Talk:Sebastiano Montelupi

October 17, 2012

• I’m not here to argue with anybody, especially with user Andreas Philopater (talk · contribs) who put some heavy legwork into his precious baby, but I feel that my contribution has also been undervalued and misrepresented in the process. For starters, Kraków is Kraków in English Wikipedia, not Cracow, simply because it is WP:COMMONNAME proven via numerous search tests performed online, and recorded in Talkpage archives of our own article Kraków. Secondly, MOS:LEAD recommends establishing notability right upfront, because it serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. However, it has been turned by Andreas Philopater into a sorry one-liner with my own contribution moved to the last sentence in the article just to annoy me. Please, reconsider. Poeticbent talk 00:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Poeticbent, nothing was done with the intention of annoying you. Nothing could have been further from my mind. To say that the man was postmaster general establishes his importance. That a street is named after his family is suggestive, but is not a direct statement of importance (and I myself live in a street named after a man whose main claim to fame seems to be giving a bundle of cash to the mayor fifty or sixty years ago). Posthumous commemoration simply seems the logical place to mention it, alongside the commemorative stamp. As to Cracow/Kraków, WP:COMMONNAME does say Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. In my experience, in historical contexts, Cracow is infinitely more common in English than Kraków — just as Florence is than Firenze, Copenhagen than København, and indeed Warsaw than Warszawa. My own default preference in English is always to use an English name if one exists that is instantly recognizable. It is usually a mark of some international cultural prominence that a foreign place should have a distinct name in English, and it seems a shame to erase this mark, but I am well aware that in putting my prose on Wikipedia I have renounced any claim to it. If it's a sensitive point for Poles that Polish versions of Polish placenames should be used, I have no desire to offend such sensitivities. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point about the English version of Cracow being a mark of honor is very interesting. For now, I strongly prefer consistency (one town - one name). It is Kraków now, but if we were to say it was Cracow in the past, the question "when did this change" will be a pain to answer. I invite you to raise this at Talk:Kraków. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also want to thank Andreas for this interesting article, which I'd recommend for a T:TDYK now. However, I agree with Poeticbent that Kraków is more correct than Cracow. After all, on English Wikipedia, we have that article under Kraków, not Cracow (a redirect). Also, this is not the case of a historical name changing (Danzig/Gdańsk); it was always known as Kraków. While it is true that older English sources used Cracow, more modern prefer Kraków (this was discussed ad nauseum on Talk:Kraków), and per WP:NCGN, we should use the modern, common name. Regarding the palace, the sentence could be restored to the lead, but it should also stay where it is (per WP:LEAD, the intro should summarize the article, and not contain any new content). PS. The palace has an article on the pl wikipedia: pl:Pałac na Szlaku w Krakowie (commons:Category:Montelupi Palace in Kraków). Sebastian does not. I found and added his coat of arms, which has an article on pl wiki at pl:Montelupi. PPS. Another Montelupi-related article on pl wikipedia: pl:Dom Włoski w Krakowie.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No thanks are necessary. This is something I have done purely for my own pleasure. Cracow/Kraków is touched on in my reply to Poeticbent, above. The palace is mentioned not only in the final sentence, but also in the first paragraph after the lead. Thank you for the links to pl.wiki. The content of these suggests that I may have been mistaken in taking pl:Pałac na Szlaku w Krakowie to be Sebastiano Montelupi's house. It looks more likely to have been Valerio's (after he inherited Sebastiano's wealth), with Sebastiano and Urszula living at pl:Kamienica Montelupich during their lifetimes. Some (or indeed all) of the material at pl:Nagrobek Montelupich would also be suitable for inclusion here.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd be interested in developing those articles, I am sure me and Poeticbent would be interested in helping out, at the very least through translation of the pl wiki. The palace was built from 1613, so not by Sebastiano; pl wiki article on Dom Włoski w Krakowie states that it was both his house and the main post office. PS. If anybody is interested, in December I can acquire PSB entries for him and other members of his family. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed the Montelupi Palace and Italian House. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)