Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Category:Immigration to Poland and Category:Immigrants to Poland

I just created those two new categories. Especially Category:Immigrants to Poland could use some population. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Few tasks

There are still some articles I prefer to avoid, at least till this is resolved:

Please post here when you address those issues, or just strike them out. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done SeveroTC 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
YesY Content update in progress ==> Dmowski's Line - translated and added material. Need to write a short passage for Paris Peace Conference, 1919 to provide a suitable link to article. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice job expanding DL, with a little more content it could qualify for a DYK! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD Nomination process

Could they make the AfD process more painful? Is there a tool out there to put the right bits in the right templates?Ajh1492 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Give Twinkle a try, I find it makes deletion process much easier. SeveroTC 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You can activate Twinkle by clicking a box in your Preferences, on the Gadgets page. Highly recommended! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Italy–Poland relations, Category:Poland–Spain relations - please help populate

I've just created Category:Italy–Poland relations and Category:Poland–Spain relations. Please help populate! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Italy–Poland relations needs some checking and rewriting, eg. the Marigold legende.Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I see there is a discussion at Talk:Italy–Poland relations, probably a good idea to keep it there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Poland - to be checked

Poland contains errors and unsourced POV statements. I don't know how to correct the GDP misinformation and I'm not able to rewrite the "Kitchen" section. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were to list them, we could discuss them. What's wrong with GDP? If you tell us that and provide (updated?) sources, we (I) can fix the problem. There is no "Kitchen" section; do you mean the "Cuisine" section? I tagged it with the unreferenced-section. The sentence about French and Italian cuisines is a bit strange, could be removed if there are no objections... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:PolandXx236 (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Poland

The article presents only "good Poles" POV. Several articles prefer "bad Poles" POV. It would be better to coordinate the articles.Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide more specific examples from that article and others (?), we could start a more detailed debate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the real issue is the cottage industry sensationalizing the degree to which local Eastern European populations actively collaborated with the Nazis. In Latvia, for example, it was in the hundreds, yet an entire people are branded Nazis (per Liz Holtzman, hearing it from the proverbial horse's mouth). Responsible scholarship is that there were collaborators (on all sides), but that those collaborators neither defined nor represented the general state of relations between peoples.
Unfortunately, the meme that the peoples of Eastern Europe bludgeoned their Jewish neighbors to death with blunt objects, the blunter the better, then sat on their still-warm piled-up corpses to drink a few beers and sing is a Nazi manufacture; it's well documented that pictures of such "atrocities" were staged, based on accidentally including those orchestrating the scene in some of those pictures, and on reports not in the "official" archives. For some reason, however, people are inclined to believe anyone from Eastern Europe is fully capable of such unspeakably barbaric behavior, never questioning such allegations, while if you said an American, Frenchman, or even German did it, there would be howls of moral outrage. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА TALK 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Please compare Poland and History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland, they describe two totally different worlds.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is an obvious difference in scope between those articles. The latter one does need a lot of work, IIRC it was a fork... tag it with neutrality template and other applicable ones if you think it merits it. At some point we will get around to fixing them, although don't ask me when :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Curzon Line contains lies

The lord "found" that Wilno region didn't have a Polish majority.Xx236 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing the word "found" in the article. If there are problems with it, please describe it in more detail. Note that for some periods and places, sources can be contradictory. If such a problem arises, citing one's sources (or requesting that somebody does so) is usually a good practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
But it contains "The line was based on Curzon's findings of ethnic composition - areas west of the line contained a Polish majority and areas to the east did not". Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, isn't it true? I mean, this does represents Curzon's argument, right? Note I am not saying it was correct, but IIRC this is what he argued... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No it's not true. What was able a lord to "find" in Eastern Europe after WWI and Soviet Revolution living in London and using tsarist Russia statistics? Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably not much; I haven't researched this issue much but from what recall his "findings" were politically motivated. The article should clearly state his soruces (or lack of it), and provide their critique; but at the same time it is true that he draw his line based on "something". Perhaps the word "observation" would be better, as Ajh suggests below. I suggest we use some referenced wording, and make sure that the quality of those findings/observations is clearly noted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
How about just use the word "observations" instead of "findings" if you think the word is loaded contextually - based on Curzon's findings of ethnic composition changes to based on Curzon's observations of ethnic composition. I agree he was quite off-the-mark, but those where HIS observations - don't put your words in HIS mouth. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A new/old Polenexpert

A German editor has an alternate name to "correct" and "explain" artcles as Curzon line, Expulsion of Germans after World War II and Oder-Neisse line.At first I assumed it's a new editor. Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it's an old editor? If so who? Volunteer Marek  17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Being cryptic is amusing only up to a point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If I can find an information you can do it, too, in a shorter time than writing the sentence against me. Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
As I have no idea what information I was supposed to be looking for, yes, I failed. Please be more informative next time; your threads so often require clarifications that editors may start ignoring them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Noone is oblidged to like me.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No, but it is you who come here for help, right? And we would like to help you, but that requires that you make your request clear. It's "please help us help you" kind of a situation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of information regarding voting in Silesian Plebiscite

A German user has been deleting information why Katowice were attached to Poland(due to fact that majority of voters voted for Poland). I am afraid I don't know how to convince him not to engage in blanking, perhaps somebody else will be more persuasive [1] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just a reaction to your blind reverts of informations about the German minority in inter-war Poland in several Polish towns/ districts[2][3][4][5]. Please don't use different standards for informations you like and those you don't. I suggest to use such informations in both directions. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh? You didn't enter information about town's populations. You entered information about counties German population into town's articles making them all look like being dominated by overwhelming German population, in fact a population dwarfing town's real figures for population. Please put proper demographic info into proper articles. It has nothing to do btw with voting information-again I urge you not to claim ethnic groups have specific voting preferences.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I would hope no-one is deleting sourced information that they simply don't like - particularly if it's in reaction to someone else's deleting other sourced information that they don't like (that's a very poor excuse).--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, you should not be deleting each other's sources passages. I took at look at the referenced passage in question from Katowice,[6] and I concur that the deletion is improper. The content is adequately sourced and is neutral in presentation. I then looked at the other four articles, [7][8][9][10], and I would suggest modifying the initial sentence to read

A large number of Germans left the area after the First World War (see Exodus of the German Population). This led to a significant decline of ethnic Germans, ...'

The referenced article section has more in-depth discussion of the context. I have no axe to grind in this argument, so that's my 2 cents on a solution. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is a town's article the right place to mention information about the surrounding district? Yes or No? I would suggest "Yes", but if we follow Molobo's logic, we should do that without exceptions and different standards. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is going to delete the demographic information if it is in proper place. Right now Hercus is presenting the information on wide, far larger areas in articles about small towns and citeis in such way that it serves to present the number of Germans as dwarfing those who remained in the cities. He is free to add this information in Leszno County for example. Of course such information can't be given without context-mainly the previous raise of German population through Germanization measures in Prussian annexed Poland. Also I noticed that Herkus has been inserting unsourced claims that that those who left did so because they could become Polish citizens or were forced to leave-this is not in the source he gave which is just a table of data. In fact available sources(which I am in possession of) speak of other reasons for Germans leaving-for instance military and clerks went back to Germany(in some cases 20% of German population was made out of state officials, this was a policy of German Empire to Germanize the area), other rasons include nationalistic resenment against Poles and fear of reprisals after centuries of opression. Last but not least, the first to leave were members of colonists settled by Prussian Settlement Commission. So in conclusion-data about county demographics given in articles about counties, and with context(reversal of forced germanization)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I congratulate HK on making right steps into good direction. However he asked to restrict the information to the interwar era, so we can't have 1910 data in areas which didn't exist then. A better solution would be to move the information into Germanization of Poles during Paritions article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it really NPOV in entry Mława pogrom ?

I've suggested to remove the entry Mława pogrom instead of renaming it. The talk-page is here. --Robsuper (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - PL:WP refers to it as Pogrom_mławski as do contemporary reports in Gazeta Wyborcza.
Ajh1492 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The event seems notable, and this is the most popular name. Perhaps adding a note explaining the definition of pogrom would help? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Connotation and meaning of the word pogrom is very, very bad. This term, particularly in conjunction with the name of the city where these events took place is a juicy morsel for the backgrounds of the ongoing, incomprehensible war to the knife with the Polish raison d'etat. Best regards. --Robsuper (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary REDIRECT: Polska Roma

I believe that this page redirect is linguistically redundant, as it introduces unnecessary confusion around the name "Polska" on Wikipedia. The talk-page is here. --Robsuper (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In Poland the terminology is Romowie. I've corrected the entry to reflect proper usage and provided an interwiki link. Submit a deletion request for the article.
Ajh1492 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit. 'Polska Roma' is commonly used in English, and this is the English language Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It does seem that this weird piece of Polgrish (?) is acceptable in English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly even Polskish? RashersTierney (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I've heard the term before and if I'm not mistaken the use of the word "Roma" in Polish, at least among people studying the subject, predates its usage in English. However, again, if I remember correctly, "Polska Roma" or "Polski Rom", refers/referred to a specific group of more general Roma even within Poland - again, going by memory, mostly those who arrived in 16th century, rather than later - hence they were the Rom that had been in Poland the longest (and to a significant degree "assimilated" or at least in relative terms). See also [11]. So I don't think it's Polskish.
BTW, the equivalent for Spanglish, would be Polpanish ;) (Like "chocho" or "ciocio" for "uncle") Volunteer Marek  22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Polska Roma are a subgroup of Polish Roma, they are not the name for the whole Roma population in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
's what I meant by "a specific group" within the more general Roma population in Poland. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

See here for groups(in Polish): [12] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are correct, and this should be made clear where any ambiguity might arise. On the other matter, I hope my attempt at levity above hasn't caused any unintended offense. RashersTierney (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done See Talk:Polska Roma. It seems that the Polska Roma is the most sense. That's all. By the way, my wife's name is Roma, and of why I started this thread. This all happens by women. --Robsuper (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems it is Polglish ([13]). I'll add it to my articles-to-do list, seems notable :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My favorite piece of Polglish, reported in a British newspaper: "Let me animal to you" for "I'll tell you the truth". Volunteer Marek  20:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, now that I think about it I think Nihili Novi was working on something about this. Volunteer Marek  21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Here Poglish. Volunteer Marek  21:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I thought we had an article on that. Which name is the most popular one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical location maps for Poland needed

I've added a map to Battle of Grochowiska, but as you can see, it is the wrong map - modern. However, we only have three maps for Polish locations: modern, and two for interwar period (plus a bunch for voivodeships and such, see commons:Category:Location maps of Poland). We could use locator maps for Congress Poland, Duchy of Warsaw, and various stages of the PLC and Kingdom of Poland. Is there anybody who could work on those maps? Since they are just blanks, they should not be overly complex. PS. For the use of locator maps on en wiki, see for example Template:Location map Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The location map project just managed to create maps of all present countries (and is still busy to create regional location maps). I agree that it would be nice to have some location maps showing historical countries but first of all we haven't got enough mapmakers to do that medium term. And I am not sure that the reader of an article really knows where all that historical countries were. Then it would be senseless to have such a map. Until we have more maps you could write Location of the battle (map of modern Poland) so that the discrepance between 1863 and today's map is underlined and no one is irritated. NNW (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A good temporary solution; I asked some mapmakers I know of to see if they can add those maps to their queues. I'll post here if I get any (positive) replies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I will look at it tomorrow.--Jacurek (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of ethnic parishes in U.S.

I invite everyone to share your point of view on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Notability of Ethnic parishes in U.S.. --WlaKom (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of a bunch of redirects on the 7th largest structure in Poland

Any comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 31#FM- and TV-mast Krynice would be appreciated. There are 5 spurious redirects that are either a misspelling (by me), some partial translations from Polish, or an odd name that isn't referenced anywhere. Thx! Ajh1492 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Automatic tagging with project templates

I think a bot could help us a lot, see my comment here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown

I tend to look favorably upon creation of stubs with potential for growth, but just forking lists without adding any meaningful content is perhaps not helpful. I am speaking of the Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown, a notable subject, but currently just a list copied from Crown_of_the_Kingdom_of_Poland#Lesser_Poland_Province. Do you think we should redirect it back to the Crown article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say so, unless someone's got a lot of specific information about that entity that they have immediate plans to add.--Kotniski (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

January Uprising navbox

Started one here Template:January Uprising. Very very incomplete - the purpose is to collect all the articles which already exist and which should exist (so feel free to add in missing redlinks) on the uprising. Battles, generals etc. already have some coverage so should be added. Coverage of the political developments on the other hand appears to be pretty sparse so articles need to be created though links to them should be added to the navbox even before that is done. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd remove the battles, this is what battlebox is for. I am not that fond of those navboxes, categories do the job good enough, and bloated navboxes look... bloated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Problem is when you have several navboxes with each one addressing a separate aspect all stacked on top of each other - there seems to be a natural point in combining them. And I don't think the "bloated" thing matters much as long as you put the default on "hide". I realize some people insist on a separate battlebox - I've encountered this when working on Mexican Revolution topics - but it always seemed weird to me. And unfounded. Volunteer Marek  04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To a certain degree, I am sure battleboxes have become traditional and part of MoS, thus rendering the fight against them difficult. Personally, I like them, but if big navtemplates were invtented/introduced first, would I say the same thing? I am not sure, but again, I'll say I am not fond of navboxes. What to put in them is often arbitrary. I am not against them, I can see them being useful on occasion (convenient placement of links, breaking the monotony of the text flow) but they are not my favorite wiki invention. That said, this is just my mini rant, by all means, try to develop a useful usebox for the JU. I will see about translating and DYKing more articles; and if others would like to help, we could thing about getting the main JU article to a GA status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Polish names

Hi, I need some help in sorting out Polish names in translated articles. Can someone help me with it? Here's a translation of an excerpt. What was the husband's surname, Mikorski? Or is that the woman's father's surname? What does the 'home' mean? "Ludmila Jeske-Choińska, home Mikorska, Theodore's wife" Pkeets (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's another: "From house Klementyna Grabowska Wyga - nowska, wife of joseph, owner Łukowa". He's Joseph Grabowski and she was Klementyna Wyganowska before they married? Or is it the other way around? What does the "owner Łukowa" mean? Pkeets (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the original Polish? In the first one, I takle "Mikorska" to be Ludmila's maiden surname (probably meaning that her father's surname would have been "Mikorski"). I can't parse the second one - as I say, if you provide the Polish text, we'll probably be able to sort it out.--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the Polish. I'm trying to figure out who the women married. Is z domu their maiden names?
3 Klementyna Grabowska (1797-1883) — z domu Wyga- nowska, żona Józefa, właściciela Łukowa. Brała żywy udział w Komitecie Dam Wielkopolskich, niosącym pomoc powstańcom. Pomagała też później emigrantom, zwłaszcza pisarzom. ...
Jeske-Choińska Ludmiła, z domu Mikorska, ur. 1849, Małachowo k. Poznania, zm. 2 XI 1898, Warszawa, żona Teodora, kompozytorka i śpiewaczka; Pkeets (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "z domu X" (literally "from house X", i.e. "nee X") means that X was her maiden name. So the first one was born Klementyna Wyganowska, and married (presumably) Józef Grabowski (who owned the village(?) of Łuków or Lukowo), thus becoming Klementyna Grabowska. The second was born Ludmiła Mikorska, and presumably married composer and singer Teodor Jeske-Choiński.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That helps a lot. Pkeets (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review

I felt like reviewing Category:B-Class Poland-related articles. It is an easy task; I'll describe it here for your convenience so others can do it as well in the future. B-class requirements can be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment - just scroll down, and click show for more info where you see the B-class. Each article with WPPOLAND template that is of B-class or above should also have the following checklist (see for example Talk:Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty for how it exactly fits within the template wiki-syntax):

b2 = yes/no
b3 = yes/no
b4 = yes/no
b5 = yes/no
b6 = yes/no

If everything is yes, then the article is B-class. If not, it should be c-class (or lower). Simple, eh?

Anyway, here are the articles I felt should be downgraded.

All the others in the category has been also reviewed and I felt like they conform to B-class. On a final note, why should you care about B-class reviews? Well, articles that are truly B-class are very close to being GA, and GA is something we can be proud of as a project. In fact I plan on GA-nominating several articles from that category soon (there are two or so that seem to me need only a little push). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also a number of articles tagged as class=B but showing up as C-Class because they don't have the checklist filled out. I wonder if it is possible to get a list of these somehow? SeveroTC 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure about that, but reviewing ~450 articles in Category:C-Class Poland-related articles should be fun (and doable). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
At time of writing, 44 articles tagged by Biography project as B-Class which we have down as C-Class which will be worth a look (as the criteria for both projects are the same). I'm not so sure how to do find a list of articles marked as B-Class but without completed checklists though. SeveroTC 09:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting tool, but it doesn't appear it can do what I'd like, which is to give a list of all Poland-project articles with ratings different from some other projects. I do think we should review all C class articles, but to avoid duplicating one another's work, we should make a note on the article talk page (unless the article has been reviewed for B class by somebody else, milhist reviewers will also occasionally leave such comments, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, so let's make a WikiProject Poland January 2011 B- and C-Class Re-assessment Drive. Perhaps it will be best to make a list of all the articles in question and for us all to cross them out when we have done them? Who else would like to help? SeveroTC 23:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
How about you propose this in a new section for better visibility? Most active participants should be awarded project's medal, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I will get round to this, just busy with some other stuff atm :) SeveroTC 12:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've volunteered for Bialystok & Podlaskie Voivodeship. Why do you consider Warsaw should be downgraded? Ajh1492 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a brief comment on that article's talk page. I can expand it into a proper review like I did for Białystok, if somebody shows interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Podlaskie Voivodeship is second after Bialystok with updates. So your comments were more targeted towards GA than B? I do disagree on subsidiary pages, there's nothing wrong with having a good summary/overview paragraph then linking to a subsidiary article. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments were for both. For B, I do allow less references and less comprehensive sections. Mind you, the overview paragraphs need to be good, and subarticles need to exist - for most sections I commented on, this is not the case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are Nazi sources acceptable?

I find Nazi Germany texts inacceptable as sources to history of Poland.Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC) At least the quote should be labelled "beware, Nazi Germany source".Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you specifically referring to? Volunteer Marek  22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have found a 1935 German source in Ethnic history of the Vilnius region, but the problem is more general, an editor uses old German sources describing history of Poland.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it seems you're right. I've removed the Nazi encyclopedia ones where I spotted them though someone should look through the editor's other edits. The use of older Prussian sources is problematic as well, but I don't have time to go through it right now. Go for it. Volunteer Marek  12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Similar problem here[14]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If German authors, whose works, the translations of which are published by University of California Press, also qualify as Nazi sources, then sth really must be wrong. But not with that source. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Some works are reprinted as historical curiosities. Volunteer Marek  18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Its the usual problem-the author was a nationalist who had different vision of authoritarian Germany than Hitler, so for some it makes him "reliable source", the article on him btw states "Ritter was a staunch German nationalist who belonged to a political movement generally known to historians as National conservatism.[28] Ritter identified with the idea of an authoritarian government in Germany that would make his country Europe's foremost power". I did mistake of using him, to which I apologize, as I was not aware of extent of his ideological zeal, and used only raw data, now I suggest to use more modern up to date resources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Some works could be acceptable, but when dealing with Nazi sources, the assumption is that such a source is unreliable and it should be proven otherwise before it is included. We still need an article on Nazi historiography (and a larger one on the German historiography - not that Polish historiography would be amiss, neither). See the article on Soviet historiography for comparison. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming article List of Polish people

I suggest renaming this article. The existing name does not reflect the sense of the content set out there. Here is my proposal for a new name: Distinguished_personalities_(Poland). I strongly ask to speak in the discussion. --Robsuper (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed title, at least IMHO, implies that they are currently living in Poland. I think the article is trying to describe people for who were born in the geographical area that is/was in Poland. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Please remember about bottomposting. I never liked lists of xx people, as I think they are totally useless counterpart to categories. Any change to this one should be carried out to all other similar articles, and thus I'd suggest moving this discussion to a more relevant venue (although I am not sure what that would be). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello debaters. Thanks for your response. I started this thread in "emergency mode" because when editing the article Poland ran into "flower" as is List of Polish people, hidden in piped link. I was unpleasantly surprised that Copernicus, Skłodowska, Pułaski, and other eminent persons, appear in the English-speaking Wikipedia under the most ordinary name "List of Polish people". I think it must be corrected and that is why I allowed myself the urgency to start this thread in the discussion. There is a tendency to write Wikipedia articles with the appearance of the list. I think we can not avoid the problems associated with this. We must decide whether at this point we will run out on, more or less known, the Poles in general, or whether it will be a place reserved exclusively for the eminent, distinguished personalities of Polish public life, in a truly encyclopedic style, as befits the Wikipedia. Such a declaration is necessary for me, so to avoid confusion and potential conflicts in the future. Personally I think, it should be carried out in this place the article on just the most important, the most prominent personalities whose lives and activities were greatly associated with Poland and the good of the country. Hence: scientists, writers, poets, painters and musicians, the largest theater actors and filmmakers, the most deserving politicians, soldiers and people from the circle of the clergy. If we accept this point of view, we must also choose, proper to the case, the name of this article. So that no one, whether it is reading or writing, had no doubt both as to substance and purpose of this article. By the way, I want to ask you to keep an eye on sections Famous People and Society in the article Poland. --Robsuper 14:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The basic problem is that these kinds of lists exist on Wikipedia all over the place, like List of French people and they're fairly AfD or Move -proof. So usually the best course of action is to make the article less bad and catch stuff like that. Volunteer Marek  17:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request (Józef Światło)

I think the article Józef Światło written by me a while ago is good enough for a B-class. Could somebody review it? I think the author should try not to review his/her own articles... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple comments . . .

What is a "special ballons"? It's in the Aftermath section
Need a reference on his defection in the Lede, you have it in the body.
"Światło wrote a memoir about his life." - you might want to provide a reference to the book.
Last paragraph of Aftermath - "theirs secret", I think you meant "their secrets"
Can you put in additional references into the middle paragraph of aftermath for the statements on false implication of Gomułka and Spychalski?

Just my 2 cents. Otherwise not a bad article. Probably a Low priority article. Would like to see reference to this article in the Polish October article. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Special balloons are not explained by the source, neither.
Moved a (ref) sentence from lead to main body, per WP:LEAD. Note that lead should be just a summary and a proper lead needs no references (because all facts are supposed to be properly referenced in the article proper).
Removed the memoirs mention, I couldn't verify it.
Their secrets - fixed.
I removed all unreferenced information, and added some more referenced content. I think the article is mid-priority, he was an important historical figure, with many articles and books dedicated to him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a "special ballons"? <== you spelled balloons with one "o". Ajh1492 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran the article through the peer review tool and placed the comments on the article's talk page. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think most of the script comments are not relevant. I posted a reply on article's talk page. Thank you for taking time to review the article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ping, the article is still waiting for somebody to say yay (or nay); I've replied to the last comment on talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted to B-Class (since I did the review already) Ajh1492 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request (Juliusz Słowacki)

Supporting our new tradition of B-class review requests, I'd like to request a review of Juliusz Słowacki, which I've just finished expanding with some online sources. In the near future I plan to use some offline sources to get it to at least GA-class. I'd also appreciate assistance from editors with good command of English to polish (pun intended) the prose :) PS. For the review, I'd like to suggest that it is posted on that article's talk page, with a short note here that somebody has started it. Of course, the more reviewers, the better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on the prose. Then maybe I'll do an assessment. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope I improved the language. In a couple of places I left hidden notes, and I left a question in an edit summary. Tomorrow night I'll take a look at assessing it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Promoted to B class. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible error in the English version of the 'Ostrów Tumski, Poznań' page

Hello everyone,

I'm completely new here, so if I do something wrong, please forgive me and point me in the right direction.

I believe there is an error in a photo caption on the English version of the 'Ostrów Tumski, Poznań' page. At the bottom, the third picture from the left is captioned 'The Psaltery'.

I think this is a combination of a calque from the Polish 'psalteria' and a confusion arising from the fact that a 'psalter' is "a copy of the biblical Psalms, especially for liturgical use > (the psalter) the Book of Psalms" (the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

Despite spending a considerable length of time researching this, I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that a psaltery is anything other than a musical instrument.

I think the caption should probably read 'The Psalmodists' House', since it originally housed the twelve people whose task it was to sing the psalms throughout the night (as per the Wikipedia 'Psalteria w Poznaniu' article and a number of other sources). This would give us 'psalmodists', psalmodist being the noun derived from 'psalmody', defined by the COED as the singing of psalms or similar sacred canticles. Webster's gives: "psalmody 1. the act, practice, or art of setting psalms to music. 2. psalms or hymns collectively. 3. the act, practice, or art of singing psalms. [...] —psalmodist, n."

Now, I have no idea how to edit the page - or even if I'm allowed to. I've just this minute joined, on account of this caption, in fact! So all I'm doing at the moment is opening the matter up for discussion. If anyone could guide me as to what else I should do, I'd be most grateful.

My thanks in advance.


Good point; I'll change it. (You're certainly allowed to edit the page - and you do it by clicking the "edit" tab at the top of the page, like you possibly did with this one, then finding the text in question and editing it in the normal way, finally click "Save page".)--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

White Stork Synagogue

Hi, I was actually editing a page on White Stork when I noticed this page - White Stork Synagogue - I was looking into the naming to see if it can be related (and linked back) to the White Stork page. Pages in English relate the name back to a White Stork Inn on hte site before 1829. I was wondering whether any Polish pages had any further information (like did storks nest on it and is this why the inn got the name etc.) It would be good to link from a culture section on the White Stork page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked around for a bit but aside from the White Stork Inn which you already found I don't see anything else on where the name came from. As an aside, they have a very nice webpage [15] which might be worth including in the external links.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cruelty during and after WWII

Quite many WWII articles don't discuss the Nazi genocidal system. Article Expulsion of Germans after World War II informs about "sadistic practices" in Lamsdorf camp. Articles about Nazi camps don't use such words and are sometimes much colder. The article doesn't explain, why Lamsdorf wardens were cruel after 5 years of German terror. Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camps victims in Category:People murdered in Poland

Considering the Polish death camp controversy, I wonder what people have to say about Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka victims being listed in Category:People murdered in Poland? Also, Category:Nazi extermination camps in Poland? Should categories be renamed to use the word "occupied" like in the German camps in occupied Poland during World War II article? Perhaps we should have a template that would be appended to all such categories, clarifying that it lists crimes committed in occupied Poland by Nazi Germany? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, in Category:People murdered in Poland we have the tragic death of one Franz Kutschera. Taking that crap out so see it for yourself and get your laughs in right now!Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you rename/move categories anyway?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
To rename/move categories, you have to go to WP:CFD ({{Cfr}}). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

emigrants vs expatriates

I am having some trouble understanding the differences between Category:Polish emigrants, Category:Polish expatriates and Category:Polish exiles. Currently, Category:Polish exiles is a subcat of expatriates, which is pararell to Polish emigrants, all part of category:Polish diaspora. It doesn't help that as far as I can tell, the term expatriate is not really used in Polish language. As far as I understand it, expatriate is somebody living abroad. To get there, you can either chose to emigrate or be forcibly resettled (exiled). If so, wouldn't it mean that all the emmigration categories should be subcategories of the expatriate categories, and most if not all people in categories of Category:Polish expatriates in the United Kingdom should be in Category:Polish immigrants to the United Kingdom? Ditto for most other countries (and nationalities)? In other words, aren't all expatriates either immigrants and/or (rarely) exiles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Is there somewhere sounding like "Nirgalsh" in Poland? Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems garbled beyond recognition, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a low-level revert war on Template:JewishPolishHistory

I've asked them on their talk pages to stop and requested temporary page protection. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I commented at Template talk:JewishPolishHistory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It also looks like the two editors are having a "running gun battle" across a number of pages. Might be appropriate if an admin stepped in and told them both to take a break and cool off. Civilizations is NOT going to collapse overnight if there are a few extra icons on Wikipedia pages. Is there a WP:GETALIFE page? Ajh1492 (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be. Almost every other "cool" term does :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It now has a week of full protection plus I've requested the Admin who helped to intervene in the wider revert war. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#WP:MOSICON_related_Edit_War. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request (Paweł Jasienica)

Ok, Paweł Jasienica is another article I think may be B-class. It was in fact rated B-class by WP:BIO, but I changed it to start when I begun expanding the article. I think it may be B-class now. Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems well-referenced, makes the reader aware of the complexities of the times and the often necessarily compromised choices that members of his generation had to make.Orczar (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If you think it is B-class, could you update the assessment tags on talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


May you write Pan (title) article ? (Idot (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Potentially notable, per Mr.. Whether anybody feels like writing it up, however... I am afraid it is not a subject that is among my favorite topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I might be mixing stuff up, but didn't it originate from panosz which meant a non-noble peasant who was affluent enough to own their own land (i.e. a yeoman farmer)? I'm thinking sometime in the 15th-16th centuries, maybe even a bit earlier. Some of the negative connotations were acquired later when it was used exclusively for the members of the szlachta.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Poland topics

Why is the Template:Poland topics being placed on every Poland-related page? Is it really necessary? Ajh1492 (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not necessary and also the template itself could use some tidying up and cruft removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think most of the material is covered in sidebars vs a bottom navigation box. Some articles are just getting covered in navigation boxes. We sould have a discussion here of the template since it is trying to be comprehensive. I think there is a lot of so-what-who-cares in it right now. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have created this template and I'm sorry if I placed it on too many articles.
It is based on Template:United States topics, other countries have such templates too and they are also added to most articles linked in those templates.
Sorry for confusion. I should've consult it first here, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and didn't know where to ask. I'm sorry.
I've just removed links to articles that doesn't exist yet in Wikipedia (except Polish Mountain Peaks - I'm working on it right now).Danim2 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to dislike big templates. And lists. In this case I could see this as being useful in Poland, but beyond it... is there a policy or a guideline about those big templates? We appreciate your efforts, Danim2, but it would be nice to see a more detailed rationale (and preferably, a community consensus) for such an addition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I also tend to think that the US Template isn't a very good template for templates as it just has too much stuff in. This one also suffered from lots of red links. But I do appreciate the effort and think it can be improved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page for Template:United States topics there's a rather large pile of pretty useless stuff. My two cents is to use the sidebar templates like (1) Template:History_of_Poland, (2) Template:Politics_of_Poland, (3) Template:Culture of Poland or specific templates like (a) Template:History_of_the_Third_Polish_Republic or (b) Template:Polish religions instead of some big mega-template that is questionable in its usefulness (IMHO). It's ok, not a problem, glad you're interested in participating!! Ajh1492 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Even some cities have such templates and they are also that big (examples: Template:Montreal, Template:Denver). For me such template is a great thing fo navigation - it gaves user quick access to many different topics related to Poland - all those articles can be read like a chapters of a book. Outline of Poland is almost unreadable for normal user (there is too many informations). Poland article have many many informations and is hard to embrace. With such template user can read one article and quickly jump to another to know more (and have access to articles he wouldn't of ever thought that could exist, or would be very hard to find because they aren't linked from other articles). The problem is what to put on such template to make it usefull and not cluttered. Template:New York City for instance is smaller. Template:Portugal topics looks good for me.Danim2 (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a simpler template like (I didn't want to overwrite Danim2's template until we had some discussion):

The template would only show up on the pages included in the template. Each of the pages should have their own sidebar navigation template - most already have them, but a few are still lacking. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also add Sport to it.. Why are all entries capitalised? (I didn't see such templates on Wikipedia)
Danim2 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that Danim2's template, in its original form (evem with red links per WP:RED), was fine for Poland article, and Outline of Poland. But not anywhere else. Ajh's template could be added to few more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about Poland and Outline of Poland. I also like red links - it's easier then to see what more can/need to be added to Wikipedia. It even encourages normal people to start new articles - that's how I started with Wikipedia :-) Many people think that Wikipedia is so big, that it has everything somewhere, and nothing more can be added.. Danim2 (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I put the big structure into the Outline of Poland article and I'll put the non-cap version into the Template:Poland topics entry and hook it into the base set of Poland articles. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'm glad, that my effort wasn't wasted :) Danim2 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in Poland

It might be a good idea to resize the photo within the article, but the image itself is fine I think. There's both "tourism within Poland" and "international tourism". And I do think that quite a large number of foreigners (not sure why they have to be English speaking) do go to the monastery. Certainly, many foreign Catholics (though it's not limited to them) visit it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Polish cabaret: performers, composers, directors, etc.

Hello, I am new at Wikipedia and have been working on a cd project of cabaret music in Warsaw (both in Polish and Yiddish) between the world wars with my friend and co-musician Beth Holmgren, who is Chair of the Slavic Languages department at Duke University here in Durham, NC. I've added a few performers to the "Polish cabarets" category, mostly drawing on the sources in Yiddish that I've been reading for Beth. If anybody would like to discuss this with me, I'm interested. Jane Peppler (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for creating those interesting articles. Few suggestions / recommendations: 1) red links are good per WP:RED, see also WP:BTW 2) please add WP:ASSESS templates to the talk pages of the articles, like I did here and in your other creations (I've tagged those articles with Biography and Poland project templates, but {{WikiProject_Jewish_history}} may be applicable as well... ) 3) don't use "ibid" in references, instead name the refs and merge them like this 4) per Wikipedia MoS, please add dates of birth and death immediately following the bolded name, like I did here 5) if the article is a WP:STUB, please tag it accordingly, like I did here 6) please see if an article exists on other WIkipedia (Polish, Hebrew) and if so, add interlinks to them like it was done here 7) when referencing an article with online sources, please don't use barelinks like here, but expand the reference with other information. You may find Template:Cite web helpful. Feel free to ask us if you have any other questions! PS. If you create a referenced, beyond-stub article, with ilinks and such, please consider nominating it for T:TDYK for a front page exposure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links can be good because they let people know that an article needs to be created - and then people (sometimes) create them, like I just did with Artur Gold. This is a really great topic and thanks for working on it. Thanks also for pointing all the youtube videos of these guys that were recently posted. They're great. Also, it might be useful to have a "meta" article on all these musical developments in interwar Poland eventually though that would require more thorough research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We should probably start with a generic article on Polish cabaret/cabaret in Poland. Presumably a section about the interwar cabaret could eventually be split into a dedicated article... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki is frequently useful.Xx236 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Piotr: I would love to see a general article on Polish cabaret. My own reading is so narrow (I have been set a specific task by my collaborator) and I am far from Poland - it would be great to have an overview as I work. One specific question that fascinates me in the interwar period: was there a mix of languages in any cabaret / coffee house / revue, or were they either all-Polish or all-Yiddish? I believe at that time and place most Jews who would visit such places probably spoke both languages. By the way, is there no way for me to get a notification that a new comment has been left here? Jane Peppler (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also: this guy pl:Stanisław Wielanek, a native of Warsaw, has been researching and collecting Warsaw cabaret info/memorabilia for forty years. His book, Szlagiery starej Warszawy - śpiewnik andrusowski, is huge and if I could read Polish I'd be using it like crazy (I've given it to my collaborator but she's not interested in Wikipedia). It was out of print but evidently was revised and reissued in 2010. It would be a great source... Jane Peppler (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with much work on the subject. I'd assume that majority of the cabarets where in Polish, but the only proof I have for that is that there is a number of interwar "Jewish jokes" in Polish language, many of them likely originating from the Jewish community itself.
You can receive notifications about comments to this page through Wikipedia:Watchlist and Wikipedia:RSS. You can also indicate in a each post that you would like to receive another notification on your talk page, through this is rarely done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Polish-Mongolian literary relations

I've translated it from the pl-wiki. I know that it's more fun thing than a serious article, but maybe someone would be interested in improving its poor English. Brumbrumbrum (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Please consider adding inline citations, then the article could be featured at T:TDYK. Also, please try to add talk page WP:ASSESS templates (Poland, Mongolia, literature would be quite relevant). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Database reports: 53rd project by number of watchers, 48th by number of changes

According to Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers, we are 53rd project by number of watchers. We are just ahead of the generic countries project, and only Japan and Germany beat us from individual countries ranking :) We are also 48th project by number of changes to the pages with our assessment templates according to Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes, which does show we are pretty good at tagging our content and editing it. Only Russia and Albania (?) are ahead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is necessary to improve either ranking? Would be nice to pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods Ajh1492 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
More members => more activity. Perhaps you could help on the newsletter? A roll call and news update could bring some more members here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Polish Jagiellon ambassadors to Turkey

Hi, I am trying to improve the article Polish Jagiellon ambassadors to Turkey. But being unfamiliar with the Polish names I may misspell the names. I'd be glad if an editor reviews the names. Also I am uncertain with some of the links. Were Marcin Wrocimowski and Marcin of Wrocimowice the same person ? I linked to Piotr Zborowski. But the article doesn't give a hint about his diplomatic career. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Marcin of Wrocimowice (died in 1442, so he couldn't be an ambassador in 1475) is probably his father - he had a son with the same name.
I think you are right about Piotr Zborowski.
This article may also help you: pl:Ambasadorowie Polski w Turcji. Danim2 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding interwiki is good. Note that if the article scope is Turkey, it needs to be expanded up to the modern times, per pl wiki article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did You Know Nomination?

Is RTCN Białystok (Krynice) eligible for T:TDYK? Ajh1492 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid not. To start with, the expansion has to be 5-fold, and done within the last week. Further, DYKs tend to focus on readable prose, which excludes tables and such. See WP:DYK. If you come with a hook, you are welcome to add it to Portal:Poland, of course, we tend to be less picky there :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Could someone check the recent changes at Kraśnik (by Krasnik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)), as I'm not able to tell whether they're appropriate or spammy. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is suspicious that the username was specifically created to add the links. I agree they are spammy. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland

I live in Columbus Ohio, so sources of good information about Poland or Eastern Europe in general are difficult to locate. Within the past year I have found a great deal upon Wikipedia and consider the work you folks are doing to be a primary source of information; I appreciate that.

Thank you,

Mark Ritchie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Białystok Class-B review

If Grande Prairie was JUST assessed as a B-Class article, then Białystok, IMHO, is also B-Class. Białystok may look thinner since it has 14 subsidiary articles - it would exceed the normal article length if they were included in-line.

Ajh1492 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I actually demoted Grande Preire to C-class for being poorly referenced. Please note that few projects have B-class reviews, so there are many unverified B-class articles there. Frankly, unless B-class has a checklist in the project, which indicates a review, I don't trust it :> I think Białystok is close to a B-class, I'll post a more detailed comments on its talk soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the good input on the article. More work to be done, but there is light at the end of the tunnel! Ajh1492 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Article Feedback Pilot tage on Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918)

CountryBot has applied the Category:Article Feedback Pilot tag to Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918). Might be worth checking to see if any other WPP articles were tagged. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. If such a listing exists, I'd like to see it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request (Polish legislative election, 1957 and Łódź insurrection (1905))

Both of those are former GA of mine that got demoted. I'd like to get them back to GA, and as the first step I'd appreciate your B-class reviews. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did they get de-listed? Ajh1492 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You can see the comments on the article corresponding talk pages but in brief, both articles were criticized as not being broad (comprehensive) enough. Comments on that, plus any sources you are familiar with that could help with further expansion, would be much appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You're missing a citation on Łódź_insurrection_(1905)#The_uprising. I reviewed Polish legislative election, 1957 and filled out the B template - I still don't know why they demoted it back to C, it should be at least an A Ajh1492 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A is between GA and FA, so anything demoted from GA will be bumped down to start, C or B class, usually randomly, depending on reviewers opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A solution for describing Polish-Lithuanian persons

I like how Adam Mickiewicz describes him as "Polish (Polish-Lithuanian)". To further that, I would like to bring to your attention the Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) article, which should be linked from "Polish-Lithuanian". I think it does a decent job at explaining the usage of that term, but it can and should be improved. Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request: Władysław Syrokomla

I expanded this article and assessed as C-class. It may be B-class, or not... a bit on the short side. Your call. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request: 2010 IAAF World Cross Country Championships

Not my article, but something I came while slowly reviewing our C-classes. I soooo don't care for sports, I don't want to look at it too much, but this may be B-class. Could somebody more interested in this take a closer look? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Someone had put B-class but hadn't filled out the evaluation checklist. I've fixed that and I agree with the B-class assessment. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request (Polish Underground State)

Currently a Milhist reviewer is criticizing the article due to a heavy reliance on a single source - but AFAIK this is allowed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely B-Class. I've posted comments on the Talk page, plus evaluated it from a WPP perspective. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Free election

The usage of free election is under discussion, see Talk:Free election (Polish throne). (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And some people's disregard for policies and common sense there is rather glaring. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation needed

I've got problem with User:BurgererSF. He once changed all photos of Poznań Town Hall into one. It was strange change, because new photo isn't better (it has geometrical abberation that strongly deformates perspective and shape of building). BurgererSF doesn't used for now any essential argument. Insted, he is reverting photos to this one, and blanks my notes in his discusion page. Radomil talk 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the articles affected (try {{article}}), list reverts, and places you tried to engage him in the conversation? Also, make sure to notify him of your report here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles: Poznań Town Hall, Poland, Loggia, Renaissance in Poland, Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe (possibly few others, change of photos and further reverts in history). Discussion User talk:BurgererSF (blanking in history), his response on my user talk page. Radomil talk 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A tough nut to crack considering that User:Radomil speaks about photos he took himself i.e. the File:Ratusz Poznań Woźna.jpg uploaded multiple times as far away as timbuktu, not to mention the six articles featuring it in English Wikipedia including Poznań, History of Poznań, Giovanni Battista di Quadro, List of Polish architects, The Royal-Imperial Route in Poznań, and Poznań Old Town. I'd suggest you ease up on that self-promo thing, Radomil. No offence. Please remember, many Wikipedians make good photos. — Pawlikowska (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, project scope (see Wikimedia Commons) supports taking pictures, uploading them and adding them to an article. If a picture is poor quality or irrelevant, it can be replaced. However, [18] and [19] are worrisome. Taken at their face value, Radomil points out that his pictures are higher quality, to which Burgerer replies that Radomil's photos are taken by Radomil as the reason for their removal; this is an improper criticism, not too mention the tone is somewhat confrontational. I will ask for Burgerer to comment here, and in the meantime I hope others can offer their input. PS. Looking further, offensive edit summaries (spam, vamdalism + spam are worrisome, and in fact sanctionable under WP:CIV in general and WP:DIGWUREN in particular. PPS. And Pawlikowska, accusing antother editor of "self-promo" is a WP:NPA; please refactor your post. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am author of this photo (as many others on Wikipedia). But it is not self-promotion. Look with cool eye on those two photos? Compare and please, asewer on those questions:

  • Which one has less optic abberation?
  • Which has better framing?
  • On which perspectiv is less disrupted?

If You know free picture which is better, fell free to exchange it. It is possible, with using profesional wide-angle lens ("A" photo is made with use of good quality normal lens, "B" one is made with standard wide-angle lens with all his problems, like pincushion distortion). Radomil talk 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think both are about as good, but I am no photo expert. Replacing a photo with another is quite ok, and if it is your own photo, I see no problem with it - after all, we often replace chunks of text with our own "better" chunks of texts. If somebody disagrees, a civil discussion about merits of photos should take place on talk. Reverts without discussion and with incivil edit summaries are very much not the right way to deal with a disagreement over photos. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't like this ugly container NIEOCZYSZCZENI CHABEREK on the first plan of photo A. Danim2 (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, B has the additional advantage of good timing (no people in the frame). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And one more thing before I go. Photo B has a much higher resolution at 1.29 MB, than photo A at a mere 588 KB. Low res photos are OK mainly for the Fair Use claim. — Pawlikowska (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the higher contrast in A and the whimsicalness of the cloud placement, but that maybe an idiosyncratic preference. The chaberek is definitely a big strike against A though (of course that would also depend on what the image is supposed to illustrate. In *some* context,the juxtaposition of the modern crude dumpster and the historical ornate building can be quite poetic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can also see what Radomil's saying about the 'pin-cushion distortion'. B looks like someone took A, took their finger, placed it behind the image in the center and slightly pushed outward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(I also sort of like the people in the frame, gives it a more vibrant feel whereas in B it's like you can hear the wind blowing through the streets. Come to think of it, if it wasn't for the chaberek, I'd most definitely go with A).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

On the whole I'd go with A, though I'm not an expert either. The container is a disadvantage, but for me the people are a plus - this is a place where you get a lot of people milling around at most times of the day, and the picture illustrates that. --Kotniski (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

CPhoto was taked during Malta Festival... this container is... piece of art ;) (in some opinions ;)) Radomil talk 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The composition is off on "B" - there's not enough head room for the subject at the top of the frame. It's not a dumpster in "A" - it's a shipping container. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support B because of much higher resolution and no distracting objects in the foreground. — Kpalion(talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Bigger photo has more visible distorion... Size is not main characteristic of good picture. Radomil talk 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A better aesthetics - if it looks better with lower resolution that says something about the photographer's skill in itself, resolution by itself is not any kind of useful metric. The chaberek has ceased to really bother me that much. And like I said, I like the people in the foreground, makes the image more appealing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at User:BurgererSF activity... he, after I nasked for Your opinion, changed all photos without giving any reason here... (He/She also blanked his/her discusion again) Radomil talk 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I would also suggest opening a request on WP:AE. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've given a warning to BurgererSF, for edit warring and not talking, but mind you, I am acting in a capacity of just a regular editor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Update: his only response was to blank my warning. It seems that if or when any further disputes occur involving that user, administrative sanctions will be necessary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


(sigh) I dread to bring this up because we might get to a heated discussions and flame-wars, but what is the general consensus on describing locations in western Poland within a historical context? Is it ...

(a) Breslau (Wrocław) <= time period name followed by modern name in paras
(b) Breslau <= time period name linking to modern name article
(c) Wrocław (German: Breslau) <= modern name with time period name in language tags
(d) Wrocław <= modern name only

Inquiring minds would like to know. I will withhold my opinion until after the discussion is started. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In most cases (assuming we're talking about a time during a long period when the places were German) I think the first option works best (perhaps with extra explanation like "Breslau (now Wrocław in Poland)" if particularly pertinent). --Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You may want to check WP:NCGN, where some relevant discussions have been ongoing recently. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, per Gdansk/Danzig vote, for 1308 to 1945 it should be "Breslau (Wrocław)" or "Breslau (now Wrocław)" first time it's mentioned in the text, then Breslau for the rest of the article. Pre 1308 and post 1945 it should be other way around; "Wrocław (Breslau)" first time it's mentioned in the text, then Wrocław for the rest of the article.
The exception is for articles about "clearly German persons" which should follow the 1308-1945 rules, regardless of the time period (which can be a bit silly for post 1945, in which case I'd say common sense trumps rule), and, in parallel, "clearly Polish persons" which should follow the pre1308/post1945 rules, regardless of the time period.
Now here's the problems with it:
  1. good luck trying to consistently follow these rules. The modus operandi in some areas seems to be a "GDanzig vote for thee but not for me" or vice versa. I.e. editors will invoke G/D vote to enforce their preferred naming in some particular cases, and then turn around and try and come up with uber-lame excuses about why the G/D vote doesn't apply when it goes against their preferred naming.
  2. Articles that span entire histories, like the "History" section of any Polish western city, are problematic because the text ends up changing the name on the reader half way through and then back. This is extremely irritating and makes articles hard to read. All of sudden you're like "wait I thought I was reading an article on place X, but this talking about some place Y. What's going on?" Guess no one thought about the fact that it also violates MOS:CONSISTENCY during the vote either.
  3. The problem is never on articles about "clearly German" or "clearly Polish" persons, but always with the articles on the "unclearly German" or "unclearly Polish" persons. There you're on your own, among the sharks.Volunteer Marek
  4. The last two bullet points of that template are moot. Nobody cares and YOU WILL get blocked for reverting G/D Vote violations despite what it says, more than three times (or possibly even once).(talk) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)