Talk:Kołobrzeg

Insulting the English Language

I do not know whom is insulting the English language by constant negative editing but I wish to remind the offender that the English language name for this place in Europe is *Colberg*.

While the Polish name for this place is at all times respected it is considered racist that the English name is attacked due to unwarranted political reasons. This is an English language Wikipedia page and not Polish or any other language page. Further attacks will be reported as according to European law.

Thank you for your respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filsdegilbert (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, let's leave it for now, but do you have any evidence that Colberg is "the" English name? If not then it's bound to get removed sooner or later.--Kotniski (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Section D, Encarta, Britannica - Kolberg listed as German name, not as English alternative, Columbia encyclopedia, Polish form used in body text, BBC, NY Times - read the correction for an unambiguous view on modern usage... need we continue?

(The purported Colberg seems unknown [1],[2],all false positives

As I said at Talk:Bismarck_Tower_in_Szczecin - English speakers are not a race. Using the name English speakers actually see in print is not discriminatory in any way. And I would strongly advise you to read WP:NLT and consider withdrawing your final remark above. Knepflerle (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

City population

source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI
1960: 16.700 inhabitants
1970: 26.000 inhabitants
1975: 31.800 inhabitants
1980: 38.200 inhabitants

source: Mapa wojewodztwa koszalinskiego , Państwowe Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych, Warszawa 1972
1940: 36.800 inhabitants
1945: ca. 3.000 inhabitants
1950: 6.800 inhabitants
1960: 16.700 inhabitants
1970: 25.600 inhabitants

cc 30 October 2003

Question to "Fürstenthum"

... administered within the Fürstenthum District ("Duchy District", ... - IMO principality would be the correct name for Fürstenthum or was it officially duchy-like ( as "gefürstete Grafschaft" or similar). Thanks for info. :) - Elysander (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The bishops at times were reichsunmittelbar, so duchy fits.

The bishops and later the secular rulers of the districts were at times princes subordinate to the Pomeranian dukes, so principality fits as well.

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info! And sorry for my KöRlin[3] mistake! ;) - Elysander (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And what do we make of that? Leave as is or let it read ("Duchy" or "Principality" District,...)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The context (19th century) points to principality IMO. - Elysander (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead then, thank you! Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

disruptive blanking of a section of text

Before removing whole slews of text, please note that, as long as it is properly attributed (which it was), a city's website is a perfectly reliable source. Please discuss first.radek (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the accusation of the edit being "disruptive" and take your time to read the edit summary that links the respective discussion about the reliability [4]. I further suggest that you self-revert your restoration per WP:BURDEN. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive" on Wikipedia. This might be especially true if policies and previous discussions are mis-quoted or misrepresented to support such wholesale deletions. Yes, I know you quoted RSN board in your edit summary. But since I've been keeping track of RSN for awhile (since I'm of the opinion that RS is the most important aspect of Wiki editing) I also happen to know that your previous arguments on that board have been rejected. For example here: [5]. Let me quote:

Official Town websites can be categorized as "Organizational self-published sites"... as such, they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to the town's official opinion reguading itself - i.e. as long as it is attributed to the town's web site, it is a reliable source.

Or just (re)read what you were told here: [6]

Basically, you lost THAT argument over at RSN but here you are pretending that you everyone agreed with you (when in fact almost no one did)radek (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)