't mean that they know nothing about the language. Keep in mind, those books had to be reviewed and edited to be published. If Cracow was truly archaic, it would have been eliminated in the editing process. I haven't seen any modern books about Peking.Genealogizer (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although this discussion about the city's name more properly belongs at Talk:Kraków, some aspects of this matter may also be discussed here. As has already been mentioned, this is a unique case which does not set a precedent — no other proposals for renaming comparably relevant English exonyms to the native form have found any substantial support. In this instance, however, the references to "Kraków" instead of "Cracow" gradually underwent a natural transformation and are now predominant in the English-speaking world — as pointed out by Necrothesp, "[M]ost British sources, at least, now seem to call it the Kraków uprising".

It may also be noted that unlike such English exonyms as The Hague or the Anglo-French Cologne, which radically diverge from native forms Den Haag and Köln, the problems with the name "Kraków" are only associated with the ignored (or omitted) diacritic and the pronunciation of the city's native name as "KRAH-koof" (native pronunciation is a common impasse in language study for some English speakers, starting with the most obvious example of remembering to pronounce "Paris" as "Pah-REE"). The written form, however, varies only minimally (since the "C/c", as used in "Cracow", is pronounced in English as "K/k"), thus making no perceptive difference to English speakers (in Polish, it does make a difference, since the letter "C" is pronounced as "tzeh").

As a final point, it must be conceded, of course, that in comparison with the exonym Tiflis, now considered outdated, for the relatively remote capital, Tbilisi, the form "Cracow" continues to be used, including by various Polish institutions. The reason may rest in the feeling of national pride that, representing Poland as "Cracow" in the English-speaking world, Kraków is (or has been) one of only two Polish cities which was considered sufficiently important internationally to rate its own English exonym. Thus, an impression may persist in certain Polish circles (academic or otherwise) that the conversion of a rare and valued English exonym to native form may represent the city's downgrading or the loss of what may be perceived as a status symbol. Such views, however, even if still in existence, are obviously in the minority. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PAIR-iss instead of pah-REE isn't a mispronunciation or a mistake, anymore than Cracow is. Significant foreign cities usually get English name. Once again, Cracow and Krakow are approximately tied in English, and Kraków is a very distant third.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogizer (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth pronounces it PAIR-iss?! That really would be a mispronunciation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us whose regional variants of English have undergone the Mary-marry-merry merger. I, and everyone else around me, pronounce "Pair", "Pare", and "Pear" identically. "War" and "Poor" rhyme for me, as well. Genealogizer (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While the proper venue for the majority of arguments in this discussion continues to be Talk:Kraków, it should at least be reiterated that unlike such Wikipedia article titles as Fall of Constantinople, Siege of Leningrad or Battle of Stalingrad, in which the modern-day cities carried a different name at the time of the event in question, Kraków's Polish name has remained unchanged, thus negating any accusations of anachronistic naming in the title "Kraków uprising" (decade-long arguments at Talk:Free City of Cracow notwithstanding).

All, however, should at least agree that either as an addenda to this discussion or as a separate follow-up, the "u" in this "uprising" and the "U" in the article titled Kraków Uprising (1944) should be made analogous, alongside hatnotes for both articles and/or parenthetical qualifier "(1846)" added to the main header of this article. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Polish name has changed is irrelevant. The issue is the English name. I don't remember ever coming across WP:USEPOLISH. Stating (without evidence) that "Cracow" is obsolete, but then arguing that it shouldn't be used for the past, also strikes me as special pleading. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of why we should not simply follow the usage of such sources as the Historical Dictionary of Poland, or indeed the books of Norman Davies, the foremost English-speaking historian of Poland. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that until the later decades of the 20th century, the city of Kraków was primarily referenced in the English-speaking world as "Cracow" and much/most English-language historical writing is heavily influenced by that fact. Other examples such as Peking, Bombay or Calcutta are not particularly applicable because of cultural and linguistic particularities of transliteration. Polish city names, however, are in no need of transliteration and the names of Polish historical events are not ingrained in the culture of the English-speaking world to such a degree as, for instance, the Black Hole of Calcutta, that they must be kept in their historical perspective. Bombay and Calcutta as well as other Indian cities continue to be referenced by those so-called "outdated" forms in many parts of India's English-speaking media and culture, while the name Kraków has always been part of Polish culture in that form.

There is no need of special pleading for the name Kraków — it has naturally evolved to its native form in the English-speaking world and is now completely predominant as Kraków in English-language travel itineraries and mostly predominant in English-language guidebook titles and media references. In such a context, as of 2017, it would be counterintuitive to refer to the modern-day city as Kraków, but to events in its past as having taken place in "Cracow". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Cracow and Krakow are about equally common. Kraków is by far the least common of the three. Some newspapers, notably The Economist, still prefer Cracow, and Cracow is still slightly more common in academia. Who cares about travel itineraries? They are probably the least relevant and scholarly source there is. Travel-related sources tend to prefer native forms much more than other usages, in part because the native name is what a traveller will actually see on signs in that country. Rick Steves calls Nuremberg Nürnberg, despite the fact that it is incredibly uncommon in English. Genealogizer (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least agree that Norman Davies and the Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania (Oxford University Press, 2015) are better sources for English usage in the writing of Polish history than are " travel itineraries and guidebook titles"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although Rick Steves chose to use "Nürnberg" as one of the entries in his "Germany" guidebook, a glance at the display of his book titles confirms all the familiar English exonyms — Prague, Copenhagen, Athens, Munich, Milan, etc. I am frequently at New York's JFK Airport and the city names I see on the departure boards are those exonyms, not Praha, Kobenhavn, Athina, etc. The one exception for a city name that was once referenced via an exonym is Krakow (indicated without the diacritic). I don't know in what year or under what circumstances the departure boards switched from displaying "Cracow" to displaying "Krakow" but I have not seen "Cracow" displayed on a departure board since the 1980s.

When writing, in 2017, about the 19th century, it would be normal to describe events as occurring in Constantinople or Tsaritsyn, but not normal to describe them as occurring in Peking or Tiflis unless one takes care to explain that these specific references (in such cases as Peking or Tiflis) are being done for deliberate effect.

Norman Davies and the 2015 Oxford History are indeed excellent sources for the study of past events, but in the very selective instance of this particular city name and the use of that city's gradually discontinued exonym, even in reference to that city's past, those sources have unfortunately fallen out of step with the flow of continuous change. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that Cracow is less universally used than Prague, Copenhagen, etc..., but it's still in current use by a lot of sources, and therefore is not archaic. Airport departure boards are not a good source to use for an encyclopedia. This is a collection of academic knowledge, not a travel itinerary. And you're wrong about Peking and Tiflis being used in a historical context today. And once again, Cracow isn't anywhere close to "discontinued". Discontinued is something like Plescow or Eyraca Arabic. Your argument is to a large degree built upon your belief that Cracow is "obsolete", "archaic", and "discontinued". Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. You seem to be obsessed with eradicating the word Cracow because it is "out of step with the flow of continuous change," despite the fact that it's an English word with centuries of history that is offensive/politically insensitive to no one and still used by a lot of modern works. Why? Genealogizer (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: if two names are roughly as popular, or let's say 60/40 for K/C, we should try to avoid confusing readers through semi-random use of them. We chose K for the main article, and we should stick with it for all others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was determined by consensus that the articles on the Free City and Grand Duchy belonged at Cracow. There's never been an official vote on the city (There was one on Krakow vs Kraków, but never one involving Cracow), but that will change in a few days. Also, you seem to be on a quest to purge Wikipedia of mentions to Cracow, an English word with centuries of history.Genealogizer (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Krakow or Cracow is acceptable. Removal of the diacritic, is best. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note ongoing canvassing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not canvassing. My notifications to users are limited (about half a dozen notified, instead of 100), neutral (read the messages), nonpartisan (notifying people who have had interests in similar moves or in the Cracow/Kraków dispute), and open (Messages left on talk pages instead of done through email). Also, two can play at this game! Genealogizer (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linking to some ancient thread from 11 years ago only lends credence to the suggestion that you are a returning editor, likely topic banned, and trying to restart some old conflicts. I hope the admin closing this will take this into consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, since you were trying to discredit my opinion, I tried to find something that would discredit you. I'm not a returning editor, and asserting that I likely am violates WP:AGF. Genealogizer (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are canvassing, digging up ancient history that only few would remember, and wikilawyering; I am not impressed. If you are not a returning editor, you are doing a very good job looking like one. Whether this should matter, it is up to the closer to decide. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not canvassing (read the definition of canvassing very carefully), digging up history from a time that I wasn't even active on Wikipedia (I'm a college student, so I wouldn't have been editing Wikipedia 11 years ago), and accusations of wikilawyering are completely uncalled for. You're trying to discredit me with an ad hominem attack so the closing administrators ignore the fact that you're losing this debate. Genealogizer (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per overwhelming results from google ngram https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Krakow+uprising%2CCracow+uprising&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2CCracow%20uprising%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BCracow%20uprising%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCracow%20Uprising%3B%2Cc0 The diacritic has no effect. This results indicate that "Cracow" is overwhelmingly preferred in sources. I trust google ngrams a lot more than ghit value estimates. I note that "Krakow Uprising" occurs frequently in recent sources, but there are more frequent Cracow uses, and the historical sources should be preferred, than they overwhelm in favour of Cracow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Ngram seems rather confusing. Here's another data point: comparison of Google Scholar [3] vs [4] shows partity of the two, and K spelling seems more recent (well, at least going by the top 3 results - K has all from 2010+ while C has them from decades prior).. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Piotrus, your two links look the same. I think you are confirming my impression, C dominated historically, and there is a recent trend for new sources to use K. I don't think the new sources dominate enough to overwhelm to historical dominance, and I think given current inconsistency/variability, go with the historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Piotrus, about a third of the sources included in your search for Kraków Uprising use Krakow, which is neither the proper English name nor the proper Polish one, and almost half of them seem to be foreign in origin, which means they might not have the best understanding of English usage. When you search for Kraków uprising -Krakow, you get 12 results, when you search for Krakow uprising -Kraków, you get 28 results, but when you search for Cracow uprising, you get 53 results. Genealogizer (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The omission of diacritic signs from older publication is a simple technical issue (seen as an acceptable typo), common in pre-Internet/computer times. For all instances and purposes, it is a typo that can be ignored. Krakow is Kraków, just typed lazily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're ruling out "Krakow" as lazy, then we really only have "Cracow" left as the English name. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Given that the city's article is at Kraków, but the article for the city at the time is at Free City of Cracow, the WP:CONSISTENCY issue is somewhat resolved. It also seems clear that "Cracow" is still in fairly wide use even in high-quality publications. Given that, it seems that the "C" spelling is more common when it comes to this uprising. While Google results are thrown off as they appear to be returning hits for both spellings regardless of which is searched for, other searches like JSTOR ([5] vs. [6]) and Project Muse ([7] vs. [8]) show "Cracow uprising" in the lead. This includes high quality, modern sources. Barring another good reason for avoiding the "C" spelling, we should default to the WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per serious post 2000 sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.