Talk:Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)

Other info

• http://www.silesia-region.pl/wiadomosc.php?id=468
• http://www.republika.pl/rg1/silesia/autonomia.html
• http://wiem.onet.pl/wiem/00662a.html

What table?

Table1

Powiaty

In mid-1939 the population of the Voivodeship was 1,533,500 (together with Zaolzie, annexed in October 1938) and its area was 5 122 sq. km. The Voivodeship was divided into these counties:

Powiaty	Population	Area
Katowice county (powiat katowicki)	357,300	213 km²
Rybnik county (powiat rybnicki)	212,900	890 km²
Cieszyn county (powiat cieszyński)	176,600	1 305 km²
Pszczyna county (powiat pszczyński)	151,500	1 046 km²
Fryštát county (powiat frysztacki)	143,000	262 km²
Chorzów (powiat grodzki)	128,900	32 km²
Katowice (powiat grodzki)	126,200	42 km²
Tarnowskie Góry county (powiat tarnogórski)	107 000	268 km²
Bielsko county (powiat bielski)	59,500	339 km²
Lubliniec county (powiat lubliniecki)	45,200	715 km²
Bielsko (powiat grodzki)	25,400	10 km²

Cities

Biggest cities of the Voivodeship within its 1939 boundaries were (population based on 1931 census):

Cities	Population
Chorzów¹	128,900
Katowice	126,200
Siemianowice Śląskie	37,800
Cieszyn	28,000
Bielsko	25,400
Rybnik	23 000
Mysłowice	22,700
Karwina	22,300
Tarnowskie Góry	15,500
Mikołów	11,900
Bogumin	10,800
Orłowa	10 000

• ¹ – in 1934 city Królewska Huta, Maciejkowice and Chorzów municipality join to Chorzów

Table2

Cities (miasta)

Cities	Population¹
Katowice	123 780
Królewska Huta²	86 000
Świętochłowice	26 706
Bielsko	19 785
Rybnik	19 268
Cieszyn	15 324
Tarnowskie Góry	13 582
Pszczyna	7 660
Lubliniec	5 566

Urban commune (gminy miejskie)

Urban commune	Population¹
Siemianowice Śląskie	38 322
Hajduki Wielkie	27 834
Nowy Bytom	24 000
Ruda	23 562
Nowa Wieś	21 700
Mysłowice	20 294
Lipiny	18 997
Janów	17 890
Łagiewniki	15 382
Bielszowice	15 144
Chorzów	15 100
Chropaczów	14 332
Radzionków	14 102
Szarlej	12 059
Kochłowice	12 000
Roździeń	11 860
Piekary Wielkie	11 725
Szopienice	11 050
Orzegów	10 029

County (powiaty)

County	Area¹
pszczyński	1072 km²
rybnicki	893 km²
lubliniecki	706 km²
cieszyński	664 km²
bielski	314 km²
tarnogórski	250 km²
katowicki	170 km²
świętochłowicki	83 km²
Królewska Huta²	8 km²

• ¹ – 1929
• ² – in 1934 change name "Królewska Huta" -> Chorzów

Source: www.szukamypolski.com

---

Name of the article

Original name of the Voivodship was "Województwo Śląskie" (English: "Silesian Voivodeship") without a word "Autonomous". Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it like the rollbacker LUCPOL said. The main case is the name former voivodship which was formed by present supporters to create an autonomous region in present Poland. Every law acts and even Constitution of the Voivodship]] [1] and Cancellation Constitution Law Act stays clearly "Silesian Voivodeship". There is no one act with name with word Autonomous E.x. [2] or [3]. I've changed a name of the article to correct one and given the creating Act of the Voivodship in a reference, but it was rejected, denied without any other literature, word of discussion or note by the LUCPOL in this edit. LUCPOL with his OR declaration shows clearly his intentions. Wikipedia cannot deny the facts, and fact is clear that the formal law acts and every literature use the name "Silesian Voivodeship". Even Silesian Parliament used the name "Silesian Voivodeship". I move a proposal to change article name to Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939). JDavid (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Name "Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)" is unclear and controversial. There are some different dates, formal and practical. Beginning in 1920, 1921 or 1922 - depending on the sources and ending 1939 and 1945 - depending on how the status II World War.
2. Citation "Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it" ...really?!?, come down autonomy to the level of plain voivodeships [4]. This is one of some examples.
3. I change name on Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) according to User:JDavid version + change wrong dates on name "(autonomy)". This version is compromise and consistent with the sources and principles of Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ad. 1. Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)" is clear and uncontroversial, we have to choose good date. For sure 1939 like other voivodeships. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ad. 2. Really I don't know what you have meant. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. Ad. 2. I explain again, in Polish. You wrote: "Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it" - translate to polish: "Tak, region miał autonomię i nikt temu nie zaprzecza". Ale tuszujecie to jak tylko można. Pamiętam to, jak jeszcze aktywnie działałem na pl.Wikipedii. Podałem ci też jeden z wielu przykładów [5]. Najlepiej śląską autonomię zmniejszyć do poziomu zwykłego województwa, zatuszować nazwę "autonomia" w nazwie artykułu co właśnie robicie. Jaki będzie wasz następny krok? Cicha likwidacja faktu "autonomii" w samej treści artykułu? (jak ktoś chce to może to przetłumaczyć na angielski, pisałem po polsku bo JDavid mnie nie zrozumiał po angielsku). LUCPOL (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd rather have disputed dates than this solution, which doesn't make any immediate sense. At least with the dates people will understand what the title means.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think that dates are better. The word autonomy is unclear, becouse something can have autonomy, but something cannot be autonomy. Am I right? Dates show that this article is historical, and this is important I think. And what's more it's name convension on en.Wiki (which I would have on pl.Wiki). Poznań Voivodeship (1921–1939) was created in 1921, but they had a voivode since 1919, so there is not a problem. I think we could decide what should be a determinant in this case. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation "The word autonomy is unclear, becouse something can have autonomy, but something cannot be autonomy. Am I right?" - No, you are wrong. The word "autonomy" is clear and not apply this term to things that do not have autonomy. Second: can change on name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomous)", if someone annoys word "autonomy". LUCPOL (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You can do, what we establish here in this discussion, You aren't a ruler of Wikipedia. JDavid (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article doesn't show everything, and I've made mistake in name changing. Silesian Voivodeship was created in 1920, included Cieszyn Silesia, and other small lands. After plebiscite, uprisings other lands were joined to Silesian Voivodeship. Name Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) it's accurate and noncontroversial, without POV. It's crystal-clear! JDavid (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• If I can add something. "Silesian Voivodeship (i.e. date)" is kind of logical, because "Silesian Voivodeship" itself can refer both to historical and current region of Poland. However "autonomy" is not a good choice, because it doesn't clearly define "which Silesian Voivodeship" - at least at first glance. Certainly date would be much better (as is usually used for disambigs). Then the issue of "autonomous" as part of a name. Undoubtly the name should be given according to the offical act of law, which was defining this region. I assume, that the proper law act was issued by polish parliament. And over there the name should be claerly written, and out of this definition, it should be the name for the wikipedia article. However I agree that technically and according to regulations, this region (in opposition to other voivodeships) could posses a certain degree of autonomy, which of course should me mentioned and described in the article itself, ideally basing on, once again, proper law acts. It's similar situation as for Poznań, as far as I remember, where Poznań is a official name for this city, but historically it was called (or rather had a status = like autonomy) of King's City Poznań (or something like that). But no one claims that the wiki article should be called like this. What is, at first glance, contradictory is the situation for Kraków, where its officially approved (by polish government) name is: "Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków" (Capital King's City Kraków), so one could say, that the article about it should be called like that. But no - because we would rather choose commons name, instead of the more offical but rarely used full one. However the latter example (and previous with Poznań) should be considered only when there were or are official acts calling "Silesian Voivodeship" - "Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship". Otherwise its autonomy is only technical but has nothing to do with the naming and therefore should be ommited from any part of article name, because it can create confusion and the date (19xx-19xx) is more along with the naming convention anyway Masur (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation (from User:JDavid): "Name Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) it's accurate and noncontroversial, without POV. It's crystal-clear!" Not crystal-clear and this is controversial. See: Constitution of the Silesian Voivodship (autonomous) - Data obowiązywania (Effective Date): 1919-06-28 [6], Data wejścia w życie: (Date of entry to life): 1919-06-28 [7], Data wydania (Release Date): 1920-07-15 [8], your date from your edit: 1921 [9], practical (real) existence of autonomy - from 1922. In addition: Data uchylenia (Date set aside): 1945-05-07 [10], not 1939 - as you did in your editing [11]. In addition, according to very many sources (also polish sources) Poland not exist only 123 years (1795–1918), not in 1939-1945. Formally and internationally, in 1939-45 Poland exist, but really this is occupation. Summary: there are several dates (1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1939, 1945), each date has sources!!!!!! You wrote "It's crystal-clear"? Are you freaking kidding. LUCPOL (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, using more exclamation marks won't make your sentences more... I don't know... important? Loud? In regards to the topic, of course one needs to admit, that it is hard to set precise dates of Silesian Voiv. existence (however for me it should 1919-1945 as law acts say; with a small correction for 1939 or 1945? As far as I remember, unlawfully but effectively, Germans dissolved the polish state), however I assume that proper sources, like monographies about the region's history, can provide us some commonly used date brackets. If not, and really if the dates of establishing and formal ceasing of Silesian Voivodeship are so controversial, still the posibility to use something different as a disambiguation in brackets can be used. Like "Silesian Voivodeship (Second Polish Republic)" or anything else, what would be unequivocal enough. Masur (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within Second Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy in Second Polish Republic)" or similary names would be acceptable, because this name shows status (autonomy) and the period (II Polish Republic). LUCPOL (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. But like I mentioned. Autonomy is part of a description, not part of a name. Name like: "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" is imo hardly correct, because it suggests that it was almost completely independent (compare with Palestine Autonomy or Free City Gdańsk/Danzig). The only thing to figure out is how to clearly distiguish "this" Sil. void. from the current one. Like imagine that we have more than one "Kraków" in Poland. Whould you name different articles: "Kraków (Capital King's City)" and (fictionous one) "Kraków (Pomerania Voivodeship)" or rather "Kraków (Lesser Poland Voivodeship)" and "Kraków (Pomerania Voivodeship)"? And as I see i.e. here: Pomeranian Voivodeship (1919–1939), the system is to discriminate articles using dates, and there is no problem whether it is 1939 or 1945 (as we agreed that 1919 is a correct "starting" year). Therefore I think that "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1939)" (1939 reflecting actual "end year", even if considered unlawful by the polish government on exile and some allied states) is a proper name, being in the agreement with existing naming conventions. Masur (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Name "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1939)" and in the introductory article write "The status of autonomy was forcibly removed on May 6, 1945". Quite a mess + controversial (these dates are collusive between us). PS. excerption to Palestine Autonomy is your wrong sentence. Name: autonomy "within" II Polish Republic not suggests to Palestine Autonomy and similary your samples. In addition, I wrote "Name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within Second Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy in Second Polish Republic)" or similary names" - maybe my examples are not grammatical, you can improve grammar or give another example name with shows status (autonomy) and the period (II Polish Republic). LUCPOL (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so if your point of view is commonly (it's quite important, because on en-wiki common names or conventions in naming are prefered over official ones or "correct" ones. See North Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea) supported in the subject literatury (that the Sil. Void. ceased to exist on 1945), the name should be then "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1945)". BTW. 1945 is the date where autonomy privileges were revoked or when Sil. Void. was "cancelled"? The same with 1919 - is it a year when Sil. Void. was formed or its autonomy status set? I have to say, that by the dates for disambiguation I understand the dates when Sil. Void. existed (!), therefore 1939 is a real end point, even if it was unlawful to liquidate the poolish state at all (I adressed this issue above). The dates when Sil. Void. had privileges of autonomy can be, but don't have to be, different, what of course should me mentioned in the article itself, but for the sake of discrimination from other Silesian Voivodeships, the naming convention calls for dates of existence. And, like I agreed, 1939 or 1945 is arguable, however en-wiki consensus points toward 1939 as a real "end point" for the Polish Second Republic, ergo for its administrative parts (like mentioned Pomeranian Voivodeship (1919–1939)) Masur (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt as to the end point: 1939 (after then it existed only in people's minds). As to the start point, it doesn't matter when autonomy was granted, it matters when an entity called województwo śląskie was created (there's no separate article for the voivodeship before autonomy, nor any reason to create such a split). So if the voivodeship was created in 1919 (regardless of whether it had any special autonomous status then), then 1919 should be the start point.--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ISAP (Internet Law Acts System) isn't a source of law in Rzeczpospolita of Poland. Every date which is presented there as a beginning of binding force of the law is not valid. Ustawa Konstytucyjna z dnia 15 lipca 1920 r. zawierająca statut organiczny Województwa Śląskiego (Dz. U. z 1920 r. Nr 73, poz. 497) was proclaimed 11 August 1920. Due to unclear bequest of Article 45 of the Act: This law act comes into effect with acquisition of the Silesian Voivodeship by Rzeczpospolita of Poland - part with Cieszyn of the Silesian Voivodeship was granted 28 July 1920, and part Upper Silesia was formally accessed in 22 June 1922 - as a date of creating the Silesian Voivodeship can be accepted only 26 August 1920 (coming into force of the Law Act according to 4th article of a Law Act of 31 July 1919 [ustawa z dnia 31 lipca 1919 r. w sprawie wydawania Dziennika Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Dz. U. z 1919 r. Nr 66, poz. 400)] or 22 June 1922 (accession of Upper Silesia by Rzeczpospolita of Poland). Poznaniak (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) would be satisfactory?--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this title is the most appropriate. Poznaniak (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree what I've said above. JDavid (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Unnecessary discussion. Still it is date discussed by us, still is mess, still controversial, still complicated. All "neutral" users is confirmed that is controversial and complicated. In the case of the Silesian autonomy will never!!! be clean and non-complicated dates. LUCPOL (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Unnecessary this discussion. Current name of article is ok. WojtekSIL (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Unnecessary conversation. Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name. [[User:Ozi64|◄Ozi64►]] <small>[[User talk:Ozi64|and his talk]]</small> (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you reach that conclusion? It doesn't even make sense.--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion makes no sense. Still it is date discussed by us, still is mess, still controversial, still complicated. All "neutral" users is confirmed that dates is controversial and complicated. In the case of the Silesian autonomy will never!!! be clean and non-complicated dates. Besides, you can use a name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomous)" instead of "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy)". LUCPOL (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have I mentioned that using more than one exclamation mark and underlining your sentences is not making them more important, really? I think, that I have... The date is not discussed, as we agreed that Silesian Voivodeship existed from 1920 to 1939 (practically) or 1945 (according to the law act). It means that the name: "Silesian Voivodeship (1920-1939)" clearly distinguishes this article from other "Silesian Voivodeships" articles; is without any doubts unequivocal, even if dates are disputable (but they clearly point toward right historical period), whereas "(autonomy)" at most is unclear because it doesn't point toward anything (could be "(yellow)" as I wrote below). Meaning that as a reader not familiar with the subject, when I see the name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy)" it doesn't ring me a bell as good as "Silesian Voivodeship (1920-1939)", which nicely places the article within the historical period and moreover the latter one is according to the naming convention for other voivodeships. The other option, however unused at en-wiki (but in use at pl-wiki) would be "Silesian Voivodeship (Second Polish Republic)". Masur (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at it another way. You write that date in the name of the article are cool because you can easily see from what period the province. You say that the word autonomy need not be named because he is in the article. Is that so? And now look at from another perspective. Silesian region was autonomy as the only region , so you can use status in the name of the article and not mix it with the usual regions. However, the period of autonomy can be read from the article. Also there may be a detailed explanation of dates. Is my reasoning is logical? Yes.

In Polish, for better understanding: Popatrz na to w inny sposób. Piszesz, że daty w nazwie artykułu są fajne bo od razu widać z jakiego okresu jest województwo. Mówisz, że słowo autonomia nie musi być w nazwie bo jest w treści artykułu. Czy tak? A teraz popatrz z innej perspektywy. Województwo śląskie jako jedyne było autonomią, dlatego lepiej użyć statusu w nazwie artykułu a nie mieszać go ze zwykłymi województwami. Natomiast okres w jakim funkcjonowało województwo można odczytać z treści artykułu. Tam też może być dokładne wyjaśnienie dat - jak każdy przyzna - skomplikowanych. Czy moje uzasadnienie jest logiczne? Tak. LUCPOL (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But don't you see that anyone who knows this entity had some kind of special autonomy will know in which period it existed (maybe not the precise years, but certainly that it was basically the interwar period), so using dates will not confuse anyone; but on the other hand, other people will know that they are interested in the interwar voivodeships, but won't necessarily know that the Silesian one had some autonomous status, so using "(autonomous)" might confuse people (as well as being inconsistent with how we do all the other voivodeships)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree I find very amusing voting over the article name... Like you know - democracy cannot make things more or less correct. And the current name is: a) against naming standards; b) not clear; "autonomy" doesn't clarify anything. And when I look for a certain article, I'd like to see from its name, whether it is the one (instead of (autonomy), ther could be (yellow)); c) autonomy, as far as I understand, didn't span the same period of time as the existence of voivodeship. Or at least practically it didn't. The Silesian autonomy was neglectable after 1935 (afair... new Constitution); d) in the discussion above at least several other arguments were presented, why (autonomy) is not good for this article disambiguation, as part of the article name. Other point of view (so, favoring "autonomy" as part of the name), imo, wasn't supported at all (like: "unnecessary - conversation. Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name." from above... very constructive) and arguments focused on negating other options rather than supporting "the autonomy" one. Anyway, if we want to vote and if its the way how things are settled at en-wiki... fine. Just hope, that voters will read the discussion. Masur (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) - the most appropriate and in the line with the naming convention for other voivodeships. Current name Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is OR. The name od this voivodeship was "Silesian Voivodeship". Aspects of autonomy should be mentioned in the article. Elfhelm (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Unnecessary Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name. Leave as is.--SPL908455, Henryk (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And again - why it is the best name? Cos somehow I don't see any argumentation. Masur (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Powiem wprost, nie jestem Śląskiem od urodzenia, i nie przeszkadza mi dopisek "(autonomia)", jak komuś to przeszkadza to już jego problem. Dla mnie ta "autonomia" w nawiasach jest swego rodzaju kompromisem, a przecież o kompromis Tu nam chodzi, a nie jakieś nasze prywatne-polityczne animozje. Dlatego uważam ze nazwa hasła "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy)" jest jak najbardziej kompromisowa. Pozdrawiam,--SPL908455 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty touching what you say, however all of us would appreciate if you speak english here; while this is english language Wikipedia and maybe there are some participants, which would like to follow this discussion. And we aren't discussing whether the "annotation" is bothering someone or not, but whether such disambiguation fulfils its role as a way for discriminating different articles bearing similar names. Masur (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rozumiem, cel jest szczytny, ale materia - w Śląskim przypadku - jest wyjątkowo delikatna. Dziwne, ale przez wiele lat pewne fakty nikomu nie przeszkadzały. Została otwarta przysłowiowa puszka Pandory.--SPL908455 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mógłbyś chopie przeczytać argumenty adwersarzy, zamiast pisać co Ci Lucpol przekazał. Takie minimum rzetelności udziału w dyskusji. Pozdrawiam JDavid (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rozumiem, ale moja wypowiedź dotyczyła wyłącznie nazwy tego hasła, Nie wnikam w czas trwania autonomii tego województwa, bo to już inna kwestia. Pozdrawiam,--SPL908455 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) Name with word "autonomy" is erroneous and inaccurate. On the legal basis of article 81, section 3, Law Act of Constitution of Rzeczpospolita of Poland from 23 April 1935 (Dz. U. z 1935 r. Nr 30, poz. 227) autonomy was abolished.

  To existing of an autonomy is been necessary a self-reliance, there is no hierarchical dependance. A state gives up to present entity a small part of its empire

  To 1935 a change of Organic Statute required of approval from Silesian Sejm (Silesian Parliament). While after coming into force April Constitution of Rzeczpospolita of Poland (24 April 1935), it was sufficient only law act of the State (Country, enacted by Sejm of Poland). So it was no longer an autonomy, but a wide self-government of municipality . From 1935 to 1939 it was voivodeship without autonomy. The abolishing Organic Statut of the Silesian Voivodeship in 1945 by the State National Council was only a abolishing of binding law basis of distict self-government of municipality from other self-governments of the State (Poland). That is why forsing a name with word "autonomy" is pure OR and it is intended only to meet the individual's complexes of user LUCPOL, what it cannot be alowed in Wikipedia, which has to present a Neutral Point of View. Therefore it's be ordered as in the sentence. Poznaniak (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. This according to Mr. Kasznica - although still a source of verification. Furthermore, nowhere says that the silesian autonomy lasted only until 1935. Thirdly: acts of law are saying something else, also scientific literature. I'm sorry poznaniak.

In Polish, for better understanding: Niezupełnie. To według pana Kasznicy - choć źródło jeszcze do weryfikacji. Ponadto, nigdzie nie pisze że autonomia śląska trwała tylko do 1935 roku. Po trzecie: akty prawne mówią co innego, także literatura naukowa. Przykro mi poznaniaku. LUCPOL (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it did have some kind of special "autonomy" for all of its existence, there still isn't any need to mention that fact in the article title. Most people will be most helped by being told the dates when that incarnation of Silesian Voivodeship existed, not a (seemingly rather controversial) label about its legal status. This is what we do with other former voivodeships whose names are ambiguous, and isn't anything to do with any point of view - just trying to make Wikipedia more consistent, clear and (in as far as there exists doubt about the autonomous status) neutral.--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Unnecessary this discussion. Current name of article is ok. Maras84 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)