Got another one for you guys: Image:Tadeusz Lehr-Splawinski.jpg. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have just created the Janowa Dolina article. Would be very grateful if somebody would categorize and possibly add some photos of this unique town Tymek 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The article needs editing, eg. the part about proposed population transfers in 1939. Xx236 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A masterpiece of Soviet propaganda.Xx236 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

• "Polish population often collaborated with German occupation administration." - As if the Belarus one didn't.
• "In total, Belarus lost a quarter of its pre-war population in the Second World War." - Belarus had more population after the war than before it.

Xx236 08:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Belarusians had one. I know of an Oxford paper that discusses the Belarusian-Nazi collaboration, but trying to find sources now at nearly 2 am; it's going to be tough. As for the population, all I am seeing is that either 1/4 or a 1/3 of the population was killed (some numbers were combined with the deaths caused by the Soviet government). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the population, it seems the Government is saying a 1/4th, even some other websites are saying the thing. The closest thing I could find to a statics is from BelStat.gov. The earliest is goes is the early 1960's. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of which population - BSSR, BSSR+part of Poland? BTW - the Soviet statistics are faked, they partially assign victims of Soviets to the Nazis.Xx236 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the stats that I found, the designation is not clear. However, if I have to take a guess, it would be the BSSR (without the part of Poland). I assume the exact number will not be known, since documents were probably "lost" during the war, looting and I am sure record keeping wasn't the best in the world in the Soviet Union and in Poland. I'll try and see what else I can personally find, but some of the information you are asking for, I don't think they will be found. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

99% that the alleged looses include Polish citizens, so the statement is literally false. The numbers include also people who died in Siberia or run away with Anders. Nazi repressions were partially caused by Soviet partizans. Xx236 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian resistance movement - a masterpiece. It was Soviet resistance movement in Belarus.Xx236 10:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omg....Xx236, I wish I knew about these articles soon. I know many Belarusian articles I didn't edit seem to have massive POV issues. I wish there were some other Belarusian editors I can kick this around to, but Rydel has died, Monkbel is afk and everyone else is busy. I can see if I can try my hand at the resistance article later (now I need some sleep). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany contains the same text as History of Belarus, with small edits. Maybe integration would be needed? The author was User:£. Xx236 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC) ru:Западная Белоруссия - a masterpiece.Xx236 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which one I can start on (but the last one, I don't know enough Russian to fix it). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to fix such Soviet propaganda. I have quoted this text as an exmple of Soviet tradition.Xx236 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On here, I can fix it as much as I can, I just need time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a better title for this article? Polish Coal Trunk-Line

I have chosen the English one, but I am still hesitating. Also - photos and more info are welcome

Tymek 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the English name used by English sources? Then let's use English. If not, go with Polish. And remember about references if you want the article DYKed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not come across English name of this route. I will add references soon. Tymek 19:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This translates Magistrala Kolejowa as Trunk Line. Weglowa obviously translates to coal. So Magistrala Weglowa would naturally be Coal Trunk Line. There is no reason to add Polish in front as there is no ambiguity. Balcer 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added some more info and references and now it looks good. Balcer, I also think that adding "Polish" was not necessary, but I do not know if other nations may have their own Coal Trunk-Lines. If you want to delete it from the title, please do it. Tymek 00:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Weglowa? Węglowa.Xx236 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important milestone in the history of Wikipedia, with a democractic board elections. This tiny article may be quite interesting, I've noticed some candidates from pl wikipedia (I don't know either of them well, but it's interesting to see them there). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please help form consensus on Talk:Świnoujście#external link situation. --Mareklug ^talk 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There is a discussion taking place about whether Polish Tatars/ Muslims deserve to be in the Polish-Americans page. Please leave your opinions on the discussion page. --Orestek 08:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the specific discussion page?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He probably meant this. Jacek Kendysz 00:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, this will probably need a disambiguation page. There is a well-known polka/novelty/satire band in Detroit, named the "Polish Muslims".Pustelnik 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that articles relating to the oil industry suffer from a serious lack of sources. Apparently the industry's various parts "first started" in a dozen places and often hundreds of years apart. Using the rule that anything important obviously started in Poland I'd like some help finding reliable sources to prove Lukasiewicz's achievements. I own a really good book on the issue by Harvard University Press which I've added as a source but have trouble finding more English language material that would stand up to scrutiny.

Additionally I suggest adding the article to the "to be expanded" list because it's in need of well, some expanding. JRWalko 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be possible to bring it up to GA with a little expansion and internal citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that the Polish oil industry started in Austria. Galicia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire when the first oil wells were started.Pustelnik 16:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aleksander Wielopolski.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. A.J. 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But don't look very hard for source :) I put excellent photo in article Aleksander Wielopolski. A.J. 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When there is no difference between "city" and "town" in the definition of miasto, should categories "Cities in Poland" and "Towns in Poland" be merged to form "Cities and towns in Poland" ? - Darwinek 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentativly, I think that yes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at WP:CFD, please feel free to comment and vote. - Darwinek 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish there is no difference. In English the is a difference between "city" and "town" and I think it will be better for the rest of the world to keep these 2 categories. Anyway in English there is no difference between osiedle typu miejskiego and miasteczko (Białoruś, Rosja) and town is used as well. --Hiuppo 19:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hyper-censorship - not only remove any critics of the Soviet Union but to control contacts of contributors. Xx236 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I consider removing other users messages very incivil, your message was pointless junk. Please think twice before posting stuff in the future, and this board is certainly not the appopriate forum to discuss that issue - it has nothing to do with Poland. Please mind that in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to create a category related to the Poles in the USA. There is only a category regarding persons "Category:Polish-Americans" but there are many articles about Polish organizations there, Polish churches, Polish festivals etc. Problem is I don't know how to name that category. Any suggestions? - Darwinek 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow naming conventions in this category and create Category:Polish American history. Jacek Kendysz 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated. - Darwinek 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Khatyn article exist only because the place was used as a part of Katyn lies. Yes, I don't have any KGB documents proving it but why Khatyn was choosen from thousands of places in a country where millions of Red Army soldiers weren't buried at that time. Don't tell me - because the Soviet Union respected its victims. The should be one phrase informing about it in the article, even as a Poplish POV - Poles claim that Khatyn was promoted by KGB, as part of Katyn campaign. Xx236 07:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Khatyn article exist only because the place was used as a part of Katyn lies"? You are trolling for a block. Please check Holocaust Denial, too. Wikipedia does not welcome folks who deny the event, especially on June 22, the National Day of Mourning in the country where WWII claimed more lives than in the rest of the world. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Thesis Presented to the Department of History Western Illinois University [1] Xx236 11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union didn't care much about victims of the Nazis. It didn't care about Khatyn victims till it needed this place for propaganda. Yes, I confirm my words - where are the other 9 000 articles about destroied villages in Soviet Union? How many of them have YOU written? Xx236 13:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to stop posting nonsense such as "The Soviet Union didn't care much about victims of the Nazis". It is the country that crushed Fascism and liberated Auschwitz, so you'd better choose your words. Basically, no other country cared for the victims of the Nazis more than they did. If you think that the world revolves around Katyn, why don't you go to Khotin Massacre and dismiss it as another trick of Katyn deniers on account of similarity of their names? As so often, I am struck by the lengths nationalists will go to create their own version of history. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny Soviet apology. Yes, the biggest killer in history crushed the second one and liberated a small nuumber of Auschwitz prizoners, using at least Auschwitz subcamps later. Xx236 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC) BTW - have you already read the Western Illinois University thesis (see above)?Xx236 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, the Khatyn article should definitely exist, to clearly explain the significance of that place. If you have a problem with what it contains, its talk page is the place to discuss it. Please, don't use this page to make controversial and incorrect statements. Your statement that the USSR did not care about the victims of the Nazis is inflammatory and should never have been posted here. This is just a notice board, not a discussion board. Continue this discussion at Talk:Khatyn massacre.Balcer 13:35, 26

I find your comment also inflammatory and containing controversial and incorrect statements. I understand that this is a wrong place and I go, but it's also a wrong place for your statements.Xx236 13:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Balcer. Xx236, please don't post messages that are offensive to editors or countries here. We may not be fans of Soviet Union, but there are limits when a reasonable discussion deteriorates into flames, and you seem to be crossing them too often. Please mind that violations of WP:NPA are blockable offences, if repeated long and often enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to criticise Nazi Germany? Xx236 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Galician Jews reads very POV and kind of like an original essay. I'm not much of an expert on "Galician Jews" but I can't find much research showing that this is any more than a geographic location that had a large population of Polish Jews, definitely not one that's someone a sub-ethnicity worthy of an article like this. Any thought? LeszekB 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) The article contains errors. Isaac Bashevis Singer lived in Warsaw, was he a Galician Jew? I invite you to the Talk page.Xx236 11:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The page for the new users welcome box suggests using subst which replaces the template with its code. Does anyone know the reason why this is preferred? I think that the regular template reference {{sometemplate}} uses less space and more importantly -- doesn't require one to edit dozens of pages in case a change is needed. I am trying to organize how the Polish flags are used on Wiki and have to edit all those user talk pages. I can use a bot -- no problem, but is there any opposition if I replaced the references with regular template links to {{Portal:Poland/Welcome}}? --Wanted 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Template substitution. Jacek Kendysz 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I remember I even read that one. I'm still not quite convinced substitution is better in this case (an optional parameter would be enough to customize the welcome message), but that's fine. --Wanted 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like subst because: 1) it doesn't mess up the headings 2) it decreases server load (and I think this is recommended by some policies).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The server load doesn't seem to be much of an issue -- see the last point in "Benefits" section of Wikipedia:Template substitution. What do you mean by messing up headings? --Wanted 06:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a template created headings, if it is not substituted, clicking 'edit' on the user's page with the intention of leaving him a message under the heading will in fact direct the editor to template page. It's confusing, thus substitution of templates with headings avoids it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List of recent Poland-related changes. It may be used in order to detect attacks. Colchicum 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are used to select articles that are on that list?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being tagged for WikiProject Poland. However, to get rid of the linked dates in the log I probably should address the WP 1.0 bot's owner. Colchicum 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC) For Estonian log the dates have been delinked by request and dates don't appear in such a list anymore: User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov#WP 1.0 bot and linking dates. It is not claer as of now whether this is also true of other assessment logs. Probably I will have to delink the earlier dates manually. Colchicum 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union influenced 6 countries creating Eastern Bloc (now 7 because of Slovakia). The countries had almost the same political system, economy, political police, censorship, education. Are there any articles describing the Soviet system applied in those 6 countries? I mean not six articles Education in PRL, Education in GDR, but a summary Education in Esatern Bloc. I have written two such articles, one of them was removed as naive, crazy, original research and at the same time repeating information available in this Wikipedia. An example of the critics: "What's so special about Soviet university? It's just a university that happens to be in the Soviet Union." The same "what is so special about Pravda, it's a newspaper that happens to be in the SU" or "what is so special about Stalin, it's a president that happens to be in the SU".Xx236 12:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet university. I'd vote 'merge' but I was unaware of the AfD. Next time, try to include better (inline) references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text couldn't have been merged, because it was about Soviet-type universities in Eastern block, not about universities in Soviet Union only. This Wikipedia misinforms about the Eastern block, see eg. Lysenkoism was a political campaign against genetics and geneticists which happened in the Soviet Union. The Soviets imposed this ideology to many countries, see [2] about Poland.

The Soviet university article wasn't removed only because of poor references. Non-USSR related referenced material should be merged to the relevant articles, (like Education in Poland) and many other comments. Xx236 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present your arguments at WP:AFU then.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest Xx236 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it would just redirect to Wikipedia:Deletion review (WP:DRV).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through pages for Polish villages/town/cities and adding the Project banner as well as reqphoto on most of them...I really think it would be brilliant if some of you could drive around and add pictures to those pages...Also, if you could add a history section, that'd be good...I would try to do that but most of the time the official website - from which the history info can be got - is in Polish, and unfortunately I don't speak the language.Zigzig20s 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

In my opinion Template:Infobox City Poland should be merged with Template:Infobox Settlement. There is no reason to use the first one, when the same features can be used in the second. Location map of Poland can be used only with the second one. So I think we should move old template from all articles [3] and use another one. Example? Głogów and [4]. If you want to place twin towns or even town council adress you can at least use blank field in this template. I hope Template:Infobox City Poland will be forgotten. --Hiuppo 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur absolutely. Great work on converting all these towns. When it will be finished you should receive a barnstar and that old ugly template should be deleted. - Darwinek 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work to do left... --Hiuppo 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be possible to write a bot / script for substitution? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I have no idea how to do it. A lot of information is missing also on Polish wikipedia. Problem is also with COA files - some of them are moved do .svg file format. Anyway - if anyone have any idea how to force any bot to do what I have to do manually, you are welcome. --Hiuppo 07:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests if there is a bot that can help you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Polish wikipedia there is a similar problem with converting infobox with wrong usage of Geographic coordinate system - I mean in old template coordinates can't be used for location Poland. Anyway on Polish wiki answer from bot-operators about converting coordinates was short: too much memory needed (French and Italian communes). So I'm going to finish it myself. --Hiuppo 10:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway not too much to convert left. A few notes from my edits:

• there is a lot of articles about Polish communes missing - I understand when urban commune info is in town/city article, but merging rural and urban commune or even rural commune with article about settlement is incorrect
• in my edits I used standard of names for communes (gmin) - for rural or rural and urban commune I used for example: Skarszewy commune name;
• there is a lack of infoboxes in Polish counties and communes articles - Template:Infobox City Poland is incorrect
• I see there is no standard of Polish communes name usage - look at Commune Opatówek and Komorniki Commune articles

--Hiuppo 10:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All what I left is only in user talks [[5]]. Deleting this obsolete infobox will not change quality of articles about Poland. --Hiuppo 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work! I hope you will continue working on Polish geography here with us.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[6] says that Polish sources support the story that Russian criminals started the fire. What does Adam Zamoyski write about it?Xx236 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told to stop it. Your manner of behaviour on this page is strangely reminiscent of User:Molobo, by the way. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fire of Moscow 1812 belongs to History of Poland, there are plenty sources in Polish language. You don't have any right to censor academic discussion here.

Do you claim that I'm Molobo? What about False accusations and defamation of me by user ....?

Or are you threatening me that you will ban me, together with your friends? Xx236 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are Molobo, but I see you as the latest reincarnation of a certain type of editor that performs his function for the Polish community, i.e., to sap Russia-related articles in order to distract attention of Russian wikipedians from tendentious editing by Piotrus & Co. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, this is not a board to discuss your personal issues. The subject at hand is Polish historiography on the Fire of Moscow, and it is a valid issue. Your views of each other are not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please stop provokative edits. The "Polish historiography" on the Fire of Moscow is as on topic here as any other subject, e.g., the Polish coverage of the Image of Hatshepsut. This is the board for Polish-related matters, as the name testifies. The Fire of Moscow or the Image of Hatshepsut both have a very tenuous relation to Poland, so you'd better discuss them elsewhere. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Polish historiography is to some extent concerned with both subjects, this noticeboard is a reasonable place to ask for such sources. Btw, "Hatszepsut" is much better researched by Polish scholars then the 1812 fire, being a subject of several books and articles. Those topics are perfectly ok, just as Russian historiography of history of other countries can be discussed on Russian noticeboard.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither subject is Poland-related. Perhaps you should move the board to its former name. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90 000 - 100 000 Polish soldiers joined La Grande Armée, many of them eyewitnessed the Fire of Moscow (1812). Xx236 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know anything about the town, read unsourced "massacre talk" in Chervyen.Xx236 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article indeed could use more refs. I cannot verify the three Russian (Belorussian?) references, which leads us with a single website, as far as I could tell from BelaPAN news service, which doesn't seem to have an English website. If more sources can be provided, and preferebly academic references, the matter would be much more clear.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards:

• Hotel Moskva (Moscow) - 1 Russian reference, 0 English ones
• Lev Rudnev - 4 Russian, 0 En.
• Konstantin Chernenko - 0
• Leonid Krasin - 0

So no English language sources or even any sources at all are needed in hundreds or even thousands of articles. Xx236 14:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more controversial the article, the more references are needed. Are the above topics controversial? Anyway, our policies require references, feel free to slap {{unreferenced}} on any article that doesn't have them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've notice that Poland, unlike other nations (that I've seen) has two separate history article series'.

Part of a series on Polish statehood Poland Duchy of Poland Kingdom of Poland Crown of the Kingdom of Poland Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Partitions of Poland Duchy of Warsaw Congress Kingdom of Poland Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria Grand Duchy of Poznań Polish National Government Free City of Kraków Grand Duchy of Kraków Regency Kingdom of Poland Second Polish Republic Polish Underground State Polish People's Republic Polish government-in-exile Republic of Poland Personal union Union of Hungary and Poland Polish–Lithuanian union Polish–Swedish union Union of Poland and Saxony Proposed Polish–Lithuanian–Muscovite Commonwealth Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth Intermarium Occupational powers Vistula Land Ober Ost Government General of Warsaw Military Government of Lublin General Government Miscellaneous Republic of Central Lithuania Free City of Danzig Poland portal

Part of a series on the History of Poland Topics Polonophile Polonization Flag Name Coat of arms Monarchs Military history Wars Territorial evolution Jewish history Statehood Prehistory and protohistory Stone Age Bronze and Iron Age Antiquity Polish tribes Middle Ages Early Middle Ages Christianization Piast period 10th century–1385 Jagiellonian period 1385–1572 Early Modern Early elective monarchy 1572–1648 Deluge and decline 1648–1764 Three partitions 1764–1795 Modern Partitioned Poland 1795–1918 World War I 1914–1918 Second Republic 1918–1939 World War II 1939–1945 Communist Poland 1945–1989 Contemporary Third Republic 1989–present Timeline of Polish history Poland portal History portal

Part of a series on the History of France Timeline Ancient Prehistory   Greek colonies 600 BC – 49 BC Celtic Gaul   until 50 BC Roman Gaul 50 BC – 486 AD Middle Ages Francia and the Frankish settlement   Merovingians 481–751 Carolingians 751–987     West Francia 843–987 Kingdom of France 987–1792     Direct Capetians 987–1328     Valois 1328–1498 Early modern Ancien Régime Valois-Orléans kings 1498–1515 Valois-Angoulême kings 1515–1589 Bourbon kings 1589–1792 Long 19th century French Revolution 1789–1799 Kingdom of France 1791–1792 First Republic 1792–1804 First Empire 1804–1814 Restoration 1814–1830 July Monarchy 1830–1848 Second Republic 1848–1852 Second Empire 1852–1870 Third Republic 1870–1940     Belle Époque 1871–1914 20th century Third Republic 1870–1940     Interwar period 1919–1939         Années folles 1920–1929 Free France Vichy France 1940–1944 Provisional Republic 1944–1946 Fourth Republic 1946–1958 Fifth Republic 1958–present Topics Diplomacy Economy Health care Law LGBTQ Medicine Military Monarchs Consorts Politics Religion Christianity Islam Judaism Taxation Territory France portal · History portal

I would strongly suggest that they be merged together (like the French example provided) as that would save on redundancy and make it much easier for the user to see the history of Poland in one swoop. Right now, it's rather confusing. Oberiko 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd not oppose a merge, not that those are not two series of Polish history: the first one is a series of Polish states, the second is history. In the end, history of France during Napoleonic times is only a subset of 'First French Empire', and we worked hard to make sure periods in Polish history would not be confused with historical Polish states.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Polish history, but is there a significant difference in the two? They seem to cover the same material. When I look at the history boxes of England, Scotland, Germany, Spain, Russia and others, they look (at a rough first glance) to follow the unified history box instead of having multiple ones. Oberiko 14:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not opposed to merging the templates, but the articles are certainly very different.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment and help improve the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me improve this newly created article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Wsch%C3%B3d

more info, maps and photos are very welcome. Tymek 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Plan Zachód and improve your aticle with interwiki and Manual of Style formatting, at least.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the newly created Luxtorpeda article, more info and photos are welcome. Also, check other text about never-finished rail station in Warsaw Warsaw Main Rail Station (interbellum Poland)

greets to all Tymek 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but why article on Polish wiki is still in stub status? --Hiuppo 10:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as to article on Polish Wiki - I have no idea, I concentrate my activities on English Wiki Tymek 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask for help with some articles about Polish mountaineers. Poland has a large number of notable people in this field yet very few of them have articles and the ones that do are short or stubs. I've created a few stubs for the Poles listed in the article Eight-thousander but they need better sources. Category Polish mountain climbers [7] also has a few short articles. Articles on Jerzy Kukuczka, Krzysztof Wielicki, and Maciej Berbeka could use some improvement as they are among the most accomplished climbers in history. As a side note Piotr Morawski is a Polish climber that just today summited an 8000m peak. He just might put up a few new records for Polish mountaineering. JRWalko 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sigh. Copyright paranoia team strikes again, see commons:User_talk:Piotrus#Image:1_May_Polish_PRL_poster.jpg. I posted a reasoning why this should be PD at commons:User_talk:Robek#Plakaty_z_PRLu.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this article Zakopane Conferences. More info is very welcome, this is an unknown subject, which should never be forgotten. Tymek 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

M0RD00R (talk · contribs) has recently started to translate and move all articles with Polish names to English ones. While in general I support WP:UE, I think that in some cases, when there are several translations and none is popular in English, or simply when the Polish title is more popular then English translation, we should not move articles. Examples:

• Związek Ludowo-Narodowy->National Populist Union (1 hit outside Wiki in context)
• Stronnictwo Narodowo-Demokratyczne->National-Democratic Association (no hits outside Wiki in context)
• Plan Wschód->Plan East (we don't translate titles of military operations, usually, ex. Fall Weiss)
• Bezpartyjny Blok Współpracy z Rządem->Non-partisan Bloc of Collaboration with the Government (and the move was discussed w/out consensus at Talk:Bezpartyjny Blok Współpracy z Rządem)
• Ruch Obywatelski Akcja Demokratyczna->Citizens Movement 'Democratic Action' (no hits)
• Szare Szeregi->Grey Ranks (Polish title seems about 10 times as popular in literature, see [8] vs [9])

I support most of M0RD00R's moves, but I disagree with the above. Your comments?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe M0RD00R's actions are long overdue. We need to keep sorting out this mess. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only instance when non-English title should be used on en.wiki is if the non-English title is well established in English language literature. After all pl.wiki exists for a reason. Even if Labour party (UK) beats Partia Pracy (brytyjska) on google by landslide, that does not mean that Partia Pracy (brytyjska) should be moved to Labour party (UK) on pl.wiki. //M0RD00R 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've shown above, Szare Szeregi is pretty well estabilished. As for other names, the issue is accuracy of the translation - I prefer to use original rather then invent our own, new translations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Darwinek would 'propose' moving a page (at that pages discussion) and get other editors opinons, I wouldn't be annoyed. Instead he arbitrarily moves pages, sometimes leaving short explanations at his 'edit summary'. Moving pages are a major edit, they should be discussed first. GoodDay 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recent moves performed by Mordoor are verging on the absurd. Most frightening though is the total lack of discussion and the arbitrary nature of all of them. Take as an example Mordoor’s move as of 23:24, 17 July 2007 from National Democratic Party (Second Polish Republic) to National Democratic Party (Congress Poland). Congress Poland ended in 1915 while the party was in full swing till 1919. Mordoor is rewriting Polish history with this gush of one-sided moves, bullying the rest of this community into submission. Than again, bullying is what Wikipedians do, right?

Take as an example Mordoor’s move as of 22:58, 17 July 2007 from Staropolski Okręg Przemysłowy to Old-Polish Industrial Region with the “Use English” call in edit summary. Who said that Staropolski would translate best into Old-Polish in this context. His, is an avalanche of messy complications in the making. Please look at this list from the Industrial region. Hiya, roll up your sleeves Mordoor!!!

• Białostocki Okręg Przemysłowy
• Bielski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Bydgosko-Toruński Okręg Przemysłowy
• Centralny Okręg Przemysłowy
• Częstochowski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Gdański Okręg Przemysłowy
• Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy (Upper Silesian Industrial Region)
• Jaworznicko-Chrzanowski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Kalisko-Ostrowski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Karpacki Okręg Przemysłowy
• Krakowski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Legnicko-Głogowski Okręg Miedziowy
• Lubelski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Łódzki Okręg Przemysłowy
• Olsztyński Okręg Przemysłowy
• Opolski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Piotrkowsko-Bełchatowski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Poznański Okręg Przemysłowy
• Rybnicki Okręg Węglowy
• Staropolski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Sudecki Okręg Przemysłowy
• Szczeciński Okręg Przemysłowy
• Tarnobrzeski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Tarnowsko-Rzeszowski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Warszawski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Wrocławski Okręg Przemysłowy
• Zielonogórsko-Żarski Okręg Przemysłowy

Where does it all end, I ask, and for whom are you writing this? An English language historian, or your own instant gratification? --207.102.64.218 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? it ends when the 'initial' page mover decides to propose a page movement (at the discussion page) and seek a consensus. This will avoid 'edit wars' (from both sides). GoodDay 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon, please register. I have moved the party article to National-Democratic Party (Poland). I agree that some translations verge on OR - I'd leave 'Staropolski' as it is, 'Old-Polish' sounds cumbersome.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that Staropolski would translate best into Old-Polish in this context? Let's take a look:

International Geographical Union [10]

Institute of Geography, Polish Academy of Sciences [11]

International Geographical Congress [12]

Then again, bullying is what Wikipedians do, right? I agree this is a serious problem, and I will always revert you-fellows should be cautioned by the community.

Regarding minor issues like National Democratic Party (Congress Poland) there is little to comment. Party was established and functioned in Congress Poland for almost 20 years, couple years under German occupation, and even less under Second Republic. But current title National-Democratic Party (Poland)is absolutely fine with me.

P.S. Regarding Industrial region, I've cleaned-up it a little bit, but next time why not to try fix mess like this yourself? Cheers. M0RD00R 09:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are relativly old publications (1964, 1966 - Google Print scan shows no work using this title published later then 1974). Note that "Staropolski Industrial Region" is used in a 2005 one. That said, I don't have a preference now that you've shown translation is that form is used - both titles seem as good. But please, in the future, do consult others if the names may be controversial.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, English titles in English Wikipedia shouldn't be controversial in overwhelming majority of cases by default. M0RD00R 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but once you are reverted this means they are and the case should be discussed. Move/revert wars are not recommended, and few days more at a Polish title will not hurt anybody, will they?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly won't, but when someone provides encyclopedic references on the talk page, but encyclopedic titles are reverted anyway as, quote - "filthy lies", and reverts are followed by statements, such as "I will always revert you", well there's little ground for discussion then, I guess M0RD00R 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; where have such offenses taken place? The offending parties should be warned to behave more civil.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I do not think this is right noticeboard to discuss it, but since you've asked I'm not finding edits like this as invitation to discussion [13], [14] M0RD00R 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new template and several new categories. Please help populate them, and feel free to expand the template. Articles on relations are also much needed - currently we have only three, rest links to categories.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have separate articles about Polish-German and Polish-Russian relations, probably the most important ones. Good work, the template is cute. :) - Darwinek 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Couple of months ago there was a poll whether move Podlachian Voivodeship to Podlasie Voivodeship. It stucked in nowhere with several votes more in favour of the move. Now we have a chaos, when the main article is named Podlachian Voivodeship but most of related categories use Podlasie Voivodeship. What we are supposed to do? - Darwinek 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a proper WP:RM to Podlasie; if it fails, file a WP:CfD for movement of categories. On the sidenote, people tend to ignore cats a lot - for example we still have a Category:Polish September Campaign, although the article was moved about a year ago to Invasion of Poland (1939).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Request for Move filed. Please feel free to vote and comment on the article's talk page. - Darwinek 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more forgotten subject of Polish history Fundusz Obrony Narodowej. Please help expand, photos are welcome. Greetings to all Tymek 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If you have map-making skills, please see if you can make any maps requested here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A very interesting yet forgotten subject. Please help expand Polish kamikaze

Tymek 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "kamikaze" here seems completely unjustified. That is a Japanese concept which was completely unknown in Poland in 1939. We really must think of something better. Balcer 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living torpedoes?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, you are right, but I wanted to use a universally known term. Piotrus' suggestion sounds good. Change if you want Tymek 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would work. We should also make much more clear in the article that since the Polish Navy had no equipment for this type of mission, this whole phenomenon can at best be described as a propaganda effort. But it does nicely illustrate the spirit of the times in Poland in the final months before the war, as the position of the country was becoming obviously hopeless. Balcer 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it Tymek 21:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have orphaned and deleted the redirect, since the term is apparently only used in Polish jokes. Миша13 15:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A passage from Brandy

Jezynowka (yedga-noov-ka) is a Polish Blackberry Brandy. It is often toasted with the saying "Nozdrovia" or for non-fluent Pollocks "Nice Driveway" however it is just a way to say "Cheers".

Kpjas 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BJAODN? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeżynówka is a nalewka, not a brandy. I have removed the misinformation.Xx236 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at the naming discussion at Talk:Sybiraks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and here. Mentions of Polish contributions to the BoB have been removed as 'unsourced'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiev Offensive (1920)
• Polish-Soviet War
• Vadim Yakovlev
• Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War

describe cruelties committed by Vadim Yakovlev when on the Polish side. All four (or more) articles are based on a short paragraph in 1920 by Babel. None of those articles describes Yakovlev's crimes when in White or Red Army.Xx236 10:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy of selective POV by certain users. I do believe that the 2nd and 4th of those articles are rather NPOV due to inclusion of various sources, but yes, Babel has been abused by portay only Polish and not Soviet crimes. In any case, I recently found a quite good neutral description of the controversies of both sides - WERS, p.241-245 (Polish edition). He does quote Babel, but uses him to show cruelties of both sides.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Poland#Censorship_.2F_Link_removal. There is a discussion whether we should include lots of see also in the Poland article to various Poland-related subjects.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia lists the famed Polish architect who built the House with Chimaeras in Kyiv as Vladislav Gorodetsky, the Russian spelling. Since he considered himself Polish and emigrated to Poland in 1920 w/ the formation of the 2nd Republic, shouldn't the entry be under Wladyslaw Horodecki?Orestek 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not. Please check the naming conventions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a short google test Vladislav Gorodetsky returnes 30 hits while Wladyslaw Horodecki returns only 2 (even without architect). I think it is convincing Alex Bakharev 08:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perpahs google.com.au truncates some results - I have 28 for the same search on google.com. But indeed, Vladislav... seems more popular. He did spent most of his life outide Poland, so I doubt he polonized significantly anyway; my vote is for Vladislav Gorodetsky.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody cares, soon we will have no image of our president (currently we have a disputed free licence in process of deletion, untagged image and old fair use... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow-info.com is linked from many articles related to Kraków. How about requesting to blacklist it by AntiSpamBot? Jogers (talk)

Sounds fine by me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Krakow-info.com is relentless in shameless self-promotion, adding extra work to everybody's already busy schedule. What upsets me most though is that the sole promoter doesn't seem to be getting the message, remains unregistered, and has no interest whatsoever in building of Wikipedia. --Poeticbent talk 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can also add it to the meta:Spam blacklist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that but I wasn't sure if it's widespread enough. meta:Spam blacklist/About says that low level spamming can be controlled by Shadowbot on the English Wikipedia. Jogers (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pl:dworek redirects to pl:Dwór which interwikilinks to manor house. Wouldn't mansion be more correct for Polish 'dworki szlacheckie'? On commons we have commons:Category:Manor houses in Poland and commons:Category:Mansions in Poland... Btw, I am sure the Polish style for dworki is notable enough to deserve some article - alas, my knowledge of architecture is very slim. Any takers?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not evry Polish "dworek" is "dworek szlachecki". In greater Poland there still is large group of such buldings build by rich farmers (former class of "wolni kmiecie"), wich are equivalent of German idea of "Bauerhoff" Radomil talk 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although de:Bauerhoff doesn't exist yet...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see... Good example of such "dworek" is "Zagroda Bamberska" in Poznań Radomil talk 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - misspelling - de:Bauernhof. Radomil talk 10:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unknown subject, yet very interesting Krakow Uprising (1944). However, I don't know if it should be renamed. Help is very welcome. Tymek 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Crossposted to WikiProject Russian history. RM in progress, please comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The article should inform about Red Army crimes in Poland.Xx236 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it inform of any other crimes? Be mindful of WP:UNDUE. There is an entire article on Red Army atrocities, which I am sure is linked from the main Red Army ones.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Wehrmacht contains subparagraph Wehrmacht#War years#War crimes.
• Red Army informs about crimes against Germans.
• The same there is Eastern Front (World War II) so why does World War II paragraph exist? The same true for Russian Civil War.

Xx236 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the article. Try to avoid controversial claims and do provide inline citations. And consider enlisting help from Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board - the Red Army subject is, after all, quite related to their interests, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know many Russian authors eager to cooperate with me. (I'm joking). They will rewrite the article according to Soviet propaganda. Xx236 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly The General Staff maintained plans to invade Western Europe whose massive scale was only discovered after German researchers gained access to National People's Army files following the collapse of the Soviet Union.. Didn't Ryszard Kukliński inform about it many years before?Xx236 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. Most Russian editors are as dedicated to ideals of WP:NPOV and related as any others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some people don't assume my good faith, why should I assume the one of theirs? As far as I understand the idea of this Wikipedia is pretend everrything is O.K., facts aren't important. Xx236 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi guys, please let me know what you think of this navigation box. If you like it, I'll move it to the Template namespace. Feel free to edit the template on my user page or to propose changes at User talk:Kpalion/Template:National symbols of Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Don't forget to add it here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you improve on the look of this navbox somehow? There's a lot of empty space between the lines, and the word wrap makes it even worse. I changed the haunting peach color of the background. Is Kotwica a national symbol of Poland, or am I missing something? --Poeticbent talk 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the discussion here. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently on VfD. Could someone suggest there a unified way to deal with such szlachta articles? They are currently of very low quality and even Zamoyski is just a bunch of names almost without context. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have lot of small bio-stubs. As far as I am concerned, if he has an office - like podstoli - he passes WP:BIO (politician criteria #1) and is much more notable then most of artist or sportsman cruft/spam we are seeing every day.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent about this one. Many of the offices, including the one here, were purely ceremonial and carried no actual responsibilities or power. What is more, there was a great proliferation of them, as every single nobleman wanted to have some kind of office (even if only on powiat level). So including people on the basis of holding one of those ceremonial offices is questionable. Including people solely on the basis of them having a famous name or belonging to a great family is questionable as well. On the other hand, we do have articles about almost every single member of the Kennedy family :). Balcer 14:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this user's talk page, I've stopped by to let you know that I have tagged a number of non-free images for not having rationales.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by After Midnight (talk • contribs).

Tnx.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't mentioned national/language problems. My vcontribution has been removed by Lokyz as POV. Is writing the truth POV here? One can eventualy trace the reasons of the antagonism, but not to censor the article from Lithuanian nationalistioc POV as Lokyz has.Xx236 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have his biographical data - please contribute.Xx236 07:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Jak część z was wie, Biblioteka Kongresu USA (która zajmuje się m.in. nadawaniem językom statusów) wpisała język śląski do swojego rejestru języków świata [15][16][17][18]. Międzynarodowa organizacja ISO zarejestrowała język i nadała językowi śląskiemu skrót "szl" [19]. Należy zatem zmienić nazwy dwóch artykułów, zgodnie z ISO: Silesian (Polish language) (zmieniony parę dni temu z Silesian, nie wiadomo po co - chyba chodzi o disambig) przenieść pod nazwę Silesian language [20], natomiast Silesian German przenieść do Lower Silesian language [21]. Próbowałem sam przenieść, lecz się nie da i pokazuje się komunikat że strona już istnieje - przenieść strony mogą administratorzy. I do nich się zwracam. PS. Sorki, że piszę po polsku a nie po angielsku. LUCPOL 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first part (per Talk:Silesian_(Polish_language)#Silesian_disambig); and see no reason to object to the second.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect - what is the relationship between the Library of Congress and this Wikipedia? Xx236 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu nie chodzi o samą Bibliotekę Kongresu (jako taką), lecz chodzi o to czym się ona zajmuje - a zajmuje się m.in. wpisem języków do rejestrów języków. Chyba tylko Biblioteka Kongresu + organizacja ISO zajmuje się nadawaniem statutów języków językom, więc nie można w żaden sposób wykluczyć rejestru Biblioteki Kongresu jako wiarygodnego źródła dla Wikipedii. PS. Nie wiem po co jest ta dyskusja, gdyż język jest również w ISO i ma swój własny skrót językowy... poprosiłem tylko, aby któryś z adminów zmienił nazwy dwóch artykułów na prawidłową, bo sam nie mam takiej możliwości. To wszystko. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In another words we have a world government in Washington, D.C.? Xx236 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236: proszę, przestań trollować? Ja w tym temacie poprosiłem któregoś z administratorów o przeniesienie dwóch artykułów zgodnie z nazwą ISO. Tu nie ma niczego do przedyskutowania, to jest tylko prośba udokumentowana źródłami. Opinie na temat języka śląskiego należy prowadzić gdzie indziej. LUCPOL 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create Silesian Wikipedia with 10 000 articles, you will be a partner for a discussion.Xx236 13:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, please respect WP:CIVIL. LUCPOL has presented sourced arguments; you are just attacking him.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attacking the idea of some external body deciding what is a language. Xx236 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeśli dyskusja będzie się toczyła dalej w obecnej formie to prosiłbym o blokadę dla Xx236 za łamanie 3 zasad wikipedii: WP:TROLL, WP:CIVIL and WP:VER. PS. Panie Xx236: na Wikipedii (zgodnie z zasadą WP:WER) nie można przedkładać własnego zdania (własnej opinii) ponad decyzję dużych i poważanych instytucji jakim jest Biblioteka Kongresu oraz Międzynarodowa Organizacja ISO. Pragnę również przypomnieć, że opieram się głównie na ISO, w drugiej kolejności na Bibliotece Kongresu... a ISO to międzynarodowa organizacja. Pański argument nie ma więc żadnego uzasadnienia, że niby wszystkim kieruje Washington D.C ;p LUCPOL 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cajun French has its ISO code, however the article doesn't call it a language but a variety of French or a dialect.
• Wikipedia is obviously authonomus, it doesn't automatically accept external decisions - see above.Xx236 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty podałeś mi jeden artykuł, w którym jest napisane że to dialekt. Pewnie przeszukasz całą Wikipedię i podasz mi kilka innych... ale ja ci mogę podać zaraz ze 500! przykładów (jak będzie trzeba) że są to języki. To trochę "szukanie dziury w całym". Znam osobiście osoby, którzy negują istnienie języka słowackiego - uznając go za dialekt czeski czy języka białoruskiego uznając go za dialekt języka rosyjskiego. Prawdę mówiąc, to różnice pomiędzy czeskim i słowackim oraz rosyjskim i białoruskim są mniejsze niż pomiędzy polskim a śląskim. Nie mniej jednak ISO uznało to za języki, ludność porozumiewająca się tymi językami uznaje ją za język - więc opinia odpowiednio: Czechów, Rosjan i Polaków jest zbyteczna. Mogą mieć swoje (negatywne - oczywiście) zdanie, ale tu się liczy tylko ostateczna decyzja międzynarodowej organizacji. LUCPOL 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nie mam sił i czasu by kontynuować tę zbędną dyskusję. Naturalnie, można było się spodziewać że "niektórzy Polacy" będą przeciwni uznania języka śląskiego, lecz tak jak napisałem - liczą się źródła dotyczące dużych organizacji (one są niezaprzeczalne)... a opinie można sobie przedstawiać poza Wikipedią na jakimś prywatnym forum a nie na Wikipedii. Wikipedia opiera się na WP:VER, a nie na opiniach paru osób. Raczej już tu nie będę odpowiadał na posty, czekam tylko na reakcję któregoś z administratorów aby przeniesiono artykuł zgodnie z ISO. Pozdrawiam i EOT. LUCPOL 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Silesian (Polish language) to Silesian language, because this is a simpler name, per WP:NC. As for the other move, I would like to see more sources using that variant before I do the move.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Academic text about Silesian dialect, in Polish
• Wikipedia shouldn't be used for political actions and Silesian movement is obviously political.

Xx236 07:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the scholars cannot agree on whether it is a dialect or a language; both claims should be presented in the article backed with refs. As such, perhaps Silesian is a more neutral title?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no academic source here stating that Silesian is a language, I hope that LUCPOL knows a number of them. I'm not a linguist, but the article I have found after a 2-minutes search says it's not a language.Xx236 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panie Xx236: są różne opracowania, jedne mówią o języku, inne o dialekcie. Opracowania poszczególnych osób nie są żadnym rzetelnym dowodem istnienia dialektu czy języka. Ba! mało tego - nawet gdybym dał opracowanie językoznawcy że język śląski istnieje to nawet ty byś tego nie wziął jako miarodajnego argumentu za zmianą artykułu na "język". Jeśli opracowania językoznawców są po twojej myśli to jest ok - i piszesz to co piszesz teraz (że należy opierać się na opracowaniach polskich przeciwników języka śląskiego), ale jeśli ktoś ci poda opracowania że śląski to język to już ich nie bierzesz pod uwagę. Takie zachowanie jest niedopuszczalne! Mogę podać ci wiele innych argumentów za językiem, podać linki do opracowań, do książek w języku śląskim itp/itd ...a nawet podać wyniki google (9,570 dla nazwy "gwara śląska", 545 dla nazwy "dialekt śląski", aż 232,000 dla nazwy "język śląski"), ale nie mam po co ich podawać - gdyż międzynarodowa organizacja językowa uznała język śląski. Twój argument, że część polskich językoznawców jest przeciwna to nie żaden argument że język nie istnieje - bo to, co jest językiem decyduje międzynarodowa organizacja a nie "paru" językoznawców z Polski. Naprawdę, proszę cię panie Xx236 o trochę powagi. To nie jest prywatne forum, ale Wikipedia. Przestań już przedłużać ten temat. LUCPOL 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all football afficionados. Your help is very welcome, as this subject has never been fully described in any kinds of sources, including Polish. Football Junior Championships of Poland is waiting for you! Tymek 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every month I find myself being the only one to to look through Alex's new article bot's suggestions, and add the relevant to our Portal:Poland/New article announcements. Please help - I don't have the time and the will to do it all myself any longer. It's simple: go here, check which articles are really Poland related, move them to appropriate categories above, and delete all reviewed from the bot-generated list. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. This article: List of armoured fighting vehicles used by Polish definitely needs a better name. Any suggestions? Maybe "List of armoured fighting vehicles used by Polish forces"? - Darwinek 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have List of Soviet tanks and List of UK tanks, so "List of Polish armoured fighting vehicles" would be consistent. But I think the form "List armoured fighting vehicles of Poland" is preferable according to the guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). (Come to think of it, the two examples should be renamed.) —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 23:11 Z

Or perhaps it should be "List armoured fighting vehicles used by Poland", to reflect the broad nature of the list. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 23:18 Z

The parent category is Category:Polish armoured fighting vehicles, so I vote for List of Polish armoured fighting vehicles. Appleseed (Talk) 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Appleseed (Talk) 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject should have been touched a long time ago. Better late than never, please help Polish Units in Wehrmacht Tymek 03:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, but the title needs improvement. Since there were never any Polish units in the Wehrmacht, maybe a better title would be Poles in the Wehrmacht, or Polish citizens in the Wehrmacht, even Poles in the German armed forces during World War II (since SS was not part of the Wehrmacht, obviously). Anyway, the current title is greatly misleading. Balcer 04:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have been waiting for - the new title, as I have been unable to come up with a better one. Balcer, how about Poles in the Wehrmacht? But then - what to do with the Upper Silesians, as most of them signed the Volksliste and were conscripted? Anyway, this article needs a new name and a major expansion, so I am counting on help. Greets Tymek 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can use Wehrmacht, because the SS that is mentioned frequently in this article was not part of the Wehrmacht. Plus we already have Polnische Wehrmacht about the World War I force. So, the only option I can see is "German armed forces during World War II". Now just need to decide if we use "Poles" or "Polish citizens". The second would include Upper Silesians and non-ethnic Poles. Balcer 04:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't deal with the full scope of the problem. In Silesia, Volkslists were introduced. Poles were forced to take them, rejection of this list led to deportation to the concentration camps, so many people signed them. It also doesn't mention Silesians, who, in German census declared Silesian nationality. Such people were later considered by Hitler as Germans and conscripted to German Army also. Thousands of 100% Ethnic Poles fought in Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine etc. on all fronts. - Darwinek 09:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The 1st Armoured Division (Poland) actually grew in size as it advanced across Europe, by incorporating straight away German POWs that were actually Poles. Indeed the article should be expanded so that all these cases are covered. We might even add a section about how this issue sometimes crops up in Polish politics today (Donald Tusk and his "grandfather scandal" comes to mind). Balcer 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have article on Deutsche Volksliste on en wiki - is this the same as the pl article Darwinek mentions? If so, interwiki links are needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Volksdeutsche in Poland, especially in Upper Silesia, is a very complicated one, however it should not be ommited in this article. As I stated before - this whole article needs expansion and whoever is familiar with the subject, feel free to add something Tymek 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same one. I have clarified it and added interwikis. It should be moved to "Volksliste", because this name is more common. - Darwinek 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Donald Tusk's grandfather should also be mentioned, it demonstreted the total ignorance of most Poles about forced conscription into the Wehrmacht. I think the Czterej Pancerni i Pies should also be mentioned, it played a great role in educating the public that some Poles were drafted into the Wehrmacht against their will. By the way I'm half-kashubian and I heard that my great-grandfather was drafted in to the Wehrmacht in 1942 and in 1944 2 days after D-day was declared Missing in action, I know wery little about this story (In the house of the hanged you should not talk about string). My father's family lived in Kiełpino, only one family did not sign the Volksliste in that region, they were sent to the Stutthof concentration camp, and their fate is unknown Mieciu K 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. My family history is very similar to yours. Silesia, and especially Zaolzie, were also subject to that forced Nazi German campaign. Nothing here is black and white. P.S. Czechs are also totally ignorant to that case and common simple thinking is that every man in German uniform was a cruel Nazi and (if not German himself) evil collaborator. - Darwinek 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this article. A short stub was recently replaced with this long text that's currently there. While helpful this appears to be directly copied from this site [22]. Should we incorporate this into the previous article or is this a blatant violation of copyright? JRWalko 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like obvious copyvio. I propose deletion of copyrighted material according to our policies. - Darwinek 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to non-copyvio version.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any informations about the Polish minority in Vilnius region? Xx236 08:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Polish minority in Lithuania.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothingh there about religious life.Xx236 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps because the Lithuanians, like the Poles, are Catholics, so both nations share the same religion, unlike Poles in Belarus or Ukraine Tymek 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that Poles and Lithuanians love each other because they all are Roman Catholics - it's obviously not true, exactly like in Poland between Radio Maryja world and progressive catholics.Xx236 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember ever saying that. However, I have met a lot of Lithuanians and they are very nice Tymek 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are editing biographies, I invite you to include categories for the cause of death. Appleseed (Talk) 01:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is huge and will be perpetually incomplete; I AFDed it, but withdrew the nomination since it might be a better idea to split the list up into smaller pages as was done at List of Americans and List of Muslims. --Coredesat 10:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea. The only way to make that page work is to make it a list of lists. Appleseed (Talk) 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why split the "List of Poles" and not the "List of French people" or any of the dozens of other national lists found in "Category:Lists of people by nationality"? "List of Poles" is actually a list of prominent Poles, is not over-long, is attractively and usefully illustrated, and gains from unity of effect. It is useful to remind the world that Poland, like other countries, has made substantial contributions to world science and culture. Nihil novi 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, if they're on WP, then they are prominent ("notable"). Some people are more prominent than others, but that's difficult to define. I appreciate the work you have put into that article, but if you wish to remind the world about the achievements of Poles, the best you can do is create articles that well organized and easy to navigate. As for the List of French people, I think sooner or later the editors there will see the wisdom of this approach. As the list gets larger and larger, converting it into a list of lists is the only viable solution, as the folks at List of Americans have discovered. Appleseed (Talk) 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early for the split. The List of Poles is 62 kilobytes long. Meanwhile the List of Canadians is 80 kilobytes long and yet, nobody proposed the split of that list. For example, the List of Russians is 53 kilobytes long, and the List of Germans 46 kilobytes long, so, the List of Poles falls somewhere in between. Let's wait till the list reaches the size of the List of Canadians before we do anything. The list looks very nice the way it is. Unless all national lists get similar makeover there's no need to single out the List of Poles in my opinion. --Poeticbent talk 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended article size is 32 kilobytes. I don't see why we should wait until all the other articles get a makeover, there's nothing wrong with being progressive. But it's not a big deal for me, so I won't press the issue. Appleseed (Talk) 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all Polish editors. A number of persistent Polish advertising websites have been blacklisted by Herbythyme (talk)in Meta, meaning, you won’t be able to save your edits in articles containing those links already. Please, don’t be alarmed. Just remove the following hot links before you click on “Save”.

wroclaw-online.eu

warsaw-online.eu

poznan-online.net

cracowonline.com

gdansk-online.eu

zakopane-online.eu

allkrakowhotels.com

torunonline.com

hotelewkrakowie.pl

krakowlife.pl

hotelewtoruniu.pl

hotele-warszawa.eu

noclegi-wroclaw.pl

hotelewgdansku.eu

zakopane-noclegi.eu

Thanks. I guess, you could also replace the above sources of info with different ones if it matters. --Poeticbent talk 22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There is an article up for deletion that requires attention, Simon Mol. There are less than two days left before it can be closed proper. A user has stated that there are articles (in Polish) that attest to the notability of this person, which he has not provided. The user has stated that he believes Mol is an important author and poet, based on said articles. However, undue weight has been given to Mol's recent arrest for infecting several women with HIV, which is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. That seems to be the bulk of the article. My question is this: Is this person notable, under Wikipedia guidelines, for something outside his alleged crimes? I note, though my Polish is severly lacking, that Polish Wiki has problems with their version of the article.A few more eyes/comments are appreciated here. Thanks--Sethacus 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this individual was using the prevalent ideology of political correctness to achieve his own goals. He should not be considered a notable person outside of his crimes, which were not alleged. It has been proven that he had been aware of his disease yet this did not prevent him from spreading HIV. All he was saying about his life was a bunch of lies, including a made-up story about his persecution in AfricaTymek 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case somebody denies my words. this is the link to the article about this con artist. It is in Polish, I can translate if somebody wants. http://www.dziennik.pl/Default.aspx?TabId=14&ShowArticleId=34208 Tymek 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I and others have already raised this issue on various talk pages (Talk:Gmina, Category Talk:Gminas of Poland, Talk:List of communes in Poland - see also Wikipedia:Requested moves at August 21), but with little response. There seems to be a pretty well-established consensus (I don't like all apsects of it but still) about how to name voivodeships, powiats (counties), towns, villages; but when it comes to gminas (communes?) anarchy reigns. Some are called XXXX Commune; others Gmina XXXX; other alternatives also appear, but these seem to be the two main options. Has it ever been discusssed? All I can find is an unsupported statement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland that the XXX Commune option has been agreed on. Is this true? if so, where is the discussion? Personally (and I say this as a native English speaker and Polish resident) I don't see the point of translating gmina at all, especially to commune which means different things to most people. But some consensus would be good. In any case the number of articles which exist (see Category:Gminas of Poland and its subcaetgories) is currently minute compared with the total number of gminas.--Kotniski 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for naming gminas have been discussed, but without much energy since at the time the number of relevant articles was extremely small so it was not much of an issue. As that number is growing, it may be a good time to address the issue again.

Anyway, when it comes to gminas, we are talking about thousands of articles, which should all be created by a bot (i.e. an automated program) translating the basic information from Polish Wikipedia. Sadly, the interest for creating such bots on English Wikipedia for Poland-related articles seems minimal. Balcer 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some assistance understanding Polish nobility and military awards. There are also a number of references in Polish that could use eyes of editors with a much better grasp of Polish than I have. Any help would be greatly appreciated :) Shell ^babelfish 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody know what's the copyright status of Polish Armed Forces rank insignia? Many of those images are tagged with copyvio tags and may be deleted in the foreseeable future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to properly write it in English, so I'll use Polish, mayby someone translate:

Wzory stopni, odznak, umundurowania itp. wynikają z rozporządzeń Ministra Obrony Narodowej:

• Rozporządzenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 2 grudnia 2004 r w sprawie wzorów oraz noszenia umundurowania i oznak wojskowych przez żołnierzy i kandydatów na żołnierzy zawodowych.
• Rozporządzenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 14 grudnia 2004 r. w sprawie wzorów, noszenia umundurowania, odznak i oznak wojskowych oraz uzbrojenia przez żołnierzy w czynnej służbie wojskowej.
• Rozporządzenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 9 czerwca 2004 r. w sprawie noszenia orderów, odznaczeń i odznak przez żołnierzy zawodowych.
• Rozporządzenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 30 lipca 2004 r. w sprawie noszenia przez żołnierzy orderów, odznaczeń, medali i odznak innych niż wojskowe.
• kilku późniejszych rozporządzeń o zmianie w/w rozporządzeń. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radomil (talk • contribs) 23:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

A więc wzory podpadają pod {{PD-PolishGov}} Radomil talk 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Wyszyński.jpg is under deletion discussion. Someone needs to sort out PD-Poland tag once and for all rather than deal with the same issues all over each time. Unless this issue is taken upon by some competent and committed editor of this very board, I am afraid the issue will be hijacked by non-encyclopedic users with predictable results. --Irpen 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fight with meta:copyright paranoia forces is not an easy one, and unfortunatly I am not a specialist in copyright law. Any suggestions and help appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the reason you know full well, Piotrus, I long since keep my involvement in PL-related issues at the bare minimum as explained here. My resolve in keeping it that way only quadrupled after discovering that my activity in these topics is being tediously monitored and recorded with the aim to hit me with supposedly incriminating diffs at the opportune time. So, I merely pointed out towards the problem to the users whose interest in this matter is more urgent than mine. Besides, this board already has some "specialists" as you put it in the "Copyright law" or whatever some of who attacked Ukrainian and Russian images in the past. I hope they will help you in this important matter. --Irpen 07:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If it is of some help, for other PL-related images now threatened, check recent contributions by user:Abu badali. This particular editor's newly discovered interest in PL-related images may need a tedious effort to deal with.[23] --Irpen

For those who have not followed the matter (any of you out there?), the Arbcom that Irpen is linking to above did not find Piotrus guilty of any wrongdoing. Bringing it up without providing that important context and linking directly to the section with arguments against Piotrus is definitely not a friendly discussion tactic. More importantly, it may be in violation of the key finding of the Arbcom, namely: "There is a general amnesty for most editors who have been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies." So, let's not bring up perceived past misdeeds and let us start from a fresh page. I believe that is what the Arbcom decision is aiming for. Balcer 15:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percieved, Balcer? Funny. So, I just "perceived" that I was being watched after discovering a black book being complied on myself for several months. Yes, ArbCom does not rule on ethics, too bad.

I would be happy to start from a fresh page. And in this spirit I reassert again that there is no log on Piotrus', or anyone's, activity that I maintain. And there never was. Now, tell me in all honesty whether you think I can be sure of the same. The non-apology apology like here followed by refusing to admit that there was anything wrong with black books did not help in reassuring me that the practice stopped. And I did not need to link to an ArbCom if this is what you dislike. I could have linked to our discussion at my talk instead. It won't change the facts whether ArbCom ruled on them or not. --Irpen 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time Abu has targeted Polish images, although to be fair he is targeting many others, and most of them are indeed of questionable copyright. Comments appreciated at:

• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_23#Image:Wyszyński.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_23#Image:Tadeusz_Mazowiecki1.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_23#Image:Lech_Walesa_Solidarity_Time.jpg

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu has a habit of attacking images by picking on users and digging through their logs. If it happens to be a former or current Polish user, the attacked images would reflect that. What needs done is having this issue settled on talk:PD-Poland with an explanation which of PD-Poland conditions also satisfy PD-US and what needs to be satisfied for the image to be commons' compliant and wikipedia compliant. This is the only way to prevent further attacks. --Irpen 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit strange that while the article Ukrainian SSR discusses the formation of e.g. Krym Oblast, it is completely silent about Ivano-Frankovsk, Ternopol, Drogobych, Volyn, Rovno Oblasts. Any suggestions? Colchicum 20:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to compile some relevant info at Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union and Administrative division of Polish territories during WWII, but the information on territories annexed by the SU is still sketchy - and I haven't edited the Soviet-side articles much.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a couple of 1940 Soviet maps to the former. Colchicum 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received a request to translate WP:ASSESS to Polish Wikipedia. Since I don't have time, perhaps one of you will want to try it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An interesting little known episode of the 20th century history of Poland, not to be confused with Battle of the Vistula River, both connected. Enjoy, and roll up your sleeves, history buffs. [24]--Poeticbent talk 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Some interesting edits seem to have come from 83.9.45.216 :-D See Sands, Wheel (disambiguation), White Mountain, Boat (disambiguation)... Just a slight case of over-translation perhaps? --Kotniski 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

After I contributed to an article related to the Icelandic rock band, I noticed this page of the Icelandic Wikiportal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland. From a webdesign point of view, it looks just... very nice. Why can't the Polish WikiProject page remind anything like this? Why this is sooo ugly? Do the statistics have to be the main thing on that? Can we rearrange it nice and neat, bit by bit? And why the Polish Project can't just be named "WikiProject Poland"? And why does it redirect to somewhat clerky "Poland-related notice board"? --Kochas 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poland is not very big, and it looks like everyone is busy with other things. If you like, be bold and improve it. I may help out a bit too. Appleseed (Talk) 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all intent and purpoes, I am currently the only one who is doing gnome-like work in those areas. I just don't have time to designed a better page, or the WikiProject page. The little community of Poland-interested editors discusses things here, and I doubt there is any interest in a wikiproject maintenance page; I don't know if anybody but me tags articles with assessment tags, and I know for a fact nobody is updating the new article page now that I stopped :( .... Of course, if you want to do do anything, you are more then welcome to help. PS. For 'nice' look there is Portal:Poland, but again - nobody maintains it. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider looking into Occupations of Latvia and see if the article contains in your opinion any violations of WP:NPOV ,WP:Verifiability, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:OR. All opinions appreciated Talk:Occupations of Latvia. Thanks!--Termer 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, qp10qp posted the below during the FAC for Górecki's 3rd symphony. I have tried to resolve but do not have enough knowledge on the subject, and the sources I have are vague. An informed openion would be appreciated. Thanks Ceoil 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Some critics have seen the symphony as a memorial to victims of the Nazis in Poland and during the Holocaust, particularly in light of Górecki's choice of texts." Why do critics think it is a memorial to victims of the holocaust? And do they mean just the Polish holocaust? The critics' views could perhaps be quoted here to make this clear, because it is not obvious to me from the description of the texts that they refer to the holocaust specifically.

The fact that one of them was taken from a Gestapo prison wall was a major factor in peoples' interpreting it in that way, coupled with the overwhelmingly sorrowful mood of the piece. If there's a way we should reword that to make that more clear, I'm all for it. Chubbles 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful. Because there's a feeling in Poland that emphasis on the holocaust, however essential, may obscure the fact that a vast number of non-Jews died or were imprisoned in Poland too. And Gorecki may share that view, which might be why he resists the holocaust interpretation. He may be lamenting the war dead, Jew and non-Jew alike. I don't think the fact that this was inscribed on a Gestapo cell necessarily connects this to the holocaust. The Gestapo were responsible for largescale arrests and interrogations of the civilian population as part of the Nazi administration of Poland, a major undertaking. However, this could all be fixed by a direct quote or two from critics. Shall I ask a Polish editor to comment?qp10qp 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was the creation of this disambig page disscused with anyone? Mieciu K 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this should be revert - particulary as this moves a Featured-class article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Specific geography:
  • Vilnius in Lithuania (it's POV when discussing 1944)
  • The Russians arrived on the Polish border - which border, the future one? the Russians - the majority of them non-Russian.
• Chernyakhovsky and the AK - not mentioned.

Xx236 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a Polish speaker could look up some sources for Anna Grabka, a ballerina who is currently up for deletion, and add them to her article that will help establish her notability. The article is here [25] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs).

to refer to Zamosc as Himmlerstadt (ie its german name) is dishonest-this was a proposed nazi name - comment by 124.183.168.31

Please help with this article Lukasz Cieplinski. This person should never be forgotten Tymek 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to terrific job by User:Poeticbent, Kraków is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please feel free to comment, and help address objections. This article is really close to FA level.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, good job! Tymek 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article was not promoted - but it is very close. I'd expect that after a little more editing it will be renominated and became a FA.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marrtel has been renaming lot of Polish nobles into some strange names. Please comment: is the naming scheme proposed by him more correct than the old one?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the last name Radvila correct English spelling? The problem is that we have two, or rather three options for the historic family of Radziwill - Polish, Lithuanian and English. Obviously, English spelling would be best since this is English Wikipedia, but what is English spelling in this case?Tymek 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anything but "Radziwill" in English. Nihil novi 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Radvila Astikas
• Mikalojus Radvila the Old

Xx236 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this name is appropriate. Comments? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a contemptuous expression and does not belong here — regardless of what one may think of any particular nobleman (szlachcic). How did it get in? Nihil novi 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Halibutt chose a fanciful title for the template, no big deal. Since both of you dislike it, let's move it to Template:Szlachcic or wherever and be done with it. Appleseed (Talk) 02:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many of Polish P.O.W.s were killed? The quoted 500 source is unreliable. Bodies of 18 officers were found in Mielniki. Xx236 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

We could build an interesting article based on this http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1609560,69,1,0,120,686,item.html

also, there should be more info on the Rzeczpospolita daily page. What do you say, people? Tymek 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is an online poll organised by a newspaper considered notable? Appleseed (Talk) 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good question and I seriously do not know the answer. Anyway, this could be a good chance to promote our country, the Ukrainians did not hesitate with their wonders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Wonders_of_Ukraine Tymek 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there already is a pl:Siedem cudów Polski page in the Polish Wikipedia.. —dima/talk/ 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dima. This page is about the Rzeczpospolita poll, so why not add it to the English Wikipedia? Tymek 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar period 1918–39 section contains almost the same biased text in both articles. Why? 80% of the text is about bad Poles. With all due respect to Jewish tragedies of that time there existed also the other side of the image. The text doesn't even mention the Yiddish language movie industry in Poland. The only names mentioned in the paragraph are Bruno Schulz, Julian Tuwim, Jan Brzechwa and Bolesław Leśmian. No businessman, scientist, religious leader, politician. According to Shevah Weiss the state of Israel was constructed by University of Warsaw graduates. Even if he exaggerates, the anti-Polish obsession of some Wikipedai editors reduces the Jews in Poland to irrational victims, destroys the remnants of their interwar culture. Xx236 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Can anybody help with deletion of David Oschefski? - Rklisowski 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland and commented.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the upcomming election, Polish parliamentary election, 2007 is in a miserable state. We really need to make a drive on it! --Jonte-- 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Lists of Polish films - there are three articles. Some edition is needed.Xx236 11:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Polish films - what's wrong with it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three lists there, partially containing the same titles. Some integration is needed.Xx236 14:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I now have a bot in trial which could be used to create stub articles on all gminas (only a small proportion of which exist to date). At Category Talk:Gminas of Poland I have set out some proposals as to the naming and categorization conventions to be used; comments welcome.--Kotniski 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do check conventions as agreed upon at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geography of Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find there about gminas is one statement that xxx Commune is the preferred convention. However this doesn't seem to have been preceded by any discussion, and in any case hasn't really been acted on: few gmina articles exist, and those that do (even those that aren't by me) are just as likely to be called Gmina xxx (which is my proposal) as xxx Commune. So it seems there is no harm in re(?)opening this discussion.--Kotniski 07:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski's proposal seems good and consistent to me. I support this proposal. As for the gmina/comune issue, I support gmina. It is ok to use original naming, english wikipedia has already in use several other original non-english names, as "oblasts" for Russia. - Darwinek 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gmina is preferable to Commune because while it is a foreign word, it doesn not give any misleading impressions like Commune can. Commune is the word literally used in several European countries for their smallest administrative subdivisions, but these are usually smaller than the Polish Gminas, corresponding to a single "community", hence the name. For example in France which I'm familiar with, a Commune is equivalent to a single town or vilage, while in Poland it almost always contains several well-spaced and not necessarily especially related villages. Deuar 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition, I plan to proceed with moving/creating the articles according to the "Gmina Xxx" convention. I have edited the Gmina Abramów article (currently still at Abramów Commune), to give an idea of how the automatically generated articles might look. Any suggested improvements welcome (remembering that any extra information has to be retrievable from the Polish WP articles by a bot).--Kotniski 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Having seen the RM, I must say that I think that creation of such articles is an extremely bad idea. Gminas are municipalities, right? And they're always almost always, (I saw Gmina Grunwald) named after the main town, right? So, why is it necessary to split the contents about the X (town/village which is the seat of gmina) and the X gmina (administrative unit)? In too many cases, we have a red link or a short stub for X and a short stub for X gmina.

Isn't it natural that you mention in article X that it's a seat of a gmina, mention all the villages therein, and include gmina's population and other data in that article? In the proposed way, we have essentialy same duplicated, often short articles, created a linking problem (do you want to link to Gmina or the seat, and does it really matter), and a huge maintenance problem. It's not hairsplitting on whether a couple of articles should be split or merged, but we're talking about, what, 1000 List of Polish gminas? I don't want to sound lecturing (well, I do), but isn't the organization e.g. at Municipalities of Serbia or Municipalities of Croatia much better manageable and less confusing? Duja► 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, initially I thought that way too, but I now believe that there should be separate articles for each gmina. Reasons: 1) the gmina is a quite different (normally much larger) entity than the village/town which is its seat; 2) sometimes the seat is a town which isn't even in the gmina (the same applies to powiats), so it is particularly important to distinguish X from Gmina X; 3) the gmina articles tend to gradually get created anyway, so by creating them all as stubs we ensure uniformity of naming etc.; 4) eventually we would like to get articles on all villages, even those which are not gmina seats (in fact I will propose that my bot do that more or less at the same time as the gminas), and hence would like to have the gmina article in place to link to and aid navigation. I agree it's something of a matter of taste, but I think the gminas are sufficiently distinct and notable entities to warrant their own articles (they certainly have their own articles, and even associated categories, in Polish WP). IMO having the separate articles will actually make maintenance easier, the red links will disappear as the articles are created, and deciding what to link to should never be a problem (Interwiki linking will also be easier).--Kotniski 10:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still respectfully disagree, in reverse order:

4) Surely all articles on villages will be eventually created, but I don't see how either proposal facilitates or discourages that. The sole difference will be:

("mine")

Popopow is a village in gmina of Tototow...

("yours")

Popopow is a village in gmina Tototow...

Duja►

- True, but isn't the link in the second version that little bit more helpful? Kotniski 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No :-). Duja► 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) "Tend to get gradually created anyway" is not much of an argument, IMO.Duja►

- Well, at least it shows that the people who write about these things are in favour of separate articles (and AFAIK no-one before now has proposed mergers of the existing articles) Kotniski 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, frankly, when one edits "dark unhabitated corners" of wikipedia, he tends to go undisturbed. For example, cf. Afil (talk · contribs) :-). Besides, here I am as the first who proposes the merger :-). Duja► 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) As I see, those cases are very rare. [There are 160 of them. Kotniski]The main problem is IMO that one can't say much about a gmina (a small administrative division) that already couldn't fit better in the article about gmina seat. Even taking the exceptional Grunwald as an example:

("mine")

{{Infobox gmina|name=Gierzwałd|gmina_name=Grunwald...}}}
Gierzwałd is a village in in north-eastern Poland in Ostróda County, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship. It is the seat of gmina (commune) of Grunwald, comprising 19 villages (sołectwos). Grunwald is one of rare Polish gminas not named after its seat: rather, it is named in honor of Battle of Grunwald. Gierzwałd has population of XXX, while the gmina has population of YYY....

Duja►

- Potentially there must be huge amounts of information that could be written about a gmina. Unlikely that anyone will be doing that in the near future, but even now the bot will create quite respectable-length stub articles (see Gmina Abramów for a sample). Kotniski 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand m:Eventualism as a wikiphilosophy, but in practical terms it's very likely that the said "potentially" translates to "never". IOW, I guess some 90% articles that the bot creates will remain untouched since the end of the Wikip universe. Not that I don't like how Gmina Abramów looks like... Duja► 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The problem as I see it is that the gminas are small units, and those are administrative units. For most of them, the majority of material will contain statistical data from the census. I think, simply, that the reader will benefit from consolidated material, and the maintenance would be eased with having one map, one infobox, and one place to read. See Bukowsko as an example of what I mean. Perhaps I'm a mergist by wikiphilosophy, but yet... Duja►

- Well, maybe it comes down to personal taste, but I think the Bukowsko article (which is a bit messy anyway) would benefit from being split into two. And the infobox there doesn't have information about the gmina - I'm not sure how you would format an infobox to include both sets of information, and I feel it might look rather confusing. Kotniski 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would benefit by reducing the number of images, and removing "Historical rural commune" table altogether (who cares what was administrative division in 1918? Wikipedia is not about everything). Duja► 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki linking is IMO of far less concern than intra-wiki linking and maintainance. I think I speak from experience: scheme similar to the one you proposed is adopted in Category:Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia, and I think it doesn't work well. Compare e.g. Probištip municipality and Probištip to see what I'm objecting to: the small amount of data is already duplicated between similar articles, with 2 infoboxes and 2 maps. Granted, Polish community on en:wp is much bigger than Macedonian (and they are mostly engaged in other things >:) ), but the amount of articles is also of concern. Duja► 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, personally I think splitting the articles (e.g. Probištip) works OK. It makes clear to the unknowledgeable reader that we are dealing with two separate entities (that the municipality is not just the village and surrounding farms, for example). Kotniski 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assert that they're not so separate: a gmina is the seat and surrounding villages. But nevertheless...
At this point, I think we exhausted the arguments; let's just agree that we disagree, and it's mostly a matter of taste and wikiphilosophy. Whatever you decide, I wish you good luck. And, maybe I'll be so insolent in the future to ask you for the bot code for adaptation -- List of settlements in Serbia has so many red links. Duja► 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked through all the archives, but I haven't seen any evidence thus far that "Gmina [Name]" is common usage in English-language works. All I've seen is that some people think that "Gmina [Name]" is good. Wikipedia isn't meant to change the way things are called in English. Can somebody show that "Gmina [Name]" is the usual form in English? Noel S McFerran 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, but consider also: Can anybody show that "Commune [Name]" is the usual form in English? (for the Polish administrative divisions). The difficulty is that they are not usually a hot topic of discussion in English. Deuar 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept my (don Quijotish and foreigner's) proposal on consolidating the gmina and seat articles, you won't have such problem :-). Duja► 07:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the central problem (of whether to call them gminas, communes, municipalites, districts or whatever) still remains; it just applies to the bodies of the articles and not to the article names. (Incidentally, although some official sources have been known to talk of communes, GUS (Polish statistical office) data refers to 'gminas' in its English notes.) --Kotniski 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether or not all of this is true, but if not, perhaps you should all study up... BEFORE you add something like this to a website kids are using for research paper. I FAILED a huge paper, BECAUSE I USED wikipedia and it was wrong. THANKS A LOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.65.3 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Academic use. Sigh. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request help with the new Biuro Ochrony Rządu article. Mieciu K 13:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The article should be probably integrated with Gorzyce (Silesian Voivodeship). It describes two camps.Xx236 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help defend the Polish Beer-Lovers' Party from potential deletion. `'Míkka 22:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

{{Poland-historian-stub}} and {{Poland-scientist-stub}} - please help populate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Is there a transcription for the name of Edmund Załęski, Zalewski or Zaleski, searching in ISI an other search engines yields no hits with Załęski, because the caraczters are not recognized!--Stone 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google fairs quite well with Polish characters. For others, try Zaleski.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one problem with battles on en and sv.wiki. All date given on sv.wiki are in Julian calendar manner, not Gregorian calendar used in catholic countries and in all coutries right now. So in my opinion most of dates including Deluge are incorrect. --Hiuppo 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those two categories should be merged. The question is, into what? Looking at Category:Rebellions in Europe, merging UoP into Polish rebellions seems preferable. What do you think? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging UoP into Polish rebellions makes sense to me as well. Olessi 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? Go to Polish_Armed_Forces_rank_insignia. With the exception of land army officers (copyvio of [26]), all other are free. Local Wikipedia copies should be tagged with {{PD-PolishGov}} instead of now depreciated {{Military-Insignia}}; for officer images - go to commons:Rank_insignia_of_the_Polish_Army, upload a vertical copy of the image and update the PARri page. Wikipedia local images should also be moved to Commons; use {{Polishsymbol}}.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more misleading battle - Battle of Żarnowiec (Deluge) took place in Żarnów. Look at: pl:Bitwa pod Żarnowem. Please correct its name or something. --Hiuppo 09:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There is a proposal to rename:

• • Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507-1795) → Navahrudak Voivodeship
  • Połock Voivodeship → Polatsk Voivodeship
  • Witebsk Voivodeship → Vitebsk Voivodeship

Please comment at respective talk pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion with these voivodships. A few others have been renamed in the last month or so, for example Mstsislaw_Voivodeship. There is also a categorisation mess. We have Category:Former voivodeships of Poland (14th century–1795) and Category:Former_voivodeships_of_Lithuania, with some voivodeships in both, some in one only, and not according to any particular plan. For example, the Vilnius one is in the second category, while Witebsk Voivodeship is in both. Deuar 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion there, only emotional editings of the article. I doubt very much that the result is better than the original text.Xx236 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original text at least passed the FA some time ago. But recently this article has been going down the drain... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help decide whether the article should be merged/split/deleted by participating in discussion on talk (there is also an AfD ongoing).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Polish term "Endecja" derives from the initials "ND," for "Narodowa Demokracja," or "National Democracy" (as the latter article states). I therefore propose replacing "Endecja," where it occurs, with "ND." This will relate more directly, for Anglophone readers, to the prewar Polish political party's name — and be pronounceable. No substance at all is lost thereby. Nihil novi 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Go ahead and change it. - Darwinek 11:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many English sources use the term endecja: [27].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the alternative, obvious as it is, never occurred to them. It's often darkest under the lamppost. And how do you think Anglophone readers pronounce "endecja"? Also, why is it often spelled in English with a lower-case "e"? Would the same authors spell the names for members of the respective American parties, "republican" or "democrat"? The authors simply haven't thought about these matters. Nihil novi 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piping links to National Democracy (Poland) or using simple redirects should take care of most of it. The question is, should we use the English term National Democracy, Polish Narodowa demokracja, endecja, or the abbreviation ND - and if so, in which order and combination.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that editors should in principle be free to follow their honest preferences. For my part, I propose using what is easiest for English-speakers to understand and that doesn't distort historic truth. Nihil novi 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following heated discussion with the Geobox guru Caroig, I think we are close to finding the correct formats for Geoboxes to describe Polish locations (voivodeships/counties/gminas, towns/villages, and presumably Poland itself). (Geoboxes are a type of infobox which aim to present data in a unified format for geographical features everywhere, in particular to allow automatic parsing for e.g. export to other wikis.) As I am in the process of trialling my bot which creates missing articles on gminas and villages, I decided to use Geoboxes in these articles. You can see how they look by examining some of these articles (here), although the agreed format of the Geoboxes will be slightly different from the format(s) currently contained in those articles.

Question: does anyone have any objection to my attempting to convert the infoboxes in existing articles (mainly voivodeships, counties and some towns) to Geoboxes? Presumably it can be done without loss of fields, though I haven't looked at that in detail yet. --Kotniski 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be subject of wider discussion of at least several Polish users. Pros and cons should be analysed. - Darwinek 21:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame User:Balcer is not here; he was quite involved with that stuff.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd support Infobox. It is well established and less dependent on one single user. Cities and towns of Poland already use this one. - Darwinek 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Geobox have some new interesting features. But suitable Infobox Settlement used in Polish towns and villages looks almost the same. Am I wrong? --Hiuppo 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have an idea how to reconcile the two: take a look at {{Infobox Serbia municipality}}. (It is based on {{Infobox Settlement}}, but the principle is the same): the country-specific infobox actually "subclasses" the general one, doing the argument name conversion, supplying default data & links and providing the same look & feel, while the "interface" to the individual articles remains the same. At least, that would spare running a bot or AWB through hundreds of articles.

As for Geobox vs. Infobox, I don't have a particular opinion: they seem to be competing in a way. Duja► 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know that we would want to create yet more versions of the same thing - there seem to be more than enough already... It's unfortunate that the two main developers can't get together and produce a unified tool. But at least it means we get to make a choice.

At this point I'll include links to some other recent discussions largely on the same issue: this one and this one (which is preceded by this one).

Leaving aside issues of principle for the moment, I'll just comment on the appearance of the various boxes. Taking each category separately:

• Towns and villages. Infobox City/Settlement and Geobox|Settlement give more or less the same results (look at e.g. Bydgoszcz v. Bratislava, Bełcz Wielki v. Siciny). The last of these doesn't yet have a map of Poland, but this can easily be added if necessary. Personally I think Geobox is slightly neater, particularly since a) it says right at the top what category the thing is in (City, Village or whatever), b) it puts the map lower down where it isn't so much in the way, and c) it displays the population properly (simply as Population, rather than as Population: City or Population: Village, which seems unnatural and possibly misleading).

• Voivodeships. I looked at a few articles with Infobox Voivodeship - I didn't see anything that wouldn't look very similar with Geobox|Region (except for the points above).

• Powiats. I looked at a few of the Xxx County articles and they don't currently seem to have infoboxes of any type. Geobox|Region could certainly be used; presumably also there's an Infobox County or something like that.

• Gminas. Look at Gmina Abramów (Geobox) and Gmina Aleksandrów, Lublin Voivodeship (some kind of Infobox, but formatted quite differently than Infobox City/Settlement). I don't know what the history of this is - presumably someone was developing the Infobox Gmina separately. But it needs to be changed - either by using the Geobox or by a more appropriate standard Infobox.

As you will see from the above, I'm slightly in favour of Geoboxes from an appearance point of view. I also support the philosophy of a single and machine-readable box scheme for all geographical features, though it will obviously never work unless they can be unified with existing Infoboxes. The point about Geoboxes being dependent on just one developer is a good one, though I get the impression that Infobox Settlement and other such are in a similar position. The point about Infoboxes being established for Poland articles may also be relevant, although there are now many Geoboxes in existence too (mostly created by my bot), and there exist tools for converting one to the other whichever way we decide.

Enough from me for now. --Kotniski 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems evident to me that infoboxes and geoboxes need to be merged; and that this issue affects more than just our little Polish community. Isn't there some WikiProject where this is already discussed? From my experience, infoboxes are much more popular (although I think the geoboxes look more 'refined' to the end user). Can we merge the geoboxes into infoboxes, retaining functionality and advantages of both approaches? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the disambiguation of Operation Wilno, it's talk page and ongoing debate and comment if operacja wileńska is correctly translated to English as Operation Wilno. Despite my assurances, several non-Polish speakers seem to disagree... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, stop trying to turn English Wikipedia into a Polish dictionary. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Piotruś doesn't want to do that. Mind WP:CIVIL, please. - Darwinek 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus has been created, please visit! Chris 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi: User TShilo12 (talk · contribs) asked me a question about Massacre of Uman and perhaps someone here can help him out. The qustion he asks is: "I just listened to a program of Gavriel Aryeh Sanders' (http://www.gavrielsanders/com/) on Uman, and went and looked up the city article, and found a link to this article, which seems to have no references and a lot of weaselwording. I don't know whose attention it would be best to bring this to, to effect some improvement, so I'm hoping that by bringing it to your attention, that you will know whom best to contact." Please contact User:TShilo12 if you are able to help him. Thank you, IZAK 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any maps which show accurately the pre-1939 borders of Poland somehow superimposed on the borders of today's voivodeships/powiats? Or a list of which powiats/gminas were in Germany before the war? It doesn't have to be public domain; I would just like to have the information to feed into my bot. (At the moment I'm working on Dolnośląskie, which is easy because it was entirely in Germany pre-1939 - unless someone is about to tell me otherwise?!)--Kotniski 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Silesian Voivodeship, look at Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship article. Hope you will find it useful. There is also a category grouping all Polish Voivodeships of II RP. - Darwinek 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, List of Polish flags has been nominated for Featured List status. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi guys, maybe anybody can help out with this Jerzy Michalowski for Apollo_11_Goodwill_Messages#Poland. Thanks!--Termer 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What kind of assistance do you need? According to what I was able to find using Google[28], Jerzy Michałowski was a skilled and liked Polish Amabassador in the United Kingdom, USA and in the UN. Jerzy Miachałowski doesen't have an article in the Polish Wikipedia but his wife a famous writer Mira Michałowska does. Mieciu K 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs corrections.Xx236 08:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If anybody is familiar with this host, there is a relevant discussion at Talk:1st Lithuanian-Belarusian Division, with several editors questioning the domain's reliability and usefulness on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am working on Pavel Jacobi (and his brother Valery Jacobi) and I need some help regarding January Uprising.

• The guy was trying to organize Russian Republican Legion to help the insurgents. Were those only plans or there was an actual military formation with this name?
• According to Russian sources the guy was very heavily wounded in the Battle of Крушина (Льгота) Krushina (Lgota)??? Was there an actual battle of mportance during the Uprising or just a minor cavalry skirmish (the source tells about 12 insurgent cavalrymen against 60 Hrodno hussars but was this just an episode or the whole "battle")??
• What is the proper English name of the place of the battle?
• Was Pavel Jacobi a person of any notability in the history of the uprising? Alex Bakharev 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to research this. On 29th August (not 30th, though) 1863 there was a (cavalry?) battle in the neighbourhood of Kruszyna village (the one in Silesian Voivodeship, near Częstochowa). The battle seemed to have taken place in the neighbourhood of this and several other villages in the area (Lgota, Jackowo); there is a cementary at Kruszyna from that period. The battle of Kruszyna seems somewhat notable: this page calls is 'one of the largest in the region'; this one calls it 'a tragic battle for the cavalry unit under general Edmund Taczanowski'; google search for 'Bitwa pod Kruszyną' gives only a few hits but there are plenty of mentions of the battle with somewhat different wording. This [29] states that Polish units numbering at least 300 cavalry were defeated (this claims it was a "famous 1000 horse brigade"); Taczanowski accused of causing the defeat resigned and left the country but the battle became an important event for the local population. Interestingly, one site ([30]) gives 27 May as the date for the battle (but it may concern another Kruszna village, the one in Łódź voivodeship).

Here they mention a document in which the revolutionary Polish government thanks "lieutant Jacobi" for his valor during the battle of Kruszyna. But I am failing to find anything along the lines of Jacobi+legion or Jacobi+uprising of 1863.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks, a lot!!! Yes, Jacobi was suppose to be with cavalry during the Uprising depite been an artillery officer by training. I guess the insurgents did not have much of artillery at their disposal anyway. Thanks again Alex Bakharev 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I cannot be of more help. The Russian Republican Legion sounds fascinating, but I cannot find anything on it, nor on Jacobi himself. Perhaps it is in some not-yet-digitized sources... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite specific article. It doesn't even inform, when Poland was invided by the Germans. It's rather about Poles than about Germans. I'm puzzled. Maybe the title is incorrect? It should be Attitude of Poles toward Jews during Holocaust? Xx236 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC) This is the single article of type Holocaust in. Either articles Holocaust in Germany, Holocaust in France ... should be created or this one integrated with some other one.Xx236 08:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It seems to have been in 1598, but does anyone know for sure whether it was Katowicze or Kątowicze? See the discussion at Talk:Katowice#Original name of the village.--Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This (IMO not notable enough) website is currently prodded. If anyone has an opinion please chime in. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject European history to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland into the former. The most appropriate way would likely be to make the latter task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject European history. I originally thought it would be a joint task force with Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, but I see that's just a redirect to this Portal. Comments are needed. It would be helpful if there were interest enough in reinvigorating the project (whether consensus is to move or not, makes no difference) rather than having languish as an inactive task force or project.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know all Poland related WikiProjects are now inactive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - FYI, the merger (as a task force) occurred. See Wikipedia:WikiProject European history for more information.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 04:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so shortly. Usually I suggest going for WP:GAC before WP:FAC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Besides, Farbenlehre would be in order ;) I'll oppose to what I'm seeing now. --Beaumont (@) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel laureates by country has some issues where just off the top of my head I see 3 or 4 Poles omitted from Poland's list. This list has gone through many revisions and all seem flawed in recognizing awards to Poles who were born in the eastern regions of the Second Republic. I think it's absurd to credit, for example Ukraine, with the prizes awarded to Polish people from Lwow but there seems no will to resolve issues like these there. I would appreciate it if some editors here could comment on this issue. If you think the list is fine then please also let me know. Thank you. JRWalko (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the error attributing Czesław Miłosz to Lithuania. I don't see any Poles attributed to Ukraine or Belarus; on the other hand some candidates attributed to Poland itself seem rather dubious (Singer, Reichsten, Rabi, Michelson - I haven't heard of them as Polish Nobel Prize Laureates before).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really understand how the authors of this page even came up with the "country" part of "Nobel laureates by country". The article says that "Some laureates are listed under more than one country". This is pretty confusing and should probably be clarified and straightened out. Not that I really have any idea how... Ostap (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still MIA: Shimon Peres - Polish Jew, Georges Charpak - Jerzy Charpak, Roald Hoffmann - Polish Jew, Andrew Schally - Andrzej Viktor Schally, Menachem Begin - Polish Jew, Leonid Hurwicz - Polish Jew. So I realize these people maybe didn't do their research in Poland or in the case of some of the Jewish winners they identified with Israel more but it seems to me that people look at this list to see "What people or how many people have won the Nobel from country X". Currently the list is arbitrary and useless due to its incompleteness. Regardless, do you think I should add those people? JRWalko (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The article reduces Jerzy Popiełuszko to a political activist. CIA operated Radio Free Europe - the best news service in Polish language at that time, so the CIA was right at least once.Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bereza_Kartuska_Detention_Camp#Requested_move --Molobo (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Where, how many? Any sources?Xx236 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims who where? Try to use ilinks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed here about poor quality of the Holocaust in Poland article. It's only an example.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The dialect spoken there is allegedly badly learned Polish. It's POV. Who decides if a dialect is bad? Xx236 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 have started and will last till 16th December. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Category sorting system doesn't recognize various diacritical characters (ą, ę, etc.), forcing us to ignore them in category sorting - which leads to edits like this. To end this, please vote for this bug to be fixed (register an account, scroll to the bottom, vote).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to remember though that sorting on Polish WP will be a different algorithm than the sorting of Polish names on English WP (where the diacritics should simply be ignored, so Św should come before Sz, for example). I'm not sure this issue is fully appreciated by everyone on the bugzilla page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe bugzilla allows commenting - perhaps you should note it there; that's an interesting point.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a minute to view the edit war that I'm involved in at this article and post your comments on the issue. [31] I may not always be right but no effort was even made by the other editor for any compromise. I don't plan on doing a third revert so can someone please let this guy know that he can't pick and choose portions of sources to further his agenda? He insist on using the UN definition to place Poland in and only in Eastern Europe despite a UN panel of experts already questioning this idea. I don't dispute that some people during some times place the different countries and regions in question in eastern europe but I only sought to clarify the concept with some notes. He seems to object to this idea. JRWalko (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of remarks. It would be useful to do a better research on publications on the subject. Pundit|utter 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recently created category for related topics has been nominated for deletion. Comments appreciated, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Poland article seems to attract vandalism on an almost daily basis - would it be beneficial to request semi-protection?--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for two months. Nihil novi (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effective December 7, "Poland" is semi-protected for a period of 1 month. Also, a user has been blocked. Nihil novi (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This problems affects all high visibility articles. While in general I support protection, where do we stop till we are no longer 'editable by anyone'? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You might be interested in knowing about my Gdańsk related message posted here in case you run into an intimidating Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice somewhere along the way. --Poeticbent talk 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Danzig why Vilnius in a statement Vilnius reached the peak of its development under the reign of Sigismund August? Double standards?Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - wasn't it called Vilnius in Lithuanian at that time? Since it was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, isn't the Lithuanian name just as valid as the Polish one? (And less confusing for the reader?)--Kotniski 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long story made short. In PLC it was probably called this by Lithuanian peasants; most of nobility of Grand Duchy was polonized and called it Wilno. Until 1939 most of the city inhabitants were Polish or polonized and called it Wilno, too (the city population in pre-WWII 20th century was half Polish, half Jewis, and around 2% Lithuanians). So until 1939 for centuries much of Grand Duchy and city's own population called it Wilno - a fact which seems to make some people (like supporters of Vilnija) very unhappy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This long story is somewhat inaccurate, perhaps because it is shortened too much. BTW, Vilna somehow fell out from this story. --Irpen 07:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which name was used by Gediminas of Lithuania in 1323? The history of Vilnius says The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323. But which name was used? I would like to know when the first usage of Vilnius was registered. Is this infirmation available in this Wikipedia?Xx236 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested [32]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Wilno a foreign name? Can a minority be foreign? Xx236 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried editing it? If it doesn't get reverted then the problem will presumably be resolved.--Kotniski 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, there is no such term as "minority name". What's your point anyway? Some still can't let Wilno go? --Irpen 07:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be more polite? I'm not your colleague, in any way. If you would be so kind to read the first line - Can a minority be foreign?Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language spoken by minority can be foreign even though the members of minority are not foreigners of course. --Irpen 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give us a break Irpen. When it is a historical minority, which Poles are in this case, it is a native language. Polish language in Ireland is foreign, Polish language in Lithuania is native. Period. - Darwinek (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since for centuries close to and over a half of Wilno's population spoke Polish, and Lithuanian language was spoken by a much smaller minority (around 1920 it was ~50% for the Polish and ~2% for the Lithuanian (!)), this does create an interesting situation, indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the right word. Is anyone interested in expanding the Vinok article about the headdress to say that the Polish tradition has it too? I am sure I've seen a similar headdress in Polish national costume and the article can be expanded on that if there are takers. If this is done, the {{lang-pl|Wianek}} (if I get the word right) can certainly be added to the first line. --Irpen 07:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Vinok now redirecting to Ukrainian wreath I am not sure if the name allows for expansion with the Polish custom. And yesm wianek is the right word.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn. I hoped we can get a collaboration on this culturally shared item that testifies to the closeness between the Polish and the Ukrainian culutres but the results of my attempt has been first an attempt to kill the article as a whole and than the nonsense battle to saturate it with Roman, Native American and other whatnots unrelated to this Slavic tradition that traces to pagan times. Now, the article is safely insulated from that under the new name. Thanks to all who helped. --Irpen 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, flowers in hair are worn all over the world. There is nothing unique in that or anything 'Slavic' about one of the most common dress in human culture. Also there is not much importance placed on mythology in Poland about pre-Christian times(I guess it might be different in Russia or Ukraine). Maybe occasional invented myths by panslavic eccentrics, but they aren't that many in Poland--Molobo (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Łódź uses the word branch to describe a college (?) in an another city. Branch (disambiguation) doesn't contain such meaning. How to call the branch of the University of Białystok in Vilnius? I wouldn't call it a college, they have about 150 students only.Xx236 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this recent article from Newsweek (if you can get it to open; I had to use the Google text version). This refers to such beasts as either "branches", or "branch campuses", or "satellite campuses", or "colleges".--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment regarding [33] at the talk of Dmowski's article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable? Is it neutrally phrased? Personally I do feel that something along those lines should be mentioned in the article, but I don't think that the current addition is neutral. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Suvalkai Region to Sudovia. See Talk:Sudovia#Merger and Talk:Suvalkai_Region#Merge_2.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed at Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

We need to standarize them. IIRP for example has three variants (see commons:Category:Locator maps of voivodeships of Poland 1921-1939):

• red on blue (the set doesn't seem to be finished, although it's not a hard job to do so)
• dark blue on blue (the set doesn't seem to be finished, although it's not a hard job to do so)
• red on white (mostly used on pl wiki, needs to be imported to Commons)

Which one should we use? Personally I like red on blue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 

Personally I prefer the first one, it is more pretty. - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2:0 than, any other comments? And any volunteers to finish the set? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The red and blue, that is the first one, is the best. So we have 3-0. However, I cannot finish the set as I do not know how to do it. Tymek (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy :) Use a graphic software - event MS Paint should do it, GIMP is of course better. Use any map, they have nice boundaries - fill the red with blue, and the right blue with red, and there shouldn't be any problems. If it wasn't so easy I'd have done it, but I figure there should be a few people around here who can do it and allow me to take care of other things :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think its notable? See talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An AfD is running on this person. Could someone chime in? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland to your watchlist is always a good idea, everyone! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent vandalism elsewhere led me to look at silly edits to Tarnów. I quickly dealt with those. (Or perhaps not so quickly: they'd been there since October.) But then I noticed that the lists (plural) of residents were odd in other ways.

While I'm too lazy to check what any relevant guideline might already say about this, I strongly recommend that lists of residents limit themselves to people who already have articles in en:WP (no matter how deserving of mention the redlinks may be), and more particularly to those whose own articles make it clear that they've lived in the particular place. Without these constraints, hoaxes, vanity entries and even quasi-political disputes can multiply. But because I haven't looked for relevant guidelines, and also because I thought this might have been discussed here, I cut only two people and resisted the strong urge to cut many more. (This greater number would certainly have included some people who even I realize do deserve the articles in en:WP that they don't already get.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with more citations needed. Maybe we should prune the red links? Similar as we do with list of Poles and similar ones? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an underinformed outsider, I'd suggest the ruthless cutting of every redlink within such lists. There seems nothing specifically Polish about this: I'd suggest the same thing for lists about Croatian, Indian, US or any other towns. -- Hoary (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a category for people from Cieszyn Silesia (Śląsk Cieszyński), it is a region divided between Poland and the Czech Republic, so it would group together people from both sides of the border and also people from this area from the time it wasn't divided yet. It would be a inclusive category since Cieszyn Silesia is a distinct region with shared history. Cat:People from Austrian Silesia already exists, proposed one would be even more inclusive as Cieszyn Silesia is a far smaller area. Polish Wikipedia already have proper category "Ludzie związani ze Śląskiem Cieszyńskim". Any objections? - Darwinek (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Cieszyn Silesia? Sounds good. Another subcat of Category:People from Silesia, I guess.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, start with Adam Malysz and Jerzy Pilch, also look at this [34] Tymek (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does pl:Kategoria:Ludzie związani ze Śląskiem Cieszyńskim include Czech nationalists?Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure who you mean. Polish Wikipedia category includes mainly the Polish people, which is obvious. Here it would include all people from this region - Poles, Czechs, Germans and Jews, from all historical periods. - Darwinek (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Nazis and Jews, Polish and Czech nationalists. Sounds absurd to me. Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when German equals Nazi? Why you are still talking about nationalists? You totally misses the point. - Darwinek (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created and populated. - Darwinek (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Germans expelled and Poles repatriated? Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without any context (like which articles the phrases appear in), questions like this seem a bit pointless.--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The context includes tens or even hundreds of articles, you may find them using search tool. The basic examples are Expulsion of Germans after World War II and Repatriation of Poles (1944-1946).Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking it at the German noticeboard, too. I am not familiar with the the historiography of the German explusion, but Polish repatriation is usually called repatriation. Certainly it was less violent than the German one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ąn example: more Poles died during the expulsion from Volhynia during the war than Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after the war.
• Thousands of Poles were transported to Siberia, where they died or allowed to return only in 1956. Many Poles were executed as underground soldiers after the liberation.
• Poles were transported from Germany to Poland after the war in the same cattle cars Germans did. The arriving Poles were frequently robbed (at least by Soviets). Polish women were frequently raped. Which aspects are less violent?
• German ideology of expulsion is based on human rights (Heimat), not only on cruelty of the expulsions. Even people who demanded to move to Germany are expelled.
• The most violent crimes were committed on Germans by the Red Army during the war. The bombings of many German towns (eg. Dresden and Swinemünde) and sinking of ships took place during the war.
• Poles were imprisoned in the same camps (Jaworzno) and persecuted by the same UB officers as Germans were, but during years not months.
• One should define expelled groups and periods of time to use the word certainly.
• I know that many Poles still repeat Soviet propaganda. I'm not quite happy about it. Xx236 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is puzzling stuff. I read above The most violent crimes were committed on Germans by the Red Army during the war. The bombings of many German towns (eg. Dresden and Świnoujście) and sinking of ships took place during the war. This suggests to me that the Red Army bombed Dresden. But this says it was instead bombed by US and British forces.

I then read the rest with some skepticism. Some looks credible, some (the bit starting One should define) is obscure. As for dissatisfaction with alleged Polish repetition of Soviet propaganda, this seems a perfectly respectable reaction but I don't know why it's being expressed here. I can't be bothered to sort it all out. Just what do you want, Xx236?

Meanwhile, readers may wish to see an earlier discussion here. -- Hoary (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I want academic description of WWII and postwar transfers of people. I believe it's the time to end the repatriation hoax.
• I added two links to Dresden and Swinemünde bombings above.
• By One should define I mean that the thesis Certainly it was less violent than the German one is true only for selected periods and areas, so it should be eventually proved as a general statement, it isn't certain.
• I tried to start this discussion here twice, without any reaction.

Xx236 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and the answer lies in the Communist propaganda. Both Polish and Soviet Commies promoted the term "repatriation" because it was convenient for them. Using this term suggested that homes of Poles from Eastern Borderlands had always been located in former territories of Germany and Polish presence in the Soviet lands (since Sept 17, 1939) was temporary. In other words - Lwow and Wilno were not homeland of Poles, their real patria was in German provinces of Schlesien or Pommern and they returned there after generations. Stupid as it sounds, this was the official propaganda. Tymek (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did not only sound stupid, it was. And lethal, too. -- Matthead  DisOuß   11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Tygodnik Wileńszczyzny” [35] informs about a demand to remove Polish names of streets in Vilnius district municipality. M.K. removes my edits. Xx236 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]