Jump to content

Talk:Gdańsk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGdańsk was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
March 24, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Pronunciation

[edit]

I don't know Polish, but I came here to figure out how to same the name of this city because Gd is a bit difficult to say with English consonants. I still have no idea, but I got to write about my experience for a moment.

Danzig in lead.

[edit]

Danzig redirects here and is commonly used in English to refer to the city historically. Such a term should be in the lead cf. Myanmar, Thailand, and Swaziland. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Merangs you've refused to express an actual reason for opposing this nor have you engaged on the talk page about this. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: - Please make sure to find a consensus before implementing the change, and allow me to respond. Commonly used today (apart from a historical context) is quite a POV statement, unless you're a native German speaker. Do you have any statistics to press the claim for the English-language Wikipedia? I do understand your point and I don't personally disagree, however, the former name "Danzig" is widely mentioned throughout the article where necessary (and chronologically correct), including in the top footnote. Placing it in very first sentence, in the lead section, and in bold would make the wrong statement as it is quite a contentious and delicate topic for many. Thus, I am undoing an edit that would have been undone by someone else. Merangs (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it any different that the examples I've provided? If a reader searches for Danzig and ends up here they should be able to easily find out why they've arrived here from the lead - they should not have to scroll to a section to find that out.
Britannica also includes the name Danzig at the top: [1]
This tertiary source says it is known as Danzig: [2]
This travel guide source states 'you may know it as Danzig': [3]
Having it in the footnote makes it unlikely to be seen by a reader and is not of much use to someone who types in Danzig and ends up here. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when you first arrive on the page you are notified that "Danzig redirects here. For other uses, see Danzig (disambiguation) and Gdańsk (disambiguation)". Isn't this sufficient? Moreover, the Berkeley source is for historical context and also mentions 'Gedanum' – is that found anywhere in the first paragraph apart from the footnote, where the German name is also mentioned? The New Zealand Herald comprises information dug out of the internet at first best opportunity. I believe that all former names are already placed in the footnote and, for instance, I do not see how "Danzig" could be more important than the native Kashubian name for the place in contemporary times. Merangs (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that isn't sufficient, that doesn't tell me why it redirects here.
>I do not see how "Danzig" could be more important than the native Kashubian name for the place in contemporary times.
Because Danzig is a name commonly seen in English where as I have never seen Gdunsk used in English and has never been used as the English name of the city.
Just look at the search data: [4] Danzig is searched for as much (or even more) than Gdansk in English speaking countries.
Why would this be different to Siam, Burma, Swaziland, Ceylon, etc.. All these articles use former English names in the lead to help aid the reader. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stat you provided shows a major difference between the two names in popularity. I think other users need to voice their opinion as I am very neutral on this, though I emphasize that other numerous names are in the footnote and the lead shows the title of the article. I just anticipate that it might cause an edit war. @Piotrus: - what is your take on this?

no rebellions? and where is 1302? and payment?

[edit]

Where is the mention of the site's rebellions in 1030 in 1090?

And, if I'm not mistaken, the Order entered the city in 1302 to stop the rebellion against Polish rule. This isn't even included in the write up. Why only 1308? The events of 1302 set up 1308 in every way. It's only then that representatives in the city reach out to Brandenburg and representatives of the Polish lobby call on the Teutonic Order again.

The other detail missing is the issue of payment. The article jumps right into the massacre claim coming from the Polish lobby, where is the issue of payment for the services performed by the Order?

Also, where is the issue of the Knights offering to pay for the land, but claiming Poland didn't control it and declaring that it will pay Brandenburg?

These are key developments in the history, instead the only thing the article seems to care about is "muh 10,000", which is an entire paragraph of text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:A012:CAEF:FCBE:CDDA:B5F7:7C27 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk Shipyard photo in the infobox collage

[edit]

I cropped the image and it now fits best as possible. It's one of the most important landmarks of Gdańsk. And it adds diversity to the collage. Why remove it?

Chick Pea Corea (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Merangs Chick Pea Corea (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this dark, uneven and blurred image depicting a landmark? This is pure Wikipedia:Disruptive editing on your part and I will escalate it if you do not cease. It's not that I am against your contribution, but it is not constructive and the imagery you propose is not good (in my opinion). I have repeatedly asked you, with discussion, to stop. Merangs (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think you have ownership over all Poland-related pages? You don't. And Assume Good Faith, otherwise you're breaking WP:AGF. I will level the image out promptly. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have leveled out the picture. I think Gdańsk Shipyard absolutely must be included for two reasons: significance and diversity of imagery in the infobox collage. What picture would suit you if not this one? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Fountain or Neptune Fountain?

[edit]

Which is the correct translation? Fontanna Neptuna implies it's a fountain with a depiction of Neptune, does it not? I don't think its name in Polish suggests Neptune somehow "owns" it. So a more accurate translation would be "the Neptune Fountain" wouldn't it? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind either. I am only in disagreement with the shipyard picture which is of poor quality. Merangs (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have leveled it out. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk&oldid=1283174580"