Talk:Sigismund Bell

"Integrated"

Jacurek, I know that English is not your native language. Please consult a dictionary instead of a thesaurus before attempting to copy-edit a difficult topic that needed fine tuning grammatically, semantically, and historically, etc. The two countries were not [1] "integrated" in 1520, and the union came into force in 1569. As for your copy edit [2], ..."'(- ya.... this one is a very, very difficult one....Hmmmm perhaps "integrated" will reflect the picture more clearly. Yes... I think this is the best word to use in this case. All the best.)... it strikes me as hostile and sarcastic (despite your affectionate "all the best"). I'll just assume good faith and forget it, but really, your choice of wording in this case is quite inappropriate. It just doesn't fit. I'm not sure you're cut out for the task of copy-editing English. However if you need help, feel free to contact me. If you can think of something better we can use, let me know. As I said it's a tough one. Explaining the relationship between Lithuania and Poland prior to 1569, in one word. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarcastic?.... not at all. I'm so sorry that you did get this impression. In fact I think that sarcastic comments on the Wikipedia are very wrong. I know exactly how you felt because I came across editors who use sarcastic comments bordering with trolling almost all the time. It is very annoying to work with them. As far as the English language help....I think I will be fine but thanks for offer of help. Cheers.--Jacurek (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Just wondering if an apostrophe wouldn't be appropriate for the title, i.e., "Sigismund's Bell" (per Dzwon Zygmunta)? Sigismund Bell has an awkward quality to it. Another possibility is Royal Bell "Sigismund" (per Królewski Dzwon Zygmunt). Both of these suggestions stem from a more accurate translation of the original Polish names. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It's not a bell owned by Sigismund, it's a bell called Sigismund. We don't have many articles about bells bearing human names, but John Brown Bell seems to suggest that the "<human name> Bell" format is OK. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, I do not have strong feelings regarding this issue. Dzwon Zygmunta (Zygmunt's Bell) is clearly the genitive case. I'm not sure if the the bell in Malborough, Mass. is a good analogy. JB had very little to do with the bell, unlike Sigismund I the Old's association with this bell. See [3] and [4]. Again, "Sigismund Bell" simply has an awkward quality to it. And it doesn't equate to either Polish version. Would you agree that Dzwon Zygmunta is the more popular Polish name for the bell? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dzwon Zygmunta does seem more common, but this is a colloquial, incorrect name. The official name is in the nominative case. I'm going to write a new article about other bells of the Wawel Cathedral; one of them is called Półzygmunt, or "Half-Sigismund". I suppose "Half-Sigismund's" would sound even more awkward.

And at the first website you linked to, the author uses both "John Brown's bell" and "the John Brown Bell". It seems that here, too, the genitive case is used in a colloquial manner while the nominative remains the official name. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All true. Just the same the bell from the Harpers Ferry Raid (note the lack of an apostrophe in Harpers, but not in John Brown) isn't the best yardstick for this case. In discussing the John Brown Bell or the Liberty Bell the article "the" should be used. Most EE editors often tend to drop or misuse "the" when either speaking or writing English. If we return to the nominative case, and the official name, rather than the colloquial name, we have "Królewski Dzwon Zygmunt". This doesn't translate to "Sigismund Bell". Maybe Royal Bell "Sigismund" would be a better alternative title. Interestingly Polish Wikipedia (which unfortunately cannot be used as a source here) calls it "Zygmunt's Bell" (Dzwon Zygmunta). Ergo my original suggestion Sigismund's Bell. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I used the definite article throughout the text (except the first sentence of the lead, which I corrected now). Royal Bell "Sigismund" sounds like a forced attempt to preserve Polish word order in an English translation. But hey, there's always Wikipedia:Requested moves; why don't you propose a move there so that we see what others think? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thought: how about Sigismund Royal Bell? Would that sound better than Royal Sigismund Bell? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion Sigismund Bell sounds just fine.  Dr. Loosmark  22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Kpalion, the Polish version seems to be more logical. Translating its official name into English is hardly "forcing" it. Leaving it as "Sigismund Bell" seems weird. Applying the appropriate article "the" does give it some respectability though. Wikipedia:Requested moves is probably excessive at this juncture. Establishing an alternative name that makes sense would certainly be the best solution at this point. If that was strenuously objected to, an RM might be needed. Besides Loosmark thinks it's fine as is. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the current title is not grammatically incorrect and it's just your personal feeling that it "seems weird". May I propose that we leave it as it is until there are more voices supporting a move? — Kpalion^(talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language #Sigismund('s) Bell. Hopefully, they will help us settle this matter. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For a possible Russian analogy, see Tsar Bell. But that may not help, as the title came directly from Царь-колокол, so it was never going to be "Tsar's Bell". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please keep in mind that the first sentence in the lead of the Tsar Bell has three other variations for its name. Wikipedia seems to prefer that "the" be excluded from article title names (possibly due to cyber overload?) However to speak of either "Tsar Bell" or "Sigismund Bell" without the article "the" in English puts one in the same boat as Boris Badenov. And he murdered the English language along with his sidekick Natasha, although charmingly so. With the more recent inclusions of "the" into this article, the entire matter is becoming less of an issue. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure that's entirely apposite. Even though one never refers to them without the "the", would one expect to find the encyclopedia entries for the Sydney Opera House or the Tower Bridge or the Empire State Building preceded by the word "The"? I wouldn't, and neither do the writers of those articles, apparently. The fact that this article is not "The Sigismund Bell" does not prevent anyone from referring to it as "The Sigismund Bell" in non-encyclopedic contexts. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was clear with..."Wikipedia seems to prefer that "the" be excluded from article title names (possibly due to cyber overload?". So what's opposite? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Apposite, not opposite. Why is there an issue about "the" if ... there's not an issue about it? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Dan doesn't know what apposite means and that's what might have confused him. Dan "apposite" means suitable, pertinent or relevant.  Dr. Loosmark  05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(OD) 202, my bad concerning the misunderstanding of your using apposite. Either too tired or just jumped to the wrong conclusion. In this article the proper use of the article "the" has been added appropriately. So it's no longer an issue other than wasting time by further discussion of it here. Loosmark, thank you for trying to help. I do know what apposite means. If I have your attention maybe you can tell me what notable means, or at least your interpretation of what notability in relation to Wikipedia articles should be. That would be helpful at the moment. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan I can assure you that the Sigismund('s) Bell is very notable.  Dr. Loosmark  22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with you Loosmark. On a personal note I remember climbing the stairs to the tower and seeing the Orzeł Biały and Vytis on "Zygmunt". Earlier harmony. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For whom the bell is tolled

OK Dr. Dan, you're a native English speaker. I'm not. But are you sure that "the bell tolls" is incorrect? — Kpalion^(talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't say it's incorrect. Thought the alternative was a better nuance though. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Possibility

Due to the unfortunate lack of interest concerning our recent discussion at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language page, and here, I've come up with another suggestion. How does Zygmunt (bell) sound (no pun intended) for the article's title? It might be a solution in it gives the original Polish name "Zygmunt", describes what the entity is, and eliminates any need to revise the several more awkward alternatives (that includes the present title). Plus, it is already linked to this current title. It also prevents what you referred to as "forcing" a literal translation from Polish. Please take into consideration this more famous bell as opposed to John Brown Bell. No one actually refers to "Big Ben" as Big Ben Bell. That's what brought me into this discussion in the first place. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

hmm doesn't Big Ben refer to the clock tower? Anyway your proposal makes sense.  Dr. Loosmark  00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the nickname for the bell itself. I suppose after time there was some commingling of the nickname of the bell with the clock or bell tower, but that's not accurate. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really opposed to Zygmunt (bell) as long as you'll make sure that the new name would be used consistently across the article, templates, other Wikimedia projects, etc. But I still don't see what's wrong with the current title and why it should be replaced with a different one. Sigismund Bell seems the best solution to me, per WP:UE. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All good points. Since I don't own this article, however, it wouldn't be up to me exclusively make sure that the new name would be used consistently across the article, templates, other Wikimedia projects, etc. Having forgotten some of the past acrimony revolving around WP:UE, perhaps Sigismund (bell) for all of the reasons that we agree about, seems the best solution here. Hugo (or was it actually Anthony Quinn) told us that Notre Dame's bell ringer Quasimodo was made deaf by the bell, "Big Marie", not Big Marie Bell. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigismund (bell) is fine for me. If you think the benefit of moving the article there outweighs the cost of additional work required as a result of the move (nobody "owns" the article, but someone will have to do it), then go ahead. Afterwards I hope we can spend some more time improving the article itself instead of just moving it around the namespace. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)