Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 2

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There is a request for a more extensive background section. I'd appreciate it if somebody could write one (don't forget about refs). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have identified some copyvios at the article's talk page. Help wanted. Novickas (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do something with the huge text in the page Category:Counts of Poland. - Altenmann >t 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. In case anyone is still interested in this stuff at all, it can still be found here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help move this gallery to commons:Jan Matejko, I've just spend an hour moving half the pictures. The pics are mostly there - in most cases we just need to move the descriptions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The user Kurfürst is war editing on the Strategic bombing during World War II and Bombing of Wieluń pages pushing controversial things. He also went to report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for incivility, and now he came out with the good old 'Polish tag team' invention and some threath for Request for Arbitration or something. I advise to be utmost careful with this user because I have a feeling he's trying to provoke Polish editors to make overreactions. Loosmark (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of articles on Poland's foreign relations have been declared unimportant and merged/deleted, see [1]. Perhaps Poland-South Korea relations are not important, but I think at the very least inter-EU relations (Poland-Denmark, Poland-Estonia, Poland-Finland, Poland-Italy, Poland-Greece, Poland-Ireland]] should be restored. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think these are all important, especially the EU countries. Poland has good relations with many of these countries an they all contain encyclopaedic information. Keep and restore them all. Ijanderson (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just cleaning up the links to articles that no longer exist (erased/merged) but I have nothing to do with the process of their removal.--Avala (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw I don't know who decides on which articles are to be merged and erased but there are funny examples. We don't have Belgium-France relations article for an example, however Belgium–Malaysia relations is there.--Avala (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Something funny for the Polish-speaking editors: [2] - it could be fun if somebody translates it into English. For the Engish-speaking: one can write a good, interesting article not only about political relations, but even one about litterary relations between Poland and Mongolia. Laforgue (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am guilty on this, and should explain. I have been plugging through a great mass of trivial "X-Y relations" stubs, merging them into the "Foreign relations of X" articles. There has been a huge debate in the last few months about whether these stubs should be kept or deleted, and merging seems an acceptable compromise - the trivial stubs are removed, but the (minimal) material is retained and if an editor decides to research and write up a particular relationship, they can easily revert the redirect and add material. My approach has been fairly automatic: if a stub has little information other than the date the relations started and the locations of respective embassies or consulates, and has no reliable independent sources discussing the relationship, it gets merged. That does not imply any judgement on whether the relationship is in fact significant. A merge can easily be reverted, but in my view it should only be reverted by an editor who is planning to expand the stub to add more material on the subject with good sources - to make the article one that meets normal criteria for notability. Reverting back to a stub with no independent sources and just leaving the stub like that adds no value and invites nomination for deletion. That said, I have come across three editors now who have been undoing the merges without any expansion (on articles about Kosovo, Russia and the Holy See), so maybe I have been wasting my time. (As a side comment, I wonder if relations between EU states are all that important now? As integration proceeds, perhaps the member states are more relating to the EU government, with less one-on-one activity. Don't know.) Aymatth2 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo article creator is some user who got warned so many times. He was recreating articles that went through AfD and which had no significance like Kosovo-Nauru relations and he recreated articles that were supposed to be merged into another article per AfD. You did right to redirect them and he is violating previous decisions by his reverts. I am not sure about Russia and Holy See but it's only two countries and if they insist on having those, let them be for the time being, let's first fix the rest and then deal with them.--Avala (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some foreign relations articles are non-encyclopedic, but I do think that inter-EU (or even inter-Europe) relationship are important, as European countries have, on average, long diplomatic history, experienced diplomatic service and economic/political interest justifying its use. I fully support expanding and destubbing the mentioned articles, but do note that there is no policy that requires merging of stubs into other articles. I suggest not mixing the Kosovo issue here, as it is rather different. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure many of the stubs I merged could easily be expanded into informative, interesting and well-sourced articles on the history and current state of the relationship. I would encourage any editor who wants to do so to go ahead: revert my merge and expand the article. But I do caution against reverting the merge without expanding the stub. Given the passion that these "X-Y relations" stubs has stirred up, quite likely someone will immediately nominate the stub for deletion, and then the editor will have to scramble to expand the stub with material from reliable independent sources, counter the deletion arguments and so on. See here for some of the discussion, and here for a sample AfD debate. Better to revert the merge only when ready to expand. In general, of course, there is nothing wrong with stubs, although they probably should have one or two sources that indicate notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a stub is easier to expand. If there is no stub, there is less incentive for editors to find the article, and decide it is worth expanding. The merged articles may not be extensive, but even so they represent what I'd guesstimate is 5-10m of work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is an annoying issue. User:groubani created most of the stubs. Check his contributions page and you will see how prolific he was. It seems to have just taken him a few minutes per stub. There are literally thousands of them. That triggered a flood of AfD nominations, 3-4 per day for several months. They seem to have died down lately, but I suspect that is just a pause for regrouping - or possibly the merging I did helped calm it down. One approach would be to do a quick search on each relationship, then revert to the stub and add search results as external links. I just did this for Cyprus–Poland relations and it took about 20 minutes. This is not a relationship with a lot going on, but there are enough references to show that something could be made of the article, which would probably discourage AfD nomination. It would not take much more effort to expand into a reasonable article. But I still don't like reverting to the stub and just leaving the stub. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I messed up my example of adding external links to a stub by going ahead and expanding Cyprus–Poland relations. This is exactly the type of irresponsible editing of articles on trivial bilateral relations that should be stamped out. I suppose I will have to make another example. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

O.k. Denmark–Poland relations illustrates a stub with enough external links added to discourage nomination for AfD - there could be a lot more, particularly books. A huge subject. But I am not too sure about the last link in the list. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem on the page, an editor removed a sourced image without an explanation. I reverted the change with a comment asking him to discuss on the talk page before making such deletions but now he just deleted it again with the comment "removing crap image". Loosmark (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

edit: ok now maybe he'll discuss it on the talk page. Loosmark (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

why is the article Massacre of Lviv professors rated as low-importance? Loosmark (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because it is not very well known? How would you rate it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question. Who rates these articles? Perhaps we should change it ourselves. Tymek (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, I'd rate that article as high-importance. Loosmark (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can tag rate articles, but as far as I know I am the only one who has been doing this for this project on any regular basis. You are both more than welcome to help me with this burden :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing a biography on Moshe Kelmer, I can only find his birthplace written in Hebrew (זארלין), which transliterates (possibly as the niqqud are not present) as Zarlin. Is there anywhere in Poland by that name? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I failed to find a Polish bio of him that would have any details on the place of his birth :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries - got another one though - Ya'akov Riftin, born in וולקה פרופצקה, which could be something like "Wolka Proptska"? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Wólka is a common name in Polish for a village; there are quite a few villages with begin with "Wólka P" - see pl:Wólka. There is only one that has a string "Pro" - Wólka Proszewska, and four others with "Pr": Wólka Pracka, Wólka Prusicka, Wólka Prusinowska, Wólka Przybójewska. Unfortunatey, both of them were born in the period of portioned Poland (1910, 1907) which means that is is possible that their village is not withing modern Polish borders; you may have better luck asking Wikipedians on Russian, Ukrainian, Belorusian and Baltic noticeboards (see territorial changes of Poland and even better, this map for why). It is possible that your transliterations are more correct than I thought, and the problem arises because those villages are not in modern Poland and thus don't yield hits on pl Wikipedia and in Polish language online (have you tried Google Books, btw?). Do your sources state clearly that they were born in Poland, and do they define Poland? Technically, Poland didn't exist at that time... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the Knesset website is quite poor on birthplaces - the English site lists both Kelmer and Riftin as being born in "Poland", even though, as you say, Poland was not an independent state at the time (often it also lists Galicia as a place of birth - and both are very common as many of the politicians in Palestine/early Israel were immigrants from that area of the world). The Hebrew one lists the villages (as above). For some of the earlier MKs, there are not many English sources, so all I have is Hebrew, which is where the transliteration problem arises (and even then, sometimes the Hebrew name is not the same as the local name because it is fact the Yiddish name for the place - it has been suggested that "Zarlin" may actually be Żychlin...). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Could "Zarlin" be "Zalin"? For Riftin, this [3] says that "Members also helped create dens in the neighboring towns of Terespol and Bereza Kartuza. Prominent leaders of the movement visited Brest – Meyer Yaari, Feivel Hamburg, Joseph Alster, and Yakov Riftin". So I'd look for a "Wólka" near Terespol or Bereza Kartuska or Brzesc. All I can find on Polish Wiki and other sources is a mention of Wólka Dobryńska so the "P" doesn't fit. BTW, this is a classic example for why "alternative" names on Wiki should be standard - it would make this kind of sleuthing work soooooo much easier.radek (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(added after archiving)

Well, regarding European-born jews who found their way to Israel - 'tis always a good idea to search in David Tidhar's Encyclopedia ("אנציקלופדיה לחלוצי הישוב ובוניו"). And indeed, the article (יעקב ריפטין) claims that Riftin was born in the village of וולקה פרופצקה which is situated near פולאווי (Puławy); so the name is Wólka Profecka.

Regarding Kelmer, Tidhar notes that his birthplace is זאכלין; that is, probably (Zachlin or possibly Zochlin), rather than זארלין (Zarlin).. Cheers, Aviados (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I obtained permission from Anna M. Cienciala, the author of those extensive course notes to use them on Wikipedia under an appopriate free license. Feel free to use this resource, we may also want to move it - probably to Wikibooks, wikify and polish (no pun intended :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dariusz Krzysztof Zawislak is an improved but recreated former AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariusz Zawiślak. One one hand, the article now looks notable, on the other, the previous deleted article was a part of the multiple-languages wiki self-promotion spam spree. It should probably be moved and redirects created, but should it go through another round of AfD? My inclusionist nature is in conflict with the part that dislikes self-promoting socks (I doubt that account is going to add anything else to Wikipedia but promoting material for Zawislak career...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent the last two months working on revamping the Portal:Poland. Some of you may have already noticed, but now I think it's in a state where maintaining the portal and adding new material should be relatively easy for anyone who might be interested, so I'm advertising the portal here. I also nominated it for Portal peer review, so you can say what you think about it there. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are doing great job with the portal - dziekujemy! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Stanisław Koniecpolski for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Ukrainian editor is making major changes to that article and IMO after every edit the article worsen. The latest perle is an edit adding explanation from some source that the Poles planed "that Volhynia would have to be returned to Poland after the war" (part of occupied Poland would return to Poland - what a devilish plan!) with the following comment: "Polish plans are relevent here; as the massacres served to preempt such plans". Loosmark (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's making those edits? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just check the history of the article, Faustian made 22 edits in the last month. I'm not saying all of his edits are bad, some might be good, however IMO that constitutes a major rewrite of the article and if you check the version before all the changes with the current version the difference becomes clear. Loosmark (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem with Faustian and Bandurist who attempt to paint the genocide victims (trying to save themselves) as some sort of regular armed forces consisting of actual troops. These edits are usually made without new references. Your participation on long-term basis is required. --Poeticbent talk 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lot's of fun :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Several towns, like Tczew, start with Tcz. Are these pronounced as if Cz? I suspect the IPA is currently wrong. kwami (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Template talk:IPAr. I believe the answer is "no", though the opinions of more Polish speakers would be welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'd gone ahead and deleted the initial [t] from this and Tczyca. Those were the only two, in case they need to be re-corrected. kwami (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would pronouce them "tcz", but the initial t is relatively quiet and difficult to hear, particularly when the word is spoken quickly. I am no linguist, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Polish cochineal for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To group together the native Lechitic-speaking peoples of Poland, I made a category titled "Lechites" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lechites I think this is probably the least controversial title, since some people believe Silesians and Kashubians are separate groups from Poles, however, it's undisputed that these three peoples all speak a Lechitic language, right? Or alternatively, the category could be titled "West Slavic native peoples of Poland"? But I think that's probably too long... Opinions? Msamj (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• If even not controversial, this title is simply wrong. The very term "Lechites" do not mean only "people who speak a Lechitic language": it is rather a pompous name of Poles, just as "Lusitanians" is a pompous name o people from Portugal. The better term for the early medieval tribes would be "Lechitic tribes": one should not confuse these tribes with modern etnographic/ethnic gropups of Poland. BTW the Wikipedia article Lechites is wrong and unsourced. Unfortunately, pl:Lechites also mix modern ethnic groups with medieva tribes.
• I think that nobody treats Kashubians as a "separate group from Poles": Kashubians think that they are a part of the Polish nation, but speak a separate language. The problem is only with (some) Silesians.
• The notion of "Lechtic tribes" includes usually Polish tribes in the stict sense and the Polish tribes in the broader sense (i.e. Polish tibes in the strict sense and early medieval Pomeranians). But sometimes also Polabians are included, sometimes even (early medieval) Lusatians. So the category named "Lechites" is really confusing. Laforgue (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that for me. What do you think would be a better title for the category?Msamj (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:History_of_Poland#Article_length. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a very important article, I wanted to bring it by here to alert contributors that a copyright problem has been identified in the "history" section. There's more detail at the article's talk page. I thought that contributors familiar with the city and its history might be in a better position to rewrite or remove this material while retaining the integrity of the article. The problematic section has been blanked to allow that clean-up, since once the problem is identified we can't continue to publish the problematic text. Any assistance with clean-up here would be much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m in a quandary here. I think your joint opinion might be of need. We used to have a series of stubs about the Districts of Kraków; not much, but every one had at least a potential for future expansion (similar to the already expanded Nowa Huta, Kraków - Stare Miasto, Podgórze etc.). Most of these stubs have been combined into a single article called Districts of Kraków as of July 24 by our friend User:SilkTork. What’s left is a bunch of redirects to that one article. – I like the new complete listing, but on the other hand, I also miss the independent status of each district. Combining them was a bold move, with no discussion at this board. So, please take a closer look at the new article and share your thoughts with the rest of us. Ask yourself, does it work for you? Is this better for the city's coverage, etc? And, thanks in advance for your feedback. --Poeticbent talk 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Being unfamiliar with this WikiProject, I may be telling you something you already know, but I just noticed that there are two Polish politician infobox templates: {{Polish politician infobox}} and {{Infobox Polish politicians}}. —Paul A (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge. Any volunteers to do so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Unidentified locations in Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The above article currently only has one citation. I did have a quick Google search on him, but all the hits I saw were in Polish, which I can't read.

Would someone be able to help find WP:RELIABLE sources of information to cite in this article?

Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Władysław Turowicz article is in need to citations. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Stanisław Lem/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominated Portal: Poland for featured portal status. Please share your comments on the portal on the nomination page. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In the near future I'm going to try and get as much red out as I can out of this list Cursed_soldiers#Notable_members. A lot of these guys have corresponding Polish wiki articles so a good bit of this is mostly just translation. The problem is that a lot of the Polish wiki articles are not well cited so a bit of digging for some sources would be much, much, appreciated. I'm going to stub most of them and it'd be great if people can help on expanding some of the stubs. Thanks!radek (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. My suggestion is to try to find stuff on Google Print for reliable refs and aim for DYKs (start-class) instead of stubs, since they allow us to promote the article's on main page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New tools have became available for WikiProject maintenance, I am subscribing us to popular pages listing and cleanup listing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:J Milburn has tagged a series of AK related images (affected images can be seen at Halibutt's page starting from here) for deletion as according to him they don't have a sufficient fair use rationale and/or are simply "not important" and "don't contribute much to the articles". I disagree, as I believe those images are vital for illustration of affected articles - see our discussion at User_talk:J_Milburn#Armia_Krajowa_images and User_talk:Piotrus#File:CaptMruk_recce_Soviet_Aug1944_Rad-Kie.jpg. Since we cannot reach a consensus, we would like more opinions on that. Comments and thoughts appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_12#File:1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep the images. I can only comment on use in Armia Krajowa, as that's the only one that I'm familar with. There are two types of images used here. One is the famous poster of the Communist giant stomping on the AK dwarf. This clearly is fair use in an article about the Armia Krajowa. There's no way that you can convey the image that Communist propaganda wanted to get across without that poster. Next, there are a group of about 5 images which so far as I can tell are mostly of AK soldiers training. While I would say that the fair use rationale for these is less compelling than the Communist giant, it is still there. We see (a) organized training exercises (b) uniforms of a somewhat regular nature; and (c) use captured equipment. Over all these materials tend to contradict the AK dwarf idea, and establish that this was a real army and not a bunch of bandits.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add those to your watchlist, they are regularly vandalized by an anon (same but dynamic IP) spamming http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/ and I am sad to say I missed the last series of vandalism and AL was vandalized for 2 months. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just learned about this. Hmmm.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

pl:Bitwa na Porytowym Wzgórzu? It was a lead up to Battle of Osuchy I think. If not, is there a translation for "Porytowe Wzgorze"?radek (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Our coverage of partisan operations is bad. I've recently created an article on anti-partisan operations in World War II to fill in this shocking gap (not the first, and I am sure not the last I will find here, even after that many years of Wikipedia operation). And I am unaware of any translation of Porytowe Wzgórze, although if we identify the country, perhaps local Wikipedians can help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

what a disgrace [4]. should we mention that in some article? Loosmark (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on this venerable U.S. West Coast Polonia institution has been nominated for deletion on account of the Club's alleged non-notability. The article's deletion would be a shame. Perhaps someone has access to evidence for the Club's "notability"? Nihil novi (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Many Polish cities were constructed and ruled by non-Poles, the tradesmen were also frequently non-Poles. I believe that many articles about Polish cities don't inform about ethnicity of their inhabitants. Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Feel free to change this. - Darwinek (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darwinek, looking forward to seeing you expand on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello friends. For those interested in football, and not only in history and politics, I have the news. I nominated several Polish football categories for renaming. Feel free to vote and opine here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Polish POW's in the Soviet captivity & Polish prisoners and internees in Soviet Union and Lithuania (1919–1921) almost certainly should be merged, but I'm not sure either about one or both of Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919–1924) & Camps for soldiers of the UNR Army interned in Poland (1919-1924). Found one of them on prod, but some sort of merge seems to be the solution. I'm not the best qualified person to do this. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged first set. Second set does cover different subjects so I'd argue against the merger, although I think the last article is simply very underresearched (as is the entire Polish-Ukrainian War). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest to use the same convention to name the articles about the 1939 invasions of Poland and rename:

Soviet invasion of Poland to Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

Invasion of Poland (1939) to German invasion of Poland (1939)

Any comments ? --Lysy^talk 08:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the second one, the invasion of Poland was executed by both the Nazi Germans and their buddies, the Soviets. Loosmark (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends what the article is supposed to be about - "both" invasions or just the German one. Reading the first paragraph of the article, it seems that even the people who wrote it are in two minds.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be 3 articles ? A general one, and two more specific, dealing in more detail with German and Soviet actions ? Or a single article ? Why do we have two ? --Lysy^talk 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, standardization is not that important here. See Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland#Requested_move, where I explained my rationale for moving Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) to Soviet invasion of Poland (this is by far the better known of the two invasions), also note that the Invasion of Poland (1939) article covers both invasions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't inform about post-"Liberation" repressions.Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Invasion of Poland (1939) for Featured article review due to a number of, hopefully, resolvable issues that exist in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone here aware that there is a Polish History Task Force that was originally a WikiProject but was taskforcized into WikiProject European History? The Task Force (and the European History Project, for that matter) could definitely use some more interested editors.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am of course aware of that, but I am not sure if anybody else cares :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gayk Bzhishkyan - Isn't the phrase derogatory?Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll not have access to this till XMAS. If you do, please consider adding refs/clarifications to Stanisław Koniecpolski, so it can regain its Featured status. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki and Talk:Jadwiga Jagiellon (1513–1573) can use your input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Err... what? How about you try to use full sentences? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have the link to Bombing of Wieluń and long lists of edits both of the article and discussion.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the current version doesn't seem to be a Nazi apology. And since hundreds of articles are targeted by neo-Nazi vandals, I am not seeing what makes this one special? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Other version of the events" whitewashes the Luftwaffe, claiming there were (unidentified) Polish troops in Wieluń or near Wieluń. The editor attacked later a German journalist "asking" if he was a Stasi informant. I don't have a source against the "Wehrmacht Soldaten" book, however a German reader describes the book (on Amazon) as a voice of a WWII (Wehrmacht) participant (rather than a neutral opinion). I haven't found any academic opinion about the book, which suggests that the value of the book is low.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Szymon Datner says that the Luftwaffe destroied totally or partially about 150 towns. I don't have the exact quote nor original source (around 1960).Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article whitewashes Soviet Union misquoting Cienciala, twice.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting how? I am pretty sure I added her as a source years back; how is it incorrect (and who altered the original statements)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. Users in this area have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Rudy Rummel [5] Poland (not Communist Poland or Bierut's Slaughterhouse) was a lesser megamurderer. Rummel's texts are quoted e.g. in Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I'm not a fan of Communist Poland but the numbers given by Rummel are absurd. The majority of the victims died during the war, before any Polish administration was created in given area. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The author uses German names of Polish cities, eg. Rawitsch. The author wages a war against me. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Xx236

Thank you for those who have supported me. Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor has removed POV tag from a number of articles, winning his war.Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Collectivization in the Soviet Union: "According to official Soviet figures some 24 million peasants disappeared from rural areas". This includes extermination and transfer of at least 200 000 ethnic Poles. 24 million is more than 12 million, isn't it? The only way to "prove" that 12 million is more than 24 million is to say that Collectivization wasn't a population transfer. The same German actions during WWII caused the expulsion of more than 12 million people. Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

According to reliable (according to Skaperod) Rummel 11 440 000 died during the collectivization [6]. Plus millions transferred by the NKVD and millions of refugees we obtain certainly more than 12 million, maybe the 24 million mentioned in theCollectivization in the Soviet Union.Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• [8] - Polish traumas have not been recognized in the standard narratives of European history.
• [9] - The German cultural habits place Germany at the “center” of civilization and intellectual

articulation, thus seeing German scholars as those destined to articulate single-handedly the “periphery” (Central/EasternEurope). Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not allowed to discuss here some parts of the article.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know why WikiProject Poland most popular pages don't show up here? [10] Loosmark (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I love the idea of having the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages featured, but first, someone needs to create it. That's a lot of meticulous formatting. I wonder, would anybody be willing to put in the time and effort? How about User:Kpalion... let's give him a big smile. A good example of an already existing page can be found here. --Poeticbent talk 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, create what exactly? Loosmark (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i've found it!! [11] Loosmark (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Anyhow, we don't have a Wikipedia page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages, like some other Portals i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Popular pages. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Most Viewed Articles and found out that Poland was ranked at 439 among the "top 1000" last year with 221,271 views in September. --Poeticbent talk 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that the Polish culture during World War II is so popular nearly 2,6 times more than Poland and nearly 5x times as many as Frédéric Chopin, interesting. Loosmark (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because it was featured on the front page of Wikipedia on September 1st. Please, see the archive of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2009 for more info. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would highly support taking whatever steps are needed to give us a list of most popular pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland was added to the list of projects sometime last month, so the on-wiki page will be made automatically at the end of this month, with all the data from September. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Interested editors may want to follow and possibly join Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was and still is a great pleasure for me to work with you, but due to shocking developments I may be unable to do so for a while. I'd appreciate if somebody not involved in this case could take care of managing this project for a while, this really means only monitoring article news and new article announcements. The annoucements should be checked every few days, some articles need to be prodded/tagged, some need to be stubbed, few need to be nominated for DYK, their creators informed about DYK, few need to be slightly improved for DYKs (their creators can be informed of DYK and asked to do so), few creators need to be invited to join this project. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a List of windmills in Poland but I'm having difficulty in pinpointing exact locations in some cases. Assistance from WP Poland members would be welcome in polishing the list so that it is ready to release into mainspace. Feel free to edit and improve the list. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of Polish editors is shrinking, I wish you success to find one.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've created the list, dabs need sorting though. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Warsaw Uprising (1794) for Featured article review due to a number of issues that currently exist in the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that we should expand Chechen_people#Geography_and_diaspora? Those sluggards are creating more and more problems, gaining national attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.108.36 (talk • contribs) 04:41, September 30, 2009

Of course. Feel free to help with that; you may want to register first! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember this article used to have a nice pic of the 3 Wilk class subs together with the two Wicher destroyers. (There is still a caption left it seems). I checked the history of the article and it seems that somebody deleted it. I don't understand how this commons work very well, could somebody please check why was the pic deleted? Loosmark (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Try asking commons:User:Szczepan1990 who deleted it; his edit summary indicated the file had no source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to ask him. I guess no source means that it wasn't clear the pic was free to use. Loosmark (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Poland to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this. It looks wonderful. --Poeticbent talk 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Everyone - if you enjoy the list, please assess unassessed articles present on it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a question how will the page be update with new data, will the stats be for each month? Loosmark (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone who knows Polish and English sufficiently well please translate and add the following to the Liceum ogólnokształcące (in alphabetical order):Technikum Chemicznym, Szkole Zawodowej, Zespół Szkół Mechanicznych, Centrum Kształcenia Ustawicznego. Overall review of the article and positive edits will be appreciated. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to add that text, it's not present in the article...? The stub needs much development indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about starting to fight to move back Roman Polanski to Roman Polański. Are here any people interested in helping me? Slijk (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He is Polański not only on pl wiki, but also on de. But not on fr... hmmm. Start a discussion on talk; usually we use diacriticis in people's name (Lech Wałęsa, not Lech Walesa]]) - but since he lived abroad for so long this tends to become more fuzzy. An important question is - what is his official name, and the name he is using when he signs stuff? If you start a discussion on talk oage of his article, please link it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the following links, of those Wikipedias that use the Western alphabet, the number who spell his last name Polański is roughly the same as those who spell it Polanski. But as Piotrus suggested, the real question may be how the man himself spells his name. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no command of polish language in any way - but after a recent visit to the country - i have been adding polish project tags to category pages - some projects find things easier when categories are managed that way.SatuSuro 18:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that will help. I will shortly write a short message detailing tasks that somebody will have to take over. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Cleanup listing. It seems like a useful automated list of to do tasks. Keep the link in mind, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Another strange thing I recently discovered, could use some cleanup and an analysis of what kind of Wikipedia scheme it is tied to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please could the author of this statement cite the source.

" among the Jew's lived in Dąbie nad Nerem was the jakobovich family "

thank you

¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomaJ (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[12] - Jakubowicz.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The quoted text isn't standard English.Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What article are we discussing? The above sentence doesn't seem notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is Dąbie. A few sentences about the Jews of Dąbie were added by an IP in 2007. I've cleaned them up and deleted the reference to the Jakobovich family. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've chosen mały sabotaż as my newest DYK. Any thoughts on the correct name of that article? Please comment at Talk:Minor sabotage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on the Lesser Poland article for some time now. I hope that one day it will become a Good or better Featured Article, there is a lot of work on it, but it is achievable. Help is appreciated. Tymek (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to drop a note to User:Poeticbent, who has been a major contributor to GAing Kraków. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr, I already looked into it. The article looks quite good already thanks to Tymek. Section Tourism is a bit too stubby for my taste, but it's all doable. Please include Polish Jura Chain in section Geography. It was a leading DYK I did once, with quite a bit of info. Will help out whenever I can. --Poeticbent talk 19:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I am adding more and more information to the article. Whenever any of you has some time, check this article. Tymek (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of my new stubs and correct names, I've just stubbed pl:Biblia Tysiąclecia to 1000-year Bible. But I cannot find any translation of the title, and considering that the Polish name doesn't use the numeral in the title, I wonder if we shouldn't move it to Thousand Year Bible (or would it be years...?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What about The Millennium Bible? Loosmark (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good one. Would the correct English name be Millenium Bible or Millenial Bible? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Millennium Bible sounds better to me (don't forget the double "n" ;) ).--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare Third Millennium Bible.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no official name I suppose. I'll mail the publisher, maybe they can halp. Meanwhile I'd also vote for The Millennium Bible - it's the most common name on Google. rdrozd (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Streets in Warsaw, I see we have a right mixture of naming formats: X Street, X street, X, Ulica X, and others. How about standardizing? I propose we use the simplest form (just X, unless the street fails to be the primary topic for that name). But anything uniform would be better than the current mixture. Any preferences?--Kotniski (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I support total Anglicization of the names, i.e. Piotrków Street, instead of Piotrkowska; Dmowski Street, insted of Dmowskiego etc. Also I support "X Street" format. - Darwinek (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No hard preferences, but I'll go with what Darwinek wrote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather doubtful that that would be normal English practice (what would Miodowa be - Honey Street? Nowy Świat -> New World Street?)--Kotniski (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the English version of the Warsaw official website uses X Street (generally without full Anglicization): Racławicka Street, Jerozolimskie Avenue, Konstytucji Square etc.--Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And that also seems to be the standard used in Category:Streets in Moscow (with occasional exceptions like Cosmonauts Alley). I'm changing my preference to that.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

These are proper names in every language grammar, and even according to grammar rules we should transliterate rather than translate. Imagine "New world street" or "Marshall street"? Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Though there are some names that intuitively I would prefer to translate. Obviously there are some where the translations are established in English (like Red Square), but for example Konstytucji Square looks a bit weird - if I were writing a guidebook, I would call it Constitution Square. However I'm not sure whether there's some objective reason for accepting Constitution Square but rejecting New World Street and Honey Street - any theorists out there?--Kotniski (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

True. Anyways is it covered somewhere at WP:NC? - Darwinek (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I left a note at the NC talkpage - maybe we'll get some outside opinion.--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is a serious matter. I've been dealing with street names for a long time, especially when creating new articles about churches and synagogues of Kraków with the exact street address for recognition. The assumption being that a foreign researcher and visitor to any Polish city would have to recognize the place using Polish sources including street maps. The example of a Honey Street best illustrates the problem. In the Polish language the street is known as ulica Miodowa, not as ulica Miód which is absent in literature. No translation can therefore be automatic. Ulica Mickiewicza, not ulica Mickiewicz (again, nonexistent in literature), etc. And than, there's the traditional conventions to be considered. All Polish street signs display "ul." This needs to be noted also for the purpose of recognition. The official street name written by any Polish institution would always be: "ul. Miodowa 1". That is how you get there... On the other hand, established toponyms such as the Wawel Hill are OK because they are not addresses to be followed (i.e. Wzgórze wawelskie 12, irrelevant). So, all Polish recognizable toponyms and the exact street addresses ought to be treated as two different entities most of the time. --Poeticbent talk 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the original Polish names will appear in the article, so it's not necessary for those names to be actually the article title (readers will realize, as they do with any other topic, that non-English names will take different forms). I've just discovered Category:Squares in Warsaw, incidentally, where a similar mix of translated/untranslated forms appears.--Kotniski (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And, exactly.

Habit and familiarity also count. In English, Krasnaya Ploshad is "Red Square"; but "Champs-Élysées" is generally "Champs-Élysées", not "Elysian Fields". Nihil novi (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the three squares articles that appear in Category:Squares in Warsaw under their Polish names should appear under English-language titles. The advantage would be to facilitate communication among non-Polish-speakers. It would in no way alter the usage of the actual Polish names among Polonophones. Nihil novi (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else think Google Maps is a reliable source for this issue? They just go with the Polish names, apparently. For example, Piotrkowska, not Piotrkowska Street or Ul. Piotrskowska or the "fully Anglicized" Piotrków Street as suggested above[13]. This is consistent with what Kotniski originally proposed, use the simplest form (just X, unless the street fails to be the primary topic for that name), and that's what makes most sense to me. It makes the name of the topic, the name of the street, clear and obvious in the title. What the name means in English, or how it's "fully Anglicized", is all subject matter for article content, and not an appropriate use for the article title. Another advantage of this approach is that following Google Maps provides an easy to access reference.

As far as what to do when the name alone conflicts with other uses, I suggest adding simply (street) for disambiguation, unless there are two streets of that name, in which case (Warsaw street) or whatever. The reason to disambiguate this way is to leave the actual name of the topic, the name of the street, clear and obvious in the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote WP:NCGN: When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say; Munich and Nuremberg are still the English names. So here. No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that, which is why I'm not suggesting we use (Warszawa street) for disambiguation, but the Anglized (Warsaw Street). But street names are different from city names in that cities are generally much better known than street names, and so are their Anglicized names. As someone else noted above, we have Champs-Élysées, not Elysian Fields. This is because in normal English usage, foreign street names are generally not Anglicized. If they are not Anglicized in normal English, they should not be Anglicized in Wikipedia either. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there isn't one, at least not yet. We could go with the middle ground and the Moscow precedent: translate the "Street" part but (normally) leave the rest of the name alone - are there any strong arguments for doing otherwise?--Kotniski (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, especially since you said it follows the English version of the official Warsaw site, which I verified here:

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2000 on the Millennium Plaza Center, located at the corner of Jerozolimskie Avenue and Bitwy Warszawskiej Street, across from the Zachodni Train Station.

Makes sense, though it appears that site could use an update... scheduled to begin in 2000??? LOL. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"X Street" hybrids jar on me. Neither fish nor fowl. I'd rather use the full original Polish name, or a complete English translation: "ulica Nowy Świat" or "New World Street"—but not "Nowy Świat Street." Nihil novi (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But not Honey Street, right? Is there any way of defining the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable translations? (For me New World Street is unacceptable unless it turns out to have significant support in English sources; but I would happily use Constitution Square regardless - I wish I knew why.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "Piłsudski Square"? Is there really any advantage to insisting on "Plac Piłsudskiego"? Nihil novi (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's one that gets under my radar. Is there something about squares that makes us more inclined to translate them than streets? Or is this just me?--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not so hot on the neither fish nor fowl "solution" either, but full translation is unacceptable, so going with the full original Polish name is probably best. Does anyone other than PMAnderson object to that? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, given what Nihil novi says about Pilsudski Square, probably yes. At least if that rule were to be applied universally. Though perhaps the ones we would want to be an exception to the rule would have enough sources for an English-language name to be identified in the real world.--Kotniski (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I decided to throw my two grosze into the discussion - I am most used and most ok with the X Street hybrid indeed (I give my Polish address as "Ptasia Street"). Fully translating the name is ridiculous (Łódź is not Boat, people, despite few amusing recent arguments at Talk:Łódź... :D). Full Polish names would be not bad but are they really used anywhere in English language? I'd have thought that "X Stret" is the most popular. Maybe we should select some famous examples and do a GBook use comparison analysis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another comparandum is Old Town Square (Prague), which is always so called in English; I would not recognize, and have never seen, the Czech name. If there are no English sources on the streets, it will be difficult to show notability; we are not a street guide for any city, Warsaw, New York, or London. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the dizzier I get. Please look at the below Google Book samples, for the taste of chaos that is going on with regard to street names in Warsaw (since the mid 19th century, no less). It's a free for all, and the only hope lays in the use of modern day English language maps of Poland I believe (as with any other city: in Germany, France, etc).

1. Mazowiecka street in Warsaw - Shirli Gilbert - Music - 2005 - 243 pages
2. Sixth of August Street in Warsaw - Wiktoria Śliwowska - History - 1998 - 352 pages
3. Thieves' Street in Warsaw - Anita Norich - Fiction - 1991 - 142 pages
4. Krochmalna Street in Warsaw - R Baird Shuman - Juvenile Nonfiction - 2002 - 144 pages
5. Franciscan street in Warsaw - History – 1833
6. Leszno Street in Warsaw - Alicia Nitecki - Biography & Autobiography - 1995 - 108 pages
   1. Leszno Street in Warsaw - Louis Falstein - Biography & Autobiography - 1964 - 500 pages
7. Hoza Street in Warsaw - Hugo García-Compeán, Bogdan Mielnik, Merced Montesinos - Science - 2006 - 513 pages
8. Bagno Street in Warsaw - Jacob Apenszlak, Jakób Kenner, Majżesz Polakiewicz, American Federation for Polish Jews, Association of Jewish Refugees and Immigrants from Poland - History - 1943 - 343 pages
9. Katowicka Street in Warsaw - Andrzej K. Olszewski - Art - 1989 - 183 pages
10. Krakowskie Przedmiescie Street in Warsaw - Aleksander Gieysztor, Stanisław Herbst, Bogusław Leśnodorski - History - 1961 - 208 pages
11. Krucza Street in Warsaw - Edward Alexander - Literary Criticism - 1990 - 147 pages
    --Poeticbent talk 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the five magazines/newspapers that I have been involved with in editorial and/or contributor role and all of the firms which I have worked for as an editor have precisely the same rule: use ul, al. or Al. and then the Polish version of the name. Varsovian (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Above an example of language rationalizing discrimination of EE editors in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. I don't accept being an underdog of this Wikipedia and I don't understand why other editors accept such discriminations. The logic of this Wikipedia reproduces existing stereotypes and prejudices rather thatn helps to oppose them. Polish joke says: "Polish jokes were again strengthened by German immigrant DPs (displaced persons) fleeing war-torn Europe in the late 1940s. These jokes were fuelled by ethnic slurs disseminated by German National Socialist propaganda, which attempted to justify the Nazi murder by presenting Poles as "dreck", dirty and inferior." The same mechanism works till today and I'm writing not about jokes but about some academic articles and texts in this Wikipedia. Nazi propaganda pictures contributed by the Bundesarchiv create the image of the WWII, the victims didn't have cameras to document their history. Unfortunately even some Polish immigrants accept sometimes Western POV and copy existing stereotypes and prejudices from existing "sources" rather than study a subject. If you are an Afro-American woman, you can demand respect and anti-discrimination policy but if you are a (non-Russian) Slav, you should obey, because you are weak. There are theories, eg. Postcolonialism, explaining situation of EE nations, also the editors participating in this Wikipedia.

Unfortunately some EE editors are frustrated by the discriminations, brake the rules and are banned, rather than to oppose the discriminations.Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just to be clear. EE editors come from many opposing camps, per above, but there are attempts being made to foster more cooperation between them. Time will tell. EE mailing list ruling will be a Litmus test for many of us. --Poeticbent talk 20:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish editors are just fighting each other. It seems to be our national sport.Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh - where do you see Polish editors fighting each other? I don't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I don't like such games. Xx236 (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What games? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about existence of Polish-GDR Pomerania till 1989. In fact the two areas were strictly isolated and supervised by two secret police. Practically no cultural exchange existed. Chicago-Polish Pomerania was more real than a Polish-GDR one. Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Pomerania (1933–1945) contains plenty of errors. I have removed a number of them, but not all.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this person has two articles, please help. -Peter Braun74 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge template slapped on both as a temporary measure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Soviet invasion of Poland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote Gustavo from 2007: "Hrabia is not a "Polish title", it is just the translation from "Count"." I tend to agree. Any objections to redirecting? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, seems obvious to me. - Darwinek (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the title itself imported from abroad, via Austria perhaps?radek (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe looking at Graf or Burgrave solves the mystery. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See also: komes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. One sentence article? I say delete via WP:PROD. Any objections? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving the wikipedia project because I got tired of spending my time here. Some people like for example the obvious sock user:Varsovian (the self proclaimed "new user") can provoke and missrepresent the sources, call people idiots or ugly trolls as much they like and nothing ever happens to them. Anyway I just wanted to say thanks to everybody who worked with me on articles especially and to radeksz and jacurek, it was nice working with you guys. Loosmark (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DON'T DO THAT. This is exactly what they want. Just take a break or ignore it for a while. But DO NOT let them chase you away.--Jacurek (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What they want. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland needs more editors that actually live in Poland, especially Varsovians. When there is trouble with Polish editors (and when was the last time there was no trouble?), almost always expats are involved. Odd, isn't it? Gives homesickness a whole new meaning. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Showing some real class here Matthead. Might want to read or reread this again, particularly the thing about "taunting".radek (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into any discussion about Loosmark's comments but I very much agree with you radek. I would be exceedingly grateful if Matthead could possibly refrain from dragging my name into his disputes. And just for the record: I'm not Polish, I've been living in Poland for 14 years but I'm not Polish.Varsovian (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for support. Unfortunately it just came to the point that editing wikipedia for me is just stress and I don't get any joy from it. As for Matthead cinical provocation above, it speaks for itself and just shows how much is wikipedia broken. Loosmark (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible experience for me to read denuciations, this reminds me Gestapo, UB and Stasi. The basic idea of some editors is "deliver you opponent before he/she delivers you". Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. Is Dynastia Miziołków a notable Polish-language book? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rather notable. The book was warmly received by the critics and has received some quite important litterary awards. It's fragments are included in some Polish textbooks for children. But the article should be rewritten. Laforgue (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a massacre, not a pogrom. Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Even an Israeli source says massacre http://www.israelimages.com/see_image_details.php?idi=16993 .Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Raise on article's talk, if there are no objections, move. If there are, discuss and use WP:RM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rozumice has a page marker in English and the Polish page has a substantial entry. The automatic translation garbles this entry making it almost unintellegible, not worthy of Krzysztof Gładkowski scholarship. Rozumice was once a German 'enclave' village and now is Polish. After WWII its inhabitants dispersed around the world. The last inhabitants who still have its verbal history are nearing the end of their lives. This significant villages history needs to be expanded beyond the limits of Krzysztof research to capture the collected memories before they are lost forever. How do I go about getting this page translated into the English page marker so we can expand the Polish entry?

ps. the Polish article refers to the "Leimes". These unique structure have almost disappeared from the rural scene and are worthy of a page in their own right. AnnaSomerset (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are asking for editors to translate pl:Rozumice into Rozumice? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcomed by Skapperod and first edit is here. Loosmark (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:BITE, my dear L. :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh but I do welcome new users in most friendly way. It's just that I didn't know that WikiProject Poland is so much known that even news users make their first edit here. Lets say I'm positively surprised ;) Loosmark (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some editors may have edited as IPs before they registered. In any event, Anna may have found the WikiProject simply by looking at Talk:Rozumice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, if somebody wants to translate that article for AnnaSomerset, they have my moral support :) Loosmark (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Polish article needs many corrections.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily for the Editors to translate, if there are other ways. I tried to follow the 'Translate into English template' page but got lost with the Polish instructions! Rather than re-write the English entry, its seems a better route to translate the Polish page and then do English additions. I was pointed to your Site but am now totally confused which way to turn. AnnaSomerset (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good place to post such a request. That said, translator requests have a big backlog, because each of us here has their own gigantic list of things to do :) PS. You can also use the {{Expand Polish}} template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a to-be-translated list? Sometimes I just pick random Polish wiki pages to translate or stuff I'm interested in, but if there's something with priority I'd rather do that. Anna, I'll try to help with the Rozumice page shortly.radek (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See the category linked above, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland#Our_current_projects. I think there was one more place that listed such articles, but I cannot find it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is great, your help is much appreciated. Its seems the English page is slowly expanding (with a heavy Polish bias). I do realise the world is out there is knocking on Polands doors! AnnaSomerset (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Churches of Kraków‎ whether you agree with the need to rename this article into Catholic Churches of Kraków in order to get rid of the new flag‎, or perhaps expand the article further with your participation. --Poeticbent talk 05:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Political repression in Nazi Germany - not only political, some other categories are needed.Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Nazi human experimentation seems to cover those. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If it covers everything, who needs Category:Political repression in Nazi Germany ? If it doesn't Category:National repression in Nazi Germany may be useuful.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Political repression is a well-defined term. What do you mean by national repression? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:People from Wrocław at CFD, nominator proposed splitting the category to Wrocław and Breslau, see [14]. Please comment and/or vote. - Darwinek (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Wilno/Vilnius?Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This art is controversial due to his statement about Kościuszko as Polish and Lithuanian military leader. Art is sourced in very controversial way. There are statements of Polish and Lithuanian scholars and most important source in Britannica found Kościuszko as Polish military [15] is reverted. See discussion of art. help welcomed. Mathiasrex (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kościuszko opted for forced Polonization of peasants. Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this, I wonder if a good solution to this slow level revert warring in categories wouldn't be simply the creation of more Polish-Lithuanian categories. Ex: Category:Polish–Lithuanian engineers, Category:Polish–Lithuanian scientists, and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. I would also suggest categories like category:Battles of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or category:Treaties of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or category:History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth to avoid often triple categories (Poland, Lithuania, Belarus). Renata (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We already have Category:People of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a book written by highschool teachers a reliable source? Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so simple...Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the content. Depends on who those teachers were. Most importantly, depends on what statement the book is being used to source. Ask at WP:RSN, giving more detail. Knepflerle (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any colleges in Poland? If not, I think that Category:Universities and colleges in Poland should be moved to Category:Universities in Poland; same for Category:Alumni by university or college in Poland and Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in Poland. PS. I see Collegium Civitas (whose lead claims it is a university) and College of Europe with Teacher Training College of Bielsko-Biala (those two have leads claiming they are "educational institutions"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When I saw your heading, at first I thought it was a joke.

Category:Universities and colleges by country seems to be the norm, although Category:Universities in Moldova is the exception. The main category says "Usage of the words university and college varies from country to country." I noticed that Category:Universities and colleges in Israel has two subcats, Category:Colleges in Israel and Category:Universities in Israel. You might consider creating Category:Universities in Poland as a subcat of Category:Universities and colleges in Poland to maintain consistency with the other "Universities and colleges in Xxxx" categories. That way you still have a place to put any colleges or "educational institutions" that aren't universities. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this as soon as one can prove there is at least one college in Poland. That said, I will not object to anybody implementing this category structure - I just think that all "or colleges in Poland" categories will end up empty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would call any non-university "szkoła wyższa" a college, for want of a better word.--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point, but such a use of translation should be backed up by a ref... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideally yes, but sometimes there is no reliable ref for any translation, and we just have to use our editorial judgement. For me, "college" is a close enough equivalent to "szkoła wyższa" if the institution in question doesn't have an English name (and even if it styles itself "X University" in English, I'd be unwilling to categorize it as a university solely on that basis - we should report what something is, not what it would like to be).--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Prussia claims to cooperate with this project. Does anyone know anything about such cooperation? I know about a series of enforcement requests and bans.Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Prussia has nothing to do with enforcement requests and bans. Loosmark (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall this project being ever mentioned here, but any collaboration is good, and our topics obviously overlap. WP:PRUSSIA can be seen as a child project to WP:POLAND and WP:GERMANY. You may want to ask for more details at talk of WP:PRUSSIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we seemed not to reach agreement about how to name articles about streets - let's see how we do with districts of cities. I'm seeing titles like Poznań-Wilda, Poznań-Nowe Miasto, Poznań-Stare Miasto - these are not what these districts are normally called even in Polish, and in English it looks even more odd (particularly when one of the hyphenated parts has a space in it). I would propose that such districts be named simply with their name, using the city name in brackets as a disambiguator if necessary (so either Wilda or Wilda (Poznań), depending on whether it's considered to be the primary topic for "Wilda"). Any comments?--Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please compare the above examples with common Polish usage of the names of the districts of Kraków, such as: Kraków - Stare Miasto (example: Urząd Skarbowy Kraków -Stare Miasto Ul. Grodzka 65 31-001 Kraków) and the largest district known as Kraków - Nowa Huta (eg. Urząd Skarbowy Kraków-Nowa Huta os. Bohaterów Września 80, Kraków 31-621) simply named Nowa Huta in en.wikipedia. Please note that the spaces around the hypens are often treated liberally by the clerks. --Poeticbent talk 15:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to see these hyphenated forms as a kind of official shorthand (used in names of offices like the ones you quote), not the real names of the districts. Notice that even Polish Wikipedia doesn't use them as article titles - and in English they look even more confusing and odd than they do in Polish.--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Polish Wikipedia does not use official district names at all, but rather, toponymy such as pl:Stare Miasto w Krakowie similar to any other press or media article title. The offical district names are listed at Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej - BIP MK © 2003-2009, Urząd Miasta Krakowa i.e. "Dzielnica I Stare Miasto," "Dzielnica XVIII Nowa Huta" etc. My examples aren't particularly helpful, but I cannot agree with the idea of districts with city names places in brackets, because it isn't popular either. For example, we have Innere Stadt, see: Vienna#Districts; however, any brackets appear only in redirects such as the Inner City (Vienna). --Poeticbent talk 17:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to pick a category totally at random, Category:Boroughs and quarters of Cologne uses exactly the system I'm suggesting (it's certainly vastly more popular than the hyphenated forms). The other alternative is to put the city name after a comma, which I believe is popular (though not universal) for districts in the UK and US.--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would support a comma. Seems like a reasonable answer, please see Category:Districts of London. --Poeticbent talk 18:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So the proposal is to use names such as Wilda, Poznań or Nowe Miasto, Poznań for those districts of the city of Poznań (Poznań-Wilda and Poznań-Nowe Miasto, as the articles are now called). Is that acceptable to everyone? I'll mention it at WT:NCGN as well.--Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How about we just go with a space instead of any punctuation? Warsaw Nowe Miasto, Warsaw Śródmieście, etc. That would work and is the same standard as is applied to station names in both Poland and England.Varsovian (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Both proposals are valid, I don't have a preference. Loosmark (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

These aren't stations, though - giving them names that make them look like stations is a disadvantage as far I can see (particularly when you get a clash, which is quite possible).--Kotniski (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the comma would not be used in all cases in English (e.g. 'Central London' not 'Central, London' and 'York old town', not 'old town, York').Varsovian (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't really comparable to what we're talking about here, though - we're talking about officially designated districts, which have names (and neither the common names or the official names have the form "[City] [District]"). --Kotniski (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Names like Kraków Stare Miasto, Warsaw Nowe Miasto, Poznań Wilda, etc., for the titles of all city districts would by my first choice – per examples – with plenty of internet sources. The use of a comma with a switch would be my second choice. However, there’s a different problem with former villages within the same city districts. I don’t know how best to resolve this, for example "Lubocza (Kraków)" (see below), once a borough of District Kraków Nowa Huta, now a borough of Wzgórza Krzesławickie? Such former villages incorporated into districts have their own rich templates in Polish Wikipedia, i.e. "pl: Szablon:Dzielnica XVII Wzgórza Krzesławickie" containing links to articles about historical entities such as "pl: Lubocza (Kraków)" (per above). I'm afraid English titles such as "Kraków Lubocza" or "Lubocza, Kraków" could be misleading because formally such administrative entities don't exist. I would opt for "Lubocza (Wzgórza Krzesławickie)" maybe (with a comma or with brackets to differentiate, but I'm not so sure), only to confirm their historical location. Any ideas? --Poeticbent talk 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

'Lubocza (Krakow)' would work in the above case, wouldn't it? That article really does need a rewrite rather badly.Varsovian (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see we don't entirely agree on the original question, but I really think the Poznań districts (and any other similar ones - i.e. with the hyphen) ought to be changed to something other than they are now. I'm going to bring the matter up at requested moves, initially with the comma proposal, to maybe get some outside opinion.--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done; the discussion will be at Talk:Poznań-Wilda, if I've done the template thing right.--Kotniski (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, that the Poznań-Wilda → Wilda, Poznań move has already been performed by sysop Anthony Appleyard, should we be thinking about moving and/or redirecting the Districts of Kraków as well? Feed-back appreciated. --Poeticbent talk 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should try to be consistent with all these districts. (But if a district is the primary topic - or only topic - for a name, then I don't think the city name is necessary as a disambiguator. So most of the Warsaw districts can stay as they are, without any mention of ", Warsaw".)--Kotniski (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Many red links.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started an article on Leon Dycian. Born in 1911, the English version of the Knesset website gives his place of birth as Poland. The Hebrew version lists it as "ינוב", Poland. Unfortunately this could be transliterated a number of ways - I/Y + A/E + N + O/U + B/V/W (so could be Yenov, Yanub or any other combination!). Given this poor level of info, does anyone have any idea where it may be referring to? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be Janów, but that still doesn't narrow it down very well.--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks likely to be correct. However, like you say, doesn't really narrow it down! Thanks anyway пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please look for a neighboring city in Poland, maybe we can find the right county if it matters to you, but the stub is still very short. --Poeticbent talk 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Could it also be Janowo? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)