Category talk:Gminas of Poland

Poland Category‑class

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Category This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Well, what we can see in Polish gminas. For example: Gmina Grunwald, but Gmina of Ostrówek, and even Brzozów Commune. Can we keep any standard? I'd like to propose: Gmina Xxxx, instead of "Gmina of Xxxx" or "Xxxx Commune" for all Polish gminas. Lajsikonik 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and am trying to tidy up some of the gmina-related pages on that basis.--Kotniski 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I feel that in principle, all articles titled Xxx Commune should be moved (renamed) to Gmina Xxx - then at least we would have some uniformity.--Kotniski 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of moving all Gmina/Commune articles to the subcategories, again to achieve some kind of uniformity. So see under the subcategories for more articles.--Kotniski 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, wouldn't it make more sense for these to be subcategorized by voivodeship, like we do for towns, counties, villages?--Kotniski 09:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a list of my proposals for these articles:

1. Articles about gminas should be named Gmina Xxx (with the exceptions below).
2. Where there are two identically named gminas, they should be distinguished using the tag , Zzz Voivodeship (using , Yyy County instead only if the voivodeship tag would still leave ambiguity). This is in line with what is done for towns and villages, but for some reason gminas are done differently at present (always using Yyy County to disambiguate).
3. Create 16 subcategories of this Category:Gminas of Poland entitled "Gminas of Zzz Voivodeship" (this also being a subcategory of Category:Zzz Voivodeship), and put the Gmina Xxx articles (and articles on towns which are gminy miejskie??) into those, instead of the present categories Urban/Urban-Rural/Rural gminas of Poland. (this is being done)

And of course someone should write a bot to import all the articles from Polish Wikipedia...:) --Kotniski 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (I now have one)[reply]

Seems good and consistent to me. I support this proposal. As for the gmina/comune issue, I support gmina. It is ok to use original naming, english wikipedia has already in use several other original non-english names, as "oblasts" for Russia. - Darwinek 20:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Gmina is preferable to Commune because while it is a foreign word, it doesn not give any misleading impressions like Commune can. The word Commune is used literally in several European countries for their smallest administrative subdivisions, but these are usually smaller than the Polish Gminas, corresponding to a single "community" (hence the name). For example in France which I'm familiar with, a Commune is equivalent to a single town or vilage, while in Poland it almost always contains several well-spaced, and not necessarily especially related villages. Deuar 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Gminas of Poland to Category:Municipalities of Poland – C2C Category:Municipalities, C2D Municipalities of Poland https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Poland.aspx TerraCyprus (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose speedy, the main article Gmina was controversially moved out of WP:RM process. In fact, I'm going to revert that move. No such user (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't "controversially moved" since no source had been given at all that "gmina" is English (WP:UE) while for the usage of the term "municipality" in English a source has been provided AND the majority of participants that discussed at Talk:Gmina agreed that "Gmina" is not a term to be used in English. User:No such user reverted without talking part in the discussions and may have violated WP:BRD and WP:POINT, since they stated "I'm not against this move on the merits (in fact, I slightly favor the move)". 77.191.251.111 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is, we only process Speedy cases C2D if it's conclusively right. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Fayenatic london why making up rules on the go? C2C and C2D were fully correct. 77.191.251.111 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Once a fair objection has been made to C2D, it's no longer uncontroversial. And now that the article has been moved back, C2D now conflicts with C2C. No-one is saying that the move can't happen, just that it needs a full discussion – either WP:RM or WP:CFD – rather than speedy. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is that fair obbjection? TerraCyprus (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an RM on the main article's talk page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose speedy per the ongoing RM but please create a redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The requested moved was closed as no consensus, so the main article remains at Gmina at this time. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]