Talk:Danzig (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

See also: Talk:Danzig

the best solution?[edit]

surely this is a classic case of what disambiguation pages are designed for? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed and decided against. Look at the edit history of changes. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic wording[edit]

If I understand correctly, as currently worded we're referring to the word, so use–mention distinction means we should italicise it. Done. This could do with some scrutiny as we must have many similar dabs with alternative titles (different languages, transliterations e.g. there's discussion at Talk:Baykal (disambiguation)) so it may be useful to have one or two style examples (of wording that isn't awkward or grammatically incorrect) to help the others. Widefox; talk 08:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use–mention distinction might have some currency in analytic philosophy, but it is without relevance for disambiguation pages, so far as I'm concerned. However, italicization in the case of Danzig seems appropriate because it is a foreign language term (though place names that are widely recognized in English might be exempt from such italicization). older ≠ wiser 12:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I mention it as it's from WP:ITALICS. Concur it covers the foreign too, and neatly is (or should be) directly from the articles. Widefox; talk 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Applicability of use–mention distinction to disambiguation pages is described at WP:REFERS. I don't care too much about isolated italicization of the foreign name of a city. It is worth noting though that after the first mention in the opening sentence, "Danzig" is not italicized elsewhere in the article. older ≠ wiser 22:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the REFERS link, yes, which leads to the elephant in the room .... which is the conclusion I came to from ITALICS / use-mention distinction...

All our ~~base~~ dabs should be italicised...

"Ambiguous term may refer to:"
"Ambiguous term may also refer to:"

per REFERS (an essay), but none of them are per WP:MOSDAB (style guideline). Widefox; talk 11:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the use-mention distinction is pedantic and of little benefit or significance for most readers. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that adding italics complicates, without benefit to navigation. The foreign words is useful, maybe a foreign word example. Anyhow, as ITALICS (and REFERS) mentions it, and MOSDAB is silent and opposing, maybe worth heading off any pendants with a mention of it at MOSDAB.

I'm thinking especially primary topics where we have full sentences and folk seem to care about wording (maybe because of the counterintuitive nature of the primary topic entry being "hidden at the top"?). Widefox; talk 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]