Talk:St. Florian's Gate

A fact from St. Florian's Gate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that of Kraków's eight original medieval city gates, only the Gothic Florian Gate (pictured) remains?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/January.

Wikipedia

Poland Mid‑importance

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

Architecture Mid‑importance

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

Requested move

The original name of the article: Florian Gate, also quoted by Encyclopaedia Britannica as such [1] reflects not only the English language convention, but also the original [and most exact] Polish language translation of Brama floriańska as Florian Gate.

The intermediary suggestion proposed below this paragraph with the reason copied from Wikipedia:Requested_moves#16_January_2007 is no longer applicable. See discussion.

--Poeticbent talk 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Florian's Gate → St Florian Gate — The new name reflects the appropriate way of referring to buildings named after a saint in the English language. --Poeticbent 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above reason was copied from Wikipedia:Requested_moves#16_January_2007. --Quuxplusone 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strongly oppose. Omitting the period in the abbreviation "St." is customary only in British English (the article is currently written mostly in AmE); and omitting the possessive "'s" is simply wrong. In short, there's nothing "appropriate" about the proposed move. --Quuxplusone 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional oppose Omitting the possessive s is not unheard of; consider St Martin-in-the-Fields; but it is a frozen idiom, not a fruitful analogy. Without evidence that it is idiomatic in this application, this is not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please see my question, below, regarding "St. Peter's Basilica" and "St Paul's Cathedral." logologist|Talk 05:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of accepted usage of the same given name:

Saint Florian Church [2],
St Florian de la Riviere [3]
The St Florian Standard [4] or
St. Florian Monastery in Enns [5] etc.

I'm inclined to agree with the inclusion of a period, but strongly oppose the addition of a possessive "'s". The Gate wasn't owned by St. Florian therefore it wasn't Florian's by most standards referring to the state of "possessing". --Poeticbent talk 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these show very little:

is an English-Polish bilingual; it does not appear to be written by a native speaker of English.
is not parallel. It's a fictitious (SCA) French name. Florian is not possessive, and "de la Riviere" is not a noun; it's either a surname or a post-positive adjective.
is the same SCA group, proclaiming a standard for heraldic submissions. This is the same form as Oxford Movement; in effect, St. Florian is a placename, like St Albans.
shows the actual phrase "St. Florian altarpiece"; this isn't the altarpiece of St. Florian; it's an altarpiece about St. Florian. In this context, including an s suffix is not optional, it's wrong. (This may also not be by a native speaker of English.)

But, most importantly, none of these are about St. Florian's Gate, Cracow. The question is what it is called in English; the natural default name is the present title of the article. Evidence on this will be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comment made by Septentrionalis including his/hers request for evidence in English, here's a quotation from www.britannica.com at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046190/Krakow

Two defensive fortifications remain from medieval times, a legacy of the city's perpetual struggle against invaders. The Barbican, a circular bastion with brick walls that are 10 feet (3 metres) thick, was built in the 15th century adjacent to the other remaining structure, the 13th-century Florian Gate.

Incidentally, this is also the name I used when I wrote the article originally. The change got me all confused. There is no need to search any further. --Poeticbent talk 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be less confused if you read WP:OWN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your suggestion. All I said was that I did my homework beforehand. --Poeticbent talk 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should we make of "St. Peter's Basilica" (Rome) or "St Paul's Cathedral" (London)? Is the English-speaking world mistaken in not calling them, respectively, "St. Peter Basilica" (or, better yet, "Peter Basilica") and "St Paul Cathedral" (or "Paul Cathedral")? --logologist|Talk 04:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reasonable. Encyclopedia Britannica lists not only Florian Gate as such, but also the following:

Saint Peter's Basilica (church of St. Peter's in Rome) [6]

Saint Paul's Cathedral (Cathedral of the Church of England in London) [7]

I do appreciate your desire and ability to play with words, logologist, but please, try not to do it at the expense of others. We are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel here. I would appreciate if you yourself brought the article back to where it was.

Also, it would be worth noting that Poles themselves never refer to it as St. Florian’s Gate (Polish: Brama Świętego Floriana). — They call it Brama Floriańska instead which in fact means exactly that: Florian Gate. --Poeticbent talk 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now proposing to alter your article's title, originally mistranslated into English as "Florian Gate," to "St Florian Gate," which is neither Polish nor English? logologist|Talk 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original name of Florian Gate was never under discussion, nor did you, logologist, allow anyone to comment on your actions before you renamed the article. Such behaviour would be difficult to understand on the part of a seasoned Wikipedian, which you are.

And also, please refrain from trying to forcefully push your agenda by making further edits to the article without consensus, while both, its name and its content are under discussion. --Poeticbent talk 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote an interesting article, but are evidently not a native speaker of English. In editing some of the text, I was trying to be helpful. But, since you seem to take this as an act of hostility, I shall try to focus on writing and editing elsewhere. (You might notice that today's main page makes reference to a St. Clement's Church in Büsum, Germany — with that abominable "'s.") logologist|Talk 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late comment, but I just found this through checking what links to Büsum. The church is actually named St. Clemens Church. "Clement's" was a typo on DYK. tameeria 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Gate is NOT a church, nor a hospital or a museum. It is a tower (as the article shows) and it is named after a person of distinction being the patron saint of Poland. The only comparison that is adequate would be with other structures of similar kind named after someone. Here’s but a few of them, all lacking the abominable “s” for a reason.

Gustave Eiffel Tower, Layer Marney Tower, Herbert Hoover Tower, John Hancock Tower, Lillie Coit Tower, Thomas Crampton Tower… NOT: Eiffel’s Tower, Marney’s Tower, Hoover’s Tower, Hancock’s Tower, Coit’s Tower, Crampton’s Tower, etc. Florian Tower belongs to that category, hence the Florian Gate. --Poeticbent talk 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of nomenclature, St. Florian's Gate arguably has more in common with a church than with a tower. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. For present purposes, if St. Florian's Gate is not a church, neither is it a tower. logologist|Talk 15:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have yet to receive the first opinion in this matter from an outside observer involved with the naming conventions (preferably a linguist). Examples of similar architectural structures in Europe include London's Roman and Medieval gates of the London Wall: Ludgate, Newgate, Cripplegate, Moorgate, Aldgate, not to mention Germany's Elster Gate in Wittenberg, Holstein Gate of Lübeck (featured on German 2 Euro coin) and numerous others. They are all city gates and under no circumstances could they ever be mistaken for churches. --Poeticbent talk 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the Canadian National Exhibition is the Princes' Gate.[8], and Guinness is brewed at St. James's Gate Brewery. I get 21 hits for "Traitors' Gate", 14 for "Traitors Gate",[9] and about 23 for "Traitor's Gate" (most of them from the one site).[10] And this is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter that this particular widget is a church, a tower, a gate, or a hole in the ground. It's about what most people call it in English, for better or for worse, the abominableness of an apostrophe-s nothwithstanding. If most English-speakers call it Florian Gate, then that's what it should be; if they call it St. Florian's Gate, that's what it should be; if they call it Flo's-Big-Sticky-Up-Krakow...whatever. That's the thing about proper names; they follow all their own rules. Given that, does anyone have any notion as to what the most common English name is, rather than should be? -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Princes' Gates" [11] were named for Prince of Wales AND his brother (plural, hence the apostrophe). However, "St James’ Gate" could refer to a city block in Newcastle [12], a Guinness Brewery and Storehouse [13], a hockey club in Dublin [14] among others, but it is not a city gate. — Good question though however rhetorical it might be: what is it, that most native English speakers call Florian Gate in English? --Poeticbent talk 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is about two brothers is indeed why it is plural; but the apostrophe indicates that it is using a genitive (it is the Princes' Gate, not the Princes Gate). Plus, I would like to see where this particular naming convention is that determines how things are named in English, i.e. gates are named this way, neighbourhoods this way, etc. And my question was not rhetorical. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

The proposed move: St. Florian's Gate → Florian Gate has been posted at Wikipedia:Requested_moves on January 17, 2007 (a few days ago) with the reason which for present purposes can be rephrased along the lines of a popular expression used by User:logologist. What is good for Holstein Gate of Lübeck, is good for Florian Gate of Kraków. I’m moving the article to its original title and removing the "Requested move" notice from the top of this page. Questions remain unanswered with regards to what the most common English name is, rather than should be (to quote from the comment made by User:SigPig). However, in lieu of a straightforward answer with regards to the alternative name of Florian Gate in the English language, Wikipedia editors ought to adhere to well established conventions, such as the one used by Encyclopedia Britannica quoted at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046190/Krakow --Poeticbent talk 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The object of this article is named after St. Florian. It is St. Florian's Gate. It might have been Florian Gate — had it been named after something called "Floria." logologist|Talk 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully submit you both have the wrong end of the stick. Just because another gate is or is not named a certain way, it does not follow that this particular gate should be named the same way. (St)(.) Florian('s) Gate should be named whatever is the most common name in English. Indeed, that may take a bit of digging. Then again, this does aspire to be an encyclopedia, so-o-o...Gentlemen, start your shovels. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent's vandalism

I protest Poeticbent's deletion, earlier today, of parts of the foregoing discussion of his proposal to move this article's title back from "St. Florian's Gate" to his original title, "Florian Gate" — a move which he has subsequently made unilaterally, without further discussion, after having earlier protested my move of the title to the correct English rendering, "St. Florian's Gate." Poeticbent's deletions included the 3 votes against his proposed move, vs. his sole one vote in favor.

I have restored Poeticbent's deletions to this page. logologist|Talk 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please, take it easy. Discuss the issue, and if you are done, follow the procedure (WP:RM). No need to accusse one another of vandalism or bad faith, you both want what you think is best for this site - please cool down.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make the referral to move. I no longer know what we are considering moving to what. logologist|Talk 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that — contrary to accusations made above by User:logologist — I have not removed a single word of importance expressed during this discussion. All points of view — even if redundant in the end — are still present, although marked by smaller font as no longer applicable. I have removed the “Requested move” notice from this Talk page according to Wikipedia policy simply because the notice is meant to have a limited lifespan. However, my intentions were clear from the beginning and I informed about them all interested parties. My intentions were, to bring the original title of the article back. — I have placed two consecutive notices on this page (for those who care to read its history). The first one was the result of my confusion brought about by logologist’s rash behavior ([15]). I have quickly replaced my request with the second and proper one, which announced: “It has been proposed that St. Florian’s Gate be renamed and moved to Florian Gate.” Also, my proposed move has been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves page and received a comment by User:SigPig (see above), asking a more-less rhetorical question about what the name of the Gate is. I resent logologist’s unyielding attitude in this matter and suggest that the naming dispute be addressed and resolved by an Admin. --Poeticbent talk 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you now "rashly" moved "St. Florian's Gate" back to "Florian Gate"? And why did you previously delete the three "oppose" votes? And why is SigPig's question "rhetorical"? logologist|Talk 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three oppose votes (including yours) were addressing my first and already deleted request for the article to be moved to “St Florian Gate”. My old request came about as a result of confusion following the meltdown you introduced. Only my second Request counts: St. Florian's Gate → Florian Gate. By the way, the oppose votes have never been removed by me or anybody else. Please read the history of this page, specifically this [16]. — Also, please read again what User:SigPig said: "If most English-speakers call it Florian Gate, then that's what it should be; if they call it St. Florian's Gate, that's what it should be." Are you, logologist, prepared to conduct a survey across the Atlantic? --Poeticbent talk 06:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments of use frequency are made all the time, using Google and similar resources. You might ask someone with experience in the procedure to do such a survey.

As to Encyclopedia Britannica, which you keep referring to, the venerable Encyclopedia , in speaking of the "Florian Gate," is committing the error of unwarranted metaphrastic translation (see also Translation: General history). The Polish language has simplified the Gate's name from "Brama świętego Floriana" or "Brama świętofloriańska" to "Brama Floriańska" as a matter of convenience, much as it simplified the name of Russia's "St. Petersburg" to "Petersburg" — which did not alter the city's name in English, which remained (and is now again) "St. Petersburg."

The proper English equivalent of "Brama Floriańska" is "St. Florian's Gate." logologist|Talk 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that most, if not all Google references to St. Florian’s Gate originate in Poland, or the web pages written by Polish emigrants living in the English speaking world. I have looked at those Google hits before. They’re all highly misleading and fuel the confusion like in the case of Krakow versus Cracow being stubbornly promoted by Poles and nobody else these days (read my comments at Talk:Free City of Kraków). One needs to look at North American and British media for answers. This is what I meant by the survey. --Poeticbent talk 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: two consecutive entries made by User:SigPig for January 21, 2007, are inserted above.

I am delighted, on looking at Talk:Free City of Kraków, to see you supporting the "Kraków" spelling of the city's name. Now, if I can only help you understand that the Gate's proper English name is "St. Florian's Gate"...

I am not a statistician. But Piotrus has done quite a few surveys. Maybe he could design a valid one for this case. logologist|Talk 09:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where’s the beef

Dear logologist. You have yet to produce the first, even mildly respectable English language source in support of your claim. Please, do not create the impression that you, and you alone, have all the answers. However, your suggestion with regards to a possible survey conducted by User:Piotrus seems worth the attention. I have already done at least part of your homework originally and searched the Internet for a viable English language proof of your assertion. I have found none. --Poeticbent talk 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, it's my encyclopedia against yours. My Encyclopedia Americana says, under "Kraków": "The line of the ancient city walls has been replaced by a continuous line of parks, the Planty, though the impressive gate of St. Florian survives." logologist|Talk 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now for a history book: Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way: a Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, New York, Hippocrene Books, 2000, ISBN 0-7818-0200-8, p. 60, photo 20, captioned: "The Barbican of St. Florian's Gate, Kraków, built in 1498." logologist|Talk 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out:

DATABASE: Library of Congress Online Catalog
SEARCHED: Keyword = "St. Florian's Gate"
SEARCH RESULTS: Your search found no results.
Refer to search examples, check spelling and punctuation, or try another type of search. [17]

DATABASE: Library of Congress Online Catalog
SEARCHED: Keyword = "Florian Gate"
SEARCH RESULTS: Displaying 1 of 1.
The Library of Congress CALL NUMBER: LOT 13283 (H)
Title: Views of buildings, people and scenery in Poland
Request in: Prints & Photographs Reading Room (Madison, LM337) [18]
--Poeticbent talk 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to check out? logologist|Talk 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still a poll here?

~~If so, support St. Florian's Gate / oppose Florian Gate for some of the reasons presented above. — AjaxSmack 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)~~ — AjaxSmack 02:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Support "St. Florian's Gate" — oppose "Florian Gate." logologist|Talk 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, User:AjaxSmack is not involved [19] with any of the issues concerning early European heritage, but his input would certainly be welcomed was there a survey conducted by User:Piotrus. — Also, I’m impressed with your flair for “moving” pages created by other Wikipedians without letting them know about your intentions and even before the “discussion page” for the article comes into existence [20].

Wikipedia:Requested moves states as follows: “Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved.” — It is a guiding principle you have yet to accept out of common courtesy for those who contributed before you. Furthermore, I would like to stress the importance of guidelines provided for your consideration at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Quote: “Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. The naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes [take note, both of you]. However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia.” [21] --Poeticbent talk 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RM states, "Normally, logged-in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found at the top of every page." WP:BB states, "Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on." Also, check out WP:AGF. — AjaxSmack 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Septentrionalis PMAnderson just renamed the page on his own from Florian Gate to St. Florian's Gate because (in his view) this discussion is over. I reversed his title-change. Please, do adhere to policy in the future. --Poeticbent talk 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; it is obvious that several editors object to Florian Gate, and that only Poeticbent supports it. I moved it back because the discussion is not over, and Poeticbent has not prevailed. For myself, Florian Gate is possible English, so I abstain; but Poeticbent's position is "I wrote this page; I can call it whatever I want". That is neither policy nor practice; which would be to wait for this move request to be closed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was presumably invited to this debate because I'm American. The US isn't old enough to have names for gates, so any name for a gate sounds a little strange, and there really isn't a convention for a name for a gate. When I try to think of a famous gate I think of Gates in Jerusalem's Old City Walls, which has some support for the "'s" side. City gate doesn't help. Other than that, either name sounds OK to me, and I don't remember any American pages debating an "'s" this long. When I Google "Florian Gate" it includes all versions of the name, that is, with or without "'s", and with or without "St.", "St", or "Saint", for a total of 13,900 hits. When I Google "Florian's Gate" it includes only "'s" versions, for a total of 9870 hits. That also has some support for the "'s" side. Someone pointed out that many of the Google hits were written by Poles trying to write in English, but since either version of the name sounds OK in English, I suspect Americans and Englishmen are likely to use whatever version of the name they heard from a Pole. Consider how much time we've devoted to an "'s", I wonder why nobody has argued over the "St.", since apparently neither "Brama" nor "floriańska" means saint. Maybe it's because Poles already know Florian was a saint - I don't recognize a Saint Florian at all. Art LaPella 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only named American gate I know offhand does follow this convention: FitzRandolph Gate; although with a surname. I continue to abstain; however, any closing admin should note the two oppose !votes at the top of this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on this. This debate has produced few cogent arguments, but an awful lot of catty comments, references to some English language "convention" governing the naming of gates, accusations of vandalism, and assertions that particular usages are made by people who "obviously" don't speak proper English. As I wade through the morass above, I have seen ONE encyclopedia reference for "St. Florian's Gate", and ONE for "Florian Gate". A search of the entire online Library of Congress Catalog seems to have produced ONLY ONE HIT OVERALL on either name. The overwhelming majority of Google hits, one way or the other, seem to be from travel sites; I can't find any references in English-speaking press online. Obviously a single English name has not fixed itself in the collective consciousness of Anglophones. If a consensus can be reached, tant mieux; if not, then go to arbitration. My personal opinion? Quantitatively speaking, the argument is reduced to which title is preferred, which I aver neither side has a decisive edge. Qualitatively speaking, both terms are equally valid, which means either side can withdraw honourably without having "capitulated" to an "incorrect" name.

That's my humble opinion. That and 25¢ will get you a quarter. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such nihilism.

"Brama" is Polish for "Gate." "Floriańska" is the feminine adjective formed from the name "Florian" ("brama" being of feminine gender). The Poles don't call the structure "Brama świętofloriańska" ("Saint-Florian's Gate") for the same reason that they don't call the Russian city, St. Petersburg, "Sanktpetersburg" rather than "Petersburg" — from institutionalized laziness. If Anglophones were equally lazy, they too would call St. Petersburg, "Petersburg."

The examples from Jerusalem, "Herod's Gate" and "Lions' Gate," are very much apposite.

And named gates aren't all that outlandish even in the United States. New York City's Central Park has several, including the "Miner's Gate" and the "Scholar's Gate."

If we were to follow Poeticbent's recommendation, Venice's St. Mark's Square should be called "Mark Square," and St. James' Palace should be "James Palace."

The gate in Kraków is named for St. Florian and features a bas-relief of the Saint. It is St. Florian's Gate. logologist|Talk 07:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my neighborhood the Seattle Center has a North Gate, South Gate, East Gate and West Gate. As I remember they're made out of chain link fence not medieval towers. Does that exhaust the subject yet? Art LaPella 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. logologist|Talk 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Free Documentation License allows for the entire Wikipedia database to be utilized by hundreds if not thousands of commercial websites set up to draw attention to themselves by retrieving copyleft articles through CSS positioning for the sheer purpose of self-promotion. This is why referencing Google for statistical data has become useless in recent past. The changing of the article name in Wikipedia (i.e.: St. Florian's Gate → Florian Gate) would likely result in the instantaneous increase in the number of Google hits in tens of thousands. Incidentally, this is also why the name of the article matters and why this debate has no end. Rather than forming public opinion, we are directing Internet bots through digital floodgate (flood's gate...?). Exhausting, isn’t it. --Poeticbent talk 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to deal with this:

Include -wikipedia in the Google searches, and estimate by hand the number of the rest which use our phrasing.
use a more restricted search (avoid .com, or use Google scholar or Google books)

Poeticbent should still try to find some evidence for his choice; and persuade the two editors who disagree with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book Search

I'm providing additional data as suggested by User Septentrionalis:

Google Book Search

Books 15 on "St. Florian's Gate". [22]
Books 45 on "Florian Gate". [23]

Florian Gate Book Search Results include such names as Joseph Conrad, Emanuel Friedman, Lord Charles Beresford, Brian Walters, Werner Muensterberger, Sarah Johnstone (Europe on a Shoestring), Sir Compton Mackenqie and others. Here's but a few of the book titles, including relevant quotations:

Poland - Page 102

by Tomasz Torbus - Travel - 2001 - 254 pages: With the exception of the short section by the Florian Gate, the town walls were pulled down during the alterations in the 19th century and were replaced ...

Notes on Life and Letters of Joseph Conrad - Page 167

by Joseph Conrad - 2005 - 272 pages: I had a private gnawing worm of my own. This was the time of my father's last illness. Every evening at seven, turning my back on the Florian Gate, ...
(3 separate editions with 3 different supporting quotations in book search)

Same quotation featured in book search for:

The Sea Dreamer: A Definitive Biography of Joseph Conrad - Page 43

by Georges Jean-Aubry, Gerard JEAN-AUBREY - 1967

Conrad's Cities: Essays for Hanz Van Marle - Page 49

edited by Gene M. Moore - 1992: ... A photograph of the Florian Gate is reproduced in Moef, op. cit., ...

Conrad and His Contemporaries: souvenirs - Page 150

Biography & Autobiography - 1973 - 156 pages: ... these years, as one sees it from the side view of the Florian Gate under the shadow of the Church of the Holy Virgin. ...

The Mirror of Conrad - Page 34

by Edward Harold Visiak - 1955 - 255 pages: ... the 'flames of tapers' showing up as they passed under the low archway of the Florian Gate, the 'rows of bared heads on the pavements with fixed, ...

Journal of the American Association of University Women - Page 147

by American Association of University Women - 1961: You'll want to see the Florian Gate and the Rondel Tower, parts of the old city wall. You'll attend performances at the Civic Opera House and the Out-Door ...

Encyclopedia of World Travel - Page 224

by John J.. Corris, C. Earl Cooley, Nelson Doubleday, Seth Goldstein - 1979 - 2 pages: ... parts of which survive today, such as the Florian Gate, the Barbican, and the Joiner's Tower. Over the town rose many towers and spires of churches, ...

Polish Profiles: The Land, the People, and Their History - Page 153

by Antoni Gronowicz - 1976 - 256 pages: To this were added seven small observation towers with a so-called Florian Gate and 130 em- ...

The Polish Memoirs of William John Rose - Page 96

by William John Rose, Daniel Stone - 1975 - 248 pages: It was getting dark, but I recall my first view of the Florian Gate and its Barbican, as well as of the Grunwald Monument. At the office of Glos Narodu on ...

Poland: A Handbook - Page 545

by Janusz Wan´kowicz - 1974 - 572 pages ... the old university building (Collegium Maius) from the 15th century, a section of the city walls with the Florian Gate and Barbican, and many Gothic, ...

Poland: the knight among nations - Page 59

by Louis Edwin Van Norman - 1907 - 359 pages: ... (Florian Gate), and, after passing the shrine, with its ever-burning lamp, ...

Chambers's World Gazetteer and Geographical Dictionary

by Thomas Charles Collocott, J. O. Thorne - 1954 - 792 pages Page 187

Against Racism: unpublished essays, papers, addresses, 1887-1961 - Page 53

by Herbert Aptheker - 1988: ... their oppression and their unconquerable will—and finally as we walked by the Florian Gate, the last relic of the ancient Polish fortifications, ...

The Curious Art of Autobiography: from Benvenuto Cellini to Rudyard Kipling - Page 223

1956 - 237 pages: Then the funeral—the long procession down the narrow street towards the Florian Gate: I could see again the small boy of that day following a hearse ...

Psychoanalytic Study of Society - Page 281

by Werner Muensterberger, Sidney Axelrad - 1960: ... procession moved out of the narrow street, down a long street, past the Gothic front of St. Mary's under its unequal towers, toward the Florian Gate. ...

Sketches in Poland - Page 79

by Frances Delanoy Little - 1914 - 344 pages: The Czartoryski Museum is in an old house adjoin-ing the city wall close to the Florian Gate, which, built in the fifteenth century, of red brick, ...

Commemorations and the Shaping of Modern Poland - Page 58

by Patrice M. Dabrowski - 2004 - 312 pages: ... of the tablet.4' Mayor Weigel made much of this patriotic symbol, also found (newly restored) on the Florian Gate at the medieval entrance to the city. ...

Ten Polish Folk Tales - Page 56

by Suzanne Strowska - 1929 - 150 pages: They passed thus through the whole town ; from the Wawel to the Saint-Florian Gate the townsfolk crowded to see the young Prince they loved go by, ...

Central Europe - Page 392

by Lonely Planet Publications - 2007: ... to the 14th-century Florian Gate. Beyond it is the Barbican (Map p390; adult/child 5/3zt; S 10.30am- ...

Blackwood's Magazine - Page 295

1980: The remnants of old municipal fortifications and the Florian Gate have kept much of their old charm. A pamphlet about the town, which I found in one of the ...

COUNT KONIGSMARK - Page 300

by CHAMIER: ... the lady had removed her to a house outside the Florian Gate, which overlooked the harbour of Valetta, and which was surrounded by a stone wall, ...

The Sewanee Review - Page 259

by University of the South - 1922: ... to a preparatory school for day-pupils on the second floor of the third house down from the Florian Gate. It was in the winter months of 1868. ...

Poland - Page 215

by William Richard Morfill - 1893: They have now found a resting-place in the fine Czartoryski Museum at Cracow, situated near the picturesque Florian Gate. To return, however, to the ...

Poland - Page 6

by William Richard Morfill - 1893 - 389 pages: Among the old monuments of the city may also be mentioned the Florian Gate, of the date of 1498, the only one of the gates still remain-ing. ...

The Memoirs of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford - Page 30

edited by L. Cope (Leslie Cope) Cornford - 1914 - 1154 pages: When the horses had had enough of their riders, they used to gallop down to the Florian Gate, kick them off, and return to their stable. ...

The Gypsy Road: a journey from Krakow to Coblentz

by Grenville Arthur James Cole - 1894 - 166 pages: Page 9

Collier's Encyclopedia, with Bibliography and Index - Page 540

by Emanuel Friedman - 1986: ... formed in 1141 by the uni- CIRCULAR TOWER, or barbican (foreground), and Florian Gate (right), in Krakow, the most important city in western Galicia. ...

The Function and Mechanism of a Sentence - Page 168

by Esther Mary Wilson - 1927 - 215 pages: Every evening at seven, turning my back on the Florian Gate, I walked all the way to a big old house in a quiet, narrow street a good distance beyond the ...

Austria: Her People & Their Homelands - Page 67

by James Baker - 1913 - 310 pages: ... of Cracow's former greatness in the round, low tower and gateway, known as the Florian Gate, built in 1498 : an old plan of this shows it sunk in the ...

Franek: Stranger in My Land - Page 166

by Frank Stiffel - 2000 - 358 pages: At one point, we left the Planty and, passing under an ancient massive stone portal called the Florian Gate, we found ourselves in the Market Place, ...

Europe on a Shoestring - Page 909

by Sarah Johnstone - 2005 - 1324 pages: ... to the 14th- century Florian Gate, the only one remain-ing of the original eight gates. Nearby, the Czartoryski Museum ( ? 422 55 66; ul Sw Jana 19; ...

The Horn Book Magazine - Page 57

by EBSCO Publishing (Firm), Bookshop for Boys and Girls (Boston, Mass.) - 1945: The monument given by Paderewski enriches the approach by the Florian Gate through the old wall; along that same street went Joseph Conrad to school. ...

THE ARETHUSA - Page 280

by CAPT.CHAMIER R.N the Florian Gate, more real regret, the downcast loo slowly followed th< ing-place. They to the town, on the quarantine hai purpose, and little when the ...

The West Wind of Love: Being Volume Three of "The Four Winds of Love." - Page 186

by Sir Compton Mackenqie - 1949: They stayed in the same quiet hotel overlooking the gardens outside the Florian gate in which they had stayed over twenty years ago with John and Emil. ...

Fallen: My Travels in Ireland and Eastern Europe

by Brian Walters - 2004 - 296 pages

Poland, Old and New

by William John Rose - 1948 - 708 pages

Thanks for the suggestion Septentrionalis. I found it extremely useful. --Poeticbent talk 15:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these quotes are duplicates, apparently from writings by Joseph Conrad: "Every evening at seven, turning my back on the Florian Gate..." and some others, apparently from the same or similar Conrad memoirs.

Since you've gone to the trouble of locating sources and quotes, could you also give us the St. Florian's Gate sources and quotes? logologist|Talk 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that even one of the above examples, Ten Polish Folk Tales by Suzanne Strowska (1929), speaks of "the Saint-Florian Gate." (That would, in Polish, be "Brama Świętofloriańska," as I argued above, and is equivalent to "St. Florian's Gate.") logologist|Talk 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some of the text pasted from Google Books including three duplicate quotations from Joseph Conrad. As far as everything else, I'm afraid we are beginning to go round in circles here. Please, use the link to learn more about my research. [24] Almost 30% of the 15 references to "St. Florian's" in Google book search don't have a period after "St". I'm getting a feeling of deja vou.
By the way, "Brama Świętofloriańska has been brought up once already even though it is a made up name. I do understand the principle. --Poeticbent talk 08:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expression, "świętofloriańska" (as in "Brama świętofloriańska" — "St. Florian's Gate"), whether or not it has been used, has clear precedents in such Polish terms as "Noc świętojańska" ("St. John's Night") and "Góry świętokrzyskie" ("Holy Cross Mountains").

I appreciate your tracking down (your link, just above) the many beautiful Google Book sources and citations that reference "St. Florian's Gate," with or without the period after "St," which is a non-essential difference (the same as applies to "Mr," "Mrs" and "Dr"). logologist|Talk 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly, from your introduction to this compilation of quotations, that one of the authors favoring the version, "Florian Gate," is Benvenuto Cellini? I would be interested in reading what he has to say. I didn't realize he had visited Poland or taken an interest in its fortifications. logologist|Talk 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing my attention to an obvious mistake. I have replaced Cellini with Emanuel Friedman, author of The Collier's Encyclopedia. I’m making an attempt at convincing the two editors who disagreed with me 5 days ago, as suggested by User Septentrionalis. I also have a suggestion of my own. — Could we please move our crack team to yet another contentious article in Wikipedia called Michael's Gate named after St. Michael? The article doesn’t have a discussion page yet. Its authors don't know what's coming. --Poeticbent talk 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: consecutive entry made by User: tameeria on 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC) is inserted above.[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to move this scrimmage to another venue. I think, though, that we have caused enough collateral damage for now, and in any case I believe in insurrection in one country at a time. I shall be content to be a spectator to the agony of St. Michael's Gate and Bratislava. logologist|Talk 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that battle-weary logologist — his reluctance duly noted — is willing to accept the return of the original title of the article. Personally, I’d like to thank all of those who participated, regardless of their rallying banner and personal beliefs. Your input made it all worthwhile. For now, I’d like to begin the process of Wiki recovery and move on to other tasks. I will await the decision of User Septentrionalis who took our blood-letting that much further and inspired my will to continue beyond the point of no return. --Poeticbent talk 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent "dully" misunderstands my intent. I am not conceding this field. I think the matter of St. Michael's Gate should be hashed out principally by the Slovaks themselves. logologist|Talk 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this matter to be out of bounds for now. I presented my case as best as I could and unless there are additional questions raised by people other than logologist, I’d like to move on. Apparently, humor does not go well with logologist either. I spoke with tongue in cheek about "debating" the English version of Michalská brána of Slovakia because obviously Slovaks know better. I'm concerned with Brama floriańska of Poland whose English translation as Florian Gate has over a century old tradition. --Poeticbent talk 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. At the risk of sounding too serious: St. Florian's Gate has at least as long a tradition of being called "St. Florian's Gate." And where Joseph Conrad refers to it as "Florian Gate" in Notes on Life and Letters, his editor (2004 edition) takes care to explain in his notes (p.432) that Conrad was referring to "St. Florian's Gate."

I understand that you have your biases, like myself and all of us. I think, though, that after having researched Google Books (from which the above example is taken), you may be a little less quick to reject out-of-hand the bias of those, including historian Norman Davies (God's Playground, 2005 edition) and the Polish travel agencies, who prefer "St. Florian's Gate."

And your sense of humor is appreciated. logologist|Talk 02:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my preference would be "Florian Gate" with the other version(s) redirecting to that. This is simply based on a Google search to see what the most commonly used version is online: I got 13,500 page hits using "Florian Gate" versus 987 page hits using "Florian's Gate" (search limited to English pages only). Obviously both versions are widespread and as such neither would be completely "wrong." However, "Florian Gate" is used more than 10 times more frequently than any version containing the possessive -'s.

However, googling German pages, "Florianstor" (which is also used on the German Wikipedia and the German pages of www.krakow.pl) comes up 460 times versus 113 for "Floriantor" without the -s-. The English pages of www.krakow.pl also use "Florian's Gate" which lends a certain "officiality" to that version.

So in the end it boils down to preference. My (unbiased?) preference would be to use the one that is most commonly found in English references (books and webpages) and keep "St. Florian's Gate" as redirect as it is apparently well used, too, though less frequently than the other. - tameeria 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably familiar with Stephen Colbert's observation that at Wikipedia, truth is determined by popular vote.

I ran a Google search and obtained: "St. Florian's Gate": 428,000; "St Florian Gate" (without the period): 239,000; "Florian's Gate": 17,600; and "Florian Gate": 423,000.

So, by popular vote, "St. Florian's Gate" is the winner.

logologist|Talk 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing your Google search? I just tried it again and this time got:

"St. Florian's Gate" - 885 (not 428,000 like you did)

"St. Florian Gate" - 785 (not your 239,000)

"Florian's Gate" - 10,100 (instead of 17,600)

"Florian Gate" - 13,500 (instead of 423,000)

Period or not doesn't affect Google results at all. Why are we having so completely different Google results? Just curious. I don't really care what name is used for this page in Wikipedia, but I'm apparently missing hundreds of thousands of page hits when googling and I would like to know why. There must be something we do differently. Did you use quotation marks around the search terms like I did? Because if you didn't, then you're not really searching for "St. Florian's Gate" but for all pages containing the words "St.", "Florian's", and "Gate" anywhere on the page in any order, which wouldn't be quite the correct way of doing it. - tameeria 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Yup, it appears the difference is due to quoting the terms as exact phrase or not. Here's the comparison:

"St. Florian's Gate" - 885 as exact search term, 427,000 without quotation marks

"St. Florian Gate" - 785 as exact search term, 239,000 without quotation marks

"Florian's Gate" - 10,100 as exact search term, 17,700 without quotation marks

"Florian Gate" - 13,600 as exact search term, 424,000 without quotation marks

Note that when you use the exact terms, "Florian Gate" is a lot more often used compared to "St. Florian's Gate." Note also that Google results tend to fluctuate. However, one thing is rather obvious: Addition of "St." (either with or without period) is not very common. - tameeria 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: And just because there was such a big difference in the results for "Florian's Gate" in my last Google search compared to the one I did last night on English pages only, here's again the counts when searching for the exact terms and limiting to English only:

"St. Florian's Gate" - 772 English only page hits

"St. Florian Gate" - 779 English only page hits

"Florian's Gate" - 1,000 English only page hits

"Florian Gate" - 13,100 English only page hits

No matter how I search, if I'm using the exact search terms, "Florian Gate" gets the popular vote. ;) - tameeria 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 3: Last comment on this: The search terms "Florian's Gate" and "Florian Gate" are actually also contained in the terms "St. Florian's Gate" and "St. Florian Gate." So to get the "real" numbers, one needs to do some subtracting to eliminate double hits. Here are the results:

"St. Florian's Gate" - 885 (all), 772 (English only)

"St. Florian Gate" - 785 (all), 779 (English only)

"Florian's Gate" - 9215 (all), 228 (English only)

"Florian Gate" - 12,815 (all), 12,321 (English only)

It still doesn't change the outcome. - tameeria 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 4: As I explained at [25], Google includes "Florian's Gate" when you ask for "Florian Gate" (read the hit descriptions), so for what it's worth, this test favors "Florian's Gate". I can't explain the low numbers for "St. Florian's Gate", as about 1/3 of the "Florian's Gate" hits are preceded by "St." or a variation. Nor can I explain the 228 English only result for Florian's Gate, since all of the unrestricted language hits I looked at were in English (since Gate is an English word). Art LaPella 03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, tameeria. If you go to http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en and select: search for “(St)(.) Florian('s) Gate” among pages “written in English and located in the United States,” you'll find that the very first link atop Google Search is www.cracow-life.com, a native Polish travel portal with all its perks and oddities, i.e.: the spelling of “Cracow.” None of the pages I looked at in that section are located in the United States, be it apartments.com rental agency with its clients, and a whole array of big and small hotels and B&B's in “Cracow”. They are not concerned with matters of academia. They sell beds and care most for the difference between poached and scrambled eggs in English. Although I'm glad to see the results of your research, what matters to me most is your talent for making sense of the accumulated data. I think your preference for Florian Gate is well founded and easy to explain. Being a preference, it cannot be challenged by a quote from a popular comedian. Please, look at how much logologist cares for a single vote of support without any of the research you conducted. --Poeticbent talk 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark Square"? "James Palace"? That's exactly what you're doing, in advocating "Florian Gate." If Poles predominantly favor "St. Florian's Gate" as the English rendering, then on this rare occasion they're right! logologist|Talk 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And they're supported — O wonder of wonders! — by contemporary eminent historians Norman Davies and Adam Zamoyski, as well as Joseph Conrad's current editor. logologist|Talk 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And these facts are not altered by avalanches of mindless Google-numbers. logologist|Talk 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

logologist, I have to admit I find your argumentation style a little contradictory. First, you argue that the "truth" is determined by "popular vote" and run a Google search to prove that your favored version comes out as "winner." Then when it turns out the search wasn't done the right way and if done properly, the result is quite different, you declare Google numbers as "mindless" and thus ditch the idea of "popular vote" that you advocated just a few entries above in favor of citing two historians you found as "proof" for your version. With all due respect, this makes the discussion rather pointless. Before it goes any further, what's the consensus on finding the "truth" here? Are you looking for the most popular spelling, or the most historic spelling, or what? - tameeria 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google, specialized knowledge, and common sense

It was first Poeticbent who, on January 24, 2007, questioned the utility of Google searches ("GNU Free Documentation License allows for the entire Wikipedia database to be utilized by hundreds if not thousands of commercial websites...").

If you were contemplating getting surgery, which would you do in the first instance? Survey your friends, to get the preponderance of their opinions? Or consult physicians in the pertinent specialties? logologist|Talk 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm giving up as this is apparently just a waste of time and going around in circles. Last few comments for the record: Since both "St. Florian's Gate" and "Florian Gate" are pages in Wikipedia (one a redirect), both Google searches pull up Wikipedia pages within the top hits, so they technically cancel each other out. Also, Wikipedia is neither a book nor a scholarly publication, thus Wikipedia searches don't come up on Google book or scholar search:

"St. Florian's Gate":

Google www search: 885

Limited to English pages: 772

Google image search: 70

Google book search: 20

Google scholar search: 1

"Florian Gate":

Google www search: 12,815

Limited to English pages: 12,321

Google image search: 168

Google book search: 50

Google scholar search: 5

I'm certainly no expert, but my preference is still "Florian Gate" according to the searches I've done. - tameeria 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Request for mediation

Please read the above linked page carefully. This is the last resort before arbitration and the second step in formal dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part. I'm a willing party. How about you guys: Art LaPella, logologist, Septentrionalis, SigPig, tameeria, etc. --Poeticbent talk 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC). --Poeticbent talk 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia newbie, I'm not quite sure what I'm getting into, but if it helps in finding a solution to the argument, I'm in. I have my doubts though that there is a "solution." After reading through the whole thing several times, it appears to me that the argument is not so much about the "correct" spelling (there is none - both versions are equally valid), but about who is wrong and who is right. Terms like "winner" and "battle-weary" have fallen.

As far as I can deduce, the original move from "Florian Gate" to "St. Florian's Gate" by Logologist was done without prior discussion or move request. Poeticbent's requests to have that move reversed have resulted in the burden of proof repeatedly being placed on Poeticbent's version even though it had precedence as the original version. I have to admit that I completely understand Poeticbent's frustration with how things were handled in this case.

In all that lengthy discussion, several pieces of evidence have been collected for one or the other version. Here's my try to summarize what I've seen:

Evidence in favor of "St. Florian's Gate":

used by historians Norman Davies and Adam Zamoyski
used on the English version of www.krakow.pl
possibly most prevalent version on websites (according to Art LaPella's comment on Google searches, results appear inconclusive)

Evidence in favor of "Florian Gate":

used in Encyclopedia Britannica
most prevalent spelling in print (according to Google book and scholar search)
precedence as original page title

In summary, both versions are equally as valid and neither is wrong. The question which one is "most popular" or "most official" can be "proven" by both sides with the evidence listed above according to preferences in weighing the sources as well. So there's plenty of opportunity to keep the argument going in endless circles... - tameeria 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation process requires that all parties agree to it. “If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.” [26] Here’s the current result of our vote.

Agree. --Poeticbent talk 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Art LaPella 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. - tameeria 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. - Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee will reject the request “in 7 days” unless the results improve within a week. No matter how regretful it might sound, their decission will allow for the formal arbitration process to begin. Hopefully arbitrators will initiate a Motion to Close the case and ease our frustration. --Poeticbent talk 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my limited experience with the Arbitration Committee, they have refused to hear cases much more weighty than an 's. Art LaPella 04:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Decision of the Mediation Committee has already been reached, while saving us a lot of time in the process. Here's the result:

Rejected: Parties do not all agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move on to the next and anticipated stage. --Poeticbent talk 15:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps

As someone who came here via spotting the move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and as a complete newcomer to this debate, but having stayed on Ul. Florianska for three months, I always saw it referred to by guides / read it in guidebooks / etc as Florian's Gate. Not (the) Florian Gate, nor St. Florian's Gate. That seems to be the most accurate translation of the Polish term in terms of both meaning (the Polish name for the gate doesn't contain 'saint') and transliteration (in English, the possessive "'s" is appropriate). Proto::► 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at, is would these be an acceptable compromise? There seems to be no single, definitive right answer on how to precisely translate the meaning of Brama Florianska. (A side note, any Polish natives - the Polish for 'Saint Florian' is Swiety Florian, does that mean Florianska means "Florian's"? Nie mowi po polsku dobrze ..) Proto::► 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Florian's Gate" might actually be a good compromise. As Art LaPella pointed out, it also appears to garner the most Google hits (see Addendum 4 to my lengthy entry on Google hits), lending it a certain "popularity factor." It also would match the German translation which is "Florianstor." - tameeria 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-vote / list of preferences?

All this fuss about one simple "-s"... I've been trying to understand why this blew up into such an argument, and I think what happened is:

Based on "Florian Gate" having precedence as the original article title, I feel the discussion should have been whether "Florian Gate" should be replaced by "St. Florian's Gate" in the first place and not the other way around.
I see the argumentation has its flaws on both sides and votes have been cast based on such flawed argumentation, thus rendering their neutrality questionable.
As a result, it all boils down to POV and popularity contests.

For example, in the move request Poeticbent stated: "The new name reflects the appropriate way of referring to buildings named after a saint in the English language." This statement certainly does not hold up to scrutiny and as such is as red flag inviting predictable opposition. However, as user SigPig later mentions, proper names follow their own rules, so simply applying English grammar rules to determine whether a proper name is "wrong" or "right" does not have validity in this discussion in any case.

I see lots of rhetoric such as proof by example from both sides and appeal to consequences mainly from logologist. These are logical fallacies and as such are invalid. I also see logologist countering an Encyclopaedia Britannica reference in favor of "Florian Gate" by declaring the entry as invalid because erroneous. This strikes me as POV trying to discredit a published reference that's inconvenient for his side of the argument. The only truly valid reference in favor of "St. Florian's Gate" before the two votes in its favor were cast was a history book by Adam Zamoyski. In conjunction with the Encyclopedia Britannica, this only proves that both versions are in use and equally valid. However, its use to declare "Florian Gate" to be "wrong" is just another logical fallacy of the type "If A is correct, then B has to be wrong" where in truth neither A nor B is wrong.

So in conclusion, I am not convinced yet that "St. Florian's Gate" as a page title is superior to "Florian Gate" and I question the neutrality of the votes that have been cast in its favor. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way and that's why this has been dragged out into such a long dispute. There probably should be a revote on the issue, but I see that neither Quuxplusone nor AjaxSmack, who supported "St. Florian's Gate" with their votes, have participated in the discussion. In addition, the version "Florian's Gate" might need to be taken into consideration as well.

Therefore, I suggest a ranking procedure to put some closure on this. Instead of just voting "support" and "oppose" maybe we can create a list of preferences to see which one garners the most support.

Here's a list of all the possible spellings mentioned so far:

Florian Gate - original page title
Florian's Gate
St Florian Gate
St. Florian Gate
St Florian's Gate
St. Florian's Gate - current page title
Gate of St. Florian
Saint-Florian Gate
If there are any that I'm missing, please add.

And just for starters, here's what my top three preferences would look like in order:

1) Florian's Gate (as a compromise and also most used online)
2) Florian Gate (as it has more printed references than "St. Florian's Gate")
3) St. Florian's Gate

Once everyone has posted their top choices, we can summarize them and see who comes out on top as the most preferred. Maybe this will work? - tameeria 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I truly admire tameeria’s ability to search for the middle ground and I am willing to take part in the re-vote for the most preferable answer, as suggested. However, due to actions taken previously by both, logologist and Septentrionalis, the formal arbitration process might be necessary, if only for the further discussion concerning the title of this article to be taken seriously. Septentrionalis has already been involved in edit wars for which he’s been banned from Wikipedia [27] [28] and therefore I question his willingness to abide by our joint decision alone. Logologist on the other hand has changed the title of the article without prior discussion and “move” request and seems content with the present status quo, being what he wanted. I do not wish to engage in an edit war instigated by those who dislike tameeria’s idea of searching for the middle ground, and who might not respond to this proposal at all. Steps should be taken to ensure the lasting quality of the outcome. --Poeticbent talk 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Banning policy states that "Bans should not be confused with blocking...". Septentrionalis had some one day blocks - he wasn't banned. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy states "4. The Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes", that is, not article content. I really can't imagine them accepting an "'s" case. Art LaPella 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m preparing to launch my Request for arbitration not about the “s”, but rather, against Septentrionalis who — one week ago today — renamed the article from Florian Gate to St. Florian's Gate under an exaggerated summary [29]. — Septentrionalis did not take part in our discussion since January 24 and disagrees to mediate this case. Yes, Septentrionalis has been blocked before for violation of the Wikipedia:three-revert rule and in this instance, has placed the burden of proof on me, while accusing me of not adhering to “policy nor practice” of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. I will not engage in revert-wars with experienced Wikipedians regardless of their attitude. --Poeticbent talk 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kościół Mariacki

Another of Kraków's medieval landmarks is Kościół Mariacki, whose Polish name might be rendered into English "literally" as something like "Marian Church" ("kościół" being the Polish for "church"). Nevertheless, it is actually translated as "St. Mary's Church" (on the English Wikipedia, "St. Mary's Basilica").

As with "Brama Floriańska," the Polish name of "St. Mary's Church," "Kościół Mariacki," does not include the Polish word for "Saint."

Are we to rename "St. Mary's Church" to "Mary Church," so that the two Kraków landmarks will have matching names — "Florian Gate" (as Poeticbent would have it) and "Mary Church"? logologist|Talk 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, you seem unwilling to consider any kind of compromise. Poeticbent has indicated above that he/she would be willing to compromise and call the article Florian's Gate (no "St."). Would you be happy with similarly compromise and settle for the article being called Florian's Gate? If you are happy to do so, then I believe we can settle upon a compromise without having to go to a time-consuming arbitration case over such a minor issue. Proto::► 13:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gate wasn't named after "Florian," but after St. Florian. The absence, in this version of the Polish name (it is otherwise "Brama Świętego Floriana"), of "Święty" ("Brama Świętego Floriana") or "Święto-" ("Brama Świętofloriańska") is due to a practice sometimes followed by the Polish language — which practice is not binding upon the English language. An analogous example, previously adduced, is the Polish usage, "Petersburg" (without "St.") for "St. Petersburg," Russia. logologist|Talk 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, your favorite argument is based on fallacies: You're using examples and imagined consequences to ask a question that projects some non-existing agenda onto anyone who opposes it. You're saying: "If you support St. Florian's Gate being changed to Florian Gate, then you also support all those other St. x's Building names being changed, too, and that's wrong." Quite frankly, the argument doesn't work this way. Just because one name is questioned doesn't mean the others are, too. Nobody asks that places like St. Paul's Cathedral should be renamed. Implying that that's what anyone in favor of Florian Gate wants to do is presumptious and flawed argumentation. And just because you're using it a dozen times for dramatic effect does not make it a dozen times more convincing than others. The argument itself is pure rhetoric in an attempt to ridicule the opposition and gets weaker with every stubborn repetition. At least that's how I feel about it. - tameeria 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your fallacies, dear tameeria, are argument from apparent ignorance of the Polish and English languages, and failure to grasp the relevance of analogy.

But at least you have the graciousness to admit (above) that your arguments have succumbed to reductio ad absurdum. logologist|Talk 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard and fast rule; WP:COMMONNAME may be of interest. Wikipedia uses what the most used and recognised term for a subject. Wikipedia does not create the names, it follows what is commonly used in the attendant literature. If the article stays at Florian Gate, this does not mean we would / should move St. Paul's Cathedral to Paul Cathedral. Similarly, if it is agreed it should be at St. Florian's Gate, this does not then mean Eiffel Tower must be moved to Eiffel's Tower. The only possible way to identify and determine the name of the article is by agreeing upon the prevailing name in English for Brama Florianska. Please do not continually mask the decision with non-equivalent examples. Proto::► 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument from "vox populi, vox Dei" is likewise vulnerable. If it should be determined that most Anglophones take "media," "phenomena" and "grafitti" to be singulars ("a media," "a phenomena," "a grafitti"), then are we automatically required to emulate their ignorance? logologist|Talk 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed go by vox populi. Wikipedia is not a primary source of etymological research, or a primary source of any kind. We do not carry out original work. We are an encyclopaedia. We do not decide what things are called. We name our articles by the most common term used, in the language of that edition of Wikipedia. This is a standard rule of thumb, detailed at WP:COMMONNAME. Proto::► 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, a little bit further up, you used vox populi to make a point yourself when conducting a Google search:

... at Wikipedia, truth is determined by popular vote. ... So, by popular vote, "St. Florian's Gate" is the winner."

I find it rather amusing that your high regards for Google as a research tool to produce evidence immediately dropped to denouncing "avalanches of mindless Google-numbers" when their support faltered. I'm not sure if you noticed, but you did a 180 degree turn there from favoring popular vote to favoring expert opinion in spite of popular vote. The only consistency I see is that you favor methods of producing evidence that support your own opinion and that you belittle methods that support other versions. The crux is that sometimes you're talking about the exact same method, so objectively there should be no difference in validity.

The same applies to printed references. You embellish your own from eminent historians with flowery words (O wonder of wonders!) and declare all others as "committing the error of unwarranted metaphrastic translation." All you're doing with trying to promote evidence in your favor and discrediting the same type of evidence when contrary is just proving your bias.

Bottom line is: This argument cannot be solved by logical argumentation. Neither should it be solved by rhetorical twisting of the facts. If Wikipedia has guidelines for dealing with such a situation, they should be applied.

I actually think Joseph Conrad's editor is a nice real life example of a good editor: He respects the author’s choice of "Florian Gate" and instead of insisting on a change adds an editorial comment for clarification for those more familiar with "St. Florian's Gate." The Wiki equivalent of that editorial action might have been adding "also known as St. Florian’s Gate" to the first sentence of the article instead of moving it, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have caused any problems at all. - tameeria 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of irony matches your understanding of the Polish and English languages. I trust, though, that you found Poeticbent's earlier display of irony easier to follow. logologist|Talk 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean Polish has no equivalent of American irony and satire? I'd better keep my "Supreme Court of 'S' Offences" jokes to myself. Art LaPella 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Poles have an excellent sense of humor — spanning every variety — though they are sometimes more inclined than Americans to solemnity or formality. For example, a radio or TV announcer would reverentially pronounce a government or party functionary's complete name — first and last — at every mention.

Of course, as in any country, there are individuals with a humor deficit. And I once inadvertently made myself enemies by illustratively telling a couple of "Polish jokes," while neglecting to provide a disclaimer that they were not my invention and did not reflect my views.

I'm not familiar with "Supreme Court of 'S' Offences" jokes. Is there a Wikipedia article on this? logologist|Talk 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant only my own musings on the Court's S-shaped gallows - to help the accused to meditate on his misuse of that fateful sibilant on this talk page, and to make his peace with God that he was unable to make on Wikipedia. Art LaPella 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Until a consensus is achieved on the naming of the article, it should remain at the naming convention determined by the original article creator (WP:NAME). This was Florian Gate, and thus the article has been moved, and will remain there until a consensus can be determined. As not all participants in the dispute accepted the participation of the Mediation Committee, I have tried to suggest a compromise solution (Florian's Gate), please see above.

If this compromise is not acceptable, there are (better) alternates to going to the Arbitration Committee. These include Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Proto::► 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states: “When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?” — I use Google dozens of times a day, however, I would have to be mad to want to put into the search box “St. Florian's Gate” in order to find it. I was born and raised in Kraków and — even though I no longer live in Poland — I care equally for Polish and English language with their respective history and conventions. That's why I'm shocked by logologist's recent attitude in this matter; tactless and groundless accusations of ignorance made against opponents; logologist’s use of Latin phrases for the sole purpose of intimidation; the repetitive employ of non-existing examples in order to ridicule the opposing points of view; appeals to imagined consequences, logologist’s theatrical rhetoric steming from biases, fallacies and most of all: flawed logic regarding the meaning and purpose of the name Florian Gate, which does not refer to an object of religious devotion. I will NOT be intimidated like that.
But first of all, I'd like to thank User:Proto for taking preventative measures and protecting Florian Gate article from being tampered with in retaliation at this critical stage of our discussion. Attempts at mediation failed. Appeals to reason lost their urgency. Encyclopedias were belittled (both: Britannica, and Collier’s). At least I'm glad I no longer have to invest time and energy in lengthy arbitration with Septentrionalis. From my point of view, it’s progress. --Poeticbent talk 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you now "belittling" Encyclopedia Americana ("gate of St. Florian")? logologist|Talk 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... St. Florian's Gate was not named for St. Florian? Then why the bas-relief of him on his Gate? logologist|Talk 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is denying that Florian Gate / St. Florian's Gate / Florian's Gate is named for St. Florian, logologist. The discussion is not what you think the name ought to be based on your opinion. Nor is it what Poeticbent thinks the name ought to be. Nor is it what anyone else here thinks it ought to be. It is what the bulk of English language non-trivial coverage of the gate translates the name as. Can you agree that it is ambiguous, and there are differing opinions and differences across sources? Proto::► 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild stone

"wild stone" doesn't make sense in English [30]. Does it mean uncut stone? Art LaPella 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Wikipedia article, "Brama Floriańska w Krakowie" ("St. Florian's Gate in Kraków"), speaks (paragraph 2, line 1) of the gate having been "built... about 1300... in a square tower of [dziki kamień]." This is an unusual expression, "literally" "wild stone." Presumably what was meant was "coarse," "unfinished" or "undressed" stone. In rendering "dziki" so literally without seeking an appropriate English equivalent, Poeticbent committed the same error that he has been persisting in, in regard to the English rendering of the Gate's name.

I did not correct the "wild-stone" error after he had lambasted me for my temerity in editing most of the article (even though he subsequently reintroduced some of my edits) — particularly as I could not be absolutely certain what he meant by the expression. logologist|Talk 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildstone [31]

Wildstone is a translucent form of reddish-colored quartz with multi-colored, swirled inclusions. It is nearly the opposite of iryx (a porous and opaque type of quartz). Thank you Art LaPella for pointing to me the extra space in the word “wildstone”. I have corrected the mistake and added a footnote. Go check it out. Collaborative effort is what excites me about Wikipedia. Fresh and unbiased look, and the many talents of others, make all the difference. --Poeticbent talk 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, that was the best laugh yet. Elves, dragons and vampires? Errm... Poeticbent? With all due respect, but while a reference from Mythosa might be accepted in role-playing circles, I seriously doubt it has much validity here on Wikipedia... Sorry! ;) - tameeria 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google actually finds quite a few pages using the terms "wild stone" and "architecture." Many of them are about builings made of "wild stone" in Russia, so I guess the term might have its origin in Russian? You can actually buy artificial wild stone from the Russian Federation. - tameeria 05:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The State Russian Museum explains that "wild stone ... was the name for red granite from the quarries in Vyborg." So it appears to be red granite, not red quartz. - tameeria 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More "wild stone" with pictures, this time from Belarus. Since it's mostly put in quotation marks, I assume there's not really an equivalent English term and that's why it's translated literally? - tameeria 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most relevant reference yet: the program of the XXV Scientific Instrument Symposium (PDF) held in Kraków talks about "wild-stone" on page 3:

Collegium Maius, situated at the corner of St.Anna and Jagiellonska Streets, is the oldest university edifice in Poland. Its history goes back to the year 1400, when King Władysław Jagiełło purchased the Pecherz family's corner house and donated it to the University. The actual walls of the Pecherz house have been preserved in their foundations and on the side overlooking Jagiellonska Street. This is easily traceable by observing the wild-stone composition, so typical of the 14th century. - tameeria 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it likely that "wildstone" "red granite" would have been imported to Kraków all the way from Vyborg, northwest of St. Petersburg, Russia, as now suggested in the article's footnote? logologist|Talk 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much more likely than being reddish quartz and the opposite of iryx (which is a mineral that according to lack of Google hits does not exist). Both cities were part of the medieval Hanseatic League and apparently the stones were exported from Vyborg by ship, so I think it's certainly possible. Is it true? I don't know - can't find anything on the actual origin of the stones in Kraków. So maybe adjusting the text to wild stone (red granite) and leaving out the footnote would be enough and less presumptious? - tameeria 06:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you everyone. Art LaPella 07:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive indeed. Thank you for an invaluable (I mean precious) contribution regarding the meaning of “wild stone”. I have a strong suspicion that “red granite” was mined in the vicinity of Kraków. It is a widely used stone in the making of churches and fortifications in Poland of the Middle ages, as the Polish Google indicates. [32] --Poeticbent talk 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your suspicion is right. There are actually granite quarries in the vicinity of Kraków. The online references I can find only mention they were used as concentration camps in WWII. Does anyone have any idea how old they are? If they were used during medieval times, that would make it much more likely that "wild stone" similar to the red granite found at Vyborg was mined locally just outside of Kraków instead of Hanseatic traders shipping it all the way across the Baltic Sea and up the Vistula. - tameeria 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

Wikipedians who built Florian Gate article from ground up probably know more about this landmark now than most Poles in Poland. For example: what “wild stone” is (dziki kamień in Polish) and where it comes from, is mostly left unanswered across the Polish Internet. It is easier to leave things where they are without asking questions. Even renowned Polish historians like Tadeusz Dobrowolski describe dziki kamień as sort of “wild” by nature… uncivilized and burry I guess. — Not good enough for Art LaPella who took a closer look at it, and for tameeria who cemented it to the ground as “red granite” only after reclaiming it first from dragons and tooth fairies of misconceived “quartz”.
Going back to the question at hand, I don’t think Florian Gate was ever expressly named after St. Florian contrary to what the article says. Long before the Gate was built, the street carried the name of the Saint already. “Floriańska Gate” became the gate at the end of “Floriańska Street”. It was the “Floriańska Street Gate”, hence the short version. The street was not an object of religious devotion, nor was the structure at the end of it. — St. Florian’s bunker? Think of it, if there ever was such a thing. Englishmen found a way of dealing with these sort of questions a long time ago. (For English language examples of corresponding compound words see above, provided by Poeticbent on 18 January 2007.) If we could only reach consensus in this matter with the sense of propriety, I would see it as the highest point of my Wiki experience so far. --Poeticbent talk 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Wikipedia article, "Brama Floriańska w Krakowie" ("St. Florian's Gate in Kraków") states:

"Within [the Gate] is an... altar with a late-Baroque copy of the miraculous painting of the Piast Madonna. On the city side [above the gate] is a bas-relief depicting St. Florian....

"Through the gate ran the road to [Kraków's] Kleparz [district] around St. Florian's Church."

Doesn't sound as if St. Florian's Street or St. Florian's Gate were christened by a bunch of secularists.

logologist|Talk 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't Brama Floriańska w Krakowie (no swiety) translate as "Florian's Gate in Krakow"? Proto::► 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's the point. It's "St. Florian's Gate." logologist|Talk 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Poeticbent's reference to "Englishmen," an English illustration of this principle is "St. Martin's Lane," which is named after the church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. It is not "Martin Lane" or "Martin's Lane."

logologist|Talk 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions states: If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase. There's nothing more to say. --Poeticbent talk 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, having no rational arguments, you are making an appeal to ochlocracy. logologist|Talk 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page has lots of rational arguments, and appealing to a Wikipedia policy is also rational - if it's a bad policy, maybe you should be trying to change it. I think the main pro-St. Florian's argument presented lately is that Florian was a saint, therefore he should be called St. Florian even though it isn't in the original Polish - but he was also a martyr and a patron saint of Krakow, and no one is suggesting adding his entire life story to the name of the gate. Maybe the point is that in English, the convention is to always include the word "St." in the name of a saint - but that surely isn't true for saints in the Bible like Peter and Paul, because sainthood is a Catholic concept (see Solus Christus) and English-speaking countries have more Protestants than Catholics. That doesn't even seem to be true of other saints like Augustine, even though Protestants seldom study them - see [33]. Even so, things named after saints often include the "St.", but not always - see Peter's pence for instance. St. Petersburg has been mentioned 3 times, but there's no reason for English to use the Polish name - those who live there call it "Санкт-Петербу́рг", and "Санкт" means saint - "Brama Floriańska" doesn't. The point is, there just isn't a rule for it other than "ochlocracy". Art LaPella 07:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in non-Catholic England, it's still "St John's College." logologist|Talk 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an example of what I meant by "...things named after saints often include the 'St.', ..." My main point was, there isn't a general rule except to go by what name others use. Art LaPella 06:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions recommends "minim[izing] ambiguity." Which is less ambiguous in the context of a medieval European fortification — "Florian's Gate" or "St. Florian's Gate"? logologist|Talk 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better point, although the Florians article says that movement was limited to Italy. When I Googled the word "Florians", almost none of the hits were about the monastic movement - more of those hits were about St. Florian than about the historic Florians. Art LaPella 06:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting at WP:RM

I'm removing this article's listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves because the article is currently at the title that was requested. It's not clear that we have a consensus, exactly, but if any further moving is required, someone can make another move request. For now, I'm clearing it out of the backlog. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The central fallacy of "Florian('s) Gate"

When translating between languages, one must consider context and the idiomatic structure of each language.

The Polish language sometimes drops "Święty," abbreviated "Św." ("Saint," "St.") from names associated with saints. This does not mean that it should automatically be left out in English.

"Kościół Mariacki," a colloquial, traditional Polish name, translates into English as "St. Mary's Church," not "Marian Church."

"Petersburg" translates as "St. Petersburg," not "Petersburg."

"Brama Świętego Floriana" ("St. Florian's Gate"), traditionally known as "Brama Floriańska," translates as "St. Florian's Gate," not "Florian Gate" or "Florian's Gate."

logologist|Talk 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English expression, "Florian Gate," is not an equivalent, but a pseudo-equivalent, to the Polish "Brama Floriańska," otherwise known as "Brama św. Floriana" (literally "St. Florian's Gate"). In "Brama Floriańska," "Floriańska" is an adjective that modifies "Gate" (it should actually be "Florianan" Gate — the second "an" here being an adjectival ending that corresponds to the Polish "-ska": e.g., "amerykańska" is the feminine of the Polish adjective meaning "American"). The English "Florian," in "Florian's Gate," is a noun whose form (ending as the word does in "-an") is spuriously suggestive of an adjective. Thus "Florian" is not the equivalent of "Floriańska," either formally or dynamically, and "Florian's Gate" is not the equivalent of "Brama Floriańska" aka "Brama św. Floriana" ("St. Florian's Gate"). logologist|Talk 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "Florian" is an ambiguous term. It may refer either to the given name, derived from that of St. Florian, or to a member of the Catholic Order of Flora. logologist|Talk 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from the repetitious use of nonexistent examples. They only weaken your discourse, i.e.: "Brama św. Floriana". — No Polish person would ever mention such a thing and/or understand your point. Being a Pole, I'd thought you were referring to another edifice possibly outside of Poland and unfamiliar to me for some strange reason. --Poeticbent talk

You are the one who is being repetitious. Your mode of argument is known as argumentum ad nauseam: you repeat fallacious arguments until opponents give up refuting them, from a sense of futility about the effort to help you see reason. logologist|Talk 09:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the absence of the word "saint" in the Polish name isn't the only issue, but I can't think of a really good reason to add that word. St. Mary's Church is another example of "...things named after saints often include the 'St.', ..." I can't look at pl:Kościół Mariacki w Krakowie or pl:Sankt Petersburg because it logs me off my browser when I try. If all Netscape (web browser) users have that problem it should be reported to the Polish equivalent of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or BugZilla - or does Polish Wikipedia work with Netscape at all? If the Polish name for St. Petersburg is "Petersburg", then why is the Polish Wikipedia article at "Sankt Petersburg"? Anyway, the English name St. Petersburg should be compared to the Russian name, not to the Polish or the Korean name - this isn't an example of adding the word "saint". Florian is unlikely to be misinterpreted as Mr. Gate's given name, as I can't think of anyone else named Florian or Gate (Gates but not Gate) - maybe Poles can, but this is the English version. I discussed the obscure Florians above. Art LaPella 00:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, what's the translation for Bazylika Archikatedralna św. Jakuba w Szczecinie? In German, it's simply "Jakobikirche", basically "church of St. Jacob," but the name of the English page is claiming it's Cathedral Basilica of St. James the Apostle, Szczecin. Just curious: Is "James" really a translation of "Jakob" or are they different names? - tameeria 07:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are a translation of Hebrew Yaʿaqov. James (name) states: "The name came into English language from the French variation of Gemmes of the Late Latin name Iacomus, a dialect variant of Iacobus, from the New Testament Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iakōbos), from Hebrew word יעקב (Yaʻaqov). Cognates include Jacob." That's also why the supporters of James II of Britain were called Jacobites. You'll also note that coinage struck with James' pic on it bears the inscription Jacobus II Dei Gratia. Basically, in English, "Jacob" is more of an Old Testament version, while "James" is the New. Sort of like "Joshua" and "Jesus". --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florians

Hi, Art. If you don’t want to be logged off your browser, try opening Polish Wikipedia in a new window by “right-clicking” on a link and selecting “Open in New Window.” Once you do that, you can move between the two open windows back and forth by pressing “Alt-Tab.” I hope it helps.
       On a different topic. Similar to tameeria, I find the English translation for Bazylika Archikatedralna św. Jakuba w Szczecinie puzzling. The article in English Wikipedia entitled Cathedral Basilica of St. James the Apostle, Szczecin does not reflect the already elongated Polish name of the basilica. For example, there’s no mention of “the Apostle” in the original Polish title, why would than be necessary to put it there in English. Besides, there’s no St. James the Apostle in Wikipedia, not even a disambiguation page. However, there are: James, son of Zebedee and James, son of Alphaeus, both the disciples of Jesus. So the addition of “the Apostle” to the title of the article on "church of St. Jacob" in English solves nothing.
       Logologist said: "Kościół Mariacki," a colloquial, traditional Polish name, translates into English as "St. Mary's Church," not "Marian Church." [34] That's misleading. “Marian Church” does exist in English and it has nothing to do with the subject. It is not what we’re made to believe. According to Fatima International, “Marian Church” is a congregation of the followers “of the Age of Mary.” [35]
       If logologist is so concerned with clarity than perhaps Florian Gate should remain where it is so as not to be confused with the obscure Florians (from the Order of Flora) by the presence of “s”. --Poeticbent talk 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Open Link in New Window" worked once, but the window disappeared as soon as I touched the mouse. Ever since then I haven't been able to see either page at all with Netscape. But I can read the 2 pages using Internet Explorer.

St. Florian's Gate, revisited

The current issue (2007, no. 2) of The Polish Review, a scholarly quarterly published in New York City by the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America, features a cover drawing of Kraków's Brama Floriańska. In the table of contents, the object is identified as "St. Florian's Gate." Nihil novi 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St. Florian's Gate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tpm-WQkcqGMJ:www.cracowonline.com/45,A_Must-See_Guide_for_Krakow_New.htm+cracowonline.com+Florian+Gate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca with https://web.archive.org/web/20161130064254/http://cracowonline.com/45,A_Must-See_Guide_for_Krakow_New.htm on http://www.cracowonline.com/45,A_Must-See_Guide_for_Krakow_New.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]