Talk:Küstrin

Rewrite[edit]

It's no longer the Kingdom of Prussia, it's no longer in Germany, and it's no longer called Custrin. Other than that, the article may, for all I know, be accurate. --Stemonitis 12:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have looked and there is no municipality in Germany by this name. It's in Poland: Kostrzyn nad Odrą

Doing 1911 articles vis-a-vis changed borders is dangerous, if only that they get ripped apart immediately, by a merge template or a suggestion for immediate deletion.

Anyway. The article has to acknowledge List of subcamps of Sachsenhausen, see Sachsenhausen.

I've now attempted to bring this up to date (part in Poland, tiny part in Germany, mostly destroyed). Can someone please research and merge the concentration camp material? -- The Anome 14:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article names[edit]

Any objections to moving this article to Küstriner Vorland, as "Küstrin" should really link to Kostrzyn nad Odrą? Olessi 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it as it is. Küstrin is a ruined fort city that was never rebuilt, and is not the same as Kostrzyn. The related part in Germany is called Küstrin-Kietz, and in the GDR this was usually just Kietz. The Vorland is a region, not a specific settlement, and this should be rephrased. ProhibitOnions 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then should the history found at Kostrzyn nad Odrą be at Küstrin instead? The German wiki has articles at de:Kostrzyn nad Odrą, de:Küstrin, and de:Küstriner Vorland. Olessi 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd follow the German example. While former German placenames should not be used for article names, Küstrin is an exception, when we're talking about the ruins; it is not the same thing as Kostrzyn (which was formerly Küstrin-Neustadt). The Poles generally refer to the ruins as Küstrin, not Kostrzyn. The Küstriner Vorland (and Küstrin-Kietz) is in a different country, and would have its own article under any circumstances. Regards, ProhibitOnions 12:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The example of German Wikipedia should not be followed in this case, since their de:Küstrin and de:Kostrzyn nad Odrą articles are essentially duplicates of each other, which is bad practice, and something we should avoid. I would have nothing against an article under Küstrin devoted solely to the ruins of the old town. Nevertheless, the main article containing most of the information about the city and its history should be under Kostrzyn nad Odrą. Another possibility would be to have Küstrin as a short disambig page, which would simply state that this was a German city before 1945 which was divided into various parts, which it would then list, with appropriate links.

Let me also note that I would guess the common name used for the ruins of Kustrin by Poles would be Stary Kostrzyn (Old Kostrzyn), per [1],[2]. But of course I don't live there so that's just a guess based on web searching. Balcer 04:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the German division of articles should be followed, not the German text, which is pretty weak. I live nearby and have been to the ruins many times, and in my experience they are usually referred to as Küstrin in Polish as well, inasmuch as it's seen as a historic site (a more famous example being Auschwitz vs. Oświęcim). However, the county is Kostrzyn, the passport stamps at the border crossing 300 m away read Kostrzyn, and of course the municipality, the former Küstrin Neustadt, is also known as this. (And never mind the fact that Küstrin was also formerly written Cüstrin). This is why I would, more or less, follow the German article distribution:

Küstrin for the former small Prussian/German city that was destroyed in 1945, and for the ruins today;
Kostrzyn for the present-day Polish municipality, founded 1945, and for previous history of Küstrin-Neustadt;
Küstriner Vorland for the district in Germany containing the small community Küstrin-Kietz, known as Kietz in the GDR, which was formerly part of Küstrin (although the Vorland was not, despite what the English article currently states). Alternatively, write an article about Küstrin-Kietz and link this, rather than Küstriner Vorland, to the other two articles.

In any event, linking Küstrin to Küstriner Vorland would be a mistake, because a Vorland is a region near or preceding something, but not coterminous with it. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder though, to what extent can Küstrin and Küstrin Neustadt be treated as separate towns with separate histories before 1945? Was there a formal division of this kind? And if they were not separate urban entities, their history should be discussed in one place. That place is naturally the article about the town which continues the traditions of the ubran entity, in this case Kostrzyn.Balcer 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the two towns are seperate from each other they should be listed in seperate articles.

--Molobo 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Sure, this should be two separate articles, just like Görlitz and Zgorzelec. I like ProhibitOnions's argument here. Kusma (討論) 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same situation at all, as obviously Görlitz is a city existing today on German territory. The old Küstrin is a section of Kostrzyn/Küstrin, now in ruin, on Polish territory. There is no town called Küstrin on the German side of the border today.

Anyway, in the past there have been proposals to have two separate articles, for example , Breslau, for everything pertaining to that town before 1945, and Wroclaw for everthing after 1945. That approach has not been adopted, in English Wikipedia at least. Let's not implement it here. Balcer 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps has [3] high resolution satellite photos] and maps of the area, in case anyone is interested.Balcer 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old Küstrin is a section of Kostrzyn/Küstrin, now in ruin, on Polish territory. There is no town called Küstrin on the German side of the border today

Then there is no problem. We can have article for the Polish city after 1945 in seperate article. --Molobo 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, do you now support this approach for all Polish cities which were part of Germany before 1939? Balcer 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read more on the history on the city and it seems that till XIII century it was part of Poland and had influence on Polish history. Thus the information on history of Kostrzyn should be merged to Kostrzyn nad Odrą. --Molobo 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how about a similar solution to the one we adopted at Cieszyn? //Halibu tt 05:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? In my opinion, since there is no town of Küstrin on the German side of the border across from Kostrzyn, the Cieszyn/Český Těšín comparison does not fit too well. To be more specific, the whole de:Küstriner Vorland, the Gemeinde/Commune/Gmina opposite Kostrzyn, has 2,953 inhabitants, so Küstrin-Kietz, the part of the city which remained on the German side after 1945, must have even less, and does not even rate an article in the German Wikipedia. For comparison, Kostrzyn has 17,620 inhabitants. Thus there can be no talk of any symmetry, as in the Cieszyn/Český Těšín case. Balcer 05:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a nifty table organizing the articles. At Cieszyn/whatever we have separate articles on both towns, one on their history and two on the historical region. Here we could prepare the following:

Kostrzyn for the actual town
Kustrin-Kietz for the remainder on the other side
History of Kostrzyń and Kustrin for... you guessed it
Kustriner Vorland and for the historical region

At the same time we should try to keep as much of common history in the article on city's history, not to repeat it everywhere. In short, I do not propose to create/delete any articles, just limit their scope and reorganize their relations to each other. How about that? //Halibu tt 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I should point out about Küstrin-Kietz is that it is not terribly close to the Polish border (and thus to the ruins of Küstrin or the town of Kostrzyn); it is a separate village a couple of kilometers away that happened to once fall under the jurisdictional boundary of Küstrin. It's hardly a divided city, like Gubin/Guben or Görlitz/Zgorzelec. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ProhibitOnions here. As the place does not qualify as a divided city, there is no great need for a special table. I would propose this variation of article scheme suggested by Halibutt:

Kustriner Vorland - Commune in Germany, should have same format as other communes
Kustrin-Kietz - even German Wikipedia considers this place too small for an article, so English Wikipedia should probably do the same, but we can include a short note
Kostrzyn nad Odrą for the actual town
Küstrin Fortress - history of the fortress, which is quite notable. One could go into extensive detail here. On German Wikipedia there is a pile of pictures which could be moved to Commons and used here. The discussion about the ruins of the old city naturally belongs here as well.
Küstrin - brief disambituation page to direct readers to above entries

How does that sound? Balcer 06:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I only pointed out a general idea, I leave it up to others how to implement it :) I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. //Halibu tt 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good. Calling the article Küstrin Fortress instead of Küstrin should clear things up, so it seems like a good idea to me (although for many years the fortress was the city). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]