Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Photos of Polish military personnel up for deletion

Several Polish military personnel have been sent for deletion as unsourced. file:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski 1.jpg , file:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski.jpg , file:Henryk Pietrzak.jpg , file:Henryk Pietrzak niesiony.jpg , file:Stanislaw Skalski 1.jpg , file:Witold Urbanowicz.jpg , file:Wladyslaw Anders2.jpg -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourced to Sikorski Museum. Could use a link, and if they are crown copyright, them may be PD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You might want to update the templates with a better source description -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for B-class reviews

I'd appreciate if people would pay more attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at a few of them later this week or this weekend. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Wrocław in Silesia?

Stupid question, but ja nie mam sił for it... Talk:Wrocław#Silesia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Polish/Czech/Slovak/Spanish/French etc.etc. article titles

Cześć, is anyone willing to take the lead in getting Dolovis' edit reverted? The book should have been closed with the last of the Talk:Dominik Halmosi RMs. But Dolovis' edit is still on top - contradicting every single Polish/Czech/Slovak/Spanish/French etc. etc. article title on en.wp. Is there any way to remove it? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just honest curiosity; why can't you remove it yourself?  Volunteer Marek  15:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Volunteer Marek, for the same reasons Prokonsul Piotrus couldn't change it: for example because no mechanism such as the Talk:Dominik Halmosi RM exists for painless democratic input to change a line in a MOS page.
So the situation continues that on the one hand we have 4 million articles (title and text body) using European names where appropriate, on the other we have editors on 1 page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) effectively saying that the users who created/edited those 4 million articles (titles and text body) are wrong. In my own case every WP:Project Poland bio I have made for example is wrong: names like "Andrzej Węgierski" are always "Wegerski" in the "general" sources that User:Dolovis' current top edit demands, just as "Walesa" "Vaclav" "Francois" etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I know Dolovis is being disruptive in this area, but it was my impression good old RM is good for dealing with that. Is there any new discussion about diacritics at WP:NCUE we should know about? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus, actually Dolovis, the editor who reverted you, was subsequently banned for behaviour on exactly this subject - locking "English names" on Slovak BLPs. No, there's no immediate new discussion at WP:NCUE, and I don't think there even can be since WP:ENGLISH naturally (given its title and role) attracts different editors from the editors at a RM like Talk:Édouard Deldevez. I think the difference is fairly clear and self-explanatory between the two. The approach of classical music editors at Talk:Édouard Deldevez was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to "give the correct name" wheras [[Talk:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]] has a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for "English names for French/Czech/Slovak/Spanish/people" ...ostensibly the issue is "diacritics" but I'm not the only one who can detect that there isn't same aversion or even animosity to Charlotte Brontë as Kotë, Albania, or would be to Chloé Katz (American skater) as Chloé Georges (French acrobatic skier). WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can happen at MOS pages just as at projects, but the current WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors active at WP:ENGLISH is evidently at odds with the bulk of creators and editors busy churning out additions to our 4 million articles.
Actually if simply the word "follow the general usage in reliable sources" was deleted from WP:ENGLISH that would solve the problem. But restoring your edit the banned user reverted would be even better. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And yes your impression good old RM is good for dealing with that is okay for Polish articles because they show up on WP:POLAND alerts. But WP:POLAND editors won't know about Talk:Mărgărita Miller Verghy (closed), and the French/Spanish projects are basically dead. Ironically that sometimes means there's more effective opposition to French people's names on en.wp than Polish/Czech/Croat names. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In or of?

I am working on Nazi plunder in Poland, but perhaps it should be moved to Nazi plunder of Poland? (I split the article from Nazi plunder to create a en wiki version of pl:grabież polskich dóbr kultury w czasie II wojny światowej). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

These are all excellent redirects, but according to the actual meaning of the Polish article title, I think, the new entry should rather be named Nazi plunder of occupied Poland's cultural heritage to match. Poeticbent talk 23:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Better simpler: Nazi plunder of Poland's cultural heritage Staszek Lem (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
In fact, Nazi and Soviet plunder of Poland's cultural heritage . Staszek Lem (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the article was moved by Staszek to World War II looting of Poland. As you've added a section on Soviet pillaging, that's fine, although I wonder if we shouldn't keep the original wording (plunder vs. looting), thus resulting in World War II plunder of Poland? PS. Regarding the name, I prefer the simpler versions, which are also recommended in MoS. Through I can see the need to move the article to the longer ("of cultural heritage") name, once an article about plunder of economy in general is written (that article could be tied to pl:Straty materialne Polski w czasie II wojny światowe, but it's not exactly a direct parent). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary.com:

  • plun·der   /ˈplʌndər/ Show Spelled[pluhn-der] Show IPA
verb (used with object) 1. to rob of goods or valuables by open force, as in war, hostile raids, brigandage, etc.: to plunder a town. 2. to rob, despoil, or fleece: to plunder the public treasury.
  • to loot  /lut/ Show Spelled[loot] Show IPA
verb (used with object) 6. to carry off or take (something) as loot: to loot a nation's art treasures. 7. to despoil by taking loot; plunder or pillage (a city, house, etc.), as in war. 8. to rob, as by burglary or corrupt activity in public office: to loot the public treasury.

I think plunder (as in war, #7.) is even more descriptive. Poeticbent talk 16:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, 7 is about loot, not plunder. So are you arguing for loot or plunder? If loot, that I think we should also start a discussion about moving Nazi plunder to Nazi looting at the Talk:Nazi plunder. PS. The relevant parent article created by me as a stub a while back is Art theft and looting during World War II. It's worth nothing that another parent article, Looted art, uses the word loot rather than plunder, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough apparently. Plunder is the word to be used, because it relates specifically to war (as per definition quoted at the beginning). Conversely, if you look at the definition of loot during war, it leads back to "plunder or pillage" (#7.) thus confirming the choice of the word plunder as more relevant. Poeticbent talk 18:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, your quote actually shows that "to loot a nation's art treasures" is a usage standard enough to be given as an example. Hence in our context the word "loot" is adequate. Eg see US govt docs use the term "loot" in the context of cultural treasures. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, does anybody have access to [1]? Without full access, I am afraid we will have to remove this, as the visible snippet does not seem to verify the claim made in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony Hibbert (British Army officer)

Please add few words about his pro-Sosabowski activities.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile, especially if you have some specific source which discusses it, but I want to note that the controversy with Browning is not even mentioned in the Sosabowski article itself. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an English Wikipedia, isn't it? (beware - Sarcasm) Stanisław Sosabowski doesn't inform about the period between Arnhem battle and end of war. pressure from the British diplomacy is mentioned later without any explanation. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"The original text After the battle Sosabowski was unjustly made a scapegoat for the failure of Operation Market Garden, following a critical evaluation by English Lt. Gen. Frederick Browning. He was accused of criticizing Field Marshal Montgomery and the Polish General Staff was forced to remove him as the commanding officer of his brigade on 27 December 1944. He was made the commander of guard troops and in July 1948 he was demobilised. has been removed. I have restoret it, but sources are needed.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC) The editor who removed the paragraph is blocked now.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I have finally restored the vandalized version, no sources still.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Tony Hibbert (British Army officer) should be mentioned in Stanisław Sosabowski.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a reliable source [2] but it does give pretty good info on what happened. Main page here. Volunteer Marek  13:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Btw, Hibbert, who's 90+ years old has a blog [3] though a good chunk of it is under construction. Volunteer Marek  13:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okopy, Ternopil Oblast

Name paragraph: The settlement was previously referred to as Okopy Svyatoyi Triytsi (Polish: Okopy Świętej Trójcy) - which name is to be preferred?Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the name is fine as it is. Redirect Okopy Świętej Trójcy exists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I mean not the name of the article, but the quoted above statement from "Name" paragraph. The langauage of constructors was rather Polish. The Ukrainian name isn't sourced. Ukrainian Wikipedia says "Замок, відомий в польській науковій літературі як Окопи Святої Трійці", so there are no sources of Ukrainian name. Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I tagged the entire article as unreferenced, it's not like there are sources for the Polish name, either. Add sources, move unref claims to talk if you want. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ternopil - POV

Some aspects of history of Ternopil are presented from radical Ukrainian POV.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Have I read this article before? If not, this is the second about-a-place article I've read that has been overly consumed with being sacked, rampaged, destroyed,... VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
the former partners from the Riga treaty - Soviet Ukraine also participated in the Riga treaty.Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Help find a free picture of Michał Wołodyjowski

File:Michał Wołodyjowski.jpg is going to be deleted, unless someone can help prove it is pre-1923 (See commons:commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Images_by_User:Bodiak). Alternatively, perhaps somebody can find and upload another free picture of the "little knight"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't it be PD since it's been more than 70 years since the author's death (1938+70=2008)?  Volunteer Marek  01:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes it would be PD. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see, for PD in US it must have been published pre 1923. Volunteer Marek  02:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I just learned about this recently. The commons:Commons:Hirtle chart is very helpful. Also note that images should have a PD tag for US and a PD tag for source country. See my recent uploads like File:Kniaziowa Kurcewiczowa - Piotr Stachiewicz.png for an idea how to properly tag such an image. (although one tag in practice suffices for most cases, until you get to a GA+ review, or some copyright cleanup expert takes interest...). PS. And yes, that basically means that a picture can be PD in Poland, but not in US, and thus cannot be hosted on Commons - this is the source for the fact that public domain in Poland is in the better shape than in US, and for the importance of the 2019 date in the future of copyright debates (1923+95). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Janusz Ostrogski

Needs post-machine-translation cleanup. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's tagged accordingly. Sigh. So much to do, so little time... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I only managed to tag it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
One additional problem is that these may be machine translations from copyrighted sources - in which case the text would be a copyvio and would also have to be rewritten and paraphrased (in addition to being cleaned up). I'm thinking just cut it down to something more manageable.VolunteerMarek 04:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The article includes Lithuanian name (unsourced) but the language of the Duchy was Ruthenian. BTW he acted in the Kingdom after the Union of Lublin. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pomeranian language

The article usues mostly German sources, contains errors or outdated informations. Some controversial statements are unsourced. There exists Kashubian language discussing partially the same facts.Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the more blatant OR but in terms of sources, sourced text is sourced text, regardless of the nationality of the author. What matters is if it is reliable. Two things that would need to be done here is 1) to get the actual sources and double check the info (translating it from German) and 2) include other sources to ensure NPOV balance. Normally I would try to do that but I don't have much time currently. Volunteer Marek  18:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Help free Janusz Korczak: Polish NGO looking for family members

Please see [4] (sorry, Polish only at this point). Polish NGO that is trying to get his work released to public domain is looking for relatives, they only have a week (court order) to carry out this detective work. If you know anything about the Gołębiewski, Poniatowski or Majdaniuk families from Lublin region shortly after WWII, and can't read Polish, I'll be happy to translate more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Union of Lublin, Constitution of May 3, 1791 - the language

At that time Polish, Latin and Ruthenian were used, certainly not Lithuanian, so quoting the Lithuanian name in the lead is POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I have replaced the dead link to the Polish text. Was it really the original and only one language of the Union? An English translation is needed.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lithuanian statutes were written in Ruthenian, but Lithuanian must also have been used, if the May 3 Constitution, over 200 years later, was still translated into Lithuanian. Written Lithuanian existed from at least 1547. The 1588 Lithuanian statutes (and later Grand Duchy documents) were still written in Ruthenian, so Polish could not have been the "only one language" of the Union. Orczar (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Please find the Ruthenian text of the Union treaty or a source it existed. Please comment which names of the Union should be listed in the lead - either historical ones (Polish, Ruthenian) or modern (Polish, Ukrainina, Belarus, Lithuanian).Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
What about Jewish languages? They existed long before the Union.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Both texts should be hosted at wikisource. I am surprised pl wikisource does not have the text, it is public domain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The leads of both article are probably too long and quote several sources. They should rather summarize the articles WP:LEAD .Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The length of both leads is fine. CM3 is an A-class article, and the sources in lead were deemed necessary, as the claim in question is controversial and caused several talk discussions. For the Union, they probably should be removed, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Why an A-class article contains a Lithuanian name in the lead but not Belarus, Ukrainian or Jewish?
Four sources stating the same - aren't they too many? Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not, as the issue(s) was ignored by GA, A and FA-class reviewers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a former FA. Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
That's ancient history, much more recently this article has been improved to modern GA/A-class standards (which go way way beyond the old FA ones). I cannot make this article FA as I lack the required English prose skills (hint to anyone with such skills reading this...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've compiled some information at commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright. Feel free to add, improve and discuss! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That's really useful, thanks Piotrus. Perhaps we should put a link to that on our project page? Volunteer Marek  18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that's a good idea. I hope people will help refine it, I am sure the text can be made more clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, nobody else seems willing to contribute, so I am going to add it to our main page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

World War II casualties of Poland

Please contribute.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Rape during the liberation of Poland

Gawrony Castle, Lower Silesian Voivodeship

I have trouble confirming it ever existed, through I doubt it is a hoax. As I note on Talk:Gawrony Castle, there was a palace in Gawronki, and another palace ina different Gawrony village. Can anybody find and add a ref confirming this palace exists in or near Gawrony, Lower Silesian Voivodeship? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dworypalace.travel.pl/?p=1699 Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
http://dolny-slask.org.pl/entity.action?view=&id=512329 Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of references in German: [6], [7]. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, could you translate the relevant parts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The first link which has photos of the building in the painting states the current building was built in 1906. The other link is basically the original German the English article was written from. Note this is a Schloß, a manor house (stately home) not a castle (fortification). In neither of the text is it clear if a castle was ever on the knight's estate. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The first link seems to incorrectly attribute the location of the village/castle to Wołów County. If the article is literal on the translation of the second source, than it is a copyvio and should be deleted :( Also, I think we should move the article to Gawrony Palace, and replace instances of word castle with palace. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Władysław Raginis

Władysław Raginis, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Polish Exodus from Eastern Europe

I have started Polish Exodus from Eastern Europe in User:Xx236/sandbox. The idea comes from the German exodus from Central and Eastern Europe. I'm aware of several problems, eg. the name Exodus, but if the German article exists, a Polish one should exist, too.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'd recommend aiming for T:TDYK when you are done. It's easy, just ensure above-stub size and enough inline refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please find more sources per WP:NOR that actually use the term "Polish Exodus from Eastern Europe" as oppose to "dramatic reduction" or "transfer" or "genocide" etc. Here's a mention you can use also: Thomas Lane (2005), Victims of Stalin and Hitler: The Exodus of Poles and Balts to Britain. Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 1403932204.

Poeticbent talk 15:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Flight and expulsion of Poles from the USSR.Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Keret House image

Hello. If anyone here lives in Warsaw, I would be grateful for them to take a drive to "22 Chłodna Street and 74 Żelazna Street" and take a picture of the Worlds narrowest house called "Keret House". It is between a pre-war home and an apartment block. I doubt someone will take a picture but either way, thanks! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I posted your request to pl wiki: pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Ogólne#Pro.C5.9Bba_o_zdj.C4.99cie_.28Warszawa.29. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

pl:Anty-Katyń needs en: version, maybe shorter than the original

Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that 70% of the content of pl:Anty-Katyń is in article Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919–1924). (Exaggerrated numbers of Soviet POW captured by Poland and their deaths/suffering has been a "And you are lynching Negroes" justification of Stalin's Katyn ) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Władysław Raginis and Heinz Guderian

From the Talk page: Guderian ordering killing of POW's (?!?!) This seems contradictory to absolutely everything written about Guderian by scholars and historians. Given that the source cited is a newspaper, as opposed to a history book or scholarly journal article, I am removing it until better sources can be found. 130.111.252.52

Are there any sources supporting the story? Battle of Wizna quotes Williamson. pl:Władysław Raginis: W polskiej historiografii istnieje niepotwierdzony przekaz. Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I replied at Talk:Władysław_Raginis#Guderian_ordering_killing_of_POW.27s_.28.3F.21.3F.21.29. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oder–Neisse line has been recentry partially rewritten

No former discussion.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC) The article needs sources - due to East Prussia's strategic position that allegedly undermined the defense of Poland.[citation needed] (alleged !).Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's C-class. It's expected to have errors, and be incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help

User talk:Anna Frodesiak#zmiana nazwy

Please respond to this editor if you can. Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Poland - problems

The article should be checked. I have just corrected several basic errors - 1989 elections weren't free, the name of the daily is Gazeta Polska Codziennie, Gazeta Polska being a weekly. I'm not sure but Gazeta Polska Codziennie is probably a tabloid. Father Rydzyk's media aren't mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's C-class. It's expected to have errors, and be incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tadeusz Rydzyk and articles about his media are outdated

Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Of the 73182 articles in this project 14633 or 20.0 % are marked for cleanup, with 18641 issues in total." No need to report specific tags here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Polish-American vote

There has been tremendous growth in this page, and it is now about 40,000kbytes long. It has pictures and significant research that I think can do well if it was translated. Can anyone translate or start the request for this page to be translated into Polish? I'm confident that a lot of people would love to read this page.--Votevotevote2012 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Oberstradam Castle

Anybody can figure out the Polish name for this article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Władysław Sikorski

I am done rewriting this article, now in our B-class review queue. I've also written 1943 B-24 crash in Gibraltar and Sikorski's death controversy - feel free to check them out! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The movie and the TV series were produced by the same team. Why have you removed the series?Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Because this claim was unreferenced. This is B-class article now, and GA in the future, please don't add unreferenced information. Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Białystok

I had some time on my hands so I translated the Polish-Soviet War Battle of Białystok from PL:WP and added the correct Infobox. Feel free to add any tidbits you might have with citations. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I don't like the language. During the battle, among others used several armored trainsXx236 (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It was more of a question asking if anyone happen to have some additional sources with further details that they could add before I finished cleaning up the article. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
And I'm asking if the article is written in standard English. is located in the center of the street - which street? I don't see any reason to support a mess.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GLADYSZOW

I have imported a very clear cancellation of this village, in the Gorlice County for Klein catalog. See the page "Postmarks of Poland, 1850-1919". Despite searches, I see no trace of it in Articles in Wikipedia English. For Google, the village is now in Novy Sacz county. Finally, I found it in Polish and Dutch (only!).

Gładyszów where?

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are requesting the translation of pl:Gładyszów? to Gładyszów? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I added the image to commonscat: .Staszek Lem (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Gładyszów.

Good practice in referencing (seeking consensus)

Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references as a standard for Polish-themed articles, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in Poland-themed article for input on this. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. Here's an example of what LDR means in practice: [8]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not against this sort of additional formatting. However, I work with inline citations a lot more often when adding new material because of convenience. By the same token, when sources are book-long and truly reliable I prefer using Template:Sfn rather than WP:LDR because it allows me to mark different pages in the same book with no effort. By comparison, in bigger articles for example, LDR's tend to obscure the content of ext. source behind a criptic "name" which means nothing, making scrutiny more difficult... I have to go to the bottom of the article to see what it's worth, or use Ctrl+F (Find on this Page) function of Internet Explorer to locate the reference hidden below main copy. It's the pain in the ass sometimes, however, the only real concern for me, is always the actual quality of external source cited. Poeticbent talk 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another case study: if you think LDR format is better, please consider restoring my edit at University of Warsaw: [9]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lech Wałęsa ... better known in English as Lech Walesa" in lede, again

Again an editor, a different one this time, has targeted Lech Wałęsa for anglicisation here. Why do they do this to the former President of Poland but not to Charlotte Brontë or Renée Zellweger? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This idiocy has already been reverted, thanks for reporting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with refs for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Szczecin pasty

An editor submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Szczecin pasty to AFC; however, we're not sure if this meets WP:Notability because none of the reviewers read Polish. Can someone check this out, maybe add a proper footnote or two so this can be published? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The "pasty" translation is wrong, however, Polish Pasztecik deserves an article on its own. It is a variety of spring roll, wrapped in a wheat flour crêpe, but softer... not as crispy as the Chinese chūn juǎn. The city of Szczecin though is not a part of it, and could only be mentioned in passing as one of varieties. — Pasztecik in Polish Wikipedia is a redirect, but you can find its recipie in endless Google results.[10]. Poeticbent talk 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, actually you're wrong. "Pasztecik szczeciński" is a much different thing from the Polish "pasztecik". It doesn't come from Poland, but from the Soviet Union and is a very strange and interesting cultural phenomenon. It does have its own article on Polish Wikipedia: [11], and is clearly notable because of being: 1) such strange thing from the viewpoint of the history of culture (Soviet influence in the formerly German Polish city etc.; an example of fastfood in communist states, like zapiekanka, but even more interesting because of its military provenience) 2) a unique example of creating new Polish traditions on the formerly German territories - and they totally lack their own regional things ,espescially culinary things 3) being commonly known in Pomerania and even listed on the official state "traditional products" list - which means that it is officially protected by European Union law 4) being really good. Laforgue (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I've expanded it somewhat. It would be interesting to find more information about its (Russian?) roots. The original dish is probably a form of pirozhki, but I'm not sure. The pasztecik machines are a bit misty to me, the seem to be produced in Ukraine... Laforgue (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
pl:Pasztecik szczeciński seems notable, it has articles on pl and de wikis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't found any source supporting alleged Wiesbaden paszteciki. Maybe the local name is different.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The machine was designed to produce Pirozhki. Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution in Poland

Rating added, and no, escort agency is not the same thing as a brothel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't written about escort agency outside Poland but about pl:Agencja towarzyska Nazwy agencja towarzyska, w eufemistycznym znaczeniu, używają w Polsce, domy publiczne i inne – legalne lub nie – przedsięwzięcia oferujące usługi prostytutek which means that operating brothels is prohibited but they work under cover-names. Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Polish minority was allowed to use bilingual street signs

Poles in Sapotskin consist the majority in the town. Is it possible to change the above phrase to Polish majority was allowed to use bilingual street signs?Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Zakerzonia

I just became aware of the article and the category Category:Zakerzonia which is a redlink but nevertheless is populated by various villages in eastern Poland. I haven't checked all articles so categorized, but those I did check didn't mention Zakerzonia (except for the category itself). I have reverted some of those. The categorization was part of an effort by 87.210.232.221 who also added Ukrainian names to multiple Polish villages. I've reverted some of those (villages bordering Belarus, not Ukraine, for example), but I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell whether his edits should all be reverted or wether some are worth keeping. A review by an expert would be helpful. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

According to article in Polish Wikipedia and one of its external sources,[12] Zakerzonia is a fairly new term, created by OUN-UPA in World War II, and at present, it is used mostly for political actions by Ukrainian nationalists who demand that Poland give it up. I also noticed that 87.210.232.221 added Ukrainian names to cities and towns of southern Poland which have never had any sizable Ukrainian minority (or any shared history) including Piwniczna-Zdrój and Krynica-Zdrój. Please keep your eyes open. Poeticbent talk 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly help if you could cite sources of impeccable neutrality rather than Polish ones, especially paper articles. It's other people's business what they do with the term Zakerzonia, but since the corresponding article is a part of the English Wikipedia, this topic is supposed to be neutral and there's nothing wrong with making an inventory of places belonging to the area. As for Piwniczna-Zdrój area that has to do nothing with Ukrainians according to you, I can only wonder how all those Ukrainians managed to be deported from that vicinity without ever having lived there. Finally, the very word північна (piwniczna) is the feminine singular form of the Ukrainian adjective meaning northern. The corresponding Polish word is północna. Why on earth would Poles use Ukrainian words as Polish place names? 87.210.232.221 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You call those pepople Ukrainians, they call themselves Lemkos. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Poeticbent's source is a newspaper article reporting on an Ukrainian demonstration, a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It's definitely more neutral than the organizations of deported Ukrainians. It doesn't mention Zakerzonia, though. If you want to claim that the likes of Piwniczna-Zdrój had a significant Ukrainian past that justifies inclusion of the Ukrainian name in the article, and that it was (or is) commonly associated with Zakerzonia, please present truly reliable sources that explicitly say so. I haven't seen such a source for any of your edits I checked. Without such a source, there are issues of undue weight for the Ukrainian names, and categories per WP:CAT must be supported by the article text, which in turn must be supported by reliable sources. Huon (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Zakerzonia literally means "Behind the Curzon Line" (Za-Kerzon-ia) which consists of pre-WWII Polish lands east to the joint Soviet-Nazi demarcation line. In September 1939, after the military defeat of Poland, the Soviet Union annexed all territories east of the Curzon Line. The name does not need to be specifically mentioned by the press because everybody knows what's going on with the Ukrainian Far-right politics these days. Poeticbent talk 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Minority living in Podlachia was classified as Belarus in PRL. There exists however a border region between Belarus and Ukrainian ethnicities and some former Belarus people declared to be Ukrainian after 1989.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Piwniczna Zdrój and Krynica-Zdrój may belong to Lemkivshchyna. There is however unclear if Lemkos want to be Ukrainian nationalists. Lemko painter Nikifor was born in Krynica. Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You can define Category:Zakerzonia and we'll define Category:Kresy and Category:South-Western Kresy (or something). I'm not sure if the majority of readers will be happy.Xx236 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the Józef Piłsudski Institute of America, NY

Please see the announcement at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedian_in_Residence_at_the_J.C3.B3zef_Pi.C5.82sudski_Institute_of_America.2C_NY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

New Polish-speaking enthnos of Balts

Check this. It seems that new ethnic groups may be found not only in jungles of Borneo :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that this is a bit of a hoax.VolunteerMarek 08:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Russian people by occupation

There is a porposal to merge Category:Imperial Russian people by occupation to Category:Russian people by occupation. Since much of Poland was within the Russian Empire, and many Poles in the arts gravitated to Moscow or St. Petersburg to advance their careers and worked within the general culture of the Russian Empire, this has the potential to effect how we categorize many articles related to Poland. Your participation in the CfD will be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the arguments that has been used to oppose the (sensible) merger proposal is that Poles born in Congress Poland would somehow be happier being called "Imperial Russians" instead of simply "Russians". I doubt many would be happy with either, so I would urge a wider audience to consider these issues. cwmacdougall 06:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is HERE. cwmacdougall 06:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Belarusian resistance during World War II and Belarusian partisans

Both articles inform about Polish resistance in Belarus. They should be probably included in the scope of the WikiProject Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to tag them with WPPOLAND or the Polish taskforce for milhist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jagiellon dynasty

Is this name sourced? If yes - the article should be rewritten, because it starts with The Jagiellonian dynasty.Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC) There is however the Jagiellonian University.Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, "Jagiellonian" is the far more common usage. Daniel Stone also uses this form in his (widely hailed) seminal work on Poland-Lithuania, e.g.,"Zygmunt August's death in 1572 concluded the reign of the Jagiellonian dynasty that united Poland and Lithuania in 1386." I'm up to my eyeballs but would support a request for rename if filed at the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The article lacks sources since 2006. References include a Lithuanian forum and Jagiellonian University Observatory. Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
True, not a very good showing for the the dynasty responsible for the birth of Poland-Lithuania. Might be a nice small project for after the holidays to fix up refs... :-) I'll dig out my copy of Stone. I think we could rename the article without any bru-ha-ha, but I'll post there. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick google books search suggests Jagiellonian is 2x as popular as Jagiellon (~900 to ~450). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Good call. An article tagged with the ongoing NPOV conflict should not be OTD. I changed it, feel free to monitor Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 7 and see if there is any further discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Restoring Polandball

As some of you may remember, an article on Polandball, created by Russavia (talk · contribs), was deleted a while back following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball. I have not participated in that AfD, as IIRC I was still under some form of interaction ban with Russavia, but while I found his judgement in creating this article questionable, I do think that it is an a notable Internet meme, and I might have voted keep. Anyway, I think it may be worth discussing whether we should not have this article restored. Note it exists on simple:Polandball and even on pl wiki (pl:Polandball); there is also a commons:Category:Polandball, which I think is overpopulated (as someone seems to be using Commons as their personal host for Polandball images...), but that's a different issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A long time ago I nominated the Russian article for deletion, but the content of this article (translated on a million wikipedias now) has much improved and I now believe Polandball is at least as notable as Advice Polack. Would love to hear more opinions from native Polish netizens about either article and the sources they are using. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the other one is particularly notable either. Just more internet stupidity, which, according to sources, already ruined the life of one person. Why should Wikipedia take part in these kinds of fucked up endeavors, especially given the pretty blatant BLP issues involved? Honestly, John, you really should know better.VolunteerMarek 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Becaus Wikipedia is not censored, even when it is ethical for it to consider that. (see also Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the David Rohde media blackout story is relevant. If anything it suggests that sound editorial judgement and common sense and decency are more important than justifying inclusion of any ol' junk on "not censored" grounds.Volunteer Marek 05:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It is internet stupidity, but thats popular culture. Like it or not, it is part of the world we live in.
The article has been deleted and now restored, and I would appreciate some uninvolved people to weigh in at Talk:Advice_Polack on the reliability of the sources on the article that are being contested. I understand that NIE for example is considered to have a significant bias at an editorial level, but have yet to see any rational argument that their article about this meme is not reliable. Also other sources, such as an interview with TVN24, are being contested and removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
NIE is not just "considered to have a significant bias at an editorial level", it's considered a gutter tabloid. In the particular article you are trying to use for Wikipedia they are basically trolling the poor guy; presenting the story as "this is popular culture and the world we live in, hence newsworthy", while the whole time trying to get him to say one of those "Advice Polack" things for laughs. Sound familiar? The interview with TVN24 is not being contested on RS grounds but rather on BLP grounds. There is a living person involved here after all, he is the subject of this meme, and his life has already been negatively affected by it. I do plan on putting the article up for AfD sometime soon.Volunteer Marek 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see if this article would be notable enough for pl wiki, alas I don't have time to spend on this subject myself. I think it is probably notable, but care must be taken to remove BLP parts (which, to be frank, is not much - just avoid giving the guy's name in the article, it's not that important anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The only printed source is a 2010 article in "Gazeta Wyborcza". How many other "GW" articles have given birth to en Wikipedia articles? Do you know any? A recent subject in GW is the critic of Polish Wikipedia.
The "Przegląd" article is misquoted, it's about several memes and the alleged (sub)title is a title of a 10-lines paragraph.
I don't know anything about the notability of the quoted internet portals, I don't read them.
Writing about bashing dump Polacks with giant swastika - a notable subject for WikiProjectPoland. Let's discuss also memes written in public toilets with pictures and ststistics.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If [13] is notable, why only Polandball? Let's write about all 8 local memes.Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarusian nobility

Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Wesołych Świąt to you all!

Just sayin' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia to all of you. :) - Darwinek (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Wesołych Świąt oraz Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku! Poeticbent talk 17:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hej, Wesołych Świąt, Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku i wszelkiej pomyślności dla wszystkich.Volunteer Marek 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Banner of Stanisław II of Poland.svg

This banner is erroneus. We know only the Royal Banner of Sigismund III [14]. Stanisław II August Poniatowski has no Order of the Golden Fleece. Mathiasrex (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

National Democracy

There's a fresh dispute arising at the National Democracy (Narodowa Demokracja) article. user:Estlandia insists on labelling the movement as "extreme far-right" and of "promoting anti-Jewish dictatorship", citing selectively g-books sources. For any sane person dealing with Polish history, that's more than a gross overstatement. Please feel free to voice your opinion on article's talk page. - Darwinek (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A bit amusing, I wonder if he knows that Endecja parties supported creation of Israel and provided Jewish organization with military and training. Had experience with the user before. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Endecja wasn't able to provide Jewish organization with military and training under Sanacja (1926-1939). Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Geographical names change

Hello. Effective 1/1/2013 there are (as usual) a lot of changes regarding the village names in Poland. See e.g. this article. It would be good if we could use some bot to facilitate the changes. - Darwinek (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait for a bit first. The number is still growing, from 149 (mentioned above) to 158, so they need to make up their mind some time, and give us a document to go by. [15] Poeticbent talk 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"the most prestigous"

Hi, I removed SOME of the weasel wording from Warsaw School of Economics article, but an IP reverted it. I don't want to rollback even once, not to enter an edit war, and to stay away from a COI. However, I would like to kindly request any editor passing by to glance and intervene. In my view, stating about any school that it is the "most prestigious" without any sources is basically an overstatement and weasel wording (hello, we don't write so of Harvard...). Additionally, all recent major rankings (the Financial Times, as well as the local Polish ones) point to another school as taking the lead in quality (but naturally, I do not advocate praising the other one neither, just saying). Pundit|utter 06:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The other school is Kozminski University.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming of geographic objects named after people

Poniatowski Bridge, Piłsudski Square, etc. But what about street names? Sienkiewicz Street or Sienkiewicza Street? There seem no consistency in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take into account search results, and follow the going standard, meaning, reliable third-party sources preferably in the English web literature (as oppose to attempts at translation by Polish webmasters only). Google maps are also a good place to start, because they are practical and user-friendly. But most importantly, use the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) guideline. It says in section Use English: If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name." Poeticbent talk 18:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

From an article talk page of Sienkiewicz Street, Kielce moved 26 January 2013 from Sienkiewicza Street, Kielce:

  • Sienkiewicza St., Kielce, Southern Poland - www.travelpod.com
  • Sienkiewicza Street - Kielce Poland - www.mapofpoland.net
  • Sienkiewicza St., Kielce - www.tripadvisor.ca
  • Sienkiewicza Street, Poland - www.booking.com
  • Kielce Sienkiewicza Street - www.grhotels.com
I think, the original title was better represented. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ulica Sienkiewicza means Sienkiewicz's street, street of Sienkiewicz. It is like Poniatowski Bridge, most Poniatowskiego, Piłsudski Square, and so on. Various geographic aggregators are brainless and not a valid reference. Anyway, it is a common issue, and I am posting a question at WP Poland. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My answer also concerns google maps. These all use brainless conversion "<cosik tamo> XXXXiego" -> "XXXXiego <some thingy>" and surely this has nothing to do with "is more often used in English sources", because bot translators are not "sources" (or are they? God save wikipedia, and its WP:RS then). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The general advice about titles does to take into acoount native language grammar intricacies, and they must be resolved by native speakers, whoi know how their language is mangled in English. Therefore I posted the question to this board for considertation. It is not incidentally that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) has country-specific subsections, and I suggest condireding theclarification of the issue, since, as I said, there is inconsisitency in wikipedia. Why the heck "English sources" would be bothered with consistent naming of "Ulica Wujka Staszka" in Stare Spodniczki? It must be settled by wikipedians in guidelines, otherwise there will be plenty of useless discussions. (unless we all subdue to the opinion of www.booking.com ) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. I'd like to notice I dont' favor any convention. It is quite possible that, eg, squares and bridges are to be named "XXXski Square", but streets are named "XXXskiego Street". But there must be consistency. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer Sienkiewicz Street to Sienkiewicza Street. In some case, original name may be better - Aleje Ujazdowskie, not Ujazdowskie Alleys (although I see it redirects to Ujazdów Avenue, hmmm). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Fladry

The English term seems to come form Polish. However, its grammatical form (espescially grammatical number) is dubious for me. Perhaps "fladry barrier" or "fladry line" is a better name for this article. "Fladry barrier" seems to be common in Google results.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.102.71 (talk • contribs) 04:38, January 13, 2013

I never heard anything similar in Polish, other than Flądra, Polish for flounder. I see pl:Fladry, but... shrug. If there is no English name for this, leave it. We don't invent names; encyclopedias educate, don't invent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If anything, this article should be renamed into fladra. Such a term exists in the Polish language, but I doubt if it is encyclopedic. Tymek (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

September Eleven 1683

The article September Eleven 1683 was posted for deletion as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September Eleven 1683. Editors, especially those who can assess Polish-language sources, are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those of you who have commented at the AfD, thank you. I also wanted to ask, what language is the film? IMDb says English, but I have a hard time believing that because there is a lack of English-language media coverage about this film. Can someone verify the film's spoken language from one of the Polish-language sources? Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As you can see in the official Polish trailer here, the film is in English (with Polish subtitles in Poland). I guess the decision to shoot in English was made in order to reach a wider audience worldwide, but it doesn't seem to have helped much. — Kpalion(talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That works for me! Have restored the language field. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) If you need secondary sources, here's what dziennik.pl (I hope it qualifies as a reliable source) wrote: Nieudolny, budzący nawet nie śmiech, lecz politowanie produkt, w którym marnują się dobrzy aktorzy, osobliwie zmuszeni do mówienia po angielsku, choć anglojęzyczny z urodzenia jest jedynie grający Marca F. Muray Abraham ("A poorly executed product, provoking not even laughter, but only sympathy, where good actors are wasted, bizarrely made to speak English, even though the only native English speaker there was F. Muray Abraham playing Marco" - my translation). — Kpalion(talk) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This is perhaps the worst review this movie has ever received... others' are a bit better. It is a Polish-Italian co-production. I have no idea if it's really that bad, considering some 10,000 extras and 3,000 horses. Poeticbent talk 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie either, but the trailer is enough to convince me that it fails miserably at least on historical accuracy, a minimum of which I would expect from an epic historical movie. — Kpalion(talk) 07:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Zamoyski Family Fee Tail

The new article, and possible DYK nomination, Zamoyski Family Fee Tail. Help is much appreciated, I will be more than happy to share the DYK credit. Thanks in advance. Tymek (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this nice article, although it is not eligible for DYK due to numerous unreferenced paragraphs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of it, thats why I'm hoping somebody will help out with it. I will also be working on the article, but my time as always is so limited. Tymek (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wałbrzych County has been divided into the city and new county

Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Kupath Rabbi Meir Baal Haness notable?

A Jewish-Polish charity. Any thoughts on it notability? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Did you ask at WP:Judaism? - Darwinek (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This charity is not associated with Poland anymore, but it has global recognition. The "Kollel Polin" supported Polish immigrants, and carried the name of the miracle worker Rabbi Meir. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an incredibly large amount of information about the kolelim in older literature, and Kolel Polin is/was one of the most prominent of them, so I have no doubt that it is notable. The kolelim were, in a sense, the highest rung in the political hierarchy of the Yishuv haYashan.
Kolel Polin in particular is still quite influential (controversially) in modern-day Chareidi politics, particularly in Jerusalem, where it is at the center of an ongoing feud between Gur and the Jerusalem Kanaim regarding Batei Warsaw (article created by the same COI editor as this one).
There are two major problems here, though:
  1. This article was written as a blatant advertisement, as discussed a few months go at the COI noticeboard
  2. The article's name is unjust; all of the dozen or so kolelim are formally called Kupath Rabbi Meir Baal Haness: "the fund of Rabbi Meir Baal haNes" is nothing more than a glorified name for "charity for the Jews of Israel".
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say that? It played quite an important part in the history of the Jews in Poland, as did the collecting branches of all kolelim in their respective homeland domains (Hibat Yerushalayim in Galicia; Shomrei haHomot in Hungary; etc.). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 13:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably one of the two most famous RMBH (Rabbi Meier Ba'al Haness) charities, along with "Shomrei HaChomos". -- Avi (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps some of you could add the notability and importance claims to the article's lead? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep because it is WP:NOTABLE but regrettably as is often the case when it first gets posted it is not in its best form. It can be improved. As with all subjects connected with Haredi Judaism sources are hard to come by on the web since they spurn the Internet. Be patient. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Szlachectwo a nie

Szanowne pany i panie i panny i paniczki i paniulki,

I have recently accidentally run into a vast teritory in Polish heraldry uncharted in en:wp. I started with several nanostubs (Vituperatio nobilitatis, heraldic adoption, heraldic family) to link them from some places, but quickly understood that there is much to dig, both in depth and breadth, and in time :-). And meanwhile I stumbled upon a rather messed up article "Polish clans", which seems to confuse the concepts of rod (gens/clan, but not exactly) and pl:rod herbowy. Just bringing to your attention. - Altenmann >t 06:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick note: please notify User:Halibutt and ask him to comment here, he has done a lot of work on those subjects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG

The map presents German POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there was an earlier discussion on this map (or a similar one?) somewhere on the English Wikipedia, but I can't find it right now. According to an opinion in a discussion at the German Wikipedia at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Elian/Archiv/2009/Mai, the map is seriously problematic original research ("Sammelsurium aller möglichen Gebiete, von denen in irgendeinem Werk mal die Rede davon war, dass dort auch Deutschsprachige lebten" - "collection of all sorts of areas for which some work mentioned that German speakers lived there") by an editor who was banned on the German Wikipedia for inappropriate contributions regarding the SS and Austria. On the other hand, someone pointed at a similar map from a reliable source. Overall, there was no agreement that the map is seriously defective.
The map probably has a German POV in the sense that it is interested in where German was spoken at all in a significant way and not in where other languages dominated. That alone makes it inappropriate (at least without very careful contextualising, but maybe even then) for an article on Poland or the Polish language, but doesn't disqualify it from use on an article on the German language. (In my opinion it needs more disclaimers there than it has at the moment.) The main problem with this map is that it's both original research and essentially irreplaceable for didactic reasons. This is a general problem with maps used on Wikipedia. Most of them are somewhere between original research and a copyright violation, but we still use them because they are irreplaceable.
The map is hosted on Commons, so cannot be deleted here. Are you concerned about the way it is used on the English Wikipedia? Hans Adler 10:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The "similar map" shows what I have written below - that the "German language" was a group of dialects. It's something different than this map with one color.Xx236 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: Apparently prior discussions were primarily concerned with the original version of the map, which differs most obviously in that it also includes the Dutch speaking area. There has been a lot of discussion on Commons at commons:File talk:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG. Hans Adler 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that only this discussion contains 51,849 bytes. I didn't like the Ruhr area presentation - a mixture of minorities in 1910.Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the map shouldn't have the entire Ruhr area as German speaking for that time? I am not an expert for the Ruhr area, but I suspect that that part is actually correct within the logic of this kind of map. The German Wikipedia says that in 1910 (I think there was a census in that year) there were 1/2 million Ruhr Poles (Poles, Upper Silesians and Masurians) in the Ruhr area, out of 3 million. That should have been enough to make up the majority in some areas, but probably not enough to make an area monolingual. On a corresponding map for Polish I would expect to see most of the Ruhr area marked as significantly Polish speaking at the time.
Anyway, as far as I have understood those discussions, the map isn't really from 1910 anyway, but is from a variety of sources reaching well into the 1930s, when some of the Ruhr Poles had already fled and the others were thoroughly assimilated by force. I really wouldn't expect this particular map to handle such issues according to any scientific principle. As it is the product of an enthusiast layman who apparently is also a nationalist, we really have to put disclaimers concerning any and all details wherever we put it. But we need something like this map to give an overall impression of where German was spoken before the Nazis, as most people nowadays simply have no or completely wrong ideas of that, even in Germany. Hans Adler 13:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not only about Poles, Ruhr says (no source) that 140 nations lived there.Xx236 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt that, but I suspect that the Ruhr Poles were by far the largest group and one of at most a few that managed to maintain their ethnic identity for a substantial amount of time. My first reaction to many Polish names is, "Oh, it's a German from the Ruhr area". And that's after many fled from the Nazis. Conversely, while lots of people in that area have standard German last names, a 'typical' one will always be Polish. But I don't know why I am trying to defend this map. It's original research anyway. I really wish we had something to replace it. The only thing I can say in favour of it is that it appears plausible to me as a map of the area where German was spoken to a significant extent (not necessarily as the majority language) in the late 1930s (not: 1910!). It is mostly consistent with the map of the connected German-speaking area that is used for the dialect maps in dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache (1978), a reputable mainstream work. I have no way of verifying the various isolated spots from that work, though, as it is not interested in them. Hans Adler 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have quoted several your statements on the Dutch Wikipedia, I hope you don't mind.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't mind. Found them. Thanks for telling me. Hans Adler 09:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In 1897 in Congress Poland (partly assimilated) Germans were forming 4,2% of population, and were highly dispersed in a large territory. In Volynhian Gubernya there were at the same time 171000 Germans, roughly 5% of the population. In Galicia Germans were higly polonized or ruthenized, and the actual seize of the German population was negligible. In the North East (Lithuania, Belarus) the number of Germans was very small. So, this map is trash. Laforgue (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering it is widely spread on other wikis, I wonder if it shouldn't be deleted... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The map is incorrectly described in many Wikipedias, sometimes as 1930, sometimes as 1945.
The map doesn't show one language - it shows a spectrum of languages or dialects (but not Yddish nor Dutch).Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I wrote only about Russian census data, because (in the case of Germans, but not Poles or Ukrainians) they seem to be correct. However, German census (1905 and other of the era...) is so clearly falsified (according to its reaserchers), that it by no means can be a source for such map. Laforgue (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I've seen similar maps online ([16]), I really can't see how this map is supposed to be so deeply flawed. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You map comes from "Brockhaus Konversations-Lexikon 1901", which means end of 19 Century data. And the discussed map is being signed as 1930 or even 1945. Your map doesn't show mixture of nations in Ruhr. Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that "I've seen similar stuff online" is an argument of substance.Volunteer Marek 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
To paraphrase it, other maps look like the disputed one. No-one has pointed out, what should be wrong with that image. The initial concern (″The map presents German POV.″) looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Many people commented the map in several places, eg. commons:File talk:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG. As far the main argument is "I like it". It exists and it's didactic, like any propaganda is. BTW the map doesn't show German speaking people in Estonia, strange. Generally people accept stories describing foreign lands but refuse to accept the same stories about their lands. This map has a "Dutch is German" version rejected by Dutch people. Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with accepting German heritage in Estonia, as e.g. shown on one of the maps I googled yesterday that includes Estonia and its German minority (here it is). As for Dutch, it is generally accepted that it developed from one of the Low German dialects, as even reflected on this DE-WP map [17]. There might be other theories, though, that may or may not fit better with the 'Poland über alles' sentiment. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss on your level. You reject all German language critics and use "'Poland über alles'" argument. Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Or it looks like... the fact that it represents German (19th century, nationalistic, to be precise) POV. Is there any modern maps? Not from before WWII? Volunteer Marek 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Once more, if the map is 'POV' then it must contain flaws. None have been presented so far. All arguments presented so far against the map boil down to WP:WEDONTLIKEIT.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
First flaw: German Warsaw. Second flaw: Something like 1/4 of Mazovia. Third flaw: it's based on falsified censuses. Fourth flaw: mixing data from various years (in Greater Poand over half of Germans migratedn to Germany in the 1920s) Laforgue (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Any sources to substantiate your assumptions? Preferably based on non-PRL, non-ND sources.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The map contains old nationalistic propaganda and is POV sourced, but Miacek has decided, causa finita. No such article could be tolerated but a map is different. Is it?

Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Miacek, it's actually up to you to prove that a piece of nationalistic POV original research is not original research, not on others to show that it's flawed. Second, please don't try to poison the well with strawman arguments about PRL or ND sources (on this topic there's generally nothing wrong with post 1950's PRL sources, which is why Western sources use them extensively). Has anyone here brought in a PRL or "ND" (wtf that is) source? No? Then why are you bringing it up, except as a cheap and inappropriate rhetorical tactic? You keep complaining about these kinds of sources but they are not actually used anywhere much, if at all. So drop it.
Anyway, compare that map to this map [18]. See the difference? As Hans has pointed out IF that original map was a map of where German was spoken by ... someone, then it might pass that test. But it's certainly not a map of "Historical German linguistic areas".Volunteer Marek 18:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Báthory

Will you please look here: Talk:Stephen Báthory#Election of Successor

PerV (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns over a historical map

At Template:Did you know nominations/First Battle of Warsaw (1794). I guess we could use a third opinion there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Na mapie jest Praga, nie Warszawa. W publikacji źródłowej mapy (strona 361, [19]) też jest opisane jako Praga. Treść książki na kilku ostatnich stronach, gdzie jest umieszczona ilustracja, mówi o rzezi Pragi, nie o pierwszym oblężeniu. Wydaje się więc jasne, że chodzi tu o drugą bitwę, więc ilustracja jest błędna w artykule o pierwszej. Laforgue (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Przeglądając książkę pomyliłem mapy, które są bardzo podobne. Odpowiednia jest na stronie 288 i podpisana jest "Plan oblężenia Warszawy". Wychodzi na to, że mapa jest odpowiednia, z miejscem mapy w książce zgadzają się informacje o pierwszej bitwie. "Podobna" mapa z drugiej bitwy też jest na Commons: [20]. Laforgue (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Mount St. Anne notable?

It seems to be missing from pl:Góra Świętej Anny (ujednoznacznienie). Could still be notable, although the current substub hardly makes the case. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Better name for Crime in Gąsawa?

Please see Talk:Crime in Gąsawa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach

The article has been radically edited without a discussion. Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you were the one who edited the article to remove the fact that Rumia had been part of Germany for centuries, not just during the Nazi occupation, a fact you'd of course like to erase from history. PS. Canvassing on this page is getting out of control, it seems I have to consider countermeasures to this. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Expert, would you please read history of Rumia, in Poland till the division of Poland in 1772? The statement about "reannexed" lands in 1939 by Nazi Germany is Nazi. "In September and October 1939, SS and SD terrorized ethnic Polish and Jewish population. Most of the victims were either executed at a nearby mass execution site in Piaśnica (pl:Hipolit Roszczynialski) or sent to Stutthof concentration camp." Soldiers of the 207th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) and SS members murdered 18 people in Rumia 11-12 September 1939.[1]
Erika Steinbach isn't the right place to discuss who "reannexed" Rumia, it's a biographical article. Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ [21]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland/Archive_13&oldid=937796549"