Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 12

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

In the last two weeks User:ClaretAsh – who joined the project from Australia in October 2010 – created a new Template:Culture of region on top of an already existing Template:Region culture. There was no discussion at any of the relevant portals i.e. Portal:Contents/Culture and the arts, Portal:Culture, or the country-specific portals such as our own WikiProject Poland. He used Romania as the base for his new creation.[1] Why Romania? Then, without as much as a word of introduction, he replaced the long existing Template:Culture of Poland with his own new template using a misleading edit summary "(Updating sidebar)" as if there was anything wrong with the old one.[2] As a result, some arbitrary red links showed up at our template, with no relevance whatsoever to subjects already covered by our community such as Mythology and Folklore; not to mention, the new generic flagicon. What do you think? Poeticbent talk 16:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Template used before: {{Region culture}} {{Region culture}}

Brand new replacement: {{Culture of region}} [[Culture of {{{region}}}|Culture of {{{region}}}]]

Further development

Without a word of consensus from anybody ClaretAsh (talk · contribs) just started to bestow many other projects with his new prototype and even reformat articles to comply with its design structure, i.e. Russian culture → N Folklore of Russia. Please comment. More info at Template talk:Culture of region. Poeticbent talk 15:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Useful quote from Help:Infobox

Designing an infobox

It is a good idea to seek the opinions of other editors before embarking on a design of a new infobox or redesign of an existing one. Most requirements are already met by an existing infobox and most of the remainder can be met with a tweak. Unnecessary duplication leads to clutter and article divergence. Prototype your new design in your own user space. Once prototyped, propose the infobox changes to the appropriate WikiProject and gain consensus before deploying your new design in the template namespace.

All links from the old template are present. I did like the Stanczyk image more, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've recently reviewed this for B-class, and found the article had several issues, including NPOV. The author disagrees with me. Was I too harsh? A third opinion would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Project may wish to do occasional checks on new sports WP:BLP stubs, to ensure BLP accuracy, such as category:Polish male tennis players, or any sport where Polish national players have been created from English sports media sources. An example is Blazej Koniusz, to which I added Polish source and diacritics in lede line and added WP:Poland tag. (the article cannot be moved without WP:RM since it was created without accents, at the same time as a REDIRECT from Błażej Koniusz to Blazej Koniusz was created, preventing a move). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I usually check them every few days - maximum one week, but I've been without internet for the past four weeks or so, so I haven't been able to! BTW, anyone can move an article if the target is a redirect with a simple edit history i.e. created as a redirect and nothing else. Severo^TC 14:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins can, non-admins have to request a WP:RM. In most cases it can be done speedily by requesting such moves in the uncontroversial, non-discussion needed section of that page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If the redirect has only one edit (i.e. creation) then anyone can do it, as I did (as a non-admin) in this case. If the redirect has more than one edit (for example correcting a spelling mistake) then it's RM/admin moving. Often you don't need to RM though because you can use {{db-move}}. Severo^TC 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the WP:POLAND template to Polandball, a new article created by User:Russavia. I hope that is ok. I'm letting you know here because I'm not sure if such addition get picked up automatically or not, and the article is up for deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It was picked up by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland#New_articles_announcements, but thank you for the announcement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Those megalomaniac Polacks... Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to announce the completion of another key article relating to the PLC; this time, the General sejm. A review would be appreciated. Once an article passes a B-class here I will try to get it to a GA, if not a FA (this holds true for the other B-class articles of our project). As always, assistance in passing those nominations is appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed and promoted by Orczar (thanks!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to improve the articles on the elements of Polish Golden Liberty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Promoted to B class. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Another bio related to the era of Great Sejm and 3 May Constitution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

He was last seen in public on 31 April 1791.[14] He died on 4 October 1790 in Warsaw. One of two dates is wrong. Kmicic (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the series on PLC, my newest article awaits your review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In my oppinion it's a B-class article. I will add as external links lists of electors. Kmicic (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Please update the talk page assessment if you are satisfied with the article's quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kmicic (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an expended version of the article about a member of Polish parliament from 17th century. Kmicic (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article, seems close to B-class. One lingering problem is the somewhat crude English language use. I'd strongly suggest a pass by native speaker to improve it before we make it B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the articles about the Commonwealth governance, and milestones in Polish history :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Promoted to B class. I left a couple of comments on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Piotrus, I've decided to leave a comment here, explaining that I've been trying to move the requested articles from the by country sub-section to each appropriate wiki-project (so that wikipedians interested in each specific country would be more aware of these articles) and also because the page by country was extremely long and difficult to navigate easily. I created a navbox, you can find at Template:Requested articles navbox that lists each country with a link to the requested article sections/pages for each country's wikiproject. Some, I was unable to locate and I took the liberty of creating some of the project requested article pages. As Piotrus pointed out, some countries have few requested articles and as such, I've decided to redirect the requested article link for poland to this talk page, assuming it's alright with the wikiproject poland community. Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the requested articles for poland from the page I've deleted:

• Waldemar Skrzypczak - (req. 2009-08-21) - head of the Polish Army until 2009. Refs: Polish Wikipedia entry, BBC News story --A bit iffy (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Stubbed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Ryczywól, Masovian Voivodeship - (req. 2011-04-05) - a Polish equivalent exists: pl:Ryczywól (województwo mazowieckie)
  • No such place, probably a typo in the Polish name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • pl:Ryczywół (województwo mazowieckie) perhaps? Severo^TC 10:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Most likely. I wonder why we are missing 2 out of three Ryczywółs (compare dis at pl:Ryczywół to Ryczywół). I wish User:Kotniski was still with us... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I noted that on the gmina navboxes (pl:Szablon:Gmina Kozienice, {{Gmina Kozienice}}) we are missing Ryczywół; I thought Kotniski would have had the answer on this one - in fact, he's probably the only one with an answer :( Severo^TC 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we had requested article list(s) before, and nobody was really using them for much, requests languished there for years. Posting here, which is a page that people at least check occasionally, may result in somebody actually doing something (this has happened before, at perhaps 50/50 chance). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: Wikipedia:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am finishing the expansion of Baptism of Poland (felt like I needed some change from the 18th century), I am having trouble with an important claim/date. What is more common as the date that marks the creation of the Polish state: 960 (Mieszko I ascends to power), or 966 (Baptism of Poland)? I am having trouble finding good sources for either, and sadly, I currently don't have any good access to the generic "history of" books. Perhaps somebody who has one or more on a shelf could join the discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely (around) 960. There are some important event in history of Poland like marriage Mieszko to Dobrawa in 965 or two battles with Wichman. Kmicic (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is that 966 is the only date, even though it is only a symbolic date of the creation of the Polish state (data umowna). 960 I think is the guessed date of Mieszko's ascent to power, others say 963. I'll do some looking in books later, but I'm pretty sure that the date Mieszko became the Piast ruling duke is not known. Orczar (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't know when exactly Mieszko became a duke, but all in academic books beginning of history of Poland is around 960, not 966 and definitely before 966. The date 966 isn't a symbolic date among researches. Kmicic (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

960 may be a good round approximate figure, but there is no date here and I thought Piotrus was looking for a date. Witold Chrzanowski writes in the recent Kronika Słowian, vol. II Polanie (2008), p. 95: "Mieszko most likely took over power after Siemomysl around 960/962. The chronicles and annals have failed us... The date 960 is possible, as are most dates from the late 950s and early 960s, up to 963. Under 963 we see Mieszko in power" (Thietmar writing of Margrave Gero's subjugation of Mieszko and his subjects). Beginning of the rule of Mieszko, the first ruler historically known, is a good starting point, but without pretending that 960 was the date. Orczar (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In the context of Baptism of Poland, I am looking for sources that would allow us to say that "Baptism of Poland in 966 is the date that marks the beginning of the history of Poland", or, if it is disputed, be able to cite a reliable source both for that and for 960, noting that sources differ, but that it is certainly one of potential "start" dates. This kind of referenced claim would be also useful for a number of other articles, including our major "history of Poland" ones. I note that currently those articles (History of Poland during the Piast dynasty, History of Poland in the Middle Ages, Poland in the Early Middle Ages - mostly written by Orczar - thanks!) are somewhat ambiguous, talking in general terms about Mieszko and 10th century ("The historically recorded Polish state begins with the rule of Mieszko I of the Piast dynasty in the second half of the 10th century."). I think we can try to be more precise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Podokres pierwszy to czasy monarchii pierwszych Piastów, zamykające się w granicach od okoły połowy X wieku do lat 30. XI wieku says Jerzy Wyrozumski in Dzieje Polski piastowskiej, p. 72. In medieval Christian Europe 966 that can be taken as a foundation of the state, but fixing the beginning of the state on this date is not accurate and not supported by modern scholarship. "(In 966) The Duchy of Polonia formally became a part of Christendom" says Adam Zamoyski in "The Polish Way", p. 10. The middle of the 10th century would be a good approximation for the beginning of the state though. Orczar (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

From "A Concise History of Poland" by Jerzy Lukowski, W. H. Zawadzki: "Since Rome neither subjugated nor abandoned Poland, there is no widely recognized Year One from which to launch a historical survey. The year ad 966 has to serve, for in that year Mieszko, the ruler of what has come to be known as `Poland', accepted (and imposed) Latin Christianity."

Biskupski in his "The History of Poland" is less precise: "Poland arose as a distinct political entity late in the tenth century".

Lerki's "Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945" obviously likes that date, but does not provide a clear statement for why it was chosen (it of course acknowledges the baptism on that date, but does not discuss the significance of it for the book and title).

As noted in the current baptism article, Davies discusses 966 primarily in the context of the 1966 celebrations, when it was indeed recognized as a millennium date for Poland, but I can find no place in the book where he actually accepts it.

I cannot find anything about a start date for Polish history in "The Cambridge History of Poland", nor in Anita J. Prazmowska's "A History of Poland".

I found two books that clerly state that the history of Poland begun in 966, but they are not as reliable as the above general histories: The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism And Religion in Post-communist Poland: "The year 966 thus marks the simultaneous birth of Polish statehood and the baptism of Poland" and Church and State in Communist Poland: A History, 1944-1989 "history of Poland, which began with the conversion to Christianity by the Roman Catholic missionaries and the baptism of Poland in AD 966".

Overall, I think we should keep the sentence about late 10th century, with a note that some (but not all) sources chose the date 966 and the baptism of Poland as the most significant event.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Would any native speaker, or anybody with good command of English, take a look at my GAN? A reviewer is asking for language c/e, and it is not something I can do well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it over the next day or so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think my newest article (now at DYK) is also comprehensive enough for B-class. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this, I noticed this nonsense a year ago, but have only myself stepped in since the antics of 1 or 2 "English names only" editors appear to be getting more intrusive and disruptive. WP:BLP requires a higher standard of accuracy than the rest of WP, and on this basis I believe the following page move and deletion of the BLP source verifying the correct name is counter WP:BLP accuracy guidelines. can someone please verify that www.tenis.sport24.pl is a reliable and accurate source. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This "anglicizing" zeal is indeed a threat to Wikipedia'a accuracy and integrity. So now we have to change Lech Wałęsa to Lech Walesa? Orczar (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a random sport portal, not my field of expertise. But here is a more reliable source (onet.pl is a major portal in Poland, and news pieces there are not far off from those in major newspapers). Also, pl article is at pl:Błażej Koniusz. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't a random sport portal, it's the ITF online registration:

Please do not input å â ñ é ö or any other letter which is not part of the English alphabet

This has been going on for months apparently. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

International Tennis Federation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a lie by IIO. Diacritics battles have been going on since the beginning of wikipedia. Tennis has used the common English name in articles for years per wiki policy and guidelines. Tennis is a bit different since the English alphabet is a requirement in the governing body of tennis since the 1920s. Wiki requires the lead to have all major versions of the name listed. I had done so in the form example of common name/Polish name... Paul Kolodziejczyk (Polish: Paul Kołodziejczyk), to make sure we followed protocol and included all major spellings. Yes since this is a an English wikipedia I want the common English name as the article title and heading up the lead while IIO does not. He has quite recently begun systematically moving all English tennis pages to the Polish spelling. Some make it through move requests and some don't. Most he doesn't even request. That's the process and I'm cool with that. However he is also removing all traces of the English common name. The common name used by virtually all English sources, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), WTA (Women's tennis Association). The ITF is the governing body of tennis and all player are required to register an anglicized (English alphabet) name of their choice. Such as Novak Đoković did with Novak Djokovic and why he's been sitting for years in this place on wikipedia. My first thought when a page did happen to be moved to a foreign diacritic spelling was to keep the common name in the front of the lead. IIO said no. Since this is an English wikipedia I tried with the diacritic name first but with Paul Kołodziejczyk, common name Paul Kolodziejczyk... and asked an administrator his opinion (he said it looked good). IIO said no. I mentioned alternate name instead of common name...IIO said no. I finally settled on "professionally known as:"... IIO said no. He has bent absolutely zero on this issue since his tennis editing and disruptions started. He seems to think I have some sort of bias against Europeans... I hope not since I'm Polish/Austrian myself with a family name that uses diacritics (but not in English). For awhile everytime he removed all traces of the English name I added it back in but I told him from now on if he removes it I will revert his entire addition as it was getting really old to keep re-adding it. So IIO isn't telling the whole story here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fyunck

I have been editing since 2009 and only really noticed this tennis nonsense getting worse in the last few months (such as the constant ignoring of WP:UE regarding wikt:transliteration of cyrillic names like Новак Ђоковић). I didn't (and don't) see the need to trace back this behaviour. Wikipedia evidently needs to get behind this. You are still the only editor who supports your "Á professionally known as A" inserts to BLP ledes. We all of us have better things to do, .......hence the "passport" suggestion at WT:BLP. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To wind this up, an admin has no closed the RM which Piotrus initiated to return the above BLP to accurate spelling. The lede now reads:

Błażej Koniusz[1] (IPA [ˈbwaʒɛi ˈkɔɳʊʂ]) (born February 22, 1988[2] in Świętochłowice), known professionally ^{[dubious – discuss]} as Blazej Koniusz[3][4][5], is a tennis player from Poland. Koniusz began playing at the age of four, and joined his first club at the age of seven. He began his senior career in 2006.[6] He played for the Polish Davis Cup squad in 2008[7]

The remaining 100 or so BLPs affected are mainly WikiProject Czech Republic BLPs, I don't think category:Polish male tennis players has any more that have been "anglicized" in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

NB. I have noted that ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons in the context of all 104x BLPs affected. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This article needs improvement. Both uk.wikipedia and polish Wikipedia have a lot of information, but I can't read the languages. Someone else should look after it. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have posted it in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Klepar.C3.B3w, but since WikiProject Ukraine seems to be largely inactive, asking it here too. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also going to ask MILHIST for a review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed by MILHIST as a B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see warring new Dan Cottrell (talk · contribs) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this refers to User_talk:Dan_Cottrell#Irish_dance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep; but mostly to his edit history, like this and others. Now this guy forked it to {{Irish music}}. See also Template talk:Irish dance. Whatever. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is a continuing problem, I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or reporting him to WP:AN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big problem out of it. If nobody else from WP:P cares that Mazurka is classified as Irish folk music, fine with me, just a bit weird. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also posted at milhist, so don't worry about it too much. However, I do wonder if the article wouldn't be better of under Military of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No air force, no navy, so the name is good as it is. Orczar (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a navy (covered in the article): Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Navy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably Polish-Lithuanian should be Polish–Lithuanian? Severo^TC 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about dash? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, or specifically an endash rather than a hyphen (as per the main article, category etc). Severo^TC 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the dashes, I never claimed to understand them much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(Also, review done by MILHIST - they are fast... unlike us, who still have a backlog). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the articles listed at Category:Poland articles with an incomplete B-Class checklist are actually straight up C-class articles. I think this has to do with the weirdness of the template.VolunteerMarek 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To a degree. I also see it as a useful reminder we do have a lot of articles to review. Although you are right, 9 out of 10 if not more of those articles are quick fails (insufficient inline referencing, to start). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Should WP:POLAND be used on:

• 2nd generation Polonia people (all Polish-Americans, etc.)?
• buildings related to Polonia, like churches that used to carter to Polish community (Basilica of St. Josaphat), or locations (Polish Hill in Pittsburgh)?

Personally I'd exclude 2nd generation immigrants. Just being a descendant of a Pole is not enough to make one of any relevance to Poland - it's a little like PSB ctieria (at the same time, foreigners can be within PSB/WP:POLAND scope, particularly, notable immigrants to Poland). With regards to locations, I am trying to draw a more clear guideline, but am blanking on any useful thought ATM. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

On the first one, I'd treat it on case by case basis, since it really depends on how close of a connection to Poland and "Polishness" they have.VolunteerMarek 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

True, but we should default to "not within project scope" like for all foreigners (which then we of course treat on case by case basis). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that yes, default to no, add anyone who is relevant as extras. Severo^TC 22:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Any specific criteria, like second generation, won't work. Generally, it's not even possible to define who's a Pole or Polish and who is not. A lot depends on how a person identifies himself or herself. They've been saying for many decades that Chicago is the most populous Polish city other than Warsaw. Apart from the fact that this is obviously not true, who do you consider Polish in Chicago? Somebody from Poland, or who speaks Polish, or of Polish ancestry, or of half-Polish ancestry, or with Polish citizenship, or who considers herself Polish? St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in Chicago was built by Polish immigrants from the January Uprising generation. All the inscriptions are in Polish. Definitely a historically important Polish place, even though few Polish speaking Poles attend the church now. You have to play it by ear, on case-by-case basis. In general I feel Polonia and its matters should definitely be included; as to how and to what degree, I don't know. As usual, the Devil is in the details. Orczar (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would second Orczar. Ethnic identity is fluid, and results from self-identification, which does not correspond with how many generations ago one's forebears left Poland.--Orestek (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that until there are specific problems which come up with regard to this issue - like some kind of a deep disagreement over a particular person among editors - then there's no point in setting down "rules" which address a problem that doesn't exist. If someone comes across a 2nd generation Polish person who's not very Polish (by whatever standard) then just remove the tag. If someone else comes across a 2nd generation Polish person who they feel is relevant enough for our project but who has not been included within the scope yet, and wants to add them, then go ahead. At this points laissez-fair (btw, what's the standard translation of that into Polish?) seems to be the best way to go.VolunteerMarek 02:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment was partially sparked by the inclusion of Basilica of St. Josaphat in the project scope. It's an American church, "dedicated to Josaphat Kuncevyc, a Polish-Ruthenian martyr", "founded in 1888 by immigrant Poles in Milwaukee", built "in the so-called Polish Cathedral style". That's seems to be the extent of that building's connection to Poland. Should we treat all such buildings (built by Polonia at some time in the past) as within the project's scope? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

On that particular one I'd say no personally but I wouldn't object if someone felt really strongly about including it. On the other hand Polish Cathedral style would very much be within project scope.VolunteerMarek 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the PCstyle article, but indeed I am concerned whether all buildings built in it are "Poland-related". That's a blurry line, what about buildings built abroad by a Polish architect? Should Nationality Rooms in the Pitt's Cathedral of Learning be tagged with the 30 or so national project tags, because local communities, including Polonia, sponsored one room in national style there? I'd think not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

At least some historic Polish churches in North America should be covered. The oldest Polish church in Chicago St. Stanislaus Kostka Church is one such church and so is probably the one in Milwaukee, although I'm not familiar with its history. Some are architecturally imposing and they were the centers of separate immigrant ethnic communities, in the earlier 20th century not really integrated into American life. An old priest who grew up by St. Stanislaus and went to school there told me that the children's only contact with English was one English class per school day; the rest was in Polish. Polish people are connected with Poland and so are the buildings they built, if they're for some reason important. Orczar (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I forgot to ask for a review of this in few weeks ago when I finished it, so here it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this article shouldn't be moved. It is far more than a list of battles, see Talk:Battles of Medieval Poland. Comments appreciated (this is not a RM yet because I am not sure what name to propose). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am done expanding the article with the PSB entry. I intended to work more on it to bring it to GA, but I'd appreciate comments, reviews and help at any point :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean? Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of context gibberish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Lithuanian arm of the Poles in Lithuania is organized by several groups and associations.Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor English, then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it.VolunteerMarek 16:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"was Polonized" - I understand that this means that the Grand Dutchy nobility was Polonized by outside powers. In fact the nobility gradually changed their language and religion.Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyone who reads Polish that can search for horse photographer Wojtek Kwiatkowski and tell if he is notable enough for an article? I've seen a lot of blog coverage in English, I was hoping there was something better in Polish. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable sources, so he seems not notable, at least as of now. PS. His first name is Wojciech not Wojtek (diminutive). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But his profile... If say, someone did accidentally send him a message with the name Wojtek Kwiatkowski (while asking him to release one of his images under CC) how bad would that be? Did I just call him Diminutive Kwiatkowski? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming he knows English, he shouldn't care. But either way, I'd suggest using just "Mr. Kwiatkowski". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I did use Mr., but I wasn't sure who the email address was for so I first mentioned I was hoping to reach Wojtek Kwiatkowski. Oh well, thanks for the googling. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this expert of Polish case in negotiations before Treaty of Versailles, world expert in cartography, glaciology, and climatology is really forgotten by Polish wikipedians. alx-pl d

Well, the few of us here have few dozen thousands of articles to work on. If you would like to change that, join us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any knowledge about this filmmaker? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing any good sources in Polish, or on GBooks, but does not appear to be a hoax. Seems to be mentioned with a short bio (?) in http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09528822.2011.545634 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Died March 23, 1993 in New York http://lajt.onet.pl/encyklopedia/2,23,3,10,1,0,kalendarium.html .Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The external link in the article is dead.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1249462/ Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.africultures.com/php/index.php?nav=personne&no=27932 Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

http://m.biblio.com/books/203444844.html 1000 USD.Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus, Xx236, Many thanks, article updated with this information. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Another of Matejko's masterpieces. Next one, I'll probably try to expand and DYK the Kopernik one... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So I thought - why not do it the day after Stańczyk? :) Btw, I couldn't find anything on WWII history of that painting, which surprised me - I'd have thought it would have been looted or such, at least. If anybody could expand on that, please do. On another note, this also means that all five of Matejko's paintings we have articles on en wiki so far are de-stubbed and are/will be DYKed. Still, so many others remain to be written about... I'd like to do articles on Rejtan and Racławice in the future, but so many others look tempting, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing a red link in the article, I decided to fill the gap. Being a kind of systematic, bottom-up guy, I started tracing ramifications, and suddenly I am stuck in the wikipedia bog. Unfortunately I don't have much time, so please help wikipedia with the mess I started to unravel, starting with "Objects of cultural heritage in Poland" (was under the title "zabytek") And someone was seriously intended to write here the article "pomnik historii". I understand that Conversations with God for a Pole (who is second to a Spaniard in piety (I don't count Italians; they don't look serious, despite encircling the Vatican) is of Top priority, but in wikipedia we have NPOVs and such, so I'd suggest first things first the fundamental topics are to fix first. How about Historical Monuments in Poland? See pl:Pomnik historii. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. I wanted to fix the interwikis for Zabytek and almost died of laughter. While jumping through seweral i/wikis, an unsuspecting Englishmann will learn that "zabytek" is the same as "pomnik historii", but DYK that both terms mean "Potter's field" ?:-). Someone of polyglot skills must fix this mess too. No to na razie; czas na piwo... Staszek Lem (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume the problem has been somewhat fixed, at least for pl and en wikis. It is indeed an interesting case, as the pl:zabytek does not have an exact translation into English; momument is too limited (pl:pomnik). I see you moved zabytek to Objects of cultural heritage in Poland. That's fine, but I'd suggest more fixing. We should create an article on Objects of cultural heritage, linked to pl:zabytek, about the concept in general, and move then split the most of the Polish wikipedia article into pl:Zabytek w świetle prawa polskiego (per the section title), which would be properly linked to Objects of cultural heritage in Poland. Problems with interwikis between en and Polish wikis usually reveal that on pl, the main article about concept X has a small section about generalities, and most of it is dedicated to the "in Poland" part, which usually on English wiki has a separate article. For a recent example, consider the Passport in Poland article, which only recently gained its equivalent on pl wiki, as I split the pl:Paszporty w Polsce from the generic pl:Paszport article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Objects of cultural heritage is close to unnecessary: "cultural heritage" covers the topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So why is it that pl wiki has separate articles on pl:zabytek and pl:dziedzictwo kulturowe? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus, could you do me a favour please. Could you please drop in at MOS:PN and make a short statement confirming that all en.wp Polish articles, bios, places, are actually at full Polish spelling, not just Lech Wałęsa, I have two editors who have both deleted the 2009 diacritics guidance from MOSPN and apparently have now way of knowing that it is in fact true of en.wp. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular discussion on talk you'd like us to look at? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just started this - mainly with sections from other articles, though there is some new stuff. Feel free to contribute please! The are some very underdeveloped sections, especially the Holocaust bit.Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the article would be better off focusing on non-Jewish aspects of racism; the Jewish ones should probably be copied to anti-Semitism in Poland. You may want to talk to User:Lysy who merged it back to anti-semitism back in 2005. Another thought: in an article on a controversial subject like that you should ensure all content is referenced with reliable sources, or it may be removed per WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Most was referenced (except the general intro), but I deleted some refs which went red cos their info had been left on the original pages. Anyway, it's not just about Jews... there's stuff on Roma and Africans. Jews have been covered more for obvious reasons. Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is that racism against Jews is usually covered under the anti-semitism topic. Also, copy the lead and link the article from Racism in Europe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if we could get some input from editors knowledgeable about Poland at Talk:Silesian Highlands#Requested move? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Template:National symbols of Poland, I don't see why the saints should be there. Black Madonna, perhaps, but how many people heard of Bobola or Kostka? Matejko or Mickiewicz would be better there; in fact I'd suggest adding a list of most famous people who can be seen as symbols of Poland, one for each category of culture: Chopin for music, Mickiewicz for poetry, Matejko for painting, Curie-Skłodowska for science. For literature, I guess both Reymont and Szymborska as the two Nobel-prize winners. For politics, Wałęsa, and for religion, the Pope. What do you think? That would leave sports (Małysz?). Anything else? Something to represent Polish cuisine (pierogi) and architecture...? Alternatively, if this is bloating the template too much, cut stuff? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the status of Bobola and Kostka "official" in some sense? I would avoid putting in writers, sportsmen etc. You gonna get into the same trouble that we have with deciding on whom to include and whom to exclude in the "Poles" infobox. Of course if we do do it, then Copernicus, to represent Polish science ;>. I'd just keep it the way it is, possibly removing the saints.VolunteerMarek 00:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'd also take out Rogatywka and Rodlo, which I will proceed to do right now.VolunteerMarek 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. Looking at Category:National symbols of Poland, the question is - where to stop? Are there any symbols defined in the Constitution of Poland or other legal documents? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The constitutional symbols (first row of the navbox) are obviously defined in the constutution, the others are not. As for patron saints, it's perhaps debatable, but in historical, religious contexts, they did play the role of national symbols. Online sources that I've found list three major patrons - the Most Holy Virgin Mary the Queen of Poland, Saint Adalbert, and Saint Stanislaus - and two other patrons of Poland: Saint Stanislaus Kostka, and Saint Andrew Bobola.[3][4][5][6] Perhaps a good solution would be to create a new article, Patron saints of Poland, and put a link to it in the "Unofficial" section of the navbox. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice article to create - gets my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I created a stub and modified the template. Will try to expand the article and add citations later. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the exact meaning of the above phrase in "Polish death camp" controversy, but please remember that the death camps exterminated only Jews. The problem is that several camps were both death camps and concentration camps, like Auschwitz.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, Poland was unique in that the Germans first exterminated (worked to death) Poles in camps which they subsequently re-purposed to perpetrate the Holocaust. I don't believe the Germans established similar camps targeting the local (non-Jewish) population anywhere else in Eastern Europe, thinking forward to their invasion of the Soviet Union.

I've generally found that there is zero knowledge of this victimization of Poles outside Poland and the diaspora Polish community. Meanwhile, at one seminar on the topic, I heard the equally uninformed question asked, could "Polish death camps" —meaning created and run by Poles—be established as "easily" today in Poland and be just as effective in exterminating Jews? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The strict "death camps" - Chełmno, Bełżec, Treblinka - were places in nowhere, where Jews were murdered. You mean "Multifunction" camps like Auschwitz, created for Poles, later expanded.Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Shouldn't Annaberg (hill) be moved to Góra Świętej Anny, since the hill is located in Poland and the German name is only historical? - Darwinek (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Annaberg (hill), the German name of the hill at Góra Świętej Anny and site of the Battle of Annaberg" (from Annaberg (disambiguation)) - rather strange.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8980329 - St. Anna Hill Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, per conventions and even the broken G/D vote... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominated at WP:RM. - Darwinek (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the UEFA Euro 2012 article, co-hosted by Poland and Ukraine, on the proper way to treat controversies and concerns around the event which may be of interest to this project: [7] [8].VolunteerMarek 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011 round 1 has begun. This time I did not spot any clearly Poland-themed picture, but passing the word along anyway. Enjoy! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are very few of those, perhaps we should create a list? I just stumbled upon something I was unaware of before. PAN publishes two journals, Nauka and Academia, which seem to be archived online - at least the new issues:

• Academia: [9]
• Nauka is more problematic, their website seems broken (sigh). 2004-2008 issues can be accessed through [10]. The newest issue (1/2012) is [11], those in between seem accessible through google (so googling for Nauka 4/2011 gives [12]).

Off the top of my head, IPN publishes a lot of stuff online, I think with a few months delay between print and free online archiving at [13]. And there is Central and Eastern European Online Library and Sarmatian Review. Some recent issues of UJ Alma Mater are also free online ([14]). There are also Zwoje (not sure if they are peer reviewed), and BIAŁORUSKIE ZESZYTY HISTORYCZNE. As far as I know Mówią Wieki is mostly not archived online nor free so they are pretty much useless, but for an occasional sample article ([15]). Please list anything else that comes to mind, and if we get enough useful info I'll see about splitting this into a dedicated page somewhere under our Poland project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Zwoje is the most problematic of the above, because it features digitized copies of scores of carefully selected material published earlier in Polish periodicals, most, if not all, probably copyrighted. Poeticbent talk 20:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the articles I wrote not so far ago that I forgot to nom for B-class review. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There existed 17 post-war voivodeships.Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the random factoid. So? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I was shocked by low quality of voivodeships articles so I wasn't able to write logically.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "coord missing"? Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a template indicating missing WP:GEODATA. See {{coord missing}} for more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Which coordinates? Of the head office according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates - which one in Lubusz Voivodeship - there are two of them. But the Lubusz Voivodeship coordinates don't show any city.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that PSB may be mistaken, as it lists two children of Poniatowski (Kazimierz and Konstancja) that are often ommitted in sources, and some online (unreliable...) talk suggests they are an occasionally repeated error. I cannot find any reliable sources for that, however. If somebody could find more info, I'd appreciate it. Relevant discussion: Talk:Stanisław_August_Poniatowski#Two_questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My newest article. Enjoy, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed by milhist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Several of our GAs are in need of improvement, or they should be delisted otherwise. I have listed the here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for FA, it is one of several recent articles that I think is of that quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Through I expect MILHIST will handle it before anybody here has a chance... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I am done with hetmans for now, although I may work on Jan Zamoyski again in the near future (but I see him more of a chancellor than a hetman). This should cover all the "famous" ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted lede edits in Lech Wałęsa and Łódź, Volunteer Marek already did it in Gdańsk. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm preparing to put Art Spiegelman's Maus up for FAC. I've included some information on the Polish reaction, but it was recommended to me that I ask about WP:POLAND for more information for Polish-language sources. I know the reaction was strongly negative from a lot of people in Poland, but there is little about that in English, and I have absolutely no Polish myself, nor do I have any idea what would be considered reliable or unreliable sources.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this article when they get the chance and see if it needs any major work. Is anything in the article seriously outdated? Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Would someone be kind enough to do a spot-check of the sources for this article at A-class, please? We can't read the important sources. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Any help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews would be appreciated. As always, I am willing to review anyone else articles, but I cannot review my own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed Baptism of Poland but I might not have time for the other ones.VolunteerMarek 13:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, each one helps! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't find a source, of a free image to use instead :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I review Articles for Creation and have a problem that I hope someone in Wikiproject Poland can help with - an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Duracz (nobles) is up for review. Unfortunately, most of the refs are in the Polish language. The article creator has a conflict of interest (descendant of the family), but assuming good faith, if the refs support the notability of the family we can get the article to mainspace. Any help would be appreciated, either with comments on the AfC talk page or, if you prefer at my talk page. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia has an entry on Notability for noble families at pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność - rody szlacheckie. As far as I can tell, this entry fails it (to be clear: I did not look up other sources mentioned in the criteria; the article simply fails to cite any sources classified as reliable by it). Until it can be shown that this family meets the criteria specified there, I have to recommend against moving to mainspace, where I'd have to prod/AfD it. If the author speaks Polish, I'd also recommend he tries writing an article on Polish Wikipedia and sees if it survives there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it looks like the family is mentioned in Herbarz polski by Niesiecki which is one of the sources listed in pl-wiki's "Is mentioned in at least one of the following source" criteria. This is a significant primary source as well which confirms the basic content of the article. On the other hand this source does not mention "Duracz" although it does mention "Odrowaz". As far as I can tell there was at least one significant member of the family, Walenty Duracz, who was precisely the blacksmith (or whatever) that got enobled (by Batory I think). There were also a couple other Duraczes who are significant/notable but I am not sure if they had direct connections to this family.

So, bottomline is that it's sort of borderline. Because Polish nobility constituted a fairly high proportion of the population (more than English, less than Hungarian - up to 10% in some regions, though less countrywide) there are a lot of these noble families.

I would tend to be inclusionist on this one and go ahead and create the article. It's not really doing any harm, it's borderline notable, it might turn out to be important for some reason or another. And the person's going about it the right way which should count for something, at least in my book.VolunteerMarek 02:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Walenty Duracz, mentioned above is explicitly discussed by Jasienica [16] which I think is a pretty major mention, so that I think that strengthens the case for going ahead and creating this article.VolunteerMarek 02:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I asked the article creator to see if he could find anything in the Polish Wiki notability sources, and we'll go from there. GregJackP Boomer! 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

VM. Perhaps I am missing something, but the Polish guideline cites Herbarz polski not by Niesiecki, but by Adam Boniecki; Niesiecki is the author of Korona polska. According to PSB, there was one notable Duracz: User:Piotrus/List_of_Poles/Danielski-Dzwonkowski lists "Jacek Duracz d. 1623 karmelita; pisarz". Polish Wiki has articles on two Duracz, pl:Walenty Duracz and pl:Teodor Duracz. If they are from the same family, I'd suggest to the creator to write an article on Jacek on pl wiki, then write the article about the family, and self nominate it for deletion discussion within the community before it is moved to mainspace, see what the community thinks. I did exactly that for one article I was unsure if it was notable or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! A friendly bot tagged the above image as missing source information and notified me. Unfortunately, I am not the original uploader and Emax is inactive. Does someone have an idea of what the source of this image is? It would be sad to lose an image uploaded in 2005. -- Luk ^talk 07:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't find a source. I will replace it with the free File:PZL P7.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Piotr. -- Luk ^talk 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This section of the article may be of interest, and the same is true for the various... semi-discussions, on the talk page [17].VolunteerMarek 00:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive2 shows, I need a native speaker copyeditor who can take time to read through the comments at the FA nominations and help address them. As the FA standards have risen, I am no longer able to satisfy the modern prose requirements. I have a number of core Poland history articles that I aim to get to FA, but I cannot do it alone. Is there anyone who could help me? User:Dank has volunteered to help with is extensive knowledge of FA-level prose copyediting, but he is asking for a volunteer from our project that he could mentor, as he has no time to help with all of our potential articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is up to you guys; I'll help with any A-class or FAC article that WP:Milhist can tag, which covers a lot of ground ... rulers, conflicts, and causes and consequences of conflict, including this article on the 1791 constitution. But I need more help than I'm getting with copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is currently at FAC. One of the reviewers has requested, in a short paragraph where there is currently one citation at the end covering the whole paragraph, that the nominator repeat that same citation after each sentence in the paragraph. We've had this conversation before at FAC, and most nominators don't use that citation style, but it might be okay if there's solid support at the relevant wikiprojects for this style ... is there? - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Which portion of the FAC discussion are you referring to? I'm having trouble finding it. I'm also not sure whether you mean that most nominators don't use the "citation at the end of the paragraph" style or most nominators don't use the "citations at end of every sentence" style. For aesthetic reasons, as well as some common sense, unless there is a particular potentially controversial claim made within that paragraph I would go with just one citation at the end of the paragraph.VolunteerMarek 06:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

[Quote]

• [Piotrus:] I am uneasy as upon closer reading I see the article often relies on end of the para references (ex. first para of Widowhood and regency).
  • There are three paragraphs that have a single source at the end; I assume that means that everything in the paragraph came from the source cited ... Am I right, Surtsicna? - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • [Moved from below] Yes, Dank, that is correct. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If so, remedying this should be simple. Please copy the cites in question to the relevant sentences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

[End quote] - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

See File talk:Poland map flag.svg. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What's your idea about the cats like Category:Ships built in Elbing or Category:Ships built in Stettin? Should they remain as they are, i.e. using the German placename, as the ships were built in Germany at that time? Or should they be renamed to Elbląg, Szczecin etc. to reflect the current Polish names? - Darwinek (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If the are not split they should be renamed. If an article covers continuing process, we use the modern name for the place affected. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Both categories are now at WP:CFD. - Darwinek (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I prodded Veturilo, the author expanded it. But I am still not convinced it is notable. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I like it. I think the subject is notable, however, Veturilo is just an Esperanto word (apparently) meaning vehicle, therefore the article title is meaningless at present. It needs to be renamed as Veturilo bicycle sharing or Veturilo bicycle sharing system per WP:TITLE. Go ahead and move it. Poeticbent talk 17:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Very notable, was covered quite a bit in the Varsovian press and 40 other systems already have pages in Category:Community bicycle programs. As a name, Veturilo can stay if it's the common name and there are no conflicts. I'm just sad it wasn't there before I left Warsaw; it would have made my life a lot easier :( Severo^TC 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, guys. In that case I am letting it be :) PS. Make sure to check our article news feed for info on other prod and AfDs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ges-n1.jpg and File:Ges bunkier.jpg are up for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not in public domain till January 1st 2015 (as Eugeniusz Lokajski died in 1944). I think all other pictures on his page have wrong licensing, too. Some could be saved for now under fair use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Warsaw#Municipal government describes municipal government in Poland and the one of Warsaw. The municipal government in Poland should be probably described generally elsewhere. Urząd miejski (how to name it?) should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a few articles and categories already, but I agree that we are missing something. We have:

along with Category:Subdivisions of Poland and Category:Local government in Poland. However, we don't have a Local government in Poland article or even an entry for Poland on Local government. I think both of these would be useful and would fill the gap (and be able to remove some of the explanations from the other articles, including the Warsaw one). Severo^TC 09:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I could stub pl:Samorząd terytorialny w Polsce and pl:Urząd miejski, but I find those topics relatively boring. Perhaps you could do it, Xx236, since you brought it up? Ps. I also wonder if Category:Local government in Poland should be iwikied with pl:Kategoria:Samorząd terytorialny w Polsce. pl:Kategoria:Samorząd terytorialny does link to Category:Local government and pl:Samorząd terytorialny to local government. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy:

• List of counties in Poland but Powiat
• Voivodeship sejmik but Template:Regional assemblies in Poland

Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Template names don't really matter so much (the text displayed within them does), but categories and article names should be consistent. Category:Voivodeship assemblies in Poland contains articles which are Xxx Regional Assembly, but regions are called voivodeships everywhere else - obviously there was a lot of discussion about voivodeship lately. With counties, the categories also use the word county rather than powiat. I think this kind of thing would be better if consistent. Severo^TC 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support moving the Greater Poland Regional Assembly to Greater Poland Voivodship Sejmik (and so on for all the other local sejmiks). I think being more precise here is helpful. If we have articles on voivodeship and sejmik rathet than Region (Poland) and Assembly (Poland), which were kept as they are after long discussions, I think we should treat it as part of Poland-topics related Manual of Style, and avoid confusions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just created Template:Cite Polish law for easier citing and linking to acts of Polish law. I hope some of you will find it useful. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks quite useful. Thank you for a good idea. - Darwinek (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, it's a template for citing the Dziennik Ustaw. It's useful, thanks. I think there is something like this on pl wiki, we should interwiki link them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've linked it to pl:Szablon:Dziennik Ustaw, but note that my template works for both Dz.U and M.P. unlike the templates in Polish Wikipedia. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors on this WikiProject may be interested in the ongoing RfC on Talk:Caste. The article lists Poland as a region that has historically had a caste system, along with other countries, claims which some editors have found controversial. Editors critical of the current article have argued that the article has become a WP:COATRACK used to push the view that the caste system is not linked to Hinduism or India, while others have defended the article's portrayal of the caste as a universal phenomenon. The input of editors familiar with Polish history would be most helpful in this discussion. Was Polish society a caste? Is that a mainstream view and should Poland be listed?--Ninthabout (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly is Poland mentioned? I didn't see it. The caste system (Polish: kastowość, or pl:Kasta) is usually referred to as the Indian system in Polish (see: example in Polish online dictionary). Poeticbent talk 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste#Poland. I think this is very much an UNDUE/FRINGE claim. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole "Caste" article is very confused. It does not draw a clear distinction between formal the use of the term as applied to certain societies, and the desriptive, and even informal usage, used by some to describe sharp stratification/polarisation of a society. For example read this bullshit question from Yahoo Answers about castes in the United States. Therefore you cannot fix the "Poland" issue" without fixing the whole article first. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011-12_Ekstraklasa works from my homesite, but not if I change 2011-12 to 2012-13, even I know the site exist. The same for several other football league sites on Wikipedia. Swiss Super League doesn't work either with 2012-13, even though the site exist. I can't find the error. Please help me, since I am producing a very good football site with links to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.210.187 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that the link you quote (above) is only a redirect to another link. The proper http links can be found at: 2012–13 Ekstraklasa and 2011–12 Ekstraklasa. Poeticbent talk 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was so easy, I wouldn't ask. The link above doesn't work from my homesite. It was not just to copy the adress, then I got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Ekstraklasa and it did not work. Even if I wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Ekstraklasa it doesn't work. And I can't find out why. Namo Web Editor (home site editor) doesn't allow % in adresses.

• Nothing is easy. The cluster %E2%80%93 is non-replacable. Cite. Poeticbent talk 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• • For technical matters, ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). People there should be able to help you more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–13_Ekstraklasa ? The issue is you are trying to use hyphens rather than endashes. If all else fails, you can always create 2012-13 Ekstraklasa as a redirect to 2012–13 Ekstraklasa. Severo^TC 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From extermination camp: In 1989, upon the collapse of Polish communism, the extermination camps sites became accessible to Western visitors to Poland. Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that polar bears are Western visitors? Agathoclea (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Having seen a number of Xx236 posts before, I think he is aiming at some kind of metaphor, but Google Translate don't have Xx236ese in its options yet, so I am at a loss here, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that I have assumed that people generally know that the German extermination camps sites were accessible to Western visitors in Communist Poland. Are you sure your knowledge of recent history is sufficient to write about Poland or to verify articles about Poland? I'm sorry that I have assumed that you know streotypes about Poland: http://aretherepolarbears.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-there-polar-bears-in-poland.html, http://www.comenius.zso2.edu.pl/comenius/files/Stereotypes.pdf Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Extermination camp claimed also that Auschwitz was situated in Generalgouvernment.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's correct - they were accessible even before the fall of communism. The converse statement would probably need a citation. On the other hand, from what I see, it does say that Auschwitz was not in GG but "occupied Poland" or "Germany".VolunteerMarek 10:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble with Badud (talk · contribs) who keeps adding some poor reliability / unref claims to Battle of Klushino. I have tried to engage him on his talk and article's talk, but he seems to be ignoring me. Can somebody else try looking at this before this ends up at 3RR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of a response and unwillingness to discuss edits, I don't see much you can do except 3rr board.VolunteerMarek 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Indef for continued disruption (edit warring, offensive comments, no discussion). Issue closed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)