Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

If anybody cares, they were removed. See commons:Commons:MONEY#Poland. If somebody has time to start writing and asking for permissions, that would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, they can still be used in specific articles with a fair-use rationale, so they just need to be uploaded to en.wiki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be so much better if we could secure a free license permission from the bank... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For years, Kraków (a Good article, similar to Białystok, also a Good article) had a stable and stand-alone section on Etymology, featuring old legend and the city's full official name. Other Polish cities have it also, including Bydgoszcz, Szczecin, Poznań, Wrocław, Warsaw, etc. Recently, User:SilkTork moved Etymology of Kraków down below History, as the last subsection of the city’s development through the ages. I reverted it back due to lack of consensus. What caught my attention also was his edit summary claiming incorrectly: “per guidelines Etymology should be in the History section”.[1] I checked, there are NO such guidelines. I also noticed that SilkTork has just created a new article called Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure using a summary suggesting that it is a new guideline (see article history). He did not consult anybody from WikiProject Cities about the content of his proposal yet. Needless to say, the issue of article layout needs to be addressed through community consultation, not a POV edit war. See my talk page for details. — Krakowski (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would concur with leaving it near the top of the article before History. Białystok is a good example to cite. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring the stand-alone section per your suggestions (Rome, Italy is another good example), but I'd like to stress also that User:SilkTork wrote a very good essay (above), which I hope would become a guideline one day in case anybody wants to contribute to its further development. — Krakowski (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Was finishing some cleanup up related a GA Review when I stumbled onto this redirect which I altered into an independent article. Other WPs had it as a standalone article, now EN:WP has one too. I nominated it for a DYK. I expect there might be some flames related to this one, so go ahead and vent your spleens. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh, never heard of this one, interesting. One thing though - is Ostrzanin in particular mentioned in Taras Bulba? If not, it's a bit of an unnecessary synthesis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is actually used as the basis for the end of the novel. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this article a little too short for DYK? Tymek (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is, char count gives me 1250 characters, so 250 short of minimum. Please expand it a little for the DYK, or it might be rejected.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a copy edit of the article and asked for a better translation of the quote (the present translation doesn't make much grammatical sense). Two things though - one, for DYK you should have every paragraph cited to a source (ten daryusz?), two, even if you're translating, it's still necessary to paraphrase the source. I don't think two is an issue here but there's a lot of hoopla about close paraphrasings on DYK currently so it's a good thing to keep in mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at [2], I would like to propose a simple rule for which (few) settlements (cities) can be top-importance: only settlements (towns) that are listed as capitals of top past or present administrative units (listed at Administrative divisions of Poland) can be top-importance. I am not sure how to justify not having all towns at high-importance, suggestions appreciated. With regards to villages, I'd suggest that no village can be more than a mid-importance, and mid-importance requires that the village is important to the region. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

According to family lore, my great-great-grandparents came to America from a place called Liegota in Poland. Ship records say they left a place called Elguth Prs... in Germany. I suspected they had come from the Prussian partition so thought, "Hey, Liegota kind of sounds like Elguth--maybe it's the same place and the Prs means Prussia." I went to wiki and found a disambiguation page listing about 10 Ligotas (almost all in Silesia). Which one is it? After a long and difficult time playing with Google Maps and search, I discovered a village called Ligota Prószkowska in Opole County. I go back to wiki, and sure enough, there is not only an article for Ligota Prószkowska it tells me that in German it is called Ellguth Proskau. I suspect I found the right village. If I didn't have the knowledge of Polish history that I do, I would have had no chance, but I almost missed it anyway.

I'm guessing (though I can't speak Polish) that the Proszkowska is referring to the fact that it's in the Proszkow Gmina and that locals simply call it "Ligota." So, why was Ligota Proszkowska not on the disambiguation page to begin with? It would have saved me a lot of time. Thinking it an oversight, I put Ligota Proszkowska on the Ligota page. Then I noticed that there are probably a dozen more Ligotas that aren't on the page because they have a modifier after them. I started to add them, but then I thought this is probably a common problem with Polish villages. Some have their Proskowskas and some don't. Only the ones that don't make it on the disambiguation page, but this makes searching more difficult for people who only have the one name.

Anyway, is this a problem worth addressing? I know I don't have the time or knowledge to work on it. I also wanted to put in the plug for having that German: Ellguth Proskau at the beginning. It was very helpful. I would like to see all Eastern European towns and villages have that, but it needs to be done in an inclusive, systematic way. As I've stated before, I don't like the current 10% convention. Leo1410 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So why would every little town need to have the German name on it's page? I don't see the value. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:NCGN? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem described by Leo1410 is an ideal example of why it is good to have the German name in articles on every little Polish town. Not to satisfy someone's nationalist urges, but to help people find the information they need – this is precisely what Wikipedia is for. As for the disambiguation page, I've added the "lookfrom" template at the end of it; it creates a link to a list of all Wikipedia articles that begin with "Ligota". I believe this is the best approach in this kind of situations. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! Leo1410 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with just looking for the link to the DE:WP article on the sidebar? I just don't see the need for the German translation in the eastern half of the country or in Warsaw. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just places under the German partition, obviously. Just like all places that were once in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should have a Polish name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that approaching it from the perspective of "What empire or hegemonic culture once ruled over the area?" is the wrong approach to take. There are certainly towns that were in the Austrian partition that will have a German name (and many more that don't). There may be a place in the German partition that doesn't have a German name. Heck, German burghers were once found in most Eastern European towns, so you might even find German names in towns that were never part of Germany. Instead of saying, "Just places under the German partition, obviously. Just like all places that were once in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should have a Polish name," why not take each article from the perspective of, "What names could make this article more accessible to an English-speaking researcher?" My guess is that the Yiddish names would probably be the most useful even though Yiddish speakers never ruled over any Eastern-European territory that I'm aware of. Even for Ligota, the German wiki mentions an earlier form, "Ilgoty" based on a Czech word. Some places probably have a dozen or more names.

I think the accusations of nationalism, irredentism, or (as someone brilliantly put it in a past discussion) "marking territory" come when someone comes through and stamps the Polish name on every spot that was in the PLC, the German name on every spot in Bohemia, etc. It's not necessarily that those names don't belong there. It just comes across as leaving scents to mark territory when it's done that way. Leo1410 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(SIDE POLEMIC-IGNORE IF YOU LIKE) According to my grandpa, my Silesian great-great-grandfather claimed he was German. His surname ended in -sch (though it is a common Polish name when it has the -sz ending). His wife had a very Slavic name (to my untrained ears, it sounds more Czech than Polish). On American census records, they are identified as Germans who spoke German. Their daughter, Grandpa's mom, was born in America and married a Polish immigrant (from an area that's now less than 20 miles from both Ukraine and Slovakia and is/was inhabited by several different groups you might call Rusyn). She spoke fluent Polish with him even though she was born here. Grandpa said that his grandpa told his children they were German, but that his Grandma would whisper to them afterward that they were actually Polish. We've always considered them Polish, but it shows me that there really isn't such thing as ethnic purity when it comes to Eastern Europe (or anywhere else for that matter). That's why I am puzzled by some of these battles on wikipedia.

I think the accusations of nationalism, irredentism, or (as someone brilliantly put it in a past discussion) "marking territory" come when someone comes through and stamps the Polish name on every spot that was in the PLC, the German name on every spot in Bohemia, etc. - aren't you contradicting yourself, since you just argued for "coming through and stamping the German name on every spot in Poland", or did I misunderstand you? The basic reason for why the Polish name should be included for most places that were in the PLC (and some that weren't) is the same as the reason for why there might be German names in places that have a German connection - to make things easier to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am contradicting myself, so let me explain a little better. I want to see useful alternative names included on articles about places in all countries in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere in the world). I've gotten involved in these discussions in the past, and the other day the issue became actually relevant to my research. My story about my Silesian ancestors could just as easily have happened to a Jewish-American whose ancestors came from Lithuania. If they only know the Yiddish name (or even both a Yiddish and a Polish name) they might still have trouble finding the article their ancestral village by its Lithuanian name.

The problem is the way these names have been inserted in the past. One group goes through and puts only its names in. The other group removes them. Then, both accuse each other unbending nationalism and dig in. The other problem I've seen is when people try to "rank" the alternative names or include some but not others. If everyone starts with the premise that Eastern European places are going to be known by 3 or 4 (or more) names, and it's not just a matter of former imperial (Germany in Poland, etc.) or culturally dominant (Poland in Lithuania) powers marking territory, reasonable people are going to agree that the names are useful and necessary.Leo1410 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and in this particular case of Ligota Prószkowsk/Elguth the name wasn't there not because some evil Polish nationalist removed it, but simply because Wikipedia is an incomplete work in progress and no one ever thought to put it in there. Most Polish editors are perfectly ok with having alternative names in the articles (as long as somebody is not going crazy with it and adding stuff just to make a (obnoxious) WP:POINT as has happened in the past, unfortunately).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote above, the name was there, and I was happy it was. I appreciate that your project has largely supported alternative names. The German name helped me find out something about my Polish ancestors. I'm advocating having the name there. The problem with Ligota Pr. wasn't that it lacked the German name. It was that it wasn't showing on the Ligota disambig. page. You're right. It wasn't a POV issue. It was a "work in progress issue." Kpalion found a nice solution. Leo1410 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could create an article on Zygmunt Nagorski. His obituary in The New York Times can be found here.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! Would you like to take a start at writing the article, doesn't have to be large. Then post here and somebody would be interested in peer reviewing it. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We can help expand the article with Polish sources, but if you found some English one, you should be able to start it yourself. Please let us know if you need help, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

So why is it Subcarpathian instead of Podkarpacie and Greater Poland vs Wielkopolska ... I figured I'd bring it up ... Ajh1492 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think the short answer is that it's because Wikipedia's naming policies are schizophrenic mess. From some recent discussion (though I stopped following it mid way through, as it got too tedious) I think if we as a project decided to streamline this kind of naming I think we would be within our rights to do so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My question stems out of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship listed above. From the MOS it states . . . The names of voivodeships are translated into English if an established English name exists; for example, Greater Poland Voivodeship but Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship. So the crux is the definition of established English name. Wouldn't we want to put a modifier onto the definition that if the governmental unit uses a particular translation into English (I'll use Subcarpathian vs Podkarpacie as a working example), should we not consider using it, while retaining the other as a valid redirect (with an appropriate mention in the very top of the article - and possibly in an etymology section if it exists). Ajh1492 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole MOS in this regard is monumentally stupid and helluva confusing to the reader. It's also a source of endless conflicts and disputes. Basically nobody wants to face up to the facts that 1) most of these places have no such thing as established English name - this whole guideline was clearly written with a very American or British centric viewpoint and it works well for places in English speaking places. It's next to useless everywhere else and 2) part of the reason why there's no established English name is because we live in dynamic times and the usage is/has been changing.

Honestly, I've been very tempted in this regard to just say screw it, just because rest of Wikipedia can't get its deal together there's no reason why we have to emulate this kind of dysfunctional practice. Just write the guideline ourselves. This was actually somewhat attempted in the past - see here, but it went inactive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it looks like ALL (440 or so) hits on gbooks for "Greater Poland Voivodeship" are to Wikipedia [3]. "Wielkopolska Voivodeship" only gets 8 hits, but at least all of them are to legitimate third party sources, not Wikipedia mirrors [4]. That MOS guideline basically doesn't know what the hell it's talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the Assembly of European Regions uses both "Wielkopolska" and "Podkarpackie" [5].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And so does the European Union proper. Searching its website for "Subcarpathian" gets you 8 hits, most probably false positive, out of 286082 documents [6]. Same search for "Podkarpackie" gets you 146, or 18.25 times more hits [7].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus the Voivodeship itself uses Podkarpackie ... Ajh1492 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the confusion about WP:UE that comes into play here. IF we could show that Polish names are more often used in English than the English translations, it would be useful; otherwise I would not expect to see the current mess change significantly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see a summary of principal arguments supporting the replacement of "voivod(e)ship" by "province" at Talk:Voivodeships of Poland.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not opening that can of worms. The current consensus is Voivodeship. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This can of worms must be opened and the worms must be thrown out. The use of "voivodeship" is pointless. Foreigners don't understand it. I forgot to mention a major argument: "voivodeship" is against the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." "Voivodeship" is jargon, understandable nearly exclusively to Polish people. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The horse is well and truly dead. The ship has sailed. It is per the MOS - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Poland-related_articles)#Administrative_divisions. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this thread in combination with the previous one, one fairly reasonable possibility (at least as far as the article titles are concerned) would be to use the Polish names for all of the voivodeships, without the word "województwo" or any translation of it (so Świętokrzyskie, Wielkopolskie, Śląskie etc.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be ok with this. I checked on how it's done for other countries and it's basically an open question. Some put in "province" or "county" or "prefecture" or whatever, while others just put the name by itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Witajcie. Przepraszam, że po polsku, ale niestety po angielsku piszę bardzo marnie, a rzecz jest trochę skomplikowana ;-). W plWiki pojawiła się prośba o przetłumaczenie artykułu Joseph Serchuk. Problem w tym, że poszukałam trochę w necie i nie ma żadnych wzmianek o tym, by Józef Serczuk był dowódcą partyzanckiego oddziału żydowskiego czy kimś podobnym (a tu np. wielu biorących udział w takim czy innym ruchu oporu jest wymienianych). Jedyna wzmianka, jaka się pojawia, to taka, że Józef i Dawid Serczukowie byli wśród uciekinierów z Sobiboru [8] (trzeba w menu z boku wybrać część "Ocaleni"), [9], pierwszy link sugeruje ponadto, że prawdopodobnie zostali zabici przez jakichś bandytów (nie wnikając w ew. przynależność organizacyjną tychże bandytów). Artykuł w wikipediach (bo są i interwiki) nie ma źródeł, imię i nazwisko nie gugluje się poza Wikipedią w kontekście "holocaust", "resistance" czy "Nuremberg Trials" (ani po polsku, ani po angielsku), nie znalazłam też nic w Google Books. Mogłabym prosić o zajęcie się tą sprawą? Pozdrawiam. Gytha (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC). Znalazłam jeszcze coś tutaj (tylko kopia, bo strona już nie istnieje). Ten "Józek" to może ew. być Józef Serczuk, ale trudno z tego opisu cokolwiek pewnego wywnioskować (no i brak wzmianek o bracie). Niestety, w katalogach polskich bibliotek oraz Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego książki Freiberga nie ma. Gytha (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A little hard to find online information about people from that generation. most of the information is in Hebrew, because Serchuk and Dov Freiberg lived in Israel. Freiberg wrote 4 books (in Hebrew) about the Holocaust. if you need any help - let me know. Yottam (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I try to explain in English ;-). Do you know Wikipedia:Verifiability? This article needs sources and references. I find only that Józef Serczuk (Joseph Serchuk) was one of the survivors of the Sobibor extermination camp - in this article written by Thomas Blatt. You wrote that "Joseph Serchuk was the commander of the Jewish partisan unit" - in the article Żydowski ruch oporu (Jewish resistance in the Lublin area) isn't a mention about this. In this link, about Dov (Berl, Berek) Freiberg, nothing about Jewish partisants also. Could you write, what exactly Freiberg wrote in his book about Joseph Serchuk? You wrote "served as a witness in the Nuremberg Trials" - which trial? According to my knowledge from Poland was only one witness, writer pl:Seweryna Szmaglewska. And other facts without sources. Maybe this story will be interesting for Jewish Historical Institute? Their historians could verify it (and they know Hebrew, I think) and expand the knowledge of the survivors of Sobibor. Gytha (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(po polsku, Kolegów poproszę o dodatkowe wyjaśnienie, bo, jak widać ;-), po angielsku to ja piszę bardzo kulawo). Problem w tym, artykuł nie ma żadnych źródeł - a te są bardzo potrzebne, bo w artykule jest sporo budzących wątpliwości informacji. Jedyna informacja, jaką udało się znaleźć, to taka, że Józef Serczuk był jednym z uciekinierów z Sobiboru. Nie ma żadnych danych świadczących o tym, że był dowódcą oddziału partyzanckiego (ani nawet o tym, że był partyzantem) - ani w artykule o żydowskim ruchu oporu na Lubelszczyźnie, ani w tym skrótowym życiorysie Dova Freiberga (jeśli wspominany tam Józek to właśnie on, to wprost jest napisane, że cudem udało im się uniknąć śmierci i ukryć w jakimś polskim gospodarstwie), ani w tekście Tomasza Blatta. Drugą sprawą, która wymaga dobrych źródeł, jest to bycie świadkiem w procesach norymberskich - z tego, co wiem, jedynym świadkiem z Polski była Seweryna Szmaglewska. Być może złożył zeznania dostarczone na proces, ale to też powinno być dobrze uźródłowione (a dokumenty nie powinny być trudne do znalezienia), albo może o jakiś inny proces chodzi? Jest jeszcze kilka innych spraw, które budzą wątpliwości (ci neonaziści np. - antysemici, prawicowe podziemie rozumiem, ale nie wydaje mi się, by można było w tym kontekście uzyć określenia neonaziści), ale te wydają się najważniejsze. Proponowałabym kontakt autora z ŻIH, oni mogą być zainteresowani tą historią, no i mają możliwość weryfikacji. Bo ta historia, z całym szacunkiem dla osoby bohatera biogramu oraz jego autora, wydaje mi się po częsci rodzinną legendą. Gytha (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Z tego co widze po poszukaniu w sieci to informacja chyba pochodzi glownie z ksiazki Fraiberga "To Survive Sobibor". Czesci ksiazki mozna obejzec w Amazon's "search inside" [10]. Tam imiona braci sa podane jako Yozhik (Jozek) i Monyek (nie wiem jakie ma to polaczenie z "Dawid"). Tutaj jest co wyglada na dluzszy odcinek [11], chociaz nie wiem czy Pan Mark Paul moze byc uwazany za "Reliable Source" (cos tam pamietam, ze kiedys byla jakas tam klotnia o to). Biorac ten odcinek na serio to wyglada na to, ze ta partyzantka to byla raczej grupa bandycka (wspolnie z trzema Polakami zreszta). Nie wiem, moze pozniej byly jakies walki i bojki z Niemcami ale tego tekst nie podaje. Pan MP tez pisze (jeszcze raz podkreslam, ze nie wiem czy jest on "reliable source"), ze Monyek zostal zabity, juz jako czlonek LWP (chyba), w walce z podziemiem anty-komunistycznym, a nie przez "Polish neonazis". Wyglada na to, ze ta informacje tez opiera na Fraibergu.

Probowalem znalezc tez jakies informacji szukajac tego medalu "Fighters Against Nazis" ktorego Serczuk dostal w 1967. Nie ma duzo. Troche wiecej po Hebrajsku - nazwa medalu to "Ot lohem benazim" ale nie udalo mi sie znalezc zadnej listy dekorowanych itp.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can get Fraiberg's book in about a week or so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Możesz pisać po angielsku, żeby większa liczba osób mogła ew. wziąć udział w dyskusji, ja rozumiem dużo lepiej, niż piszę ;-). Z tekstu przytoczonego w tym pdf-ie faktycznie żadna działalność partyzancka nie wynika, choć może później jest mowa o przyłączeniu się do jakiegoś oddziału? Za źródło zgodne z WP:V bym p. Paula nie uznała, niemniej cytat przytacza chyba bez zmian, choć moim zdaniem może być dobrany tendencyjnie. Fajnie, że będziesz miał dostęp do książki, ja napisałam jeszcze do polskiej wikipedystki, która tematykę Sobiboru chyba dobrze zna (napisała kilka haseł z obozem związanych), a poza tym studiuje hebraistykę, ale na razie bez odzewu. W razie czego mogę spróbować poszukać jeszcze jakichś publikacji o Sobiborze w bibliotece Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego, choć podejrzewam, że tych pozycjach, które tam mają, będą co najwyżej jakieś wzmianki.

Monyek (Moniek? Maniek?) zdrobnieniem od Dawida raczej nie jest, ale mogło to być coś w rodzaju przezwiska albo specjalnie używanego "polskiego" imienia (imię Dawid przed wojną rzadko nosili Polacy). Gytha (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can get all the Freiberg's books, but I'll wait patiently for Volunteer Marek. David and Monyek is same person. Monyek is his Gregorian name and David is his Hebrew name. Gytha, can you make list of all the info that you want to verify? Yottam (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've ordered the book through interlibrary loan so I'm not exactly sure when it'll arrive. So if you have it you should source it. Oh and I don't know if everyone here speaks Polish so just wanted to mention that if any part of my comment needs to be translated let me know. One thing I also noticed was that at the end of the memoir excerpt quoted in Paul the narrator (a different person than either of the Serczuk brothers) does in fact end up joining the Soviet partisans - so perhaps the same thing happened to those two? Also I think I saw some discrepancy between the various sources somewhere - one of them states that it was Monyek/Dawid who was shot in the leg during the escape from Sobibor but another one states it was someone else (another member of the Broniek etc. group?). I'm too lazy to look that up at the moment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Serchuk brothers remained in forest until the soviet occupation. they didnt join the soviet partisans. Freiberg's books are in Hebrew. you can read Hebrew? I'm waiting for Gytha list, for know what exactly to look for. Yottam (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At least one of Freiberg's book has been translated into English (and maybe Polish). That's what I'm getting. Obviously one thing to source would be that they were "partisans" - especially since you say they didn't join the Soviet partisans. Another one would be that he testified at Nuremberg. And that he got that medal. And pretty much the whole article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yottam. I reverted your edition [12] in which you removed special template "notability". I think this template should be kept until reliable and verifiable sources or evidences will be provided. Keeping this template up to this moment can only be good because other wikipedians can find this article and help to find sources.--Verwolff (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Verwolff, you're right. Volunteer Marek, 'To Survive Sobibor' was translated into English, but there are 3 more books that were not translated. I will try to get the books in the coming days. Yottam (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Obviously one thing to source would be that they were "partisans" - especially since you say they didn't join the Soviet partisans": Pages 40-41. Yottam (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it - can you quote the actual passage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"At the beginning, they were a large group, but then they split up. Most of them had gone eastward, planning to cross the Bug River, and these men had gone in the direction of Chelm, led by Shaya the gardener, who had known the area, where he hoped they could find a hiding place in one of the villages whose farmers they knew in exchange for the abundance of money they had. On the way, they had been joined by two Dutch Jews, and by two brothers, Yozhik and Monyek Serchuk, who had been in the forest for more than a year.

"Their whole family had hidden in the village with a 41 farmer, but another farmer had informed on them and the Germans had come and taken them away. Only Yozhik and Monyek were left.

"Yozhik and Monyek had built a bunker for themselves in the woods where they could live through the winter. … When the first group from Sobibor arrived, the two brothers had given them the bunker … At night, Yozhik would buy food from the farmers for the whole group. The people from Sobibor had money, and Chaim, the jeweller, had taken a large amount of gold. Yozhik would usually go alone, but occasionally Monyek would go with him.

"Yozhik had good connections in all of the villages. He knew every farmer and he knew who was trustworthy. He also had contacts with Jews who were hiding with farmers, including his uncle, aunt and their child, and another uncle who had been alone since the Germans had killed his family". Yottam (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the "partisans" part?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have all the books. I need few days to find the relevant information. Yottam (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the ILL still hasn't come in so I can't check myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done this because the official English Website of the Voivodeship Office uses Świętokrzyskie Link: Świętokrzyskie

It as used as example in the Manual of Style to use the Polish name if the English Name is not established Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Poland-related_articles)#Administrative_divisions

Also this was not discussed here or on the Voivodeship's talk page

BionicWilliam (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be "Świętokrzyskie".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If it happens again ask an editor to put a 1 week protection on the article. You don't need to start an edit war on the move. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. That was a bad move without any discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• He did it again. I moved it back, placed a warning on his talk page and added it to WP:ANI Please comment there. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• There's an indefinite block on page move for the article. I strongly suggested that he come here and discuss his objections to the current consensus. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• BTW:If you dicuss the subject can you explain me sth, please. Why the title of capital of Poland is Warsaw but there is also Kraków instead of Cracow which is proper english name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verwolff (talk • contribs) 1 August
  • See Talk:Kraków for lenghty discussion, long story short - Cracow is an archaic translation, modern works increasingly don't translate Kraków. So per WP:NCGN, we are using the modern, more popular English name, which is the untranslated Kraków. For Warsaw, however, modern sources still prefer Warsaw, to we stick with the translated name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Along the lines of the discussion above, I've also requested a move from "Kuyavia" to "Kujawy", as the latter name is far more common in English language sources. Requested move here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've applied the updates based on the exit comments from the GA-Review and Nominated Białystok for FA. Any comments are appreciated. Special thanks to those who have been providing their updates to the article since the GA Review (Volunteer Marek, Marek69, Wolfgang1212, Aftesk, Giraffedata) and to Casliber for the extensive GA-Review itself. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job, and good luck. If you succeed, it will be the first Polish city FA! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You think it's over-linked? Ajh1492 (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a common error. I'll check.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Listen all, I was a bit too lenient on the GA review for which I apologise - we really need some folks to supplement some bits of it. Some bits are vague. Malleus and I have been working on the prose but given the extensive reshuffling of words we need folks who are familiar with the city and sources to keep an eye on it so the meaning doesn't get changed too much. I also found some wording that was uncomfortably close to the source and changed it, which means finding some other sources on the ame info so it can be embellished abit which makes writing about it easier...I have recommended withdrawing it from FAC at this time as I think it will need a couple of week's worth. I will try to keep involved so we can work together and get it over the line of FAC soon...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: If everyone can watch teh talk page and help out we can maybe turbo-charge this. I can't speak polish so some help with polish web stuff will be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try help in improving it as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thx for all the help everyone. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note we have a B-class review backlog (see top of this page). I cannot review my own articles, after all... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to start looking at these tonight. I actually have Jasiennica's Dzieje Agonii sitting next to me right now by pure accident.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read and upgraded the ambassadors one. I also made some suggestions on the talk page. One thing - it still does that thing where if you type in "B" for class, it still shows up as "C". I remember asking about this earlier but I forget what one's supposed to do with this bug.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Got the B/C thing - need to include the whole template).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I found out about two Polish social networking sites:

• pl:Wykop.pl -> Wykop
• pl:Blip -> Blip.pl

Would anyone me interested in helping me start English stubs? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can start the stubs for you but I don't really know anything about these things and also sort of despise the whole social networking site thing, so after I stub'em you're on your own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Should be wykop.pl. Check Nasza-klasa.pl for an example. And yes, both are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

VM took care if wykop, and I stubbed blip. Feel free to expand them further! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

...needs major cleanup if it's going to stay FA. See my suggestions at Talk:Polish–Soviet_War#Cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess when the review of Katyn massacre is done we can take a look at this oldie... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't think Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts picks up potential notifications if they're tagged only with "Milt Hist Taskforce Poland" but not WikiProject Poland template here a heads up on another proposed move:

Talk:Brigade I of the Polish Legions.

Also, even though I got reverted before, I am going to start adding WPP template to these articles again precisely for this reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That is reasonable, task forces are a nice idea, but we don't really have people to support them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Many where deleted because they were missing a fair use rationale tamplate. Sigh. To the admins who read those boards (we should have a few, according to the members list) - here is a list for undeletion: File:Gazetawyborcza cover.jpg, File:Rzeczpolita newspaper.jpg, File:Fakt cover.jpg, File:Wprost.jpg, File:Polityka.jpg, File:Polityka1.jpg. Ping me once they are undeleted and I'll add the rationale or you can just do it yourself, it is as simple as copy and paste such template and change the magazine/newspaper name in three places on it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please note that I didn't provide a rationale for File:Polityka.jpg, the logo, because I'm not sure how it's going to be used. Also, please add these files to the appropriate articles soon or another editor might nominate them for speedy deletion under WP:F5. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, images added to articles :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My newest DYK nominee, I wonder if it is B-class? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed and promoted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put Robinson Crusoes of Warsaw up for GA. Any comments, tweaks and improvements before the GA reviewers get around to it are much welcome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead is too short and "Selected Robinsons" section (still could use a better title) has no references. That's what I'd point to if I was reviewing it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I can fix all that but I can't think of a better title for that section than "Selected Robinsons". Any suggestions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that was the best I could came up with so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a RM at Talk:Korczak Ziółkowski. The article is not nobled by our WikiProject banner, so it doesn't appear in article alerts. - Darwinek (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted there. Currently I cannot see reason to justify not moving the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My newest expansion, I think I exhausted most sources on the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, expanded Tarnogród Confederation, which could use a review as well; most of the content is shared between both articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, TC is essentially a copy of Silent Sejm. It *might* be advisable to start over, by reducing TC to a stub and then expanding it from there. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the content to TC because it fits, much wiki content there is modular (backgrounds, etc.). Where SS describes the Sejm in more detail, TC should do so for the military campaign. I don't understand why you'd like to remove any content? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just uncomfortable with having two articles with almost the same text. Ideally, it shouldn't be remove but rewritten to a point where it's sufficiently distinct. That'd take lots of time though. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Over time, articles drift appart, for better or worse. I am quite comfortable with them being similar, as long as they are notable. I am less comfortable with situation when the articles are overlapping with little need for it (Polish-Soviet War in 1919, History of Jews in Poland before the 18th century and related articles, as well as the History of Poland subarticles). Those articles often begin as forks, but some are not maintained, and fall behind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it'd be interesting to see how active our project is. Counting the number of editors who list themselves as "active" etc. is not a very good measure because a lot of times when someone goes inactive they don't update their status. Likewise sometimes people don't list themselves there. So a better measure would be the number of comments left on this page, per month, which I counted up from the archives (the switch in the archiving system made it a bit tricky but I think I got everything - in case anyone knows if any comments got lost let me know).

So the blue line in the chart above is the actual number of comments since June 2005, the red line is a 11 month centered moving average (basically data smoothing to let you see a long run nonlinear trend) and the black line is the linear trend. As can be seen:

• There's a good bit of month to month volatility. I ran a regression to see if there was any seasonality. It turns out that May is on average the lowest-comments month (on average 31 less comments than December, which I used as the basis of comparison) while June is the highest (about 13 more than December). This might be some kind of "right before school ends I got to study/work and give up on Wiki" and a "school's over, let's play on Wiki" effect BUT the t-stats on both these months are pretty low, so basically there's something like 90% chance that this is just randomness in the data and I'm over-interpreting.
• There's a very slight negative long term trend which indicates the number of comments from beginning of the project (June '05) to July '11 has fallen by a total of... half a comment. Or a loss of a .008 of a comment per month. Obviously that's nothing. Likewise, the t-stat is really low, which pretty much says this is just randomness in the data. If we start the series a month later, or end it a month earlier we're very likely to get a different result (positive trend). So overall, the number of comments on this page has been steady, at about 79 per month.
• This isn't in the chart, but some more regressions indicate that the month to month variation does correlate with, um, uh, arbitration-related developments of particular editors. The effect is of moderate significance (both statistically and in terms of actual magnitude) - precise results available upon request.
• Just to make some qualitative and not just quantitative assessments, while I was getting the data, I did read/look over some of the old-skool discussions. One thing that did strike me is that, to put it bluntly, we don't get trolled as much as we used. Those kinds of comments (and responses to them) appeared to be (at least in my impression) a non negligible portion of overall talk page comments in the past. This means that while the total number of comments has remained steady the portion of "quality" comments has increased. Basically these days the project page has a much stronger "professional" feel to it, I think, with a focus on just getting stuff done. There's less time wasting bickering.
• I did the same thing for WikiProject Military History and the results are actually similar; no long term trend, no seasonality. Of course the average is higher - they are about four times as active as we are. Given that they're probably one of the most successful, broad, and efficiently run projects on Wikipedia, I don't think that kind of comparison makes us look bad at all.

Na zdrowie. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Add: I just noticed that something got screwed up with the regression equation that's included in the chart (it implies about 400 comments per month on average, which is way too high). The actual line of best fit is:

Number of comments in a month = 85.77-0.19*month

where month is from 1 to 74, with June 2005=1. The actual R^2=.009 (which means that the time trend explains a ninth of 1% of variation in the data, i.e. there is no trend). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That would fit my rough observations based on experience, which is to say that for years we simply had a few active editors and a dozen or so who post here occasionally. If we could only keep people from leaving... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia is going to be celebrating its 10th anniversary soon. Here is a nice logo. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of a more interesting hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Kołłątaj's Forge? If so, please suggest it THERE. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started an article on today's derailment at Baby. Assistance in expanding the article from Polish sources welcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As of this moment, there is no pl wiki equivalent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's beyond my capabilities. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work; I've updated it a bit with recent developments. I expect it will soon have a page on pl.wp as well (I notice it's already mentioned on the Baby village page).--Kotniski (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Still no pl-wiki article? Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. There is pl:Katastrofy kolejowe w Polsce which could use translation to railway accidents in Poland, but it even mistakenly (I think) lists the Baby accident as Kiełczówka accident. I asked for clarification on talk, but nobody answered (pl wiki is mostly inactive). Could trace the author of the entry and ask him, if anybody cares? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another 18th century potential B-class article for your consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, Hetman Party could use a review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the Hugo Steinhaus article five fold (not quite done with it but almost there) but I'm at a loss as to what to use for a DYK hook - there's just so much in there that could be used.

Somehow I don't think that "Did you know that Hugo Steinhaus fought in the Polish Legion during WWI, was one of the "architects" of the Polish Lwow School of Mathematics, "discovered" Stefan Banach and together with him developed one of the fundamental theorems of functional analysis, laid foundations for modern probability theory, anticipated some of von Neumann's contributions to game theory, contributed ten problems to the Scottish Book, which he preserved through World War II, developed novel statistical methods and solutions to the cake cutting problem while hiding from the Nazis, helped turn Wroclaw University into a vibrant center of Polish mathematics, and, according to Mark Kac "perhaps more than any other individual, helped to raise Polish mathematics from the ashes to which it had been reduced by the second World War to the position of new strength and respect which it now occupies"? will fit... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say something about significant achievements in the field of mathematics including during the period he had to hide from the Nazis (did he actually do any research in that period, and was he involved in the underground teaching too?), and if you can squeeze it in, rebuilding mathematics research in post-war Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as the article says, he did do some research (which he published later) while in hiding and yes, he was involved in some underground teaching - though my impression of that was just that he was teaching some local kids, which still broke the German rules, but it's not like it involved university-level courses. The interwar Lwow School and the rebuilding of Polish mathematics in Wroclaw after the war are the two main things. An alternative is to focus solely on his mathematical achievements, though those, while very substantial, might not be of interest to the average reader (more precisely, the average reader may fail to appreciate their significance - along those lines I'm still pissed that Banach is not included in the image of famous Poles in the Poles article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A colorful character, I think I mostly exhausted all available sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Following the recent move of Subcarpathian Voivodeship article to Podkarpackie Voivodeship, all related categories and templates should be moved to the proper name. This relates to Category:Subcarpathian Voivodeship and its subcategories; {{Subcarpathian Voivodeship}}, {{Subcarpathian-geo-stub}} and many others. Note that the categories don't have to undergo a classic WP:CFD process and can be speedily moved per CFD criteria. The old name should be also replaced in all related articles - for that task WP:AWB could be used or perhaps some bot. - Darwinek (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I will take care of listing the categories and stub category/template at the relevant places. There's possibly a number of articles disambiguated as Foo, Subcarpathian Voivodeship which need to be moved to Foo, Podkarpackie Voivodeship. Severo^TC 15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of all the categories and templates to be moved (except the stub ones which I will do when the perm cats have been moved) and I made a start on the Foo, Subcarpathian Voivodeship articles but found that there were rather a lot of them. I've done probably around 75 page moves but there's still about 350 to go - is it possible to get a bot to do them and does anyone know where to ask? WP:Bot requests? (List is here.) Severo^TC 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think WP:Bot requests should be contacted. Usually, User:Kotniski operated own bot managing all Polish gmina/village articles. It would be great if the bot would also replace Subcarpathian to Podkarpackie in article texts. As for the categories, speedy move rules of WP:CFD should apply. - Darwinek (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could get a bot to do the remaining moves. In time I could also update the text of the articles to use "our" new name for the voivodeship, though it would be good to have the names of all of the voivodeships definitively decided (se ongoing dicussion at Talk:Voivodeships of Poland) before undertaking a task like that.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've  Done all the moves of the articles listed on Severo's page.--Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've finished Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting), but I cannot find sources for all characters (see also article's talk). Comments appreciated, the article may be ready for B-class review as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

B-class request for Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)

Also, come to think about it, the article is ready for a B-class review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No longer relevant, article was DYKed with the pic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if we should add Category:Polish people by region to Category:Silesian people. Granted, not all Silesians are Polish, which is stopping me. But the Silesian people category is already in the Category:German people by ethnic or national origin... which I am not sure should be there, as there is a separate Category:Silesian Germans as well as Category:German people of Silesian descent and Category:German people from the Polish part of Silesia. For the German categories, I 'd suggest moving the last two to the Silesian Germans, which should be a subcat to the German people category (which should be removed from the Silesian people). Should we create a category for Silesian Polish? (There is also Category:Silesian Jews). Such a move would make sense, as it would rightly locate Silesians as subcategories of Europeans/Slavic people, divided into German, Polish and Jewish nationalities (also, there should be a Czech one).

Note that Category:People from Silesia, a subcategory of the above, is correctly placed in the regional categories (from Poland, Czech Republic and Germany) I created (when I was populating the Category:People by region category, which surprisingly existed on de and pl wikis, but not here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is true, how significant it is or whether it has anything to do with the apparent duplication between "Silesian people" and "people from Silesia", but Silesians (and also the corresponding German article) claims that there are people who think of themselves as having "Silesian" ethnicity. Given phenomena such as Lach dialects, this doesn't seem implausible to me. Maybe the Silesian people category should be a subcategory of the People from Silesia category? Currently it's the other way round. That way we could subcategorise people from Silesia according to their ethnic identities when known, or leave them in the top category in problematic cases. Hans Adler 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. For example, I am "from Silesia", but I am not Silesian. I doubt there are any Silesians who are not from Silesia. At the same time, note that for most recognized states, you have "People from Foo" redirecting to "Fooish people", ex. Category:People from Poland redirects to Category:Polish people, same for Germany. Those group, in turn, have subgroups in the Category:People by ethnic or national origin (see Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin and Category:German people by ethnic or national origin). In any case, the fact that Silesian people have two categories - Category:Silesian people and Category:People from Silesia is a bit problematic. I can see the reason for it, but it does raise the question why this is not so for established countries. Perhaps this is exactly because Silesia is not a country, but a region, one with the ethnic group (Silesians). Back to the Hans argument, I think it is a good idea, but I don't think it addresses the issue with the categories I raised above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Be a risktaker - bring it to CFD - at least we can blame consensus for any resulting mess. That is the usual way when selecting a colour scheme for a public building. Let some outside body decide. Agathoclea (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, "Category:Silesian people" should exist for historical context and filled with biographies of dead people, because even if people wouldn't necessarily be identified as "Silesian" nowadays, they certainly would have in the past. But retrospective nationality is very contentious, e.g. Sigmund Freud's article says he is "Austrian" even though he was from Moravia and born to a Galician Jewish family. Would you put him in Category:Austrians or Category:Jewish people, Category:People from Moravia or Category:People from Austria? Also, I guess under "verifiability" it doesn't matter how a person self-identifies but just what "reliable sources" say they are.. - filelakeshoe 23:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Filelakeshoe. The whole Silesian categories scheme is a mess and needs trimming, not expanding. Using category "People from Silesia" for people born there is completely useless, in the same manner as using category "Polish Roman Catholics" for all Polish people baptized in Catholic church. Also please note, that "Silesia" is a vague term, and historically and currently people from, say Legnica, Katowice, Ostrava and Opava have absolutely nothing in common. I think we should not use category "People from Silesia" at all, and the "Silesian people" use only for persons identifying themselves as "ethnic Silesians". - Darwinek (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about the best name for this article. It focuses on the Danzig part of the history, but the building still exists and acts as a Polish Post Office, now in Gdansk, and this is covered by the article as well. Pl wiki article is named pl:Poczta Polska w Wolnym Mieście Gdańsku... I am tempted to move it to Gdansk name, with a section on history mentioning Danzig. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an official name for this paticular post office? If there is, it might be a better name and the 2 cities would show up in the relevant section(s) of the article. Kingjeff (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if this post office is still in operation, it's only notable for what happened there when the city was called Danzig, so I'd rather keep the article where it is. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be "Polish Post Office in the Free City of Danzig". How notable is the non-free city part of its history?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the institution still exists, same building even. Even through its history is the most notable and interesting, it is just that - history. This is not a history article, it is an article about a still-present organization, most notable for something historical. The question of what makes a post office notable is interesting, but many are (Category:Post office buildings), and I think having a famous history is a good qualifier.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Polish–Soviet War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, that's fine. I did want to note however that I just looked at 30 FAs from the "Wars, battles and events" topic (and some from other topics) and this was the only article that has ALREADY undergone a review (though admittedly, some time ago, in 2006).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews, primarily as a way to address the problem that some B-class review requests were being archived before a review was done. Please consider watchlisting that page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I might need some help in creating an article about Harald Langemyhr. There is an article about him on Norwegian wiki.

My reference (Aftenposten, 2011-09-02 "Utvider tiltalene mot Langemyhr") say about him/his company:

"When the parties meet in Oslo Tingrett on Monday, 14 weeks will be allocated for the trial. It was TV-Norge that filmed how workers lived "three and three" in 10 square meter brakker outside a public construction site. — Brakkene were only approved for pauses [and not approved as living quarters]. But the employees were deducted 2500 Norwegian kroner every month for living there." ... uncovered also that an additional 70-80 Polish construction workers were lodged in house at Vallø outside Tønsberg. The attic, the cellar and hallways were used as "sleeping space". — Arbeidstilsynet characterized the conditions, as some of the worst they had seen."--Solotaig (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us know what you need. A quick search shows there is a number of rather reliable Polish media discussing his fraud / poor treatment / exploitation of Polish workers ([13], [14], [15], [16]). There are also some english-language articles you might've already found: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the recent change to the Bogumił Grott article, made by Faustian (talk · contribs). Is this kind of information really notable? And does it violate our NPOV policies or not? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's mostly a valid addition. Through I guess somebody could dispute it under BLP, but I am not going to remove it. There are however problems, because it was done, how to say it... poorly. The formatting is wrong (elinks should be refs), the second link seems to be broken, and we would need a cite for RM and Nowak being controversial. In fact, at that point the only thing that should stay in the article is a note that he contributed to RM; everything else seems unsourced. But once proper refs are added, I can see this para staying in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I love when nobody reads the links.It's a reprint from Nasz Dziennik article, not a publication by RM.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nasz Dziennik is owned by RM's owner and as described here is part of the same media empire; this is why RM's website carries this article. I think a brief description of RM/Nasz Dziennik so that readers know what it is, is warranted. I agree with Piotrus' comments and will fix the references as time permits, sometime in the next few days.Faustian (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The newest in my series of partitions of Poland article series. And please consider helping with the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It used to be its own article and then it got all of sudden redirected, without discussion, to the modern day Pomeranian Voivodeship, though obviously they're two different things. I can maybe, sort of, kind of, see redirecting it to Pomeralia (or vice versa) but the present situation doesn't make sense.

Please see my comment here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_8#Category:Polish_irredentist_and_revolutionary_organizations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While doing some assessment of articles in our project I've noticed that there is probably a very large number of articles, most of them on small villages in Poland, which had been incorrectly assessed by User talk:Lackett. It looks like he was just making automated edits and assessed all these places - most of them very very small villages - as "Mid" importance and the class of the articles - most of which are Kotbot created one or two sentence stubs - as "Start" or above. It seems the user was causing some kind of trouble cause he got blocked for similar, although unrelated issue shortly thereafter [25]. Is there any simple way to change these? Volunteer Marek  12:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe simple rollback or WP:AWB? - Darwinek (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This was raised before, and I fully agree all villages should be low importance; the few that may be exceptions can be discussed on talk. Can we do it automatically? Ask User:Severo (or remind him to watch this page :>), he was the only member of ours who dealt heavily with automated assessments (IIRC), or ask at WP:VPT. PS. I am glad you went back to your orange sig :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We can use AWB for them - it's a pretty easy job if we make the list right. What's the size of the standard article - around 2kb (at a guess)? I suggest that all articles within Category:Villages of Poland are marked importance=low and all that are below 4kb are assessed as stub-class and have the relevant stub tag on the article. I can look at the ones marked start-class, the ones unassessed and the ones which don't even have a project banner at the same time. A second task would be to look at how far this extends beyond Category:Villages in Poland - I suggest in this case a lower article size (say 2.5kb). If these sound reasonable I will make up the lists for checking (which I can do tomorrow) before actioning. Severo^TC 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just been playing with CatScan, and with 6 of 16 Voivoideships (there were too many to look at all at once), there were 21,404 articles that met the sub-4kb criteria and of these, 5175 were assessed as Start-Class and 4957 were marked as Mid-importance. That would take me a hell of a long time to get through in AWB so I suggest instead we make the list and ask someone with a bot (Kotniski?) to do it instead. There will be more that are not currently tagged with {{WikiProject Poland}}. Severo^TC 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the way I understand it is that we can do this for the villages in Poland but it will be a more difficult taks for other types of places? The thing is, when I look at Cat Villages in Poland there do not appear to be that many (which is surely incorrect) in that cat.

Also, the "start" on many of these needs to be changed to "stub" since they are essentially one or two sentence articles, but that will be harder to do by bot, since some are in fact longer. Volunteer Marek  17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but we can only exclude pages that are over a certain length - my suggestion was 4kb but we could reduce it to 3kb or even 2.5kb. I looked at a handful of article and they were of the 2-2.5kb size but from stub sorting experience, I imagine anything under 4kb will be worthy of a stub talk page assessment. For other types of settlement, it just depends on the starting category but it's not very hard to do - just very time consuming if done by hand or even AWB. Severo^TC 17:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if somebody would like to design an add (banner) for our project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Template:WW2InfoBox the Soviet Union was not a Nazi co-belligerent. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And I am pretty sure this is a dead horse at the talk page of this template and many other discussion pages. I agree that the current version is not totally satisfactory, but this is not the right venue to do anything constructive about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Think positively.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War says: the war created 95 million refugees. Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but not that relevant for our project. I suggest you go and raise on the talk page of those articles, and/or edit them to fix the fact (but make sure you have reliable references, a claim by a Wikipedia article is not reliable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong suport for the story, invented probably by an Austrian mathematician and extensively quoted. Maybe I should start a discussion on Reliable sources.Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is Congress Poland, it says: The Kingdom of Poland informally known as Congress Poland or Russian Poland. There is no reason to use "Russian Poland" extensively, eg. in German minority in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree this redirect should be empty. I trust that you will remove it from the grand total of three articles it is used, yes? And there is no link through Russian Poland to CP from the GmiP article. If the term is used, it is just in plain text/pipe, and should be changed manually whenever we see it. PS. For the record, German Poland currently does not exist, and Austrian Poland is another rarely used redirect to Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria ([26]). Perhaps we should make them into disambis (as another valid target would be the Russian partition/Austrian partition). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

An older article of mine that I think is at least B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We should put the name of Duke of Prussia. There is also a list of electors of Władysław IV [27]. It may be useful. We should also make all references the same. Now we have some in long version (Władysław Czapliński, Władysław IV i jego czasy (Władysław IV and His Times). PW "Wiedza Poweszechna". Warszawa 1976, pp. 102-106) and some in short (Czapliński, p.54). I would prefer a short for references part and full for new-created bibliography part. Kmicic (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Issues fixed, although I prefer full citations and no bibliography section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is short, but comprehensive article about a member of Piast dynasty. Kmicic (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Review posted on corresponding talk page. I'd ask that you consider doing some B/GA reviews for the project in the future, we have a backlog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for review. I'll try do some reviews, but please note the fact that my English is poor. Kmicic (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this article for a long time. There is a lot of work to be done, so users who like both history and football, are welcome to help. Please see Football in occupied Poland (1939–1945). Tymek (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I improved the citations, but the density needs help - there are many sentences and even paras without them. Please consider nominating the article for T:TDYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to standardize the images of Polish kings and dukes and use Matejko's Poczet for all of them, especially since all those images are in public domain. Matejko's Poczet definitely contains the portraits which Poles are most familiar with and these images are also the ones that even non-Poles are very likely to first encounter.

One question would be whether to use the full - but black and white - version of the portraits, or the "head shot" but color versions. Personally I think having color right at the start of the article makes it more vibrant and entices the reader to read more so I'd go with the smaller but colorful head shots. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek  22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. In cases where portaits painted during a king's lifetime or shortly after his death are available, we should above all use the contemporary images, not some 19th-century imaginations. Matejko's pictures are good only when there is no alternative. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, since Matejko was painting in the 19th century, after the end of the Polish monarchy, in "cases where portaits painted during a king's lifetime or shortly after his death" are available he based his portraits on those exact portraits - there's little difference in how the kings "look". Except he was a better artist. I dunno - which one you'd rather have, a crappy "contemporary" painting by some third rate artist, or an actually aesthetically pleasing - and to the extent possible, historically accurate - painting?

And like I said, most sources that discuss these monarchs and include illustrations are very likely to include Matejko's paintings. I don't understand this "only when there is no alternative" at all - it seems like totally flipping the reasonable thing to do. Volunteer Marek  23:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Add: originally my idea came from looking at some of the articles on the Piasts, but looking around some more, even later kings deserve better. Here's some examples:

• Alexander Jagiellon - some "author unknown, auto of photo unknown". Image hard to make out. Cartoonish. (Add later: I switched it out to the Bacciarelli painting because it was really annoying me).
• Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki - "unknown Polish court painter". Image ok but artistically mediocre (use of background, color and composition). Obviously the guy who painted this specialized in painting armor, not hair (not that MKW's hair was all that great to begin with).
• John II Casimir Vasa - no author information, but I'm guessing it's the same guy, or at least the same style, as MKW above. Now, from everything I've seen, JKV "nie grzeszyl uroda", but here the way the painter depicted him, his face is in danger of spilling all over the canvas. Also, this is the "much better at painting black toned armor than painting hair and faces" school of painting.
• Casimir I the Restorer - author: Jan Bogumił Jacobi (needs an article). This one is ok aesthetically, since we're talking a half-competent artist here... but it's sort of generic, and is no more "historically accurate" than Matejko's version.
• Stefan Batory - basically a generic late Gothic (?) painting that has little aesthetic value. And obviously Matejko's work is very much based on the portrait.
• Zygmunt Stary - author unknown, though there's a nice depiction by Bacciarelli in the article. Again, just because it was contemporary, does not mean it should be used in the infobox. People use to draw people as stick figures. Art has evolved. Let's have something nice in there.
• Zygmunt August - another "anonymous painting" of mediocre quality.

Compare all of these with Matejko's versions and I think it's pretty much obvious which kind of images are more likely to get readers interested in the topic.

Here are some which I do think are strong contenders as they are pretty good, artistically speaking:

• Władysław IV Vasa by Rubens. Yeah, ok, that one is pretty good.
• Sigismund III Vasa by Kober. Also a good artist though certainly not in the same league as Rubens and also not as good as Matejko. This one does have the advantage of being painted contemporaneously. Still I'd go with consistency and choose Matejko here (and of course this was a painting that Matejko based his on)
• John III Sobieski by Bacciarelli. Again, this one's also good and on aesthetic grounds it's hard to choose between Bacciarelli and Matejko.

Here my argument is simply that it would be good to have some consistency - maybe at some point when these articles get improved enough we could do a "Featured article series" (or if there is one, a "Good article series") and this kind of connection ties it all up together. Volunteer Marek  00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, your argument is one of taste. I, personally, don't like Matejko's art that much. But I also believe that even when Matejko's version is of higher artistic value, a contemporary portrait is still more authentic. Besides, I understand we're talking about the portrait used in an infobox. I have no objections whatsoever against using Matejko's work lower in an article. Or Bacciarelli's for that matter. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is partially aesthetic ("one of taste"). But I also think it is wrong to assume that just because a portrait was painted contemporaneously it is "more authentic". Probably in some ways. But not in others. Pre-modern age, artists would depict their subjects in highly stylized and unrealistic ways since that was the style. And for at least some of these people, the painter that happened to be available on hand was some third or fourth rate schmuck (obviously this doesn't apply to people like Bacciarelli or Rubens, as mentioned above). Hence there is very little "authentic" about these images.

And Matejko (whatever you think of his style) researched his subjects quite meticulously - in fact, that was one of the things he was known for. So in a way it's a bit like using primary vs. secondary sources. Matejko took all the information that existed, and tried to come up with what he thought was the most accurate (and sometimes symbolic) depiction of the person. In that way, his poczet is probably closer to the spirit of the encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek  00:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny the fact the Matejko did a lot of meticulous research. But like all other paintings, his portraits are not photographs – they were painted in the style of their time and they reflect the author's personal opinion of each king. Kings Matejko admired are idealized, even if he knew quite well what they really looked like (compare Matejko's study of Casimir the Great's skull and the finished portait of the same); those he didn't, are shown as lazy, imbecile, coffee-drinking fatsos (e.g., Michael, Augustus III). Anyway, all I'm saying is that the choice of illustrations should be made on a case-by-case basis. Let's not try to over-standardize. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well... honestly, MKW and August III really were ... something (don't think it was coffee) drinking fatsos, imbeciles, lazy and all that. But that's beside the point. I'm thinking that the two main considerations here are "authenticity" and "aesthetic value". When I brought this up I was thinking/experiencing the second - basically a lot of the current portraits are just hard on the eyes. I think that one can argue Matejko vs. Bacciarelli or even vs. some of the other guys, but some of these are just very very crappy images. The thing is - no paintings of these guys are photographs, so you're setting up quite an unfair standard here. And in fact if we go with "authenticity" then actually the Matejko vs. Bacciarelli division actually illustrates the potential pitfalls quite well. Bacciarelli painted in the 18th century and to a significant extent a lot of the "style of the epoch" was still to depict historical figures as if they were dressed/lived/were part of the 18th century milleu (this was of course Europe wide style - that's how you get all these paintings of Roman times where the Romans are dressed in 18th century European costumes). It's a little more complicated since this was the time when painting was actually moving away from that convention and Bacciarelli was actually a representative of that in Eastern Europe (so for example his portrait of Zygmunt Stary tries to be "faithful" to what the king might have actually looked like) - but he was still pretty much caught up in the "old school" way of doing it. So "authenticity" does not equal "when it was painted", which is what I think a common mistake being made here is. On the other hand Matejko was painting at the time when the idea was to "rediscover" the true essence of the age one was depicting (this was back when - 19th century - people still thought that an objective understanding of history was possible and all that). Matejko, even though he was painting people later than Bacciarelli, was probably more "authentic".

Anyway - maybe it would help if we separated this out by time period. For the Piast period I don't think "authenticity" comes into it, since you either have crude cartoonish drawings or artists who were just making it up. For the Jagiellon period I would still go with Matejko. Once you get into the elected kings you have other, including contemporary depictions, of significant aesthetic value so, as I hinted above, there you can make an argument that other images should take prominence. Volunteer Marek  01:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And to address your specific examples of MKW and Augustus, honestly, in any depiction you can find anywhere, they always look fat and lazy. Come on, find me a picture of Augustus "Der Grosse" (as he was known) where he is portrayed as slim and fit and then maybe we can talk about how Matejko was not being objective. If anything, with respect to MKW, Matejko did him a favor, compared to that "unknown author" painting. Volunteer Marek  01:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary portraits are normally preferable to Matejko's art. Matejko's paintings, despite his studies of historical detail, represent mostly the artistic manner of his times. There are plenty of good quality surviving historic paintings that are contemporary or approximately contemporary to the events they depict (a quick look through the articles I wrote will give many examples). It's a matter of artistic taste I'm sure, but to me Matejko's paintings seem dated, often pretentious, and I have not found good use for a single one so far, even though sometimes I tried. We don't need a standardized presentation of Polish kings. They had all lived in different time periods and have different surviving depictions. There are no contemporary portraits of Mieszko I and other early rulers of course, but even in those cases using Matejko's "portraits" serves only as a substitute for the real thing, at best. Matejko was not one of the best painters of his time, his importance is mostly of the historical didactic nature, and I believe his art should be used to illustrate history in the 21th century in moderation only. Orczar (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The charge that Matejko's paintings represent the artistic manner of his time can be levied at any of these artists. And at least judging by what is actually in some of the articles it doesn't actually seem like that there are many good quality surviving historical paintings. And sure Matejko's paintings are often pretentious but here we're talking about the portraits not the depiction of the Prussian Homage - virtually all portraits of kings, of all countries, by all artists are "pretentious" [28] (if anything, Matejko "toned down" some of the guys he didn't care for).

Anyway, it looks like I'm not gonna get consensus here so I'll just drop the general proposition. For Piasts though, the only non-Matejko ones are Kazimierz Odnowiciel and Henryk IV Probus (and a few of the more minor ones from the fragmentation period). For the later periods there seems to be more use of Bacciarelli, which I actually like and would prefer to the more mediocre but "contemporary" depictions. Volunteer Marek  05:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no preference; I'd certainly expect to see Matejko's painting in the article, but whether it should be in the infobox or not, I'd leave to the merits of paintings we have at our disposal for each particular article. I'd suggest starting a discussion in each article if there are any objections (revert) to an editor shuffling the pics around. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion prompted me to create a page on Commons with three different galleries of Polish monarchs. I just thought it would be nice to have them in one place. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is nice, but I'd suggest creating articles on each of those three series of paintings on the Wikipedia. I think, to my dismay, that currently even the Mateko's famous "poczet" has no article on pl wiki... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)