Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 11

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 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

He was born in Prussian part of Poland so his last name was Kasprzak. Kaspshak is a transcription of Russian sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Good find. Did you know you can move articles, like this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which transcription was more popular. Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Google Books in the future. Search for "Marcin Kaspshak" gives 0 results, while for "Marcin Kasprzak" Poland, close to a 500. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is poorly written, "controversions" have been removed. Karski "fails in" convincing the Allied governments (so he is guilty rather than the governments). "Henryk Gawkowski, who drove one of the trains while intoxicated with vodka". Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the article has next to no inline cites, just remove/rewrite whats needed. Add cites if you can. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, on this one... I don't know. I just remember watching the film and being surprised by the fact that what the Polish people interviewed in the film were actually saying was in many cases completely different from what the subtitles were translating as what they were saying. But that's a sort of thing you'd need to find sources on. Volunteer Marek  02:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the part of Jan Karski's interview that particularly embarrassed America was cut. The interview tapes still exist though and they looks set to be distributed for the first time [1] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest {{Immigration to Poland}} should be renamed. It includes Belarussians, Czechs, Germans, Lithuanians and Ukrainians, who are autochtonic national minorities. Labelling them indirectly as immigrants is grossly POV, harmful and simply incorrect. I suggest the template being renamed to "Ethnic and national groups in Poland" and editing the template to indicate autochtonic minorities and immigrant groups. - Darwinek (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right and the proposed name would be fine - maybe just skip the "national" part, since with the exception of the Vistula Germans, they're all both national and ethnic.

Also, some of the included groups are a little... strange. Nepalis? All 100 of them. I guess so. Hmm, ok, that was the only one that gave me pause. Apparently the template was created by the same editor who created the Nepalis in Poland article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; the relevant main article is minorities in Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the template. We are still missing articles about some traditional minorities in the country, e.g. Russians, Slovaks, Karaims and Tatars. - Darwinek (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you add them as red links to the template? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me. There's an interesting article there to be written about the Scottish immigration to Poland in the 16th-18th centuries. There's a little bit about it in Polish Wikipedia [2] which quotes a British historian mentioning that there number was in tens of thousands, which would probably be more than some of the other groups listed. Remember Ketling! Of course, most of them Polonized fairly rapidly so this would be a historical ethnic minority.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The real "Ketling" was German.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Th earticle does not inform about the period after 1989.Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that tends to be neglected, mostly because there's no one devoted to that particular sub-sub topic. I did create an article on Festival of Jewish Culture in Warsaw once and there is most definitely much more out there along the similar lines - in fact something like "Revival of Jewish Culture in Poland after fall of communism" is in many ways probably a notable topic but it's also something that has to be researched well. It's a sort of thing that if you're going to complain about it, then the stock response is going to be that you should do something about it. Volunteer Marek  02:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But that does remind me that I have some much better pictures of the Singer Festival (including an awesome Czech-Jewish Klezmer band) somewhere on some camera memory card, than the one I actually uploaded to commons. Lemme look back in my archives... Volunteer Marek  02:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Historians work with archival sources and oral history sources. Both of these sources have a slippage of time involved. Archival sources require an institution (like a government, a synagogue or a political movement) to deposit their papers, or make them available for historical research. Usually, the minimum time before a document is released is 20 years. Often it is much longer. So some historians are awaiting documents before working in this area. Historians tend to avoid "unresolved" issues. Changes in Jewishness in Poland since 1989 may still be being worked through. Finally, historians have to publish. It would be easier to sell "A history of Jews in Poland 1989–2019" that would cover 30 years. Such a book would be (30+20) expected some time around 2040. As wikipedia writes using sources, and as we can expect good high quality academic histories of Jewishness in Poland post-1989 to start appearing about 30 years from now, the capacity of editors to write this section of the article based on high quality reliable sources is currently limited by the lack of such sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah, but, there's Wikipedia articles written on "new" phenomenon all the time. Granted, the sources are usually not ideal - newspapers, magazines, etc. rather than scholarly works - but ... it wouldn't be Wikipedia if that didn't happen. I agree with the general gist of your comment though. So maybe someone should try none the less. Btw, I didn't know you were back, and it's good to see you back. Volunteer Marek  02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I like to think that we maintain a difference in which sources are appropriate. For History of Jews in Poland#Post-1989 then we should be using stronger "wrap up pieces" in broadsheet newspapers, contemporary sociology and demography, etc., and the "contemporary" chapters of longer histories of Jews in Poland. Not exactly "history" but good enough for an encyclopaedia's "contemporary" section until we get the kind of HQRS we like best. I'm not really back properly, I've realised the volume of work I was doing here ought to be going into producing original research for publication in high quality reliable sources :). I'm mostly keeping an eye on the reference desks and helping out with observations like this. I keep an eye on the watch list, but I don't have time to go find HQRS or review articles covering fields for the more serious work! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Names of rabbis of Poland, construction of the Jewish Museum, Jewish journals, klezmer bands, don't need academic sources, there is no controversy who is the rabbi or which journals are printed. There is controversy if the three Festivals I know are signs of revival or are artificial, "Cepelia" as some say in Polish, but we can write about the controversy.

Articles about Jews in Poland are generally POV, even if they use "academic" sources. Szewach Weiss explains it - Polish Jews didn't expect anti-Semitism in Poland, so they were (and they still are) more critical toward Poland. Is academic research about Jews in Poland emotional? Isn't the highest time to write about facts rather than emotions?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would be deeply surprised if lists of names of rabbis had any historical validity. Things like this would need an academic source to demonstrate their significance to an article called "History of Jews in Poland." History isn't just "facts about the past" as our article on the academic discipline explains. Academic history is reviewed through peer reviewed journals and conferences, and through academic editorial review of monographs and chapters in collections—this system may cause occasional controversy within the academic discipline (for example, the Goldhagen controversy over the reach of his interpretation), but it is the established method of producing academic history. "Highest time to write" isn't cogent standard English, could you rewrite that sentence so I can understand you and respond? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that academic textst should inform about facts rather than emotions of Jewish community. At least the image of Poland in this Wikipedia is distorted, see History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland. "Interwar period 1918–1939" describes bad Poles rather than Jewish life in Poland.

A rabbi worked in Poland for the first time after 22 years. It's quite important, isn't it? The impact of the rabbis was big, where they came from, Michael Schudrich.Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Zew Wawa Morejno was active around 1968, should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

With Wikipedia we don't base importance on the significance to communities, or to things being important in themselves. We rely on things being reported in Reliable Sources as a measure of importance. When things are in High Quality Reliable Sources: academic publication for the field of history; we use the HQRS account instead of accounts in merely reliable sources like newspapers. If an academic book (or academic journal article, academic chapter, academic conference paper) discussing religious history, or history of ethnicity, or the history of reactions to the holocaust in Poland mentions that a rabbi working for the first time in Poland for 22 years is significant, then it is significant at the highest level of verification for wikipedia. We rely on academics for history, so that we can edit the encyclopaedia from a neutral point of view. So finding histories published by academic historians, or by University Presses (Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) is a good start for writing about your area of interest. Where such sources aren't available, then we go to lesser sources, like broadsheet newspapers, or news magazines, or popular books. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

http://mobiletrunk.jpost.com/HomePage/FrontPage/Article.aspx?id=86235342&cat=1 Jerusalem Post.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two things here. First is that the History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland needs to have more information on the post-1989 period incorporated into it - which it obviously does since currently there's nothing there. The second is whether we should start an article on something like Jewish Renaissance in Poland. The term is a bit confusing since it can be mistaken for the other renaissance, and Jews' part in it, so maybe something more specific. But there does seem to be significant coverage at least in the press [3] [4]. If you want something more academic then here it is [5], [6]. Here some more brief mentions [7] - and all that just from looking up two very specific search phrases in English language sources only.  Volunteer Marek  16:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the best way forward. A number of press sites claim that there is such a thing as a Jewish Renaissance in Poland (Jewish Revival in Poland seems to be less popular?). It certainly suits being the "contemporary" section of the history article until we get scholarly historical studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna make it a project to start something on it next weekend. Since it's always good to get exposure some help will be appreciated, since waiting another week for the next weekend to finish it up might be too long to get it up on DYK, if that's a goal. Volunteer Marek  01:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Did he really fight? I don't know the subject. Polish Wiki article describes his deeds and later accuses him. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Libionka, who's given as source in the en-wiki version of the article for the "accusations" [8] is a very reliable source. And if you read that what he says sounds very plausible. Volunteer Marek  11:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Museum of the Polish Army has an interesting online initative: http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/alfabetycznie/ I've uploaded one of their pictures as File:Portret-general-broni-lucjan-zeligowski-8230-mal-r-kawecki,340,duzy.jpg, but there are many more that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I may not have time to do so myself, but perhaps somebody else would like to tackle this. Also, it may be beneficial to contact the museum and ask them if they'd be interested in donating their media to Commons, this would automate this procedure, and could generate some good publicity for them and us. See commons:Commons:Partnerships. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Poland contains two Cite errors. The article contains also a numbe rof obsolete informations, eg. the Top500 list of 2009, even if the one 2010 is available and very different.Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason it is just a C-class.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The errors have been caused during a Central vs. Eastern Europe discussion, which should be reported here.Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We can use some eyes over at the Voivodeships of Poland article. User Nihil Novi has introduced some notes into the lede that are basically a rehash of his arguments on the talk page for changing "voivodeship" to "province", against long-established consensus. The notes are POINTy and irrelevant, as the article already uses "province" as an alternative. I feel it is an abuse of article space to continue a deadhorse argument that one has lost on the talk page just to make a POINT. Please check. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever we see something like [1][2][3][4][5][6], we know that someone's making a point. It would be enough to give about two references to show that "province" is used. And certainly no need to have a separate footnote for each.--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to provide authoritative sources for "voi(e)vod(e)ship." Right now there are none. (Notes 7–10 are vacant: "Przepraszamy. Strony nie znaleziono"; and "The page cannot be found.") Nihil novi (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/pliki/podzial_administracyjny_polski_2011-eng.pdf Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/pliki/topon_inte.doc.pdf Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Voivodeship describes also Vojvodina.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Senate voting method has changed, several articles should be corrected, including Poland.Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Domeyko didn't know he enrolled at Vilnius University. Poor guy...Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The last time I checked, Vilnius University had a list of names applicable to history period (see Changes of the name section). When we find an incorrect name used, piping the correct name over the link should be easy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Czech geographical names are older than the Polish one, so probably any Polish name from the border region should be replaced by the Czech one. The problem is that Polish editors are more active, they write articles using Polish names and finally someone changes the names of the articles to better ones. Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Age is not a criteria for naming, otherwise we would try to use Cro-Magnon names :) For what are the criteria, see WP:NCGN. And that policy took a lot of discussion and effort for a consensus to emerge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I support any consensus. Polish editors should be aware that Polish language names of Polish-Czech border geographical objects will be rewritten. Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added several names of composers, but I'm not an expert. I'm almost sure that Alexandre Tansman declared strong connection to Poland (and was rejected as Jewish by some nationalistic writers).

Polish emmigrants Ignacy Domeyko, Ernest Malinowski, Benedykt Dybowski.Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are asking for? Which section of article on Poland are your comments concerned with? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A GAN has started on Augustów Canal, and was put on an initial hold to allow prose issues to be addressed before sources and coverage were looked at. The nominator has not accessed Wikipedia since the review started, and has not responded to an email. Would anyone from this project be prepared to work on the article to bring it up to GA status? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nom, Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), has a history of high and low activity periods. Sigh. I don't think I have the time to help, and if nobody else will... at the very least, I'd expect Ajh1492 will address the issues when he comes back (in a few months?), so your review won't go to waste. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a light rail system?Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say not (although the definition of light rail seems rather vague) - it is definitely part of the city tram network (being connected to it, and having the same vehicles running on it) rather than a separate system. --Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Grade separation seems to be too general idea to describe it. I bet there is a more specific name. Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From Light Rail: under the law of many countries such systems are legally tramways, although the vehicles which run on them are sometimes designated "supertrams". Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a few comments on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will get right on it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Promoted, thanks to the work by User:Vecrumba, Piotrus, and User:Volunteer Marek. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can use some help on LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 keeping it up to date with live updates. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Could not have had the article up faster than the "major western news services" without the help of EmadIV. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Need a photo with a cleaner fair use agreement that the current one being used. Current photo appears to be a Reuters stringer's photo. Would someone be interested in going through the photos on http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=SP-LPC&distinct_entry=true and asking if the photographer would be interesting in allowing use at Wikipedia with appropriate controls and credit? Ajh1492 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can use some help defending fair use of the following image (File:Z10572853X,Kapitan-Tadeusz-Wrona--To-on-mistrzowsko-wyladowal.jpg). It was provided by the Captain's family to the press - http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114871,10571773,Kapitan_Tadeusz_Wrona_bohaterem_Polakow___Lataj_jak.html. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a pair of editors who are taking an extremely minimalist view of the article and deleting significant passages of referenced material in the article w/o any discussion. I've started a threat on the article discussion page, would appreciate additional contributors to the discussion. Would really like to get a wide-as-possible consensus. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I really thing the two editors who seem to be from WPA ought to step back for a little while and let us finish translating material before they make nit-pick edits. My 2 cents is to get relevant, sourced information up in the article and do rough edits on the fly. There is a reason to use the CURRENT EVENT tag. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I started the article on the pilot Tadeusz Wrona (aviator). Volunteer Marek  18:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally uncontroversial, but we need more brainpower to figure out what to do: Talk:Lordship of Hummel. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the Outline of Poland, and the lack of judiciary of Poland article struck me as the biggest missing topic. For an overview of how this is done for other countries, see for example judiciary of Germany. Useful template is Template:Politics of Poland. The pl wiki equivalent is pl:Wymiar sprawiedliwości w Polsce. Does anybody feel like stubbing that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want something done right :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Tadeusz Wrona (aviator) be merged into the article LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16. Your comments would be welcomed in the discussion at Talk:LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16#Merge proposal.  Volunteer Marek  21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about a new Polish car manufacturer which plans to release a supercar in a year's time. I userfied it for the author, who thinks references could be found to show notability but does not want to do any more on it, so I have put it into the Incubator and am posting here in case anyone is interested in developing it. I am also posting at WT:WikiProject Automobiles. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See pl:Veno (supersamochód). There's probably enough there to establish notability, as long as all the references aren't based on the same press release. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable ref on the pl page is [9]. Is an equivalent of one CNN mention enough? I'd strongly suggest deleting this unless reliable references are provided. They hopefully will, but what I see on pl wiki is not very reliable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What does this phrase mean? It was added right at the bottom of Polish alphabet (it's a test sentence containing all Polish diacritics), but I'm not sure my translation is correct - can a native-speaker correct or confirm?--Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a Old Polish language phrase, but I could be wrong. Does seem to be used a dummy text testing Polish diacritics... ([10]) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Zażółć" means make it yellow, "gęśle" is an ancient highland fiddle, "jaźń" means consciousnees. The meaning of the entire phrase? No idea. — A. Kupicki (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally thought it was to do with the fiddle, but then I found somewhere that "gęśl" (the singular form) meant a kind of song which might played on the fiddle, hence my current attempt at translation: "turn the ego yellow with a song". Perhaps "consciousness", as you suggest, would be better than "ego" - apart from that, have I got it right?--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hbsggo2019 (talk · contribs) has created a series of articles on castles, presumably in Poland, but under German names, with little information on where the castles are now. Assuming they are no hoaxes (references are offline or 404), those articles need a c/e and a rename:

• Kunern Castle -> Konary Castle (Kunern -> Konary), but which one? None of the Lower Silesian ones at Konary make a note of a castle
• Gaffron Castle -> Gawronki Castle (Gaffron -> Gawronki)? Gawronki, Lower Silesian Voivodeship? No mention of the castle in pl article...
• Mittel-Schreibendorf Castle -> ?
• Oberstradam Castle -> ?

This suggests he translated the articles (machine translation?) from de wiki.

If no references or clarification are provided, I am tempted to prod those, as potential hoaxes/poor and mostly uninformative translations. I'd prefer to rescue them, but we would need a German speaker for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

They seem plausible, but they're not from German Wikipedia. They quote various sources - someone just needs to check them. I'd just tag them as needing further verification or something. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Might also want to look at Von Gaffron und Oberstradam. Gaffrons were certainly a real family. Not sure about all the info. Volunteer Marek  21:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For the Gawronki castle, based on the image, there's this [11]. Not sure how trustworthy that page is either but the images match up. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think these would be "castles" but rather dwory, dworki or palace. Volunteer Marek  22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Konary one is in this Konary --> [12], [13]. Again, no guarantee of the accuracy of the info, just confirming the existence of the palace. Volunteer Marek  22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oberstradam is Stradomia, either Dolna or Wierzchnia. Maybe the Wierzchnia but spelling's different [14]. Or maybe not [15], but history doesn't match up. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the terrible quality of those articles, I am considering prodding the ones we cannot confirm with any certainty... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the castles/palaces/dwors actually do exist it seems. So they're notable. So you can't PROD them (unless we keep quiet about it). You are faced with a moral dilemma of either allowing these super-crappy terrible quality articles to continue their existence on Wikipedia (per WP:NOTABILITY) and having them impose their atrocious presence onto the collective sum of knowledge of all mankind OR, we can all quietly, EEML style, agree never to mention the fact that there might be some notability here and spare the world utter shittiness of these things, PROD them, have them deleted, and then hope that someone at some point actually steps up and goes crazy and writes decent articles that are so much unlikely to be written. This is something between Sartre and Witkacy... more towards Witkacy. Hmm, I'm glad I'm not in your shoes made by szewcy (ok, honestly, I might be bothered to slightly improve them if these pomyje are kept). Volunteer Marek  08:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I found Schreibendorf on the map in the Mittel-Schreibendorf Castle article, it's Sarby. I don't know whether there is (still) a castle in that village. The remark about Kunern Castle being 45 km northwest of Schreibendorf can't be right, but well, probably there are more errors in those articles. Markussep ^Talk 11:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, crappy articles on notable subject that provide next to no informative value has been known to be deleted, there is nothing cabalish about that. I am all for keeping, if we can at least confirm with any degree of certainity that such a castle exists; we don't need a Polish Wikipedia equivalent or even a mention in a village. All we need is to be able to say that Castle X (German name Y) exists (ref for name and existence), and we keep them. So far I am not seeing that, note that Kunern Castle article claims 1730 as origin, and the article you found, 19th century. Perhaps I am missing something, but a brief overview of the potential sources still does not give me any degree of certainty how to rename the articles, and that they are not hoaxes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT the Gawronki one is now ruines so it's an ex-palace. The other two should have a website or something. Volunteer Marek  18:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruins and even former structures that have not a brick remaining can be notable, too. Provided we can find sources and verify they are not hoaxes... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This "famous in Poland" blogger does not have an article on the pl wiki, and references look dubiously unreliable (other blogs and such). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not notable. Should be prodded. - Darwinek (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Well Ur ignorance in Fashion is not an excuse to say she is not notable. Talking about why she did not have a article in pl.wikipedia. I din know polish i liked her so i wrote about her. i was just working on the translations. Tell me about the links tat u find not upto the standards. I have plenty more which i can add. -Americanpatriot1 —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC).

There's enough reliable sources there to establish notability sources. Please look at the polki.pl sources. This web site is owned and written by the "Edipresse Polska S.A." publishing house, which is probably the bigges house in Poland. Look here all the magazines they write and sell: http://www.edipresse.pl/index.php?/pl/produkty_i_dzialalnosc/prasa

What about the other sources. Let's take an example: http://alemodelki.pl/id,3160,galeria,backstage.html http://alemodelki.pl/id,3188,galeria,backstage.html The site http://alemodelki.pl/ is held by Wirtualna Polska which is the most important and biggest in Poland Portal and search engine.

And let me add this. Just the fact that she has an article written by the Redaction of Sophisti.pl is the most reliable source ever in the fashion field. You should know that Sophisti is the most important organization in Poland and thanks to Sophisti and the main director stylist Dorota Wróblewska, in Poland there are each year events like Warsaw Fashion Steet in Krakowskie Przedmieście - organized by Sophisti as well as Fashion Week Poland organized with the help of the City of Łódź. I am sure you will consider it as it should be.

Regards Pikks —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC).

Please refrain from personal attacks. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Edipresse has little presence in Poland, and notability is not inherited. That Wirtualna Polska covers something, or has a sub-site, does not make it notable. If that person is notable, illustrate the notability criteria per our guidelines. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is potentially a broader issue. For example, when looking through the Category:Fashion by nationality one can find a Wikipedia Category:French fashion which includes Category:French female models listing 63 names. Meanwhile, in the parent Category:Polish fashion there's no such sub-category for models from Poland at all, because the Category:Polish female models exists on its own. The whole subject is underdeveloped, listing just 14 entries. More articles could be written. By the way, Glamourina is a pen name that shouldn't be used for a title per WP:NCCN and WP:CRITERIA. The real name is Natalia Grytsuk, a young fashion model that needs to be referenced here. — A. Kupicki (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The broader isse is irrelevent to a discussion about this article.

Re. title - that is incorrect. The link you've mentioned - WP:COMMONNAME - says it quite clearly: The most common name for a subject is often used as a title. The title should be whichever name she is best-known as. That's why, for example, we have Sting (musician) - it's not called "Gordon Sumner".  Chzz  ►  22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Read what it says above: "This page is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia." The categories are important for the Project. I'm not sure though, if the subject of this article is known well enough, to have a common name other than her real name, but I'm willing to work with you on that. — A. Kupicki (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I'm sorry if I caused a misunderstanding. I understand what you're saying about the cats, and lack of articles in the area - I just wanted to stick to the topic in this thread (ie the possible PROD of that article), rather than get side-tracked.

The sources (such as they are) all seem to use that penname, so I think the title is OK.

I do not know if there is appropriate coverage or not, because I cannot speak the language, and cannot check all the sources thoroughly. Piotrus asked me for some help elsewhere, and upon my advice, is trying to clarify the status of some of the sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sophisti.  Chzz  ►  17:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask you what do you think about the categories right now. Since she is not a model she shouldn't be in the models category, but it would be better in a general category? --Pikks (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, no. But that's already happened. WRT the original thread 'PROD' though...no, it's notable per GNG.  Chzz  ►  05:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable why? As an inclusionist, I'll be happy if you tell me how, but for now, I still say it's an article about a minor blogger that is referenced to few sources of poor notability. Perhaps going to WP:RSN and asking about references is a good idea to deal with my objection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a brewing issue at WP:RM over WP:HOCKEY recommendations and how they should be applied over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Basically the hockey recommendation is that Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. This is in fact a mandate that does not allow consideration of any other policy on naming. I think we need to resolve the issue of which naming convention we use for ice hockey players. Is it the one for the names of everyone else based on existing policy and guidelines, or do we have a blanket exception for one project? Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#RFC_on_hockey_names Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We have ten articles redirecting to a non-existing article about the Aleksander Zelwerowicz State Theatre Academy in Warsaw. Perhaps somebody write a stub at least? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

pl:Aleksander Zelwerowicz is an interesting person, and I may stub/DYK him. pl:Akademia Teatralna im. Aleksandra Zelwerowicza w Warszawie is less interesting to me. I hope that the above links will speed up the process. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found that page on the Polish Wikipedia and came here to add the link. Shouldn't be hard for somebody to summon up that article from the Polish and make at least a stub here in English. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, I stubbed the academy for you :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A mass nomination to move articles about sportsmen based on diacritics in their name has been filed at Talk:Dominik_Halmosi#Requested_Move --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a line about Poland: Supercomputing in Europe. If anyone wants to expand it, please do. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion of notability and potential merge at Talk:I Corps in the West (Poland). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

[I can't tell if anyone of you follows the mailing lists or the Village pump at the Commons, so I am (re-)posting this announcement here directly, thought you might be interested.]

I am delighted to announce that Wikimedia Polska, the Polish chapter of the WMF, is organising a travelling exhibition of the winning POTY contest pictures. 16 images chosen by Wikimedians from all over the world in the annual POTY contests from 2006 onwards are going to be shown at exhibitions in various places around Poland.

As some of you may recall, the exhibition premièred during the 10th anniversary of the Polish Wikipedia conference, having been visited by a few hundred visitors in just two weeks; some images from the pubic viewing of the exhibition are available on Wikimedia Commons at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Picture_of_the_Year_exhibition_-_Pozna%C5%84_2011>.

Our first stop is Przystanek Książka (a Polish wordplay for "Book Break"), a media library of the Public Library of the district of Ochota in Warsaw. The exhibition starts on Monday, November 28, and will remain until the end of the year. 16 pictures, the best of the best of the Wikimedia movement, will be shown in an exhibition open for the public, with descriptions available in Polish, English and German.

For those of you currently living in Warsaw or going to visit the capital in the upcoming weeks: the library is located at 42 Grójecka Street, just two four tram stops (and 8 minutes) away from the Warsaw Central railway station (tram lines "9" and "25"), and is open on working days from 10 AM until 7 PM (2 PM-7 PM on Wednesdays).

We hope to have a great event, and even if you can't visit the exhibition, please keep your fingers crossed that it goes well, and spread the news!

PS For those going to take a peek at the exhibition _in real life_, there's also a Facebook event: <https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100219446762276>.

Regards, odder (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this with us. I may even be able to go and see it around XMAS :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeh thanks for this, I will probably check it out in a couple of weeks. To be very pedantic though (but I mention as it may be useful to someone), it's four tram stops from the central station (Plac Narutowicza - about 500m from where I lived when I first lived in Poland). Severo^TC 18:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, true. I can't tell why I wrote it was two stops away, hm... Anyway, I fixed that in the text above and hope you'll be able to visit the exhibition ;-) Cheers, odder (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been planning this article for a long time, and finally wrote it: 1979 Warsaw gas explosion. Help is appreciated for a possible DYK nomination. Tymek (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I think we all appreciate your contributions on those forgotten parts of Polish history! I fixed some refs, looks DYKable to me! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, please come and take a look at Medal of the 10th-Anniversary of People's Poland to find a better, more suitable name. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk. Signpost have indeed featured numerous WikiProjects over time (see list here). I think our project is active enough to be featured for the community, but I don't want to find out that I am the only one thinking so :> So, I'd ask you if any share my opinion and wouldn't mind participating in a short interviews like this one when the time comes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Two articles are waiting for reviewers for B-class. As they are my articles, I cannot review them myself... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Review needed. Usually I don't care if it takes long, but this is the December 13 (martial law in Poland) anniversary DYK I wrote, and it needs to be reviewed this week, the sooner, the better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see that Polish Wikipedia does not have an article about the 1971 Łódź strikes. This is a forgotten event, as it was overshadowed by the December 1970 protests, but unlike what happened on the Coast, the Łódź strikes were a victory of the protesting workers. Help is appreciated for a DYK nomination. Tymek (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs are missing citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure will do, give me more time. Tymek (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I expanded an article about very typical Polish nobleman from 17th century: Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677). It is ready to be B-class article and what should I do to improve it to GA? Kmicic (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessed as C-class. Needs a grammar/language c/e before renomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Szczytt family in 16th century belonged to the category of panięta. It was higher-class of Lithuanian szlachta. We can find 9 biographies of members of this family in Polski Słownik Biograficzny. There is no small unnotable family, like there are tousands in herbarz's. It was very prominent family in Połock's Voivodeship. In 18th century members of Szczytt family had their own soldiers and court. Kmicic (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll start with nitpicking the term "pl:Panięta", which refers not the a type of family (or of Lithuanian nobility), but to sons of magnates. At least according to pl wiki article, and I have never heard it used in a different context. Moving on, you make a compelling argument, but that information should be present in the article. You say that nine biographies exist in PSB, but the article lists only seven members, and references only one of them to PSB. The article says nothing about their soldiers and court - please add that information (with a reference). At this point I am convinced that the family is notable, but the article has to make the case. Otherwise other editors will keep challenging it on the same issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As they are not annouced on Article Alerts: please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 8. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated this article Karlino oil eruption to DYK, and there are some issues, see here [16]. If somebody has time in this busy pre-Christmas season to take care of the issues, help is appreciated. Thanks. Tymek (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed referencing formatting. All it takes, as I said earlier, is to enable WP:REFLINKS, then its 10 second to run and save the script. With regards to insufficient referencing, I don't have time to read all the sources - I strongly advise you to reference all paragraphs, if not all sentences, when you write articles. After all, you read the sources, you write the text, so surely, you should be able to easily add the references when you do so. As always, thanks for writing this interesting article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody involved for helping out. Tymek (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

SlavPoland is constantly adding external link to sztetl.org.pl to every possible article about Polish city. Shouldn't someone stop him? For me it looks like spam.. Danim (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the links he's been adding go to specific and relevant pages on sztetl.org (i.e. each link goes to a page with genuine information about the particular place that is the subject of the article in question). So I don't see anything wrong with it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A day or two early but I dunno if I'll have time to log in again before New Years, so happy wishes to everyone. Now back to cooking. Volunteer Marek  16:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

+1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

On the main page of website for Aftenposten, part of a headline is Polsk politi kritiserer norsk politi.

My general questions are, what if anything has been the most notable cooperation between police services of Norway and Poland?

What (if any) notable criticism has there been between these 2 police services, historically speaking.

What criminal acts performed by Norwegian individuals in Poland, are the most notable? --62.92.255.199 (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is likely too specialized even for Wikipedia, and I doubt anybody has researched this. Heck, we don't even have an article on the Norway-Polish relationship. PS. Dear anon, your question may be better suited to WP:RD than our wikiproject, which is for discussion on how to improve Poland-related articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, following a discussion at User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 17#People's Armies and User talk:W. B. Wilson#Eastern European Armies, the two of us decided that it was inappropriate to have separate articles on the Communist military of states such as Poland or Yugoslavia when all the other countries of the world had consolidated entries : British Armed Forces, Belgian Army etc. Now User:Piotrus has rather strongly expressed his dissatisfaction with the merge of People's Army of Poland into Polish Armed Forces, made in accordance with this conversation of ours. What do people think? Please make all your comments at WT:MILHIST for ease of a single discussion. 19:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslavia was Communist but independent, so this example is wrong. There is separate National People's Army article. BTW - Category:Warsaw Pact does not include member states. Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and it has other problems, that's why there is a bunch of copyedit tag at the top. There are many more articles like that, see the copyedit list for our project accessible from our main page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The current article is based on a Russian blog. Either the life of Sat-Okh was a hoax or the accusations are.Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If the article itself is a hoax, then a pretty elaborate one judging by links available on pl wiki. Or at least a lot of semi-reliable sources repeat what other pages have written. More likely, it's the guy's life that was a hoax, which is what I think the present article suggests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor referencing aside, I agree with VM this is unlikely to be a hoax. Worldcat entry, for example, seems reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Biały Mustang, Czytelnik 1959, is still sitting on my shelf. It doesn't prove anything, but I thought it was terrific. Orczar (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sta-Okh existed and wrote many books, but his origins aren't clear. His mother allegedly produced false document. The article has been rewritten on the basis of Олег Фочкин blog, so maybe it should be restored. Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another article I think merits a B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to the best way to handle this. We have an article on "Labour Party (Poland)" which is a short stub - in need of expansion, btw - on the Polish "Stronnictwo Pracy" party (pl wiki). Various articles link to it (for example Polish Underground State). The problem is that there was another party in the interwar period, "Partia Pracy" (pl wiki). The first one was Korfanty and Popiel the second one a PSL-Wyzwolenie split off. A "standard" English translation of "Stronnictwo" is in fact "party" but it seems like if anything, the title "Labour Party" should be reserved for the literal "Partia Pracy", not "Stronnictwo". One problematic aspect is that articles like Polish Underground State talk about SP but end up linking to an article that is actually PP (as a bit of aside grumpy grumbling, this is what happens when people who have no idea of the subject matter get involved in moving pages for the sake of misguided "use English" crap).

Additionally whoever moved SP from its original "Stronnictwo Pracy" title to "Labour Party (Poland)" salted the redirect (presumably accidentally) so the article can't be moved via normal means. Rather than starting a "request-move" I thought I'd bring this up here first. Once sorted out, I plan on creating an en-wiki article on the Partia Pracy Labour party. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know what the English (or possibly German) equivalent of the office/position of a "Piwniczy" would be? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC) pl:Piwniczy lacks references.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps here is the better place to ask this question (better than ref desk). I stumbled at a photo of a most curious (and spooky) statue in Poland - children soldiers (??) - it's the 11th thumbnail on this page, or 8 MB full res photo here. Is it "just a statue" or is there a real-life story behind it? TIA, 91.76.100.255 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know - any idea where the statue might be? (Possibly it's not in Poland at all, although it clearly has a Polish connection.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found a similar one on this page (near the bottom) - it's a monument in Warsaw, to the children who took part in the Warsaw Uprising.--Kotniski (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mały Powstaniec is the latter. I'm not sure what the first one is called or where it is, but it looks to commemorate the same thing, that is the children of the Warsaw Uprising, although many (if not all) were not fighting on the front line, but delivering the post, helping medics etc. Severo^TC 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I also found this - a similar statue in Poznań (though somehow I don't remember ever noticing it), commemorating the children of the Poznań 1956 protests. It's still not the one in the original query, though.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to ask User:Halibutt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming anybody cares, which given the growing backlog of B-class reviews, I am having increased doubts... (and no, I cannot and will not review my own articles, rubber stamping them that way). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Another B-class review request. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to contribute and maybe get a DYK for this? I just started it but have no time to get more info from other sources. Thanks :) Malick78 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a stub, squeezes by as a DYK as it is. I'd suggest expanding the reference (author, date of publication and access, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know what is the translation (or type for that matter) of the ship "sznika", as found here [17]? I checked on pl wiki but nothing there. The word "sznika", "sznik" itp. appears in other contexts out there as well (for example as a crossword clue [18]).VolunteerMarek 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it a "snigga" - "snigga, bałtycki okręt żaglowy z XV wieku" - as in that crossword?VolunteerMarek 22:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest something nice for Template:Did you know nominations/Scipione Piattoli? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Should 2004 Zakopane earthquake be nominated for deletion? It seems like a minor event not worthy an article here. - Darwinek (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Prod it and let the author defend it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am putting the Pope John Paul II article up for peer review if anyone is interested in participating -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Related to the Constitution of 3 May, I am looking for author, title, date and a better quality version: [19]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Took a look around, the major painting available appears to be the one already on WP, [20]. If you send me the link to the original page the painting appears in, I can poke around a bit more, feel free to just respond here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not the right painting, but our troubled friend found the picture, fixed it and uploaded it with some added info: File:Ogloszenie Konstytucji 3-go Maja 1791 (obraz olejny MHW 17908).jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Another major figure related to the Constitution of the 3 May. Within the next few weeks, I plan to use my scans of PSB to similarly expand and improve articles on Staszic and Poniatowski. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Poland will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Poland's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just contributed by writing an article on Grażyna Auguścik :). She is an exceptional performer in the female-dominated field of jazz singing. Orczar (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I had no women bio's on my to translate list, so I grabbed a Polish GA that was entirely missing on en wiki: Adelaide of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Poland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent opportunity! PS. Ok, I see a problem. People: please sign your posts there, and do not remove posts by others. This is a space for multiple interviews with our members, not just for one person. Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've begun a draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Newsletter/2, but frankly, we have little news to report. It is currently a copy of the April'11 newsletter, with few tweaks. Any ideas what to add? Perhaps we can report the interview after the fact? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, people, isn't there anybody who can review a few articles? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did some CE and such, but I'd rather leave assessment to a native speaker who can review the style better than I can. //Halibutt 19:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually don't bother much with language assessment for B-class; this is something that reviews at GA+ classes can worry about. In fact, I do GA reviews and don't worry much about language, neither. There is only so much one person can do - it's almost impossible to find somebody who knows Wikipedia policies, topic subject and has good grasp of language, so one-person reviews will almost always be inadequate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.VolunteerMarek 03:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to VM for helping with a number of issues, but it is clear that the two of us do not have time or will to fix all of them. Does anyone else care to help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I can copyedit similar to Radzymin and ask intelligent questions about the content and look for any holes, having some familiarity with it as well as some sources. Time is limited but glad to help. Aside from any straight copyediting, do we have any key issues, they weren't clear from the last "cleanup" thread from last summer. If you'd like to post a new "Essentials" section with a list of to-do's necessary to maintain article status, that would help. Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I tracked down the FARC. I'll try and take a look this weekend, and I might have some time next week. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

":behaviour of some commanders like Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz[112] or Vadim Yakovlev.[113]" - bad guys were only on Polish side.Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I intended to write an article about king Stanisław August Poniatowski, but I scanned wrong bio in the PSB. So here you go, Poniatowski's father, an interesting figure himself (creator and major figure in familia). If anybody could scan and send me SAP's bio from PSB, I'd gladly work on it in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This time, an article on a more general concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kotniski (talk · contribs) seems to have taken a leave of absence from Wikipedia. I think we should show him how much we appreciate his contributions on his talk page, and urge him to come back. He is (was...) one of our most active members. Let's show him we care! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I generated list of stubs about villages in Poland, without image in infobox on enwiki, but with image on plwiki - maybe somebody will be interested Bulwersator (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's actually really nice. Is there way to, after reviewing the list manually, have a bot add them all in?

It is possible to create bot like this, but bot is unable to add captions Bulwersator (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, any way a similar list could be generated for biographies?VolunteerMarek 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is planned Bulwersator (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am quite curious how such a list was generated? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot checked all articles on plwiki with a pl:szablon:Wieś infobox, with interwiki to enwiki article with a template:Infobox settlement - then it extracted images (using regex) and generated lists: image on plwiki, without image on enwiki, image on enwiki/nlwiki, without image on plwiki, image on plwiki, without image on nlwiki (bot checked also interwiki to nlwiki articles with a Infobox plaats in Polen template) Bulwersator (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have recently written some articles about Communist Poland, feel free to improve them.

• 1981 strike at Piast Coal Mine in Bieruń,
• 1981 general strike in Bielsko-Biała,
• 1980 in Poland,
• 1981 in Poland,
• Stanisław Jaros.

More to come. Tymek (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at our most popular pages, and I noticed a number of Russian tsars there. It appears that articles of Russian rulers of Congress Poland are tagged with WP:POLAND. I don't think this is helpful; they are topics of importance to Russia project, but not really to us. For the same reasons, Polish monarchs are not included in the scope of Ukraine, Belarus, Prussia or Silesia WikiProjects. And neither Napoleon nor Hitler are included within the scopes of most the countries they conquered. G

Articles affected:

• Talk:Catherine the Great
• Talk:Alexander I of Russia
• Talk:Nicholas I of Russia
• Talk:Alexander II of Russia
• Talk:Alexander III of Russia
• Talk:Nicholas II of Russia

For the record, Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, ruler of Duchy of Warsaw, is not included in our project. Neither are Austro-Hungarian and Prussian rulers (Kings and Queens of Galicia and Lodomeria, and Grand Dukes of Posen, respectively).

Going further, if one was to argue that the period of partitions makes the partition rulers important for our project, why not the partition country governments, and all the myriad articles about their economies, culture, and so on? It's a slippery slope that I think should be fixed before it gets worse.

I'd be inclined to include Frederick Augustus within our scope, but remove all the Russian rulers. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a judgment call. Obviously Catherine had a very large impact on Polish history. But it's unlikely that our project members will be THAT interested in the article, or if they are interested in related article, it's unlikely they'll have trouble finding it. I can see tagging it within the project but rating it as "low importance". But removing them works too.

I agree on Frederick.VolunteerMarek 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Augustus belongs more that the others. Orczar (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Monarchs or similar authorities should belong to the Wikiproject associated with the ruling power, not its subject territories unless there was some unique personal connection. (So, for example, I might go over to Lord Mountbatten to see if he's part of Wikiproject India.)

A more direct answer is that IMO a partition of Poland ≠ Polska. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to cause a bit of trouble, take a look at List of Polish monarchs (I recently redirected List of kings of Poland into it, and cleaned it up [21]. What should the criteria for inclusion be there? Should the Waclaw's be included (IMO, Waclaw II for sure, Waclaw III maybe)? What about folks like Zbigniew (Krzywousty's brother)? Or Bezprym, this "Otto Bolesławowic" fellar, the famous "Boleslas the Forgotten" or Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor? I'm going with the usual "Poczet Krolow i Ksiazat Polskich" on this one, but it's the same sort of question.VolunteerMarek 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's Poland proper, generally yes. Waclaw III's assassination left two thrones open, leading to interesting consequences. So, significant even in his premature demise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd include them all, under pretenders. Ideally, I'd also like to see all election candidates there, too. Now, they should have a smaller box/picture or such. I'd love to see this list improved with references, too! In other news: removed Russian tsars, added FA of Sax to our project scope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• You might also want to ask User:Ejgreen77 for his rationale for adding those articles to all those projects back in October 2011. --illythr (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Has been published. Thank you for participation, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You can use {{subst:User:Piotrus/w|Poland}} to welcome new editors and invite them to our WikiProject at the same time. Change Poland for other keyword to invite them to a different project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has any sources about this person?? Krystyna Branicka could not be born in the 17th century because her mother was 7 years old in 1700. raziel (talk)

Unreferenced bio with no claim of notability. I am not seeing a corresponding article on pl wiki. Prod it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I come from Bialystok and never heard of Branicki daughter. Probably she died young. Speedy deletion? raziel (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Prod, with notification of the creator. Let's be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone, please? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The text of History of Poland (1569–1795) has been merged with the text of History of Poland in the Early Modern era (1569–1795). What remains to be done is the technical merge process, which will eliminate History of Poland (1569–1795). Orczar (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:HISTMERGE has a template that is useful for attracting admins. I see it was used, so this is just a note for reference to others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

German names introduced in 1938 are illegal in Poland. A standard note informing about it would be useful to apply in the 1500 articles: 1938 renaming of East Prussian placenames.Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But this one was introduced in 1886.VolunteerMarek 21:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are right. But eg. Gawrzyjałki says 1928 - it was rather 1938. 1938 renaming of East Prussian placenames doesn't give any example, the article is linked only from Ruciane-Nida. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm working through the images that are suggested to add to en.wikipedia at User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images/People, and many of them are Poland-related images without sufficient source information to determine their copyright status, and I am accordingly nominating these images for deletion at commons instead of adding them here. Of course, it would be better for everyone if they could be properly sourced! I've tried to do so, but obviously my Googling is limited by my non-existent Polish abilities. So I'll keep a running list below of some of the images I have nominated for deletion, and if anyone can find pre-1994 evidence of publication without a copyright notice, please add it so the images can be saved! Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

plwiki notified Bulwersator (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:Jan Szczepanik.jpg
• File:Ян Чохральський.jpg
• File:Tadeusz Banachiewicz.jpg
• File:Stasys Girenas 1933.jpg
• File:Rudolf.Modrzejewski.1931.jpg
• File:Maria Piłsudska.jpg

A new article, which still needs a lot of work. My time is more limited than ever, so if somebody has some time, I would appreciate expanding the article, working on references and style. Polish civilian camps in World War II. Thanks. Tymek (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead of the History of Polish may contain OR. I don't know about any old Silesian language influencing Polish. There was no border between very similar Polish and Czech. Modern Silesian dialect preserves partially Old Polish, even Czech. Polish evaluated and Czech language was quite recently recreated.Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, it seems to me we have a major dating problem post 1900- on Polish articles.

Let's start from the beginning; Congress Poland - As of the English Wikipedia, Congress Poland lasted from 1815 to 1915. As of the Polish Wikipedia, Congress Poland lasted from 1815 to 1918. We need the correct dating fix.

Second Polish Republic - as of the English Wikipedia, Second Polish Republic lasted from 1918 to 1939 As of the Polish Wikipedia, Second Polish Republic lasted from 1918 to 1945. We have to consider the fact, Poland [b]did not[/b] surrender during the Second World War, Poland fought till the end, therefore it is wrong to consider the dissolution of Poland in 1939.

(Wrong Links - Second Polish Republic links to Nazi General Government (Polish-occupied lands) and Polish Government in exile, whereas the People's Republic of Poland flag-links preceding refers to Second Polish Republic)

People's Polish Republic As of the English Wikipedia, People's Republic of Poland lasted from 1944 to 1989 As of the Polish Wikipedia, the same years are presented. The problem here is, the are absolutely no Polish Nation History links to this page. The preceeding, Second Polish Republic, only directs to Polish government in exile. (Third Republic of Poland does not have country-preceeding links).

Third Polish Republic As of the English Wikipedia, Poland lasted from January 30, 1990 - As of the Polish Wikipedia, Third Polish Republic lasted from 31 grudnia 1989. The date shall be changed from the current January 30 to December 29th or 31st, as on 29th the 'Balcerowicz' plan came to effect, and the consitution renamed itself to 'Rzeczpospolita Polska'.

Please find out as much as you can about these dates, and we'll try to figure it all out and change it altogether. PantherBF3 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Please find out as much as you can about these dates, and we'll try to figure it all out and change it altogether.

Those cases may be looked into, but there is no need to seek absolute agreement between the Polish and English Wiki, or even among the different articles in the same language. Many issues can be looked at from different angles, depending on who is writing. Think of the April Constitution of Poland of 1935. To some it was the only legally binding constitution until 1989/1990, to others it resulted from the May Coup and was therefore never legally binding. Different contributors will write different interpretations; errors and obvious lack of impartiality need to be corrected of course. Orczar (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A solution is to find sources to support start/end dates. As in "according to X, PRL begun on date A, and ended on date B". And if there are multiple contradictory claims, discuss them in the article, and use the dominant claim for the article, with a note. As the mentioned articles are C-class or worse, such problems are just to be expected. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See discussion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I would love to do both, but my time is too limited. I have been writing new articles for some time, with all the ideas I have in mind. But recently I looked at several Poland-related articles, which already exist, and to my surprise I see they are short, and miss a lot of information. Good example are articles on numerous Polish towns. Short, with basic information, if any. What is your opinion? Tymek (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Most Polish small towns and nearly all villages submitted as stubs by a bot around 2007 have been left underdeveloped, even though, they grew steadity in Pl:Wiki into real articles with actual sections. English versions usually constist of a single paragraph with the name of voivodeship and an oversized infobox displaying a church image. I say, give it another ten years (maybe), if you want to see some brief history there also. There's no bot for expansion. Poeticbent talk 22:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are totally right, Poeticbent. I look at the article, say, on Przysucha, and all I see is the infobox and two sentences about the town. Guess I have to drop new articles and engage myself in improving those articles on little Polish towns. So neglected! Tymek (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Do whatever is more fun for you. Both expansion and new topics are needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)