Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Rzeczpospolita, as it is currently exists, is really written from the perspective of use of the word as an endonym for the Polish State. Therefore is should be coupled to the Name of Poland article as a sub-article. Apparently at least one editor disagrees with this rather non-controversial edit so it was reverted [1].

So let's have a discussion here. Any comments? Ajh1492 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I not so much disagree with you as I don't understand what you actually mean. One article is about the word Polska (and its equivalents in various languages), while the other is about the word Rzeczpospolita. Yes, they are often used together and sometimes even interchangeably, but still they are not the same. These articles are alrady linked to each other through their "See also" sections, but each of them is a standalone article. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't really use a concept of "sub-article" (see: Wikipedia:Subpages #Articles do not have sub-pages (main namespace)). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a main template used to expand concepts in a particular subject as a separate article, but to still provide a strong sense of reference or affinity to the original subject article. I firmly believe that the "Rzeczpospolita" article is further expansion and detail of the use of the term as an endonym for referencing the Polish State by polish speakers. Thus why not put the reference into the header of the article back to Name of Poland? I just don't see why not putting the reference there . . . Ajh1492 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing some small, but productive, contributions on Browar Łomża and Łomża from two IPs in Northern New Jersey (Garfield). I left a thank you on the talk pages, but I'll be keeping an closer eye on the articles. Looking at the article history, there were IPs from the same range/same providers (Verizon and Cablevision) that contributed to Browar Łomża and Łomża and were in an edit war with BurgerSF in December 2010 over Warsaw. Not saying they are necessarily connected, but they have my attention. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Gottfried ALF was one of the founders of the Adult-baptist movement 19th century Poland. Alf believed that the child baptism did not permit the individual to develop fully, and that sins acquired as an adult could be lifted by confession and baptism after realizing what the true definition of sin is. A narrative written in the U.S.A. bt Albert Wardin addresses his historical perspective to a degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One4gaia (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on translating some biographies from the Polish wiki to English and I've run into the term "Korpus Paziów" a few times. From what I understand it is a form of military academy -- is this an appropriate translation? I believe it is supposed to indicate a specific institution, but for the life of me I can't figure out what. Thoughts? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was actually a Russian institution. You may want to ask at the Russian board about them. I know I run into this term recently and couldn't dig out much, but I wasn't looking that hard. A Polish transliteration of the Russian name, I think, is Pażeskij Korpus. Direct translation would be the Courtier Corps but it could be quite off. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone was curious.... According to the nice folks over at WP:RUSSIA, it refers to the Page Corps. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just browsing the list of Polish Inventors , and can find no connection to the German national Otto von Guericke. While I've been helping make Wikipedia a better tool, I don't feel comfortable doing a deletion without posting here first. Tom12ga (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed your links. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree he should not be in that category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've incorporated the generous comments provided on Białystok, but it is now at the point for a B-Class review prior to final fixup for GA-Review. I know the references need to be in standard format, but that's a GA-level issue. Every key fact currently has a reference. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has already passed a B-class review. Now, consider going for a GA. That's the next step, and the next good place to get a review from. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it me or does the template seem really confusing? Template:SABMiller . . . Is it trying (and failing) to boil the ocean? Is it about SABMiller breweries or about SABMiller brands? Why is a museum listed? Could use some extra opinions on the talk page. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out to some of our articles where you think it shouldn't be used but it is? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I created a Template:Kompania Piwowarska as a substitute that references back to the SABMiller article. But the editor keeps trying to put the Template:SABMiller back onto all the KP-related articles (Tyskie, Żubr (beer)‎, Kompania Piwowarska‎, Dojlidy Brewery‎ and the newly created Lech Brewery Wielkopolski‎). The talk pages for those articles were spammed by the editor because I called his baby "confusing". I did offer a simpler alternate on Template talk:SABMiller‎. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that the article on Józef Wybicki is a Good Article on Polish Wikipedia pl:Józef Wybicki with a ton of information on him, while on English wikipedia it strains the definition of a stub. I've got too much on my plate currently, but if someone is looking to do some translatin' and expandin'...Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good for translating, but as usual, pl wiki standards are way below ours. Here this wouldn't be a GA, and I wouldn't pas it as a B, due to lack of sufficient inline citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I finished expanding the article up to the point I think it is a GA (and I just nominated it). Needs some photos, though, and I am out of time for the wiki stuff for the next few days. If anybody feels like adding some photos, that would be nifty. A prose copyediting and any review comments wouldn't go amiss, neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orczar! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a number of Poland-related articles were vandalized today, History of Poland, Kompania Piwowarska, etc. Keep an eye out for more. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My 3,5k watchlist is peaceful... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the pages and redirects under this general title are a complete mess:

• "Boleslaw" redirects to "Boleslav", which then points the reader to Boleslav (given name) which lists only 2 "Boleslav"s (the Czech actor, the Czech poet), 9 "Bolesław"s and 2 "Boleslaw"s. The "Boleslav" disambiguation page is otherwise a list of places named ... well, 3 are named "Bolesław" (see comment below) and 2 are "Boleslav"
• "Bolesław" on the other hand redirects to "Boleslaus" and lists a whole bunch of "Boleslaus" but no places (under any of the versions). Three of the people listed are red links so ignore those for now. Out of the other, the three Czech rulers do indeed have their article titles under "Boleslaus", as they probably should. The Polish rulers however tend to have their articles under "Bolesław". There are some exceptions to this ... which appear to be due to the very confusion that these redirects and disambig pages are creating. Specifically the "of Mazovia" Boleslaws.
• As far as these two "of Mazovia" guys go, from what I can see is that English sources use "Boleslaw of Mazovia" (30 gbook hits, [2]. Including "of Mazovia" should more or less screen out non-English works) rather than "Boleslaus of Mazovia" (3 gbook hits, 2 of which may not even be primarily in English [3]). So I've moved these guys - this also streamlines the usage with other Polish rulers of the same name.

But I'm still at a loss as what to do with the various disambiguation pages. My general sense is that for Polish rulers/places English sources (and of course Polish ones) generally use "Bolesław" or "Boleslaw" but with respect to Czech/Bohemian rulers it's usually "Boleslaus" - though I should probably check the second contention. Any ideas?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I got bold and combined them all into one. Any further suggestions are appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You may want to post links to our discussion on Czech and Slovakian noticeboards/projects (see WP:RN for links). I do think that combining them all into one makes sense, with sections on different spellings. PS. I'd avoid listing non-rulers. There are likely hundreds if not more of notable Boleslaws, and the name is not more notable then Piotr, Marek, Radek, Tymek, or any other. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on the Lesser Poland article for some time, adding more and more information. The article already looks good, but it still needs some improvements. Help is welcome, perhaps some time in the future we can make it a Good Article. Tymek (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Let us know when you'd like somebody to do a B-class review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See if there is anything you'd like to change or add: Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Newsletter. Proofreading and such always welcome! PS. If you can think of a more appropriate motto, please post a suggestion here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "Project Poland Newsroom" sound like a better word order? Just thinking out loud, not expressing a personal preference. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Better compared to what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in my comment, mentioning our project and our customary use of diacritics, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Conflict_between_usage_and_policy_wording. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully one of our native English speakers can take a look at Paweł Jasienica, which I nominated at GA. The only thing that stands between this article and GA is prose improvement, something that I cannot help out further with. Hopefully somebody can help out with this rather short article about an interesting person in modern Polish history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of work at the top of the article. I think it would be helpful to provide translations of all the titles of his listed works into English to provide a better sense for his body of work. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I added translated names to his early works, which I think were all that were missing a title. Aarg, anybody has any suggestions how to translate zaścianek? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I was working my way through the orphan articles and there are a helluva lot of heraldry articles on the list. Can anything be done to reorganize them so they don't show up on the orphan list. Is there some template that can be generated to show some categorization? Ajh1492 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A coa template wouldn't be a bad idea, but proper de-orphaning should be done through article links. In theory, all coas should have notable bearers whose article would link back to their coas. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Building the template first would provide some organization, then the notable bearers can be attached to the proper article. It will probable clean up a lot of the orphaned biography articles also. Anyone interested in volunteering, I've got a pretty full plate right now. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that it may have been me who put the orphan tag on all those articles while stub sorting (but I don't remember for sure)... so I'm happy to create a navbox to de-orphan them all if you haven't already done it. Severo^TC 15:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we demote all the stub village articles from Mid to Low importance in the WPP Assessment tag? I don't think every village in Poland is of Mid importance. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are you asking if there is an automated way to do so (I don't think know, you would need to ask) or whether we think it is a good idea (I think most villages should be low-importance indeed)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I raised it as a point of discussion to see (a) if there is consensus on the priority demotion and (b) if a bot can be set up to perform the action. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I expended article Marek Sobieski (1628–1652) and I want to promote it into B-Class article. Kmicic (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems referenced and comprehensive, but in need of prose c/e. I'll try to do so soon, at which point I'll likely pass it as B-class. Note that on en wiki, unlike on pl wiki, ref tags folow the stop instead of preceeding it, so .<ref>ref</ref> not <ref>ref</ref>. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at it and fixed the stop/ref thing. Btw, anyone (since we have Kmicic here, who I think was actually there) know much about the Battle of Szklow? En wiki says it was a Russian victory, pl wiki says it was a Lithuanian victory, they give completely different number for participants, this source [4] also says it was a Radziwill win and also suggests that the confusion stems from the fact that Radziwill lost a different battle (Battle of Shepelevichy) shortly after. And of course Sienkiewicz tells us that it was a big disaster for the Lithuanians where the whole Lauda regiment cut wiped out and IIRC the Bilewicz patriarch died. Just noticed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the Szepielewicze article with some refs. I will look at Shklow later, I note that the article was rewritten and changed a while ago with Russian sources. As there seems to be a contradiction, I think we should restore the old content, reference it, merge it with the Russian view, and show that there are conflicting sources/historigraphies about the event. I think it may be as simple as the fact that the battle was inconclusive, and both sides claimed victory... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for help aboust this article. I have added some more information. I think now that article should be promoted into B-Class article. Kmicic (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, passed. Good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone run into a reference and background on - 1821 Prussia unilaterally introduced repressively high customs duties for transit of Polish and Lithuanian goods through its territory

I'm trying to get Augustów Canal ready for a B-Class review (and ultimately GA-review). Ajh1492 (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Piotr Stefan Wandycz's The lands of partitioned Poland, 1795-1918, available (in part) on Google books, has a lot of background and may actually have something on the 1821 Prussian customs though I didn't see anything during my brief skim. Start around page 68 or so. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 04:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I presume you mean duties for Congress Poland's goods
• [5] suggests there was a tariff law of 1818 that was simplified in 1821
• also this may indicate it was not Poland's good only but all foreign
• another mention here
• regarding shipped goods, see this
• this discusses duties and tariffs
• this suggests there was a tariff war from 1822
• finally, this is even more informative, but as a snippet view only, so: "In the meantime, however, relations between Prussia and Russia begun to grow worse. Berlin, partly as it would appear under pressure from agrarian interests, imposed a series of customs duties in which St. Petersburg saw a breach of the treaty of 1818. Apart from this, the rising large-scale industries in Poland and in Russia had difficulty in competing with the Prussian products which flooded the country. If we bear in mind that the prohibition of imports, or at least the raising of high tariff walls, was at that time customary in post-war Europe, we shall understand the motives which prompted St. Petersburg, in December, 1821, to denounce the treaty of 1818. The Czar's ukaze of March, 1822, issued in this connection, led the Berlin government to commence a tariff war against Russia. The new state of affairs affected East Prussia most nearly. All the calculations based on the expected growth of the province's trade were doomed to disappointment. So likewise was the expectation. So, likewise, was the expectation of profit from the export of Russian corn, since just at that time England (and other countries after her) closed their frontiers by high protective duties. The tonnage of shipping belonging to East..." (you can read Google snippets, it's just a matter of practice and a little luck). There may be more on Google Books, I just run out of time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648–1764) the first image in the first Commonwealth-Saxony personal union section (labeled "Lutherans executed at Thorn...") is no longer displaying on any of my two computers. Firefox shows a small vertical line, Internet Explorer a red x. May be someone can tell me what may be causing this, or where to go for help. Orczar (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm I have the same problem, although the image itself (File:Thorner Blutgericht.jpg) displays fine on its own page. I don't know what is the cause, I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Try it now, works for me. Probably just a glitch in the matrix. Severo^TC 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, seems to be fine now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just nominated Władysław Raginis for WP:DYK - 5x expansion of article. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Władysław Raginis is also ready for a B-Class review in addition to the DYK Nomination. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The things you find on wiki: [6] Even continued Polish occupation will not allow Poland to extend her territorial sovereignty to include the territory of the Free City of Danzig, since she does not exercise unimpeded, uninterrupted and undisputed sovereignty. The community of nations is obliged to refuse to acknowledge the Polish acts and measures of incorporation.

And nobody noticed this for almost 5 months... Go wiki.... --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. The first few lines looked legit, this is likely why it slipped through. It was added by Poguttke (talk · contribs) whose contribs should be reviewed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

should have just moved it down to the In Fiction section. Anyone ever ask the folks in Sapotskin where they wanted to be after WWII? They even wrote a letter to Moscow in 1945 to Uncle Joe - you can ask them how they liked their Siberian "vacation" for their letter writing effort. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Katyn massacre is undergoing a featured article review process here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn_massacre/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I found three, two of which looked good enough for me to vote (among 30 or so I voted for). Take a few minutes at look at commons:commons:Picture of the Year/2010, there is lot of nice stuff there! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Eustachy Stanislaw Sanguszko (1842-1903)
• Stanislaw Soltyk (1753-1831)
  Stanislaw Soltyk (1753-1831)

If we cannot find good sources for those images, they may be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This category has been created to assist us in B-class reviews! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I looked a couple over and did the B-Class review . . .

Mińsk Mazowiecki is not B-Class, it's just a series of unreferenced lists.

Polish Autonomous District is pretty good, but needs references and a map.

Podlaskie Voivodeship isn't B-Class, don't know why it was listed as B.

Transport in Poland starts out well, but fades at the end with little details on Buses/Trams.

Ajh1492 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Sometimes, assessment is done by people who have a bias towards a certain subject, and will confuse importance with quality. A while ago I downgraded several A-class Poland articles, for example (we don't have an A-class review, hence we cannot have A-class articles, unless they have been properly reviewed by other projects). Similarly, occasionally a "fake" FA or GA rating will be given, but I think those are quickly caught by FA/GA monitors. Another common error is start-class articles still listed as stubs, but that's another issue. Perhaps I should now look into getting a list of articles assessed as stubs on talk but without a stub template present in the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Might not hurt to have a list of sub-assessed articles w/o a stub template. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked for it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• How about a list of tagged articles that are orphans and another one of those that do not have an assigned priority? Ajh1492 (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No priority is easy, the link is available from our assessment template mosaic ([7]). Orphan is also easy, available from the cleanup by category listing, also available on our main page ([8]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say, good work on this. I have been playing around with some tracking cats on other templates lately but hadn't yet put the 2 and 2 together to apply it here. Regarding stubs, I do a fair bit of stub sorting so if you notice an areas which seem to be missing, let me know and I will handle it at WP:WSS. I will also look into creating lists of Stub-Class Poland-related articles without Poland-related stub templates and articles with Poland-related stub-templates not categorised as Stub-Class articles. I've got the lists up on AWB but it struggles to handle lists of that length so easily... so I might have to start again with it... we'll see. Severo^TC 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done them, here they are: /Stub-class without stub tags, /Stub-tagged but not stub-class. First one around 4,000 articles, second one around 19,000 articles. Severo^TC 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! You may want to add those to our main project page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a new way to look at this: CatScan 2. Lots of things to play with, but this search: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=1&categories=Poland+stubs&ns[0]=1&ns[1]=1&templates_no=WikiProject+Poland&templates_use_talk_no=1 (copy the whole thing to the address bar - it doesn't agree with wikicode) gives Poland stub-tagged articles with are not tagged on the talk page with {{WikiProject Poland}}. Severo^TC 16:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland and voice your opinion. I think it is a rather clear case of meta:copyright paranoia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a wee tad paranoid, and commented such. Aren't there more pressing issues to be dealt with on EN:WP? It's those edit butterflies who flit from one article to the next changing a word here or there, but never actually slogging through translating or writing an article. They're like the Lilies of the Field. Go do something useful like translating an article or writing one from scratch. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I have just found an editor changing Western Bug and Southern Bug -> Bug River

They are creating a load of redirs and other problems. I am not sure how many are on Poland articles but I saw quite a few that probably are...

User history - [9] - I have asked them to stop but it may need some fixing :¬( Chaosdruid (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

AGF. All's fine. Now, I wonder if the Western Bug shouldn't be moved to the Bug River instead. I think Bug primarily refers to the Western Bug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get the article name of a factual, NPOV name. There's an open move request on the talk page. The article for the river that is part of the Vistula drainage area, the river we are talking about, is 'Bug River in Encyclopedia Britannica.

EB QUOTE: Bug River, Ukrainian Zakhidnyy Buh (“Western Bug”), Bug River, Ukr. tributary of the Vistula River, rising in western Ukraine on the slopes of the Volyn-Podolsk Upland in Lviv oblast (province).

Western Bug is the Ukrainian name, not the English name. I am saying to MOVE the article to Bug River and have Western Bug as a redirect. If we're talking about the River in Ukraine that flows into the Black Sea, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to that as Southern Buh (EB:Southern Buh). We could use some additional discussion on the talk page. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• In addition, I went through all the articles linking to all the redirects and such - what a mess. The links were all mixed up and I ended up reading through a LOT of articles trying to research which river they should be correctly referencing. Articles on Cossacks, Romanian/Moldovan history, and 1792 battles related to the Partition of Poland were incorrectly referencing the WRONG river. I REALLY think we should be using the Britannica naming convention (it will help to clean up the mess and eliminate some wikipedia-created confusion on the internet - since everyone seems to be doing wholesale mirrors of EN:WP):

Bug River, (Ukrainian: Zakhidnyy Buh (“Western Bug”)), for the river that is a tributary of the Vistula. KEEP Western Bug as a redirect.

Southern Buh, (Ukrainian: Pivdennyy Buh, Russian: Yuzhny Bug, Yuzhny also spelled Iuzhnyi, also called Polish: Boh), for the river that drains into the Black Sea. KEEP Southern Bug as a redirect even though sources don't really support it.

That's my 2 cents. I'm NOT pushing a POV, I'm trying to push a NPOV that maps to English references. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Google hits are questionable since a significant number of them are just mirrors of Wikipedia. If we screen the mirrors out we get results like:

United Nations Development Programme - Bug River

Educational conferences at local Universities - Bug River

Columbia University Press Encyclopedia - Bug River

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature - Bug River

Wageningen UR (University & Research centre)- Netherlands - Bug River

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands - based in Switzerland] - Bug River

North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO - Bug River

UNESCO-IAH-UNEP Conference, Paris, 6-8 December 2010 - Bug River

Bug River Basin commission by Poland-Belarus-Ukraine governments & supported by the European Union - Bug River

Towards Converging Migratory Trends in Europe - Bug River

Characteristics and cross-border cooperation within the river basins of the FLOOD-WISE project - Bug River

Ajh1492 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On 8 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Władysław Raginis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Captain Władysław Raginis is known as a modern Leonidas for facing Nazi German forces which outnumbered the Poles 40:1 at the Battle of Wizna? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

A very happy moment, thanks to all who contributed to improving and reviewing the article!!! Ajh1492 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good job. Let's keep writing Poland DYK :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the template looked better few years back, before this ugly green was added (compare). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Input appreciated (whether to use German or Polish names, and where). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous A class review was inconclusive, and suffered from a lack of input. I really hope to get the article to A class soon, and therefore if you'd like to comment on the current review (here) then please do so. The A class criteria, of which there are only five, can be found here. Even if you only look at one aspect, that would be great. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a dead horse, but you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I am reviewing the city of Białystok for GA status and it needs sourcing - this has been removed and I wondered if anyone thought it sourceable and notable? Old-country heritage and all that? If anyone does and can source it, great. If folks think not notable then no big deal. My knowledge of the subject matter is minimal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore - more content at Białystok and History of Białystok wopuld be very helpful, if anyone has any. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed B. for B-class a while ago. You can find my comments on the T:B talk page to be of some use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nearly finished covering all the items that have come out of the review. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is unreferenced and rather terrible. Perhaps somebody would be willing to work on it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dpecowicz1952 (talk · contribs) has created this a while ago. His first edit was a valid translation of ćwikła from pl wiki, but this is more problematic. First, is it notable? Second, is it real? I tried googling the name - no gbooks hits; reference - no hits. Could this be a hoax? I am tempted to prod it. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything on the item, nor the referenced deli in a number of search engines. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked on quite a few english and polish search engines but could not find ANY reference. So I AfD'd it - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svedich . . . . Ajh1492 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proded by me, deprodded by creator. I still don't see notability... your thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be on an AfD Nomination roll today .... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Strzała I agree that it isn't notable - no English language hits on Google or other search site. Plus the article is written like an advertisement for the guy's website. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_27#File:Pilecki_ausch_f.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have written a five-fold expansion of Social Democrats, USA, and nominated a DYK hook on its members' work in the AFL-CIO's aid to Solidarnosc—against the wishes of the Carter Administration (and of course the USSR)!:

... that members of Social Democrats, USA organized the AFL-CIO's contribution of $300,000 to Solidarity, the Polish labor-union, in 1979–1981, despite Secretary of State Muskie's warnings that such donations might provoke a Soviet invasion?

Your help with reviewing the DYK nomination, or with editing the article on SDUSA would be appreciated.

I hope that you find the DYK hook interesting, also.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I'll take a look. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is probably too short for a DYK, I should note, because it was half as long a few months ago (before I "took a meat-axe to it" according to one editor).

It would be wonderful to find more references on aid to Solidarity, particularly from Polish-language sources ( especially now that Google translate and other services are available to English-only readers). I wrote quickly, reworking material from existing articles, and I may have made serious chronological blunders with Solidarity's history (e.g., did Solidarity come after the 21 demands?).

I cannot find a reference to an honor awarded to SDUSA#Carl Gershman, when I looked at WP's list of Polish government honors, which makes me wonder if the NED is correct in its translation.

At a website associated with a David Hacker, there is a statement that SDUSA devoted half of its offices to pro-Solidarity support in the early 1980s. He also states that a few expelled persons from Solidarity were housed temporarily with SDUSA or its members. If anybody can find a reliable, preferably independent source on any such activity, it would interest me (and I trust our readers).

Volunteer Marek has properly capitalized of Solidarity in several articles. Thanks to all!

Several editors have already accused me of biases, so I would appreciate your scrutiny. (I am fallible, and my knowledge of this organization is 20 years old and second hand.)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've hesitated in making more substantial changes to the article (mostly just moving stuff around) because of the "expansion/restructuring" tag and because I didn't want to run into bunch of edit conflicts. Unfortunately now I'm quite busy - but I'll try do find some stuff on this. I don't know that much about the SDUSA but the support for Solidarity by the AFL-CIO was a pretty big deal back then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The SDUSA members were careful to avoid conflicts of interest, but imho it's clear that acting individually (with approval of superiors or the AFL-CIO Board) they were the main movers in the AFL-CIO to support Solidarity (in practice). To me, I like to hear that Americna labor told Muskie to go jump in the lake if he thought that his opinion was more valuable than Walesa's. I think that the heroism of A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin are also worth telling, for everyone to hear, just like the story of the Warsaw Uprisings. But that's the biased opinion of somebody who thinks anti-communism is a good thing!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: The article/hook seems to have been accepted by a few editors on DYK. (Another editor however just questioned the inclusion of biographical material in the article, on DYK, which might sink the nomination ...)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is now in the FARC (voting) phase. Of course, "just votes" are not helpful, comments are appreciated, as well as any improvements to the article you can make. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a comparison between the evaluation criteria for FA vs GA level reviews? Ajh1492 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe so. You may want to ask at WP:GA or WP:FA for it. And of course see the basic criteria in assessment, you can find them linked from our project main page, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Katyn massacre articele, which deals with the murder of 22,000 Poles, is rated top-importance by WikiProject Poland. About 800,000 Jews were murdered at Treblinka, which, according to Timothy Snyder, is the site where the greatest number of Polish citizens were murdered or killed of all World War II locations. [10] Yet Treblinka extermination camp article is rated low-importance. Such inexplicable ratings in ethnically sensitive areas should be reconsidered. Orczar (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I raised it to 'high'. N.b. the original assessment was done by an anon user who, I'm guessing, was probably just following the assessment made by the other projects.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Prod? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POLENG - Can't find anything on Google or Yahoo other than what appears to be a closed go-go lounge in California? Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that we have a number of ways in which Polish railway stations are titled on Wikipedia. Now, there isn't a central naming convention on how railway station articles should be named. There are some at national levels and I would like to find some concensus on what we are using.

I've counted seven ways an article is marked as a railway station (to disambiguate from the place it is in). These are: (railway station), railway station, (PKP station), (SKM stop), (Warsaw Metro), station, Station and nothing. The majority are with (PKP station) but these were mostly created by a single user five years ago.

NB: numbers may be a little out as I made this lists a few weeks ago.

As for the Wikipedia guidelines we have, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) never reached concensus so the only active guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). There the guideline is that railway stations should use railway station, but if they are also light rail/metro/tram stops then just station.

My opinion is that we should adopt a similar approach. The problem I see is that (PKP station) in particular assumes knowledge of who or what PKP are. Now my guess is that we all know who PKP are, but the majority of readers will not so it is better to use the perfectly good generic English-language alternative. In addition, PKP may be confusing because trains operated by other companies than PKP use PKP-owned stations.

I think it is fine to leave the Warsaw Metro articles as they are.

The SKM stop articles should be merged with the PKP station articles where they are the same station. SKM is not a closed system like the Warsaw Metro so for me there is no problem calling the remaining SKM stops railway station.

I don't know what we should do with articles of "Centralny"/"Głowny" stations.

Severo^TC 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there's certainly a right old mess here. I basically agree with all of the above suggestions. Regarding the centralny/główny ones, I would just leave the names untranslated, unless there's a widely used or particularly helpful translation for a particular station. (But if we're going to translate them, then I wouldn't use semi-translations like Warsaw Centralna - should be either "Warsaw Central" or "Warszawa Centralna".)--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's another question on whether to translate Warszawa to Warsaw in station names or not, and then the second part of the name also... - we have Warszawa Gdańska but Warsaw Śródmieście, Warsaw Centralna, Warsaw Głowna, Warsaw Wschodnia Osobowa... Severo^TC 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Loooking at some stations in other countries, I'm seeing names left untranslated (e.g. München Hauptbahnhof (not Munich anything), various Railway stations in Rome with "Roma" rather than "Rome", so I guess we could stick with Warszawa and the original Polish names.--Kotniski (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I initially thought that was just for main stations, but at least for the German stations it seems that way for all stations (see Category:Railway stations in Munich and Category:Railway stations in Cologne). A quick Google search for webpages and books suggests that probably the most common names are Warszawa Xyz and the same for Xyz Główny. Severo^TC 06:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents . . .

Could change the articles to the following - Warsaw Centralna (rail station) . . . so we don't get caught up in a nomenclature discussion. Technically they could either be a Railroad or Railway station. A rail-based corporate entity could be a Railway or a Railroad - so I wouldn't use the UK as the only solution.

A train station, also called a railway station (mainly British Commonwealth) or railroad station (mainly US), and often shortened to just station

The metro stations should move to Słodowiec (metro station)

SKM (Gdansk, Warsaw, etc.) is just an operator on the rail network and should be converted to rail stations.

And don't use Warsaw Gdansk as an example ... I'm working my way around the ring railroad.

Ajh1492 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As the categorisation tree is Category:Railway stations in the United States and "railway stations" is used throughout I don't see a big issue about using "railway station". The closed systems (such as Warsaw Metro and Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa - maybe some others, I don't know - where the operator owns and operates the line) seem to be treated a bit different on Wikipedia and usually are disambiguated with (Foo Metro) - I don't see why the Polish ones should be any different? Severo^TC 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at other countries for inspiration. For example in Category:Railway stations in Germany native names are used augmented by the English phrase "station", i.e. Angermünde station, Böblingen station, etc. In Category:Railway stations in France no English words are used at all, i.e. Gare d'Agen, Gare d'Aiguillon, Gare de Bayonne, etc. In Category:Railway stations in England all names include the phrase "railway station", i.e. Aspley Guise railway station, Biggleswade railway station, etc. In Category:Railway stations in the United States the mess is even bigger than here... My personal preference though would be the combination of German and British naming systems with Polish "place-name", i.e. Kraków Główny railway station (about 96,900 results, most popular by far), Warszawa Centralna railway station, etc. Please search online for more results if you want, with the Wikipedia "five principles" in mind. — Krakowski (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you - but one question: you say a mixture of German and UK styles with the German style tending to be Böblingen station - what circumstances would we name a station Foo station rather than Foo railway station? Severo^TC 06:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say, all Polish railway station should have a full name in their native language (like in Germany) with the city in Polish, augmented by the phrase railway station (like in England), with no parentheses. Please remember, "Kraków Główny railway station" is ten times more popular in search than "Kraków Główny station". However, the phrase "station" can also be used for other types of mass transit if need be. — Krakowski (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem keeping the separate Warsaw Metro designation. I do think the WKD designation isn't necessary, we should keep the station names generic as possible and link them to the rail line(s) they serve. I did a sampling of PL:WP and it looks like the format is Warszawa Centralna (railway station) followed closely by Warszawa Centralna (station). My vote is for the latter since it's shorter in length. I think it would be better to have the parentheses. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No other countries seem to use parentheses in this way - normally just putting station or railway station so I don't think that it is better to have parentheses. Severo^TC 06:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, so far I think we have:

• Foo railway station for all normal (including SKM and WKD) railway stations (where Foo is the name in Polish e.g. Warszawa Centralna, Kraków Główny etc). Terms such as "Warszawa Centralna" and "Kraków Główny" have much higher hits than full- or semi-English language equivalents so qualify as the common name.
  • One exception to this may be airport railway stations where the airport often has an English-language common name and the station of the airport takes this also - compare Cologne/Bonn Airport station to the rest of the stations in Category:Railway stations in Cologne. At the moment this only applies to Warsaw Chopin Airport railway station.
• Foo (Warsaw Metro) for Warsaw Metro stations (again, Foo is the name in Polish, so Świętokrzyska (Warsaw Metro) rather than Holy Cross (Warsaw Metro).

I now propose the following:

• We ignore the prospect of tram stops being notable for articles. A tram, trolleybus or bus stop next to a station is worth a mention in the article, but I don't think it should alter the article's name.
• For mixed railway stations and Warsaw Metro stations, we use Foo station where Foo is the name of the railway station (e.g. Warszawa Gdańska station) as single article for both unless the article grows to big per WP:LENGTH and it is deemed most suitable to split the article in this way.
• For places which have connected railway and PKS bus/coach stations (e.g. Warszawa Zachodnia), we could either make one article (Warszawa Zachodnia station) or have two (Warszawa Zachodnia railway station and Warszawa Zachodnia coach station). I'm not so such about this kind of example but I can see some of the same logic as mixed metro and railway stations i.e. having one article until the article is too long.

Severo^TC 09:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That all seems eminently sensible. If no-one's got any better suggestions, then I'd certainly be in favour of standardizing in accordance with this proposal. --Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Standardization is much needed and this proposal is very reasonable. - Darwinek (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it provides reasonable length of article names. Is the format Foo (Warsaw Metro) for Warsaw Metro stations still within the proposal? Ajh1492 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but only because the majority of other systems use the same format (see Category:Rapid transit stations), although there are some notable exceptions, namely: Athens, Amsterdam and Bucharest (Foo metro station) and London (Foo tube station). I think with Warsaw Metro, Foo metro station would also be perfectly acceptable - maybe even better? Severo^TC 12:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now created Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland). I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations and hopefully we can put it in place within the next week or so. Severo^TC 07:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Could use an intervention and someone to mentor an editor. I had to 3RR Hoops gsa about 4 reverts in the span of less than an hour on Treblinka extermination camp. He deleted the entire in-progress "lowlights" (I refuse to call it highlights) on the timeline for Treblinka. I've started to coax this article back towards FA status - where it should be based on the subject matter. My interest is the relationship to the liquidation of the Bialystok Ghetto (and the rest of Podlaskie). Anyone want to take Hoops gsa under their wing? Ajh1492 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with the mentoring, but I'd like to point out that Hoops gza's four reverts were consecutive, which under WP:3RR means they count as a single revert. Good luck getting the article back to FA status. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAN is backlogged. Perhaps some of us could help, there are several Poland-related GANs in need of a review. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did nominate two articles to the list, but I did also review two articles that were on the list, so I did my part to offset my "GAN footprint". Ajh1492 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And you are to be commended for that :) I guess my ratio is much worse, with 20+ GAs... but I finally started my first review today :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I just pulled Łódź insurrection (1905) and the massive/huge History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648) article off the queue. Will complete the first pass through as fast as I can - this weekend is a little busy. I'll put a personal plug in for someone to GA review Władysław Raginis, please ... Ajh1492 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would help you but I am afraid this could create a little COI. I'd hope that we can find a third person here who wouldn't mind doing a review or two every so often. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You contributed to the article, and did the B-Class review so you can't. I'm hoping someone steps forward. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

An Extra special thank-you to everyone who contributed to getting Białystok to GA. Six months ago it was a C-class article in need of editing, now it is well over the GA line and really close to FA! Ajh1492 (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the History section still needs some work. Right now it reads:

In the second half of the 18th century the ownership of the city was inherited by Field Crown Hetman Jan Klemens Branicki.[1] It was he who transformed the palace built by his father into the magnificent residence of a great noble.[9][10]

At the end of the 19th century, the majority of the city's population was Jewish. According to Russian census of 1897, out of the total population of 66,000, Jews constituted 41,900 (so around 63% percent).[11] This heritage can be viewed on the Jewish Heritage Trail in Bialystok.[12]

From the very beginning, the Nazis pursued a ruthless policy of pillage and removal of the non-German population during World War II. The 56,000 Jewish residents of the town were confined in a ghetto.[13]

• It skips from "second half of the 18th century" right to "end of the 19th century". What happened to the partitions? In fact, it doesn't even tell you which partition it was part of.
• It then skips right to "From the very beginning, the Nazis..." Whoa. Where did these Nazis come from all of sudden? What happened to WWI and interwar Poland? The "from the very beginning" doesn't make sense unless you mention what the beginning is supposed to refer to. Probably should say we're talking WWII and Nazi occupation (rather than Soviet occupation, which it was under until 1941). This basically looks like an awkward copy/paste from a different article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• You need to look at the child article for the additional detail (History of Białystok) - the see tag is at the top of the history section. It's hard to cramp a couple of hundred years of history into a few paragraphs - need to balance covered detail but maintain a reasonable article length. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in my proposal here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: please note the voting is in progress. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article about Eveline Hańska is now a Featured Article Candidate. Your feedback is appreciated. Scartol • Tok 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you go through a B-Class review on the article? Or a GA-Class article review? Ajh1492 (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so. Good luck, but it would be easier if the article had indeed undergone those other reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made my comments on the review page, I really think the article would have benefited from a number of prior reviews than just jumping to the FA-review. I think the article has flow and sourcing problems. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors. Can someone please let me know the difference between "Klasyka" music and "Muzyka poważna"? They are both translated as "Classical". This will help me provide correct information in an article I write about Związek Producentów Audio Video. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Both terms mean "classical music" in Polish. The difference is that "muzyka poważna" means literally "serious music". - Darwinek (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but then I don't understand this. There are different thresholds for "Klasyka" and "Muzyka poważna". Though I now see the second actually refers to "Muzyka poważna - popularna", is this for something like Operatic pop or Popular Classics?

Exactly. It looks like the second one is actually for popular classics. - Darwinek (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry. --Muhandes (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta Warszawa doesn't seem notable. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a habit, I AFD's the article. Don't know if it rises to a level of notability, if it does, then the page REALLY needs more detail, even if it is just a filled in infobox. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are fine with reviewing and nominating them, that's great. How about Stanislaw Wisniewski (seems like a father of a notable person, but not notable on his own).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislaw Wisniewski. I took a look around and I see a Dancer with the same name who seems to be notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A new article, just created by me Soviet Raid on Sto¸pce. Help is appreciated, as is still needs some improvements. Perhaps we could make it a DYK? Tymek (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this interesting article. I think it is mostly DYK ready, and I'll nominate it shortly after you've addressed the requested citation issues. Some advice for your future edits:

Please don't leave bare urls in the article [11]

Please don't hesitate to add a reference after every sentence, when making potentially controversial claims. The main section on the raid was poorly referenced and I've added citation needed tags. Once you address this, you can nominate the article for a DYK.

Please use named references to limit the number of code in the article [12]

Please add language icon ({{pl icon}} giving (in Polish)) when using references in different languages, and retrieve date information

References go after the comma, not before: [13]

If you cannot use Polish diacritics (an easy way it to copy and paste them from other articles), use generic letters. Soviet raid on Stolpce is a valid redirect to Soviet raid on Stołpce, but Soviet Raid on Sto¸pce is just junk link (implausible typo) that needs to be deleted. Also, please don't capitalize words (Raid) without need (see WP:CAPITALIZATION). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus for the advice, you are always so helpful. I have always had a problem with Polish diacritics, it is my computer that is giving me hell. Tymek (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Next, I'll try to address the issues at the Łódź insurrection (1905) GA nomination, I promise :) I just wanted to get Władysław done, he was bugging me for years :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll review Władysław IV Vasa. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. I promoted it to B class. I left some comments on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Eveline Hańska#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Augustów Canal is ready for a B-Class review. Constructive critiques are encouraged, the plan is to take it to GA in the near future. Thanks in advance! Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Will review in few seconds :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Ajh1492 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page of the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I addressed all the points. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, passed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in these two requests for move: [14] and [15]. - Darwinek (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that such moves and other discussions I listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts; if you have not watchlisted that page yet, please consider doing so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm opposing both - the Manchester United RM isn't applicable - all teams in Ekstraklasa do not use KP in their name - none of them actually do. And it's definitely not applicable to Jagiellonia Białystok. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I finally wrote the article on Windawski Canal - i.e. the partially built, then abandoned extension to the Augustów Canal in Lithuania. Comments/Reviews are appreciated on WP:DYK. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide the ref for Construction restart and the next section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

there's more content, but I need to finish with properly applying the sourcing before it gets added to the article. So the construction restart will get properly sourced. I just wanted to push the article out the door to get the ball rolling. It's currently enough for a DKY, not ready for a B-Class at this time. Augustow Canal is my priority to get to B-Class. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good for DYK :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who helped get the article to DYK! Ajh1492 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Need to transfer the image of Waldemar Magunia from DE:WP to WikiMedia Commons but there's a block on it [16]? Could someone with better German language skills please check on the concerns and transfer the image to WC so it can be added to the EN:WP page. Thanks! Ajh1492 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The page is editable. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, point 2, for a tool that I used in the past to move images from en and pl wikis to Commons. PS. I added this template which links directly to the bot that will help you finish the move. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the bare refs in this old article of mine. Do you think it is now up to our B-class standards? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring Constitution of May 3, 1791 to at least GA. For now, I think it is up to our B-standards. A review would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Little known event in recent Polish history. Help is appreciated, and perhaps a DYK? Look here 1989 Riots in Polish Prisons. Tymek (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems ready to be nominated to T:TDYK. Please expand bare url citations. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you have not fixed the issues with Soviet raid on Stołpce, which prevented that interesting article from being DYKed. Please let us know if you need help with anything, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some c/e, and nominated the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the Raid on Stolpce, I have been trying to find more information and more sources. Alas, I have not been successful. Tymek (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this [17] - looks like quite a large number of photographs from WWII. They're saying that these can be used freely for educational use which I think would qualify here (I think it would qualify for en.wiki, not sure about Commons, will ask there too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See anything on Bialystok or Podlaskie? Ajh1492 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There's several photos from Bialystok, I'll have to look again for Podlaskie. I checked the copyright/free use thing. Because it's restricted to "educational purposes only" the photos cannot be uploaded to Commons. For en.wiki this is also a bit of a problem, but I think this release can help to justify a "fair use" usage in the relevant articles, though with some limitations - so for example it might be harder to justify the use of the Bialystok photos in the general Bialystok article, except perhaps in the WWII section. It would be more appropriate in the History of Bialystok and the Bialystok Ghetto articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That permission, AFAIK, is NOT enough for Wikipedia, since educational-only is a similar restriction to non-commercial, which we do not accept. See commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications. Now, writing a letter asking them to consider using a proper free license compatible with Wikipedia would be great. See below. PS. Of course, they may not in fact own copyright for many of those photos, just claim it - it is common with such institutions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did write them a letter, though about a different set of images (that's how I saw this one). So far no reply. As to the actual copyright status... from what I understand, if these photos were published in Poland somewhere by someone else before 1994, and that person did not indicate a clear copyright then they're available for free use. Since many of them come from the Ringelblum archive this is a very likely case. However, since they DO claim copyright, what you'd have to show is where these photos were actually published first (like find the actual book or album). This might be doable for some of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)