Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 15

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 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Please take a look on that and edits of user Franek K. (talk · contribs)--Sobiepan (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

...and vice versa, Please take a look on that and edits of user Sobiepan (talk · contribs). User pushing POV in many articles. Franek K. (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Franek K. and User:Sobiepan. Both of you are eligible to be blocked for edit warring at Silesian language. Stop reverting immediately. If I see one more revert coming from either of you, off to WP:ANI/3RR you'll go. Then, stop accusing one another of who-knows-what (Talk:Silesian_language#Article_Title this is childish), which violates WP:NPOV, few other policies and discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe (another reason you could receive a block). Let me be clear: you are lucky either of you is not blocked yet, you have committed two violations that if any more experience Wikipedian was involved with your edits and wanted to report you would get both of your blocked. Clear? Clear. After you calm down, discuss things here. Let me give you a hint: cite your sources instead of insulting your opponent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to waste my time on this - but POV pushers from RAS need to be stopped.

I propose to move the article to Silesian (Polish dialect) and rewrite it similar to: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlesisch_%28polnischer_Dialekt%29

--Sobiepan (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Franek K. violated the 3RR Rule--Sobiepan (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks again :( You would be pleased if I wrote "I do not want to waste my time on this - but POV pushers from Młodzież Wszechpolska (All-Polish Youth) or similarly nationalist organisations (Category:Polish nationalism) need to be stopped"? Please stop.

By the way, this is English Wikipedia, not German or Polish. Neutral point of view is the basis of this Wikipedia.

Also, your proposition change the name of article is totally not neutral. Franek K. (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check this, an opinion about him: [1] --Sobiepan (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You obviously do not want to lead a substantive discussion, you want pushing own POV version, offend other users and look for reasons to quarrel, as above. Franek K. (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Further examination from what I originally had done shows that both of you are eligible to be blocked on 3rr grounds alone. Stop editwarring, stop accusing each other of POV pushing without providing substantial evidence and doing it in the appropriate forum, and start talking about the issues you are having on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I am currently not blocking either of you and hoping that you can go to the appropriate talk pages and work this out, but I'm going to be awfully tempted to block the next one of you that makes an uncivil post or edit wars. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not broke the 3rr rule.--Sobiepan (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I miscounted; however editwarring, even short of 3rr, is something that can be blocked for, and given the slightly ridiculous number of pages that you were warring with Franek over... I would strongly advise you to not make any edits that could be viewed as furthering this series of edit wars before substantial discussion has occurred on a talk page about the best way forwad. In the broader scope of things it doesn't matter if a few Wikipedia pages contain a relatively minor error for a couple of days while agreement is hashed out about which way to go. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Slavic languages (including the Polish [2] and German [3] articles about the Silesian language) says its a Siesian dialect. (Please see also [4] and that [5]). Silesian language / Lechitic languages / West Slavic languages should be edited by students or graduates with a degree in linguistics. I already asked two users for help. Please keep an eye on this, I don't want be longer involved on this. --Sobiepan (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed now, that it has been discussed already with Franek last year on Talk:Slavic_languages#status_of_Silesian--Sobiepan (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Slavic languages has been also changed today: [6] It will be probably reverted soon.--Sobiepan (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Two issues. Polish and German sources about Silesian are as reliable as Russian sources about Chechnya or Georgian sources about Abkhazia, i.e. nothing. This proves Polish and German politics for Silesia, eternal attempt polonization and germanization of this region. Regarding "should be edited by students or graduates with a degree in linguistics", can not in any way verify such information. Anyone can write that is the best linguist, maybe the truth is that this is just a hobby (with no college degree). I am a teacher of Polish language in Poland, I have a master's degree in Polish philology but Wikipedia is not possible to verify this. Franek K. (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As a teacher you should be able to read and understand this: http://www.gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=9&Itemid=19

See also the authors of http://www.gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=293&Itemid=76 (reviewed by Prof. dr hab. SŁAWOMIR GALA, Prof. dr hab. ANNA KOWALSKA, Prof. dr hab. HALINA PELCOWA, Prof. dr hab. BOGUSŁAW WYDERKA)

Bibliography: http://www.gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1003&Itemid=119&dia=4--Sobiepan (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that but this is only one side of the coin and also polish sources about Silesian is not reliable sources. Polish and German sources about Silesian are as reliable as Russian sources about Chechnya or Georgian sources about Abkhazia, i.e. nothing. This proves Polish and German politics for Silesia, eternal attempt polonization and germanization of this region. All these Polish sources about Silesian is just well known Polish opinion about Silesian (Polish position on this issue), nothing more. Franek K. (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you have begun to talk to one another. Remember WP:AGF, it is quite essential. We are both trying to improve this project, and we should use our different perspectives as a source of strength. (On a side note here: I was born in Katowice, and I consider myself Silesian, Polish and European, and I respect the contributions of Polish, German, Czech and Silesian culture to the region - neither is inferior, and the beauty of Silesia is in its multicultural history).

Now, we also have to remember WP:RS and WP:V. Wikipedia is not about truth. We are about discussing what others say. All sources are biased to some extent, and Frank makes a valid point about it - to a degree. We cannot reject sources by reliable Polish and German scholars. If other scholars have criticized them, discussing the biases of them or their schools in general - great, we can add this. But it's difficult for us to make such judgements ourselves. The best way to proceed is to look at each source in detail, and discuss it. We can do it here, or at WP:RSN. [7] seems, on surface at least, reliable, but if German sources disagree, we should note it. We can either attribute authors directly (Polish linguist X says... whereas German linguist Y says...) or if we have more sources (preferably ones making such generalizations for us) we could say "Polish linguists, such as A, B, C say... whereas German linguists such as X, Y, Z say". In addition to Polish and German sources, we should also look at English sources, which may be a bit more neutral. Such a discussion can be made more visible by being kept in a dedicated section, or a footnote (or both). When it comes to categories, as long as there are accepted sources for it, we can include it - thus if we have sources for them, both Polish and Lechitic categories should stay. For name of the article, a procedure described at WP:RM could be started, through the most common outcome is simply to check what is the most common name in English literature (here I'll note that - a bit to my surprise - Google Books suggests that "Silesian dialect" is much more common than "Silesian language". PS. I will ping a user interested in Silesia to offer his insights: User:Darwinek. I was also going to ping User:LUCPOL but he got himself indefinitely blocked few years back for fighting, edit warring and disruption on Silesian topics - a lesson that I hope all participants here will consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you, Franek K. and [User:Sobiepan|Sobiepan]], for beginning to actually discuss the issue at hand, rather than just edit-warring back and forth. I would suggest that you heed his advice; it looks to be good advice. I would also suggest that both of you try to assume good faith as much as possible on behalf of the other editor, and would strongly suggest that neither one of you makes a change of the type that occurred during the edit war before there's a lot more talk page discussion. I know that it can be hard to believe that another other editor is acting in good faith, but doing so is critical to building a global encyclopedia. (Please know also that I will be watching this situation, and if either of you start to behave inappropriately, although I didn't block the first time, I very well might the second.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• That "Silesian dialect" gives more hits than "Silesian language" on GoogleBooks should not come as a surprise, since newer books are heavily underrepresented compared to older stuff. Times change. When I was a teenager, nobody considered Lëtzebuergesch a language, today it's quite generally accepted as one. The further back you go, the fewer languages and more dialects we have. I can also provide you with sources claiming that Ukrainian is a Russian dialect, but would that be an argument for renaming Ukrainian language to Ukrainian dialect? Besides, the opinions of linguists are most valuable, but other criteria are not less important: does the language have a written tradition and/or a standardised orthography, albeit a young one? Does it enjoy an official status in a country or a region? Does it have an ISO 639 code? In the case of Silesian, the answer to all three questions is 'yes'. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 02:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• In addition, I'd like to remark that the Polish and German Wikipedias qualify Silesian as a dialect indeed, but practically all other editions qualify it is a language. Not that it matters though. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 02:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the other editions usually translate the articles from the English edition.--Sobiepan (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian is a dialect of the Polish language. Yes, it is different than literary Polish, and it contains huge amount of German-origin words but that does not make it a separate, distinct language. Couple of years ago, the U.S. Library of Congress recognized it as a separate language (along with couple of African dialects). Since then an assertive push from the Silesian separatists began, trying to force the public to recognize it as a separate language. This is nothing more than a concentrated action by the RAŚ separatists. It is sad that Wikipedia became a battleground for something as petty as this dispute. - Darwinek (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's been nearly three years since last issue. I've copyedited it; is there anything anyone wants to add? I'd like to have it mailed in a day or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Józef Piłsudski Institute of America in Manhattan, New York is in the process of organizing the WikiProject of the Piłsudski Institute of America, and are looking for a volunteers to help. We need a Wikipedian-in-Residence to intern/volunteer part-time in the Institute in New York City, and are looking for local and remote Wikipedians who would like to contribute- especially those that speak the Polish language.

The Pilsudski Institute has a large number of resources related to modern Polish history, sources concerning outstanding historical figures and important events, soldiers fighting in WW I and WW II, and Polish emigre organizers and institutions. Such topics need to be much better represented in the Wikipedia, both the Polish and English language versions. There are also other tasks and improvements to be made, see the Wikiproject page: Wikipedia:GLAM/Józef Piłsudski Institute of America. (GLAM = Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, one of the very active Wikipedia areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM

With the help of Wikimedia NYC we are planning several training sessions for those who would like to participate and would like to learn the Wiki ins and outs. Please contact OR drohowa (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC) for more details or if you would like to help out locally or remotely.

Thanks!

Please see Talk:Tenement#Merge_from_Kamienica_.28architecture.29. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Any good source, print articles for the biography information on Otto Schimek page? -- especially the complete text of his last letter?

Dear WikiProject Poland,

I'm trying to write an article on Otto for a national Catholic magazine in the U.S., and can find nothing in print publishing, English or Polish, that confirms the Otto Schimek Wiki bio. I'd like especially the complete text of his last letter. Can you help?

Thanks,

Mike McCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccpax (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There are some sources listed, but I would caution you against taking our article for face value. A quick comparison of it with the Polish one suggests the article my need substantial review, in particular, the pl wiki article (with sources) suggests that Otto Schimek's legend may be just that: a legend, a myth, not based on real facts. I didn't have time to research this, but be careful not to write a hagiography based on hearsay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

PS. I had time to add some facts to the article. I think you should find a different subject. This one seems to be very much a hoax. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No RM yet, but likely coming. Long Street or Długa Street? Lane is clearly unpopular and needs to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a problem here, also ratusz = rathaus. Please see Talk:Ratusz for a discussion about what should we do with this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we need both? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not like that. Category:Polish-language novels is redundant and empty, except for two repetitions. I suppose the idea was to have Polish novels there written in languages other than Polish, but it failed. Poeticbent talk 18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Outside of some old Latin works, I cannot think of any cases where a Polish work would be created in non-Polish language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Rękopis znaleziony w Saragossie, perhaps the best Polish novel, is written in French. Important Przygody Remusa in Kashubian. 83.6.33.10 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"The main article for this category is Zabytek." Zabytek already redirects to Objects of cultural heritage in Poland. I therefore think we should rename this cat to Category:Objects of cultural heritage in Poland. Thoughts? PS. CC User:Staszek Lem, User:Nihil novi]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

that's fine, especially if the category is for more than just the list of " zabyki". Jane (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

CfR started at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27#Category:Zabytki (@Jane023:). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam,

There is an oral tradition in my family that my grandparents were ethnic Jews and that my gradfather's brother was mayor of Belgrade or in that region. The oral tradition continues that a town was named after him and that the ending to our name has been altered over the course of time, when my grandfather moved to Germany. Are you able to find out how the name Bojanice came to be given to the town? I am Maria Bojanitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.138.186 (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Maria. First, please read the policy of WP:NOTAFORUM. Second, Belgrade is not in Poland. Bojanice refers to three municipalities in Poland; you may want to contact the local authorities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, we're trying to come up with a solution for this article. The company is an internet marketing business based in Greece, but it was (allegedly) involved with a lawsuit in Poland regarding an SMS lottery "scam/spam". We're trying to come up with some balanced coverage of the controversy based on sources we've found, but they are in the Polish language and we don't want to rely on machine translations to verify such controversial information. To complicate matters even further, we have representatives from the company itself arguing to have negative information removed, which is difficult to refute when we can't be 100% sure what are sources are saying. Might there be someone from this project who can give us a hand? The section of the talk page that is in biggest need of help is this one, but you can see that there are questions all over that talk page, and there are Polish language references in the article itself as well for a person to look over. Also, we are making some assumptions about the reliability (or lack thereof) for Polish language sources that may be inaccurate, and someone more familiar with such sources could be of huge benefit. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:: I have commented on the talk page. Please ping me there of here if further input is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors: The above old abandoned Afc submission has been confirmed as a notable subject, but as a biography, the draft needs more references and inline citations. Some knowledge of the Polish language is needed to find the sources and to add them appropriately. Would anyone here like to work on improving this? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I see no reason why this shouldn't be mainspaced as well. When it is, I'll c/e it further. Can you move it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is in mainspace. I have added some English citations. There are likely more extensive ones in Polish. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Poland experts: Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. It appears to have some references in Polish. Is this a notable subject, and should the article be kept and improved ? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:: Notable individual, pl:Jarosław Kilian has an entry in Encyklopedia PWN ([8]). This should be moved to main space a stub. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, for taking time to look at this and for providing the link to the encyclopedia article. I can't move the article out of Afc quite yet. I've fixed it up a bit, but because it's a biography it needs some inline citations, which I can't do. Could you possibly take a look at the encyclopedia article and place a few citations to it next to facts that are in the article? Then I will move it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I don't think inline cites are required. We can just tag it with {{nofootnotes}} and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, I'm afraid that you have caught me at a bad time. I am hosting an Afc discussion: "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6#Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations" and it would look really bad if I accepted an uncited BLP. Maybe someone else here will do it; you can move it yourself it you decide to. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I am really not sure how to move it to mainspace, but it would make a decent if not-perfectly-formatted stub. Could you move it to mainspace at my request and responsibility, and I'll c/e it when it is there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, it's done. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this commendable initiative was linked here yet, so - here it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm really sorry to have to bring the bad news that an article of high importance to your project has been flagged for copyright problems related to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114. It's possible to roll the article back, but doing so would take it back years in its development. :( If any of you have time and interest to help out, the article in question is Occupation of Poland (1939–45). Please note that in spite of what the label on the article now says, there is no risk that the article will be deleted. Worst case scenario is, again, that it would be rolled back. Ideally, if any of you are able to assist, we can resolve the problem by rewriting content added by the specific contributor, but this in itself could be a pretty big job, as he contributed heavily to the article. There's more information at the talk page, including a list of diffs.

Thank you to all who can assist and, again, I'm very sorry about this. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. When someone has a moment, would you mind having a look at Radom Chamber Orchestra? It has been deleted via PROD, restored via REFUND but still seems rather shaky. Here in the US a city-established cultural would very likely be considered notable, however I'm not sure what stature municipal culturals carry in Poland, oh and I can't read Polish to see if there are some blatantly obvious sources that could be added. Thanks very much. I'll watch here and article talk for any response. StarM 00:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Hmmm, I see coverage in regional sources, some of the more reliable are [9], [10]... not much more. Nothing in GBooks. Is there any specific notability guideline for such institutions? I'll ping User:In ictu oculi and User:Poeticbent who may have more experience with cultural topics like this than me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep (though this isn't the place to say so) It's probably borderline for WP:GNG given that "Radomskiej Orkiestry Kameralnej" didn't pick up much in the way of print coverage. However given the municipal support and the rarity of the Penderecki recordings on Dux it would be considerably more notable than the 1000s of obscure pop bands on en.wp. It shouldn't have been PRODed and I'm surprised that the PROD was actioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input and your additions, oculi. I tend to apply WP:ORG to museums and cultural organizations that don't easily fit other notability guidelines. To be fair to PRODder & deleting admin, this was deleted in 2011 and its notability may not have been as well established then. StarM 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

pl:Odpust parafialny is currently interwikid to Verbena (fair), which seems to be a Spanish word. I think the unreferenced linking of odpust and verbena is WP:OR. Any thoughts on if they are one and the same, and if not, what the Polish festival should be named? Literal translation would be "parish indulgence". I am not seeing much in GBooks, term-wise. Comments appreciated (pinging User:Nihil novi). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Polish "odpust parafialny" and the Spanish "verbena" seem to have little in common. The Polish institution is clearly church-related, while the Spanish one appears to be quite secular. I would delete the mention of "odpust" from "verbena". Nihil novi (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Polish "odpust parafialny" is an annual celebration of the parish church's patron saint. The customary term for this, odpust ("indulgence"), adverts to forgiveness that an individual might obtain for his transgressions.

A related concept is that of the "kermesse"—a word doubtless cognate with the Polish "kiermasz" (fair).

If there is only one kind of Polish Catholic parish fair (an "odpust"), we might call the odpust a "parish fair". If there are other kinds of parish fairs, then a more specific term would be needed here, e.g., "Polish Catholic parish patron saint's festival".

Do Polish non-Catholic Christian denominations also hold odpusty? Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: Hmmm, I couldn't find anything about a Protestant odpust. It doesn't help that Poland is 98% Catholic, there's just not much of those other religious communities to be visible enough. You are right that "parish fair" is probably a most logical description, through I am always a bit leery of inventing new words. I had time to do a little research:

Alicja Deck-Partyka. Poland, A Unique Country & Its People. AuthorHouse. pp. 297–. ISBN 978-1-4678-0448-6. - doesn't translate the word

{cite book|author=Michael Ostling|title=Between the Devil and the Host: Imagining Witchcraft in Early Modern Poland|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7BgqR2QIPeMC&pg=PA140%7Cdate=3 November 2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-958790-2|pages=140–}} - defines it as "annual church fair"

William Isaac Thomas; Florian Znaniecki (1918). The Polish Peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of an Immigrant Group. G. Badger. Znaniecki and Thomas in their famous work use the term "parish festival".

At this point I am thinking we could translate it either as parish fair or parish festival. I am leaning towards the festival due to my reverence for Florian Znaniecki. Thoughts? -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, "parish festival" was actually my first thought: a "fair" is more of a business, a "festival" is more of a celebration. Nihil novi (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, look at this page. Regards Kmicic (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

...regarding the inclusion of a photograph of her Polish grandfather, Ludwik Kaźmierczak, in the article [11]. Participation welcome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

At Commons I've started a discussion on the issue named "Polandball". Please see the discussion at corresponding gallery and at the Categories for discussion. I am inviting you to participate in this discussion. I would also like to post a broader invitation. How is it best to do it? Is it good idea? --Robsuper (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I just found this mess. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian months for a bigger picture; I think this is not salvageable as a stand-alone article, but perhaps something can be saved at Slavic calendar. Thoughts? (Copying them to AfD may be best). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not months but names of months. Compare also with French Republican Calendar. Slavic calendar suggests some pre-Christian calendar.Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, but Polish calendar doesn't seem particularly notable; how is it different from other Western calendars? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same what I tried to explain - either a real Slavic calendar should be described (are there any sources ?) or we discuss only Slavic names of months and week days of standard calendar.Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that any of those topics first to have show notability. Otherwise, Polish months will have to be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've finished expanding the history; I am sure much more could be added but the article is long enough for a DYK. Feel free to expand; we could use a better map, geographical description, and much more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There was no the German state around the year 1000.Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Xx236: First, there are other sources. Second, so what? It's a common short-name for Holy Roman Empire around that time. Just like technically there was no Poland between 1569 and 1795, just the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Of course, PLC/IRP was Poland... just like the German states of the HRE around 1000 were Germany. It's good to be precise, but it's not necessary, particularly in a short historical overview like there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but what is your source of of course? Ask Lithuanians or Belarusians. I'm not sure where is the border between ahistorical statements and useful concisness.Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the phrase "Poland and Germany shared a border since the beginning of the Polish state in the 10th century" is not true? I believe that the sources present in the article justify the use of the term German. If you disagree, please propose an alternate phrase, with a ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have created Category:Polish dissidents and Category:Polish dissident organizations based on pl pl:Kategoria:Działacze opozycji w PRL and pl:Kategoria:Organizacje opozycyjne w PRL. I think that in English language the usage of "Polish dissident" term is clearly limited to 1945-1989 we don't need to clarify that by translating "w PRL", through if anyone disagrees please comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been some lumping of the concept of "protest against PRL" and "anti-communism in Poland". I've just removed Solidarity from a list of anti-communist organizations, and I think few more similar items should be removed from Category:Anti-communism in Poland. In other words, not all Polish dissidents (an major missing article both from pl and en wikis) were anti-communists, ditto for their organizations. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and Occupation of Poland (1939–45) and related articles.

Thoughts on the structure of related articles:

• History of Poland (1939–45): the middle is messy, breaks chronological flow common in all other History of Poland series. Needs a rewrite, middle should be rewritten/merged with Occupation of Poland (1939–45) and War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. Regarding the rewriting of the History article, please comment at Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–45)#This_article_needs_a_rewrite
• War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and Occupation of Poland (1939–45): Occupation has a section about administration and War crimes about Ukrainian crimes; outside that they are forks. I think those articles should be merged. Please see my comment at Talk:Occupation_of_Poland_(1939–45)#Merge_with_War_crimes_in_occupied_Poland_during_World_War_II and comment there.
• subarticles seem mostly well defined. (...which ones? – Poeticbent) We could consider synching the names of Nazi crimes against the Polish nation and Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46). During the merger/rewriting of the History/Occupation/War articles, I think some content should be summarized and moved to subarticles. For example, currently the War crimes and Occupation articles contain virtually the same information as their specialized artcles on Nazi crimes/Soviet repression. It seems obvious that the parent articles should only summarize the topic, with the child article discussing them in more details.

Ping User:Volunteer Marek, User:Poeticbent, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Halibutt, User:Tymek, User:Orczar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• I am really troubled by how much of our coverage of World War II is copy-pasted between articles without attribution. I am beginning to lose track actually, because as soon as I start fixing one article I run into forks and mirrors under different titles immediately. I have no time to investigate like I did at Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939–45)#RE: Copyright problems unless there are others who are willing to do the same. However, both our articles: War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and Occupation of Poland (1939–45) are huge: (115,797 bytes) and (100,900 bytes) respectively. — Instead of merging them together, I propose the exact opposite, i.e. separating them further into standalone articles without the numbing repetitions. Poeticbent talk 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the way I rewrote the "War crimes" article for the GAN between these two edits,[12] you will see where I am going with this. — The war crimes, as defined by international law after the war ended, are a part of general occupation of Poland history ... but they are not one and the same thing, and can easily be separated into a sister article. Poeticbent talk 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: I am still afraid that many things described by the war crimes article are ORish when it comes to calling them war crimes. For example, the entire Ukrainian section. I totally agree with you that there's too much content copied; this is why I propose to merge the two worst articles which contain 80% duplicated content, and then in step two start shortening the resulting one by moving content to the sub-articles (or deleting it from the parent article, as it often is already there anyway). I don't understand why you would not support the merge? Keeping the two forks separate has no advantages I can see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I saw that argument by User:MyMoloboaccount at Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939–45). Just because Soviet Union took control over Poland and made it impossible to prosecute war crimes committed by Soviet nationals (along with OUN UPA), it does not mean that 'war crimes' were not being committed. According to summary at "Defining War Crimes" (ISBN 978-1-139-48711-5), the Nuremberg Tribunal stated explicitly: "violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." By all means, crimes committed by OUN UPA against civilian Poles were 'war crimes' committed during an armed conflict. — What I'm saying is that the "war crimes in occupied Poland" article is not the real problem; such article should definitely exist. The problem is the "occupation of Poland (1939–45)" article which is the pain in the ass and has been since the last investigation of gross copyvio from a number of internet sources. Poeticbent talk 05:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Soviet repressions of 1946 - are they war crimes? Probably yes, but are there sources?Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• The sad part of the War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II article is in its traffic statistics at http://stats.grok.se/. It is a white elephant. For example, in spite of its enormous size it receives on average slightly over 40 hits on a single day. How ridiculous. I guess it could be merged back, but where?? The Nazi crimes against the Polish nation receives less than 100 hits per day on average. The Occupation of Poland (1939–45) in spite of being bloated makes slightly over 150 hits only. The History of Poland (1939–45) article barely makes 200 on a good day. By comparison, Treblinka extermination camp I worked on recently gets 2,000 on a better day from an average of 1,000 regardless of what. The question is, how much work are you willing to put into something so incredibly large and detailed that isn’t being used anyway? Poeticbent talk 17:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Poeticbent: First we need to reduce the duplication of (often problematic/copyvio content). History... article gets the most views, and User:Orczar already said on it's talk he will help improve it. If we can merge the occupation and warcrimes, then synch and spin off most of its contents to subarticles, we would make great progress on cleaning up those topics. I am open to further discussion about the direction of the merger. War crimes may have a better focus, but I am concerned about possible OR. Looking at the referenced definition of war crime, I think that my OR concerns were not that warranted; even the Ukrainian actions can be classified as such. We could cite the definition of war crimes in the lead, to make sure it includes crimes against property (cultural genocide), and crimes carried out by more than just the occupying powers. Then we could merge the occupation to that article (I guess the administration section would need to be moved to History...?). How does that sound? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry as much about the number of hits as about the existence of correct and informative articles, so that if someone needs information it's there. Wikipedia is about easily accessible information, people tend to look here first. The number of views likely results more from the popularity of the issue among the English language users than the quality of the article. Orczar (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear: is there anyone who would oppose / revert my merger of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and Occupation of Poland (1939–45)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• A small part of Poland was occupied by Slovakia, not mentioned.
• All three occupations included reorganisation of administration, law enforcement, education, economy, army service, media. Such article isn't about war crimes and a description of German/Soviet genicides isn't standard occupation.Xx236 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at borders of Poland, you can see we cite two different sets of stats. One from GUS, one from old presidential website sourced to PWN (1999). Recent PWN seems to cite GUS numbers ([13]). I therefore suggest we should expunge all references/statistics from the [14] (now 404, archive at [15]). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:The Emperor's New Spy has been removing the coat of arms images from the infoboxes of Polish monarchs [16], for example [17], on the grounds that, quote, "it is tacky and an eye sore compare to other articles. And the example in Template:Infobox royalty is how it should be properly used. Coat of arms should be displaced as a thumb image in the article, if it must be presented". I asked him about it on his talk page [18].

I thought I'd bring it up here.

I don't have strong feelings on this, but after thinking about it I'm inclined to keep the coats in the infoboxes (and I say that as someone who doesn't like infoboxes too much). My reasoning is that unless there is, for some reason, a detailed discussion of the coat of arms within the article itself, it doesn't make much sense to have the coat of arms in article text. Furthermore the example article Henry VIII that is given as to "how it should be done" (in the user's opinion) is not really applicable - that article is quite long and so it's easy to put the coat of arms image in article text without screwing up the layout. Most of the articles on the Polish monarchs are much shorter and it's hard to cram the coats of arms into article proper without messing stuff up. So it's almost a choice between coat of arms or no coat of arms. Furthermore, while I don't like infoboxes all that much it seems that this is one of those things that really does belong in an infobox rather than elsewhere.

So I think these should be restored. Anyone else have any opinions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Exclusion of the coat-of arms from the infobox seems arbitrary when, for example, we routinely include a biographee's signature. Nihil novi (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either, but overall I think there's no harm in keeping the coat of arms - but it should be properly captioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Membership in a Scottish or other kind of clan was not a mark of noble status. Any Scot might—and generally did—belong to a clan.

By contrast, membership in a Polish or, later, Polish-Lithuanian heraldic family ("herb") was a mark of noble status that was shared with only some 10% of the general population of the country.

Therefore I think we shouldn't confuse things by referring to a Polish "heraldic family" ("herb"), e.g., "heraldic family Ostoja", as a "clan", e.g., "clan Ostoja".

I therefore propose that, in the article "Heraldic family", we delete the expression "heraldic clan" as a synonym for "heraldic family"; and that each heraldic family be called a "heraldic family", e.g., "heraldic family Ostoja" (rather than "clan Ostoja").

Nihil novi (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The word clan is certainly used in English language literature to render the Polish ród, [19][20][21][22] so please don't delete anything just because Polish clans are not exactly the same as Scottish clans. — Kpalion^(talk) 05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What is needed is to write a properly referenced article regarding pl:ród/pl:Herbowni (Heraldic family). With the stress on properly referenced; this article is an OR mess and discussing the wording, without sources, is mostly pointless. Regarding the name, an analysis of popularity of various terms in English literature should be carried out; as Kpalion notes, the word clan is certainly used. Personally, however, I do prefer family to clan in this context, but my preference is irrelevant - interested editors should cite their sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kpalion, thank you for the links to English-language sources that use the term "clan" in reference to all bearers of the same Polish or Polish-Lithuanian coat-of-arms.

I have the impression, though, that some English-language authors apply the word "clan" to Polish contexts for convenience (it is a monosyllabic expression) rather than for accuracy. In Polish, one speaks of someone being "herbu [fill in the name of the coat-of-arms]" ("of coat-of-arms [fill in the name of the coat-of-arms]"). There is no suggestion that all these bearers are related in any way other than through their common possession of the same coat-of-arms, unlike the situation in societies to which the word "clan" is — presumably appropriately — applied.

The Kościuszko Foundation Dictionary, volume I: English-Polish, New York, The Kościuszko Foundation, 1960, p. 162, defines "clan": "n. klan (szkocki, szczep i p.) [noun: clan (Scottish, tribe, and the like]." Nothing here about "ród" or anything else Polish.

Wielki słownik angielsko-polski (Great English-Polish Dictionary), vol. A–N, Warsaw, Wiedza Powszechna, 1977, p. 129, defines "clan": "s: 1. klan. 2. przen: klika; ekskluzywne towarzystwo. vi: w zwrocie: to [clan] together: a) trzymać się zwarcie razem; b) tworzyć klikę [noun: 1. clan. 2. figurative: a clique; an exclusive association. intransitive verb: to clan together: a) to maintain a tight-knit association; b) to form a clique]." Again, nothing here, either, about "ród" or anything else Polish.

All sources point out that application of the English expression "clan" to Polish and Polish-Lithuanian contexts is highly idiosyncratic. I would add: also jarring to informed Polonophone-Anglophone sensibilities.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipeda defines a clan as "a group of people united by actual or perceived kinship and descent. Even if lineage details are unknown, clan members may be organized around a founding member or apical ancestor. The kinship-based bonds may be symbolical, whereby the clan shares a "stipulated" common ancestor that is a symbol of the clan's unity" (emphasis mine). So members of a clan don't necessarily have to be closely related, they just need to claim a common descent, which is also the case with a ród. Family members, on the other hand, are closely related by definition. If the Polish case is really unique (although there seems to have been a very similar phenomenon in Hungary), then you're really left with just two options: either use the Polish term ród untranslated, or use the nearest English equivalent, however imperfect (which clan seems to be). In any case, if both "heraldic family" and "heraldic clan" are used in English-language sources, then both should be mentioned in the lead, no matter we choose as the article's title. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In this context, like Piotrus, I prefer "family" ("heraldic family") over "clan". Nihil novi (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've initiated a peer review with the intention of raising this article to FA. All comments welcomed.--Smerus (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Leaning Tower of Toruń. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• The topic is notable, the article is poorly formatted. Perhaps someone can help format this... I am always sad when newbie good faith mess kills the article chance for front page DYKing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a Request for Comments here, regarding the disputed title of the article. There is no consensus regarding it's title and the lead section of the article remains in conflict with the title.

Any comments are welcome. --hmich176 00:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#2013_year_end_charts.3F, I could use some assistance with a Polish language website. I have been researching the song "Blurred Lines" and am interested to find out if I have found a link for the 2013 year-end charts and whether "Blurred Lines" is listed. Can someone comment there for me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleas add information about this country to this articles. --Kaiyr (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI 121.75.40.191 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I am currently reading a biography about Alice Habsburg, née Alice Ankarcrona, who apparently fought as a partisan in Poland during WWII and was awarded medals for her services after the war. I'd like to write an article about her, but I can't seem to find much sources on either the Swedish (she was Swedish-born, then married a Habsburg arch-duke) or English google; perhaps there are some sources in Polish? If anyone finds any sources and finds the subject as fascinating as I do, drop me a line and I'd be happy to cooperate on writing an article about her. I'm grateful for any help or hints.

Best, Yakikaki (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Polish Habsburgs are very popular and beliked in Poland, espescially pl:Maria Krystyna Altenburg, Alice's daughter. There is a few books about them (Księżna. Wspomnienia o polskich Habsburgach, Ostatni król Polski" Karol Stefan Habsburg). The first one (which I've read) is an autobiographical interview with Maria Krystyna, with lots of informations about her mother. Here large fragments are cited : [23] Laforgue (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• @Yakikaki: We should certainly translate pl:Maria Krystyna Altenburg. Unfortunately, pl wiki doesn't have an article about Alice. If you are reading a biography, you should be able to write a nice article; I'd be happy to help DYK them. What I am seeing in Polish is not that much; at best few articles like [24] and [25].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind answers! I'm sure that with this and the autobiography, I'll be able to start and will happily cooperate on the development and making it into DYK! :) I'll post something here as soon as I've started. Ciao for now, Yakikaki (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

All right, I've begun something at my sandbox. Anyone who wants to participate, please feel free to go there and edit. Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting initiative. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

May I ask for expert advice, please on a recent change by an IP editor to an existing article on a Polish subject. The changes are here and it would be reassuring to have the linguistic point (see edit summary) checked by a knowledgeable editor. Grateful for any input. – Tim riley talk 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor corrected grammatical cases, 100% correct edit. D_T_G (PL) 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for that expert opinion. Tim riley talk 22:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am about to submit this for a WP:GAN. Any comments, reviews, and edits are appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an ongoing AfD for Jakub Romanowski. The sources are all in Polish and nobody at the AfD really understands the language, so I was hoping someone could have a look at them and add them to the correct statements in the article. If you have a moment a small expansion would be good too. The citations are to the printed copies but there are PDFs at the article subject's website. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone put together something on Wojciech Miaskowski? No article here, as I discovered when putting together Maps of Ukraine, but he has Polish and Ukrainian articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you stop with this "Turkey recognized Poland even though partitions" crap. There are no valid data about this. All myth about sultan asking "where is polish diplomat" was created by a XIX cen. writer and there is no historical data about ottoman empire disagreeing with polish partitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.221.102 (talk • contribs) August 27, 2014

Dear anon, your complain is lacking information (such as which article are you referring to) for us to be able to reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Poland–Turkey relations, the source quoted in the article is unavailable and its quality unknown. Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This article by Paulina Dominik seems fairly reliable (at least some bibliography is cited) and it nicely debunks and explains the origin of the myth of the Ottoman chef de protocol ostentatiously asking, "Where is the envoy from Lehistan?" — Kpalion^(talk) 06:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know if I can get a Polish Wikipedia article translated into English. I was directed to this page. The Polish Wikipedia article is here: Błogosławiona Bronisława. Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Seems done (Bronislava of Poland created Sept 2 by User:Alansplodge). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks. But I believe that you misunderstood my request. I was asking for the Polish article to be translated into English. User:Alansplodge did indeed create an article about Bronislava of Poland. But, I am requesting a translation of the Polish Wikipedia article on her, in order to add to and improve the English Wikipedia article. In other words, User:Alansplodge created an article, but I do not believe he created it simply by translating the Polish article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; I used English language sources from Google, so there may be information in the Polish version that I haven't picked up. Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And that's exactly what I am trying to determine. If the Polish article has any information of value that we can add to the English article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My newest finished Polish bio. Comments appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Poland experts: This old AfC submission is about an interesting topic, but it will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in improving its sourcing. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Not the same as pl:Jerzy Osiński (politician). Not a hoax, but as written, fails WP:N due to no sources. A very quick google doesn't find much: few passing mentions; a short bio on a book publisher website ([26]); another short bio in a niche publication ([27]), a larger one in another fanzine/webpage ([28]). So web presence is not sufficient, but perhaps book one pushes him over the border: short bio entries in Stanisław Paweł Prauss; Edward Malak (1 January 1996). Z Zakopanego na Stag Lane: wspomnienia konstruktora lotniczego i pilota, lata 1910-1970. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. p. 513. ISBN 978-83-04-04334-3. and Jan Wojnowski (2005). Wielka encyklopedia PWN.: Śliz - Trastámara. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. p. 57. ISBN 978-83-01-13357-3.; the latter one is an encyclopedia from which the content of the first weblink copied from without attribution. If he is good enough for another encyclopedia, he is good enough for us, so I suggest copying the sources I found and moving to mainspace. Thank you for bring it to our attention, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus for finding those references. I have copyedited the page and removed a couple of items which would likely not be verifiable. I have added the reference to the article, except for the first one which you said was a duplicate, but unfortunately I have no way to translate the book or PDF references. Because this is a biography, anything not totally routine should be accompanied by an inline citation. Could you (or anyone else here who reads Polish) please read the references and move them from the bottom of the article to appropriate places in the text? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed some projects have a list of reliable sources specific to them (ex. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources). I think it may be a good idea to create one. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need such a handbook. In the case of video games, the most obvious problem is that one cannot use the standard procedure of using paper publications, as there are none usually (there's journals and magazines, but I can't think of any peer-reviewed academic journals on, say, FPS games :D ). In case of Poland-related topics we do not have such a problem. There's plenty of sources available and we do not have to create project-specific guidelines, as standard WP:SOURCE and WP:V policies are good enough. Perhaps the only problem I can think of is when people object to treat non-English sources as verifiable material, but it's not really a problem with our work, is it.

The Korean list is more fun, but then again in our case it would be really arbitrary and I would rather treat each source separately. On one hand Fakt is a typical example of tabloid gossip journalism. On the other I can think of an interview with a famed historian published there. Or a decent historical article published in one of their inserts. //Halibutt 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Good news. It seems that PSB has a working online version; not all entries are yet available (due to, as expected, copyright issues - see FAQ, sigh), but they plan to have most entries available by end of 2016. Link: [29]. Have fun (no English interface version exists yet, and of course no English translation of the content is likely to happen anytime soon). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps inappropriately reinserting into the portrait gallery of "Poles", a photo of Juscelino Kubitschek, president of Brazil, 1956–61, born in Brazil, who had a Czech grandfather. Can something be done about this vandalism? Nihil novi (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR? If it is an anon, you can ask for a semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for protection, which we should certainly do anyway - just so that this list stops attracting drive-by spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, what's a Hungarian-born daughter of a Hungarian father and a Bosnian mother doing in that gallery? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

More insight would be appreciated into recent discussions at Talk:Poland and Talk:Economy of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is pretty close to B-class. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

My old User:Piotrus/List of Poles is being integrated into https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/ . Help is need to vet about 24,000 entries; please see User_talk:Magnus_Manske#How_can_we_add_this_list_to_Mix.27n.27match.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This one is also pretty well developed, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see this question on the talk page for Albertów, Gmina Lubochnia:

The infobox lists

settlement_type = Village que.

(including the period). What the heck is that? It sure doesn't look Polish, and there is no other page with that term (Search results).

If you want my participation in a discussion, please {{ping}} me.

--Thnidu (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Changed to a regular village, since nothing in the pl wiki article suggests it's not just that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Polish Rathaus seems strange, a German word describing a Polish building, now in Ukraine. The article is Ratusha (Ivano-Frankivsk).Xx234 (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's really because the Polish word ratusz is rendered in English through the German loanword rathaus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. but name of the article is Ratusha (Ivano-Frankivsk).Xx234 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP) is missing central committee articles akeen to the ones the Communist Party of China (18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for instance) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for instance) have. These lists are important, considering they list all the members of the elite. PUWP is currently missing 10 of 10;

• 1st Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 2nd Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 3rd Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 4th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 5th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 6th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 7th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 8th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 9th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
• 10th Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party

Does anyone have a URL link (or a book) which lists all the members? --TIAYN (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia has a category for the pl:Kategoria:Członkowie Komitetu Centralnego PZPR (one of many subcategories missing from our Category:Polish United Workers' Party members). the list at Polish pl:Sekretariat Komitetu Centralnego PZPR still needs to be translated; the list at Politburo of the Polish United Workers' Party is however translated. Looking at what's on the web, I found a website maintained by IPN: [30]. It's likely the most comprehensive and reliable source out there, providing much information for biographical articles regarding one's career in the Party - see for example this entry for Władysław Gomułka. The only problem is that this database does not seem either machine friendly, nor anything-but-search-for-name-friendly. I don't see any easy way for example to list people who were members of the Central Committee. Perhaps someone else can find the function I missed; you can also try to email IPN and ask about a list of KC members. I hope this helps, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

pl:Kategoria:Członkowie Komitetu Centralnego PZPR contains 222 members (I bet the list is not complete), secretaries (more important) among them, plus 86 Politbiuro members. Many common members were unimportant, local activists, especially workers, even some Politbiuro members - Albin Siwak, pl:Gabriela Rembisz . Calling them elite makes me laugh. Uneducated puppets, sometimes with anti-Semitic views. Xx234 (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone assumes that the PZPR was socialist - I don't think so. Only when Polish workers protested (1956, 1980) the Party allowed internal discussion and socialist views. It was mostly Soviet occupation tool.Xx234 (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Xx234: Socialist or not I do not care the slightest, they've failed (and in another 50 years time, Communist-inspired movements will be revitalized again just as fascist-inspired ones are today) :p. Yes its true that a minority "were unimportant, local activists, especially workers" but the majority were important, however, their importance hasn't aged well if seen from present circumstances. Most of the members were either mayors or ministers or something in between, or from the cultural elites, for instance leading officials from the Polish Writers' Union..

@Piotrus: Sorry for the late response, working on the Soviet central committees (four left, all with 400+ members...) ... I've sent the e-mail, hope they reply soon. Does an archive for Trybuna Ludu exist? If so is it online? That seems like the only place, in my mind, which would have the original lists... Anyhow, thanks for you're help. --TIAYN (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Outside a number of physical archives at major Polish libraries (don't know if any collections exist abroad), at least one library has a complete collection on microfilm, so somewhat close to being digitized ([31]). However, I was unable to find any mentions of a proper Internet-accessible digital archive. You could contact IPN again or the University of Wroclaw library. It seems that the Trybuna successor went out of business in 2009, and their webpage is down, too, so I guess there's no chance for anyone creating a proper commercial archive. You could also ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, someone there may be able to locate a digital archive I missed or a physical archive closer to you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mayors were controlled by local party leaders.Xx234 (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Xx234: When I wrote mayors i meant the de facto ones, that is, the party leaders. --TIAYN (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

PZPR jako machina władzy Xx234 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Xx234: Yeah, I don't know how speak, write or read Polish, if that was not the case I would have bought that book. --TIAYN (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remeber that you describe only the visible/staged part of Communist states. There existed the whole secret world, reconstructed like dinosaurs whom single bones. This Wikipedia doesn't contain even biography of semi-secret agent Kazimierz Koźniewski. Xx234 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Red letters...Xx234 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Like so many other topics. My personal to-do is close to a 100 red links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Poland experts: Here's an old AfC submission about a person who has an article in the Polish encyclopedia. Is this a notable person, and are there sources not in English that could be added to improve the page's referencing? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Having an entry in pl:Encyklopedia muzyczna PWM, which the article references (if w/out the footnote), is enough. I'd support mainspacing it, but with the {{morefootnotes}}. Thank you for asking us for a 3O - cheers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, I looked at the entry you linked, but it seemed poorly sourced as well. However, I was able to find some mentions of his writing in English sources, not the best, but hopefully enough to convince the NPP people that it's a notable topic. I've also removed some essay-like detail, which is still in the history if someone thinks it was appropriate and should be restored. I've moved the page to mainspace, but it could use a critical eye from someone who knows something about Polish philosophy and maybe can add some better sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Polish philosophy expert... that would be User:Nihil novi, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks as though User:Nihil novi is on the job... Thanks to you both. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this could use a lot of fleshing out. I can't find much in English language sources, and was tempted to perhaps AFD it(creator seems active and deprodded it the last time it was prodded), but a Google translate of his page on the Polish Wiki is a bit more encouraging and says he was awarded what I think is the Order of Polonia Restituta, which seems rather impressive. If any native Polish speakers want to take a stab at some translating and sourcing that would be much appreciated. Cannolis (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are totally right this can be expanded, but so can about 10,000 or so stubs on other Polish related topics we have. We need so much more done, as usual... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Poland experts: This old AfC draft will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable subject? Are there sources available that are not in English? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I am not seeing any sources about him; his citations seem pretty poor ([32]), so he fails WP:PROF. Also, he was deleted from pl wikipedia three times ([33]), and it is more inclusive than our project here. So this time I call not notable, delete/userfy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. It's gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)