Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 6

Articles needing attention Muscovy, Catherine II of Russia, all articles mentioning Nicolaus Copernicus Anti-Polonism Germanisation

---

Polish Wikipedians Notice board
| Talk Archive 1 | Talk Archive 2 | Talk Archive 3 | Talk Archive 4 | Talk Archive 5

---

Polish money, NBP and fair use

Aotearoa from Poland (talk · contribs) is removing {{money}} from images of Polish money (see his contribs). If he has his way, those images will be deleted. Comments are needed urgentlu (preferably on his userpage), as untagged images are prime targets for deletion (bot-automated).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the essential merits of the matter? Does Poland object to electronic circulation of its currency? logologist|Talk 04:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 o prawie autorskim i znakach pokrewnych (DZ.U. 1994 NR. 24 poz. 83) ART.4 Nie stanowia przedmiotu prawa autorskiego:
2) urzędowe dokumenty, materiały, znaki lub symbole
Article 4 of polish copyright law: The following are not subject to copyright law:
2) goverment documents, materials, signs or symbols
The polish curreency is an official "znak pieniężny RP" (ustawa o NBP) (currency sign") so in my opinion it is clear that images of the polish currency are not subject to copyright law.Mieciu K 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) We should also create a template {{polish money}} or {{art.4PLcopyright}} to tag articles under that category. Mieciu K 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In Polish low "currency mark" (not "currency sign"; in Polish “znak” = in English: "sign" or "mark" or "token" or "signal") is synonym of "banknote and coin" (not a image of banknotes or coins), so "currency mark" isn’t "sign" because "currency mark" is real money. Aotearoa from Poland 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest calling it "Polish currency," not "Polish money." 04:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the view of the former supreme court judge Tadeusz Szymanek images of "new" złoty banknotes are not subjected to copyright law (I am in a posesion of an mp3 recording of a lecture to prove it). Can you show us any polish laws or opinions of renowned polish lawyers to counter this view? Mieciu K 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Polish queen being moved.

Gryffindor is working on moving another Polish queen — this time, Marie Josepha, consort of August III the Saxon. KonradWallenrod 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he added category Habsburg-Lorraine to the article. What exactly is the problem? Appleseed (Talk) 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like they're voting to move on the talk page. Appleseed (Talk) 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Zygmunt Krzyżanowski

Sigizmund_Krzhizhanovsky Although wrtiting in Russian he considered himself a Pole[1]. A Polish version of his name should be given and category changed from Russian to Ukrainian and Polish writer. --Molobo 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

pisał wprawdzie po rosyjsku, jednak do końca życia uważał się za Polaka przebywającego w Rosji na emigracji Hmmm. An English source for that would be useful. While I do think Polish name shoud be incuded - as well as the above fragment, translated - I am not sure if category of Polish artists falls here. As a compromise we should definetly keep the Russian/Ukrainians categories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To be a "Polish writer", one must contribute to Polish literature. By calling those who didn't as Polish writers, one may make an impression that Polish literature has so little to offer that it has to co-opt the authors of other literatures to look decent, an obviously false claim. Take a look at List of Russian authors. It starts from: "This is the list of authors that wrote in Russian language. Not all of them are of Russian descent." This pretty much sums it up.

Those interested, may check how the similar dispute was resolved at Talk:Nikolai Gogol (and well as the Gogol's article itself). Krzhizhanovsky is OK in the cat:Polish people but not Polish writers. --Irpen 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. If he wrote in Russian than we can hardly call him a Polish writer, can we?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether we treat the category of Polish writers as a sub-category of Polish people by occupation or a sub-category of Polish language. If it's the earlier (and it is, I believe), then it ought to list Polish people who used to write something (including Joseph Conrad). If it's the latter, it should include only Polish language writers. //Halibutt 06:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

nazwy artykułów partii politycznych

Cześć,

szybkie pytanko -- linkiem interwiki dotarłem na Real Politics Union (aka UPR). Parę klików dalej zauważyłem, że Law and Justice przezentuje sobą to samo. Czy były w przeszłości jakieś dyskusje nt. tłumaczenia/nie tłumaczenia nazw polskich partii? Prezydenta mamy tam gdzie należy, a nie pod Lech Duck... --Qviri (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply in English for the benefit of non-Polish speakers readers of our board. Since in Polish we say 'Demokraci', 'Republikanie', 'brytyjscy laburzyści', itp., and names of those parties are translated to Polish on pl-wiki (vide pl:Partia Pracy (brytyjska)), I see no problem in using English names for Polish parties here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for no English originally, I was tired and didn't think it would be a big deal if I didn't translate. Thanks. --Qviri (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian occupation

Recentely user Ghirlandajo [2] has entered information that could be seen as unneutral in several articles regarding occupation of Poland by Russia and effects of it. Users interested in this are welcomed to share their comments. --Molobo 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rydel

Ghirla and Kuban Cossack against Rydel - I think this may be interesting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Muscovy#Ghirla_rever_.2F_Petr_pestering

Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Translations of Polish placenames into English

These translations of Polish province names into English! Good God! Where did we get these aberrations from? Cuiavia-Pomerania? Never heard of it in all my life! Let's just stick to the Polish names (minus the accented letters). Whatever next? The Boat's Voivodship or the Holy Cross Voivodship! It's like the Polish translator's passion for turning 'ul. Mickiewicza' into 'Mickiewicz Street'. No one translates 'Bahnhofstrasse' into 'Bahnhof Street' or 'Rue de Paix' into 'Peace Road'. Or indeed 'Oxford Circus' into 'Cyrk Oksfordski' or 'Marlborough Street' into 'ul. Marlborough'a'

I am keen to see the principle of reciprocity on Wikipedia. The Polish site does not attempt to translate British place names into Polish, other than London/Londyn. So why the attempts to translate Polish place names into English (other than Warszawa/Warsaw)?

Michael Dembinski

Agree wholeheartedly (except for the idea of dropping Polish diacritics). Another example: the recent move of Wisła River to "Vistula River." The only Polish name that I, too, "translate" into English — for now — is "Warsaw." It seems that some of our Polish English-Wikipedia editors insist on being more English-speaker than the English-speakers!

If you habitually show such good judgment and grasp of the relations between the Polish and English languages, I hope you will stick around.

It would be nice if you signed-and-dated your postings by striking the tilde sign four times in succession.

I also suggest you put your postings at the bottom of the pile. I almost missed the above one, and I fear most of our colleagues will. Maybe you'd consider moving it to the bottom?

Regards, logologist|Talk 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mates! New user, me, don't know how to do these things. Felt too strongly about the issue to read the small print.

Michael Dembinski 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We should also consider what to do with Święty Krzyż Voivodship. It seems that, according to Google, this formulation exists only on Wikipedia. What is wrong with Świętokrzyskie Voivodship? That is what the article title was until January 1, 2006, when User:Logologist moved it to the current name. Balcer 16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Świętokrzyskie Province. I now agree with that rendering. (But compare all the other province — as I render województwo — names with the previous "Englishings," one or two of which have, unfortunately, now been restored). logologist|Talk 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Polish diacritics. They all come out as little squares on my screen. One reason why I find the Polish Wikipedia hard work. FYI - Standard BBC translation since the 1999 administrative reforms in Poland have 'województwo' as 'province'. I'm relatively comfortable with 'voivodship' but loathe 'voivodeship' (like, is it pronouced 'voy - vod - eship' or 'voy - voad - ship'?). Again, English speakers have no problems with either French Departements or German Lande.

--Michaeldembinski 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

On most recent computers diacritics are no longer a problem. What kind of software are you using? Balcer 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Win98 at home and WinXP in the office. When editing this, I can see 'Święty Krzyż' all right, but in the viewing page I see '[]w[]ty Krzy[]' All Polish diacritics come out as [] (closed) squares. Puts me right off Polish Wikipedia. I've tried all kinds of coding, and use MS IE or Firefox; makes no difference. What's the secret?--Michaeldembinski 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your points, I think that there are more exceptions to consider than just Warsaw. Consider the proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Regarding your display problem, you may want to check Wikipedia:Unicode. You probably need to install some Unicode font on affected computers - that from my experience solves the problem in most cases.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Proke, I'm set to UTF-8, nothing but squares. Where does one get these fonts from?

'More exceptions... than just Warsaw'? Are you thinking of Gdansk? I don't think in this day and age that anyone, other than German speakers, would consider it as anything other than 'Gdansk'. The city is ingrained into the English-speaking world as 'Gdansk' because of the associations with 1980/81, rather than 1939-45. I've only ever heard a tiny handful of English-speakers refer to the city as 'Danzig' and most of those were over 60.

Similarly, I do not expect English speakers to refer to Wilno or Lwów these days.

Incidentally, 'Trojmiasto' must be referred to in English as 'the Tri-City' (hyphenated, capital 'C'); 'Tricity' (pronounced 'Trissity')is a brand name belonging to Bendix[3].

'Krakow' seems to be far better established than 'Cracow' or any variation thereon. 'Krakow' gets 48.1 million results on Google; 'Cracow' a mere 6.7 million. And many of those are from over-eager Polish translators.

'Vistula' I would translate, 'Odra' I would leave (if Oder, then Neisse follows logically on and then Warthe etc etc).

'Beskids'is unnecessary, as are 'Holy Cross Mountains' or 'Sudetens'.

It is simplest to stick to post-1945 Polish placenames without the Polish diacritic marks. It causes least confusion.

--Michaeldembinski 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unicode fonts: http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html#wgl4 Vorthax 00:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just checked with Google. 'Cuiavia-Pomerania' - a mere 222 results - either off Wiki or else in Italian. 'Kujawsko-Pomorskie' (just English-language sites) - a crushing 281,000 results.

What's the procedure for changing all these pseudotranslations on Wiki back into Polish, before too many people get confused? --Michaeldembinski 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit the articles and use the Wikipedia:Requests for move when necessary.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Poglish

Please review the article Poglish and decide whether it should be deleted. Thanks. --Nagle 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest deletion. This word simply does not see enough use to merit its own Wikipedia article. Google shows only 61 hits. Most of these are either reproductions of Wikipedia content, or are completely unrelated. This matter properly belongs in a subsection of our Polish language article. Balcer 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And shall we also delete the rest of the family: "Spanglish," "Franglais," "Chinglish," "Czenglish," "Engrish," "Finglish," "Hinglish," "Taglish," "Yinglish" and all the others? logologist|Talk 15:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Spanglish, as Google shows 3,400,000 hits for it! Let me turn this question around: do you propose to create articles on all combinations of [[<insert language here>glish]]? Please move the material in Poglish to a subsection of some other article and change it into a redirect. Wikipedia is not a place for creating or promoting neologisms. Balcer 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Which article? "Polish language"? "English language"? Also, if you look at the "Poglish" discussion page, you'll find that Nagle's original question arose from an initial misunderstanding, not from malice toward the word. logologist|Talk 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Balcer, unless the author can provide some references (I only get 59 Google hits, and not all of them are about the language). There is also the matter of a similar article, Pinglish (Poland). Appleseed (Talk) 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pinglish (Poland)" carries a narrower definition. logologist|Talk 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Googling Pinglish returns around 14,000 results, but except for the occasional Polish forum post, most of it refers to Persian+English. I'm not sure either of these articles should be on WP. Appleseed (Talk) 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perełka

Check [4]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For another one, check Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War 2#Poland. Balcer 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

God's Playground in Google Print

[5]. Good reference source - worth checking often.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Inna perełka

[6] Na podstawie doskonałego opracowania pochądzącego z Carskiej Rosji rok 1912 o Polskich powstaniach :) --Molobo 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

History repeats itself

This represents a dangerous development. Alliances of R. and G. POV pushers have a long, if infamous, tradition outside wiki, and I fear what they may do to this project if not addressed properly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan Piotr, I may answer the question for you: such alliances may salvage Wikipedia from your pet troll Molobo and purge it from some of the worst jingoist propaganda that currently brings the project into disgrace. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"History does not repeat itself except in the minds of those who do not know history." --Khalil Gibran (Sciurinæ 20:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

Let's hope you are right.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That statement seems a little uncalled for. It is better to focus on the topics in dispute than the nationalities of the participating posters. Olessi 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but nonetheless nationalities are important. While most R., G., P. (or whatever) editors are good editors, everybody has some 'black sheeps', and they tend to gravitate to the articles related to that country's history. Therefore I am worried about about the R. or G. black sheep more then French or Japanese, and I will monitor and update 'good' editors on the development in that area, so they know where to concentrater their mediation/NPOVing efforts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, please stop calling me a black sheep and posting other extremely divisive comments. The only "black sheep" here are three chauvinist contributors whose names are too well known to be mentioned. You know that I never edit Poland-related articles when not provoked by Molobo or yourself. If you need to persevere with personal attacks, you are welcome to start a black list on the model of Halibutt's. The practice of calling me names is not helpful at all. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what's helpful is telling people to "fuck off" like you did not too long ago. Space Cadet 12:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla: thank you for admitting that your recent edits of Polish articles are a result of a 'provocation'. Now, can you elaborate a little more on that provocation? It would be helpful if we knew what is it that provokes you so much.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:PolandGov rewrite

I would like to cancel the current text of this template and replace it with the following general but very useful text:

"This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Polish Government. This applies worldwide.
Article 4 of polish copyright law Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 o prawie autorskim i znakach pokrewnych (DZ.U. 1994 NR. 24 poz. 83):
ART.4 The following are not subject to copyright law:
2) goverment documents, materials, signs or symbols
ART.4 Nie stanowią przedmiotu prawa autorskiego:"
2) urzędowe dokumenty, materiały, znaki lub symbole

If I'm not mistaken this law allows us to use freely all materials from Polish goverment websites in a way similar to the Template:USGov. If you know polish see this law yourself Mieciu K 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Comments?

In related news, I have obtained the text of Polish copyright laws from the interwar period - if anybody wants them, let me know and I'll email you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested. Since lex retro non agit the law I hav e mentioned above would only be effctive after 1994 so we should to check the earlier copyright status of "goverment materials" Mieciu K 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The principle of lex retro non agit applies only insofar as the law in question is more restrictive or severe as the previous legal situation. Thus, unless there is an explicit provision exempting pre-1994 materials, the Polish government has released all of them into the public domain, regardless of when they were created. --Thorsten1 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that PolandGov refers to the www.poland.gov portal and not the government of Poland. Sure, it is a governmental site, but the works featured there are not necessarily works of the Polish government. In fact most of those at the WWII portal of that site are definitely not creations of any governmental agency. //Halibutt 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you update us on the progress in saving this template?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

New category

A new Category:East Prussia was just created. I would think Category:Historical East Prussia would be a better name. Any other ideas? Balcer 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Renaming it "Historical East Prussia" would imply that there is a "Modern East Prussia" as well, which obviously is not the case. Unlike Silesia, which still exists as a geographical entity, Prussia has thoroughly disappeared from people's cognitive maps. That's why "Historical East Prussia" makes about as much sense as "Historical Roman Empire". --Thorsten1 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am somewhat unhappy with the current name of this category, and with the category in general no matter what name we place it under, as it seems to be opening a new can of worms. Try to imagine for a moment if one started a trend of creating new categories to group cities of various defunct territorial or political units. By this token, all the cities in India would be placed in Category:British India, many cities in Lithuania would get into category Category:Vilnius Voivodship, many cities in Europe could go under the category Category:Roman Empire etc etc. I hope you see the potential problem. Balcer 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the category when I found a red link for it at Giżycko added over a year ago. I personally don't care if the category is called "East Prussia", "Historical East Prussia", "Prussian province of East Prussia", "Eastern Prussia", or variations thereof, but I do think it is an informative category to have. Keep in mind, there are already in existence categories for historical regions (a quick glance provides Category:Transylvania, Category:Bukovina, Category:Bessarabia, Category:Galicia (Central Europe)). While those have mostly been general geographic regions as opposed to a specific geographic entity like East Prussia, individual cities are listed within those categories. Would you prefer listing cities in Category: Prussia, or would you be opposed to that, as Prussia does not currently "exist" as a geographic entity? My interest in this is primarily to have a category documenting the localities and articles connected with the historical geographic region of Prussia (West and East Prussia), although I personally would find a detailed categorization of the administrative regions of the Kingdom of Prussia informative as well. And, as I am generally an inclusionist, I would probably find your suggested categories informative, but I can see how others would disagree. Olessi 03:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me change tack slightly here and think ahead a little bit. Consider this: there are about 42,000 villages in Poland. In the near future each one of them will get an article on English Wikipedia (most already have bot generated articles on Polish Wikipedia). Roughly speaking, that will give a total of around 3000 articles (1/16 of total) about Polish cities, towns and villages on the territory of former East Prussia. Do you think it would be reasonable to classify them all in Category:East Prussia? It is a rhethorical question: of course not. Under that scenario the category would contain very little useful information for any reader interested in East Prussia, while at the same time it would probably irk some Polish editors to see the name of East Prussia attached to articles about thousands of Polish villages (as invariably some Wikipedian will, sooner or later, attempt to append that category to all those articles). And of course soon after that Molobo or somebody like him will roll out Category:Slavic lands in Germany or something similar and attempt to attach it to most cities and villages in Eastern Germany, possibly founded by Slavs in the early Middle Ages. Surely you can see what kind of a nightmare that would become.

The most reasonable solution to this I can see is to simply expand the article on East Prussia, and include an extensive section (or a separate article) on the territorial division of the province. Even an article with title List of cities and village of East Prussia would do the job nicely, and hopefully avoid potential problems I have just outlined. Now this list of cities or of villages may be classified under the East Prussia category, but the individual cities and villages should not be. Balcer 04:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(I was writing this while you were adding a few changes to your initial response) Your rationale does make sense. If instead of individual localities, the "East Prussia" category consisted of the historical districts (Kreise), and the individual locality articles had links to the appropriate Kreise article, would that be ok? For instance, the German wiki's de:Kategorie:Westpreußen has miscellaneous articles connected to West Prussia, as well as the subcategory de:Kategorie:Ehemaliger Landkreis in Westpreußen (Former rural districts in West Prussia). That subcategory has the individual administrative districts (not the individual localities). In the main Westpreußen category, there are some localities like Gdańsk, Bydgoszcz, and Malbork, but they are included there because they were, I believe, district-free cities and the exception. Olessi 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your proposal, Olessi. It will avoid most of the potential problems I described. Balcer 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible approach. And I think we should get rid of the Galicia category. Appleseed (Talk) 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the individual localities from the category and will (eventually) try list the districts instead. Olessi 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend adding some guideline to the category (what is it for, what should NOT be added there, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Culmerland

Could someone research and prepare the data about Culmerland? MG argues this was Prussian territory, while I always thought this was a) territory of mixed Polish-Prussian influences b) it was inside Polish state since at least Boleslaw Chrobry, and was inhabited by Slavic tribes earlier... Books, preferably monographies are the best. WWW links are imho useless. Szopen 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Needed:Lech Wałęsa photo

It's terrible, but we don't have any good photo to put in the Solidarity article. All we have is too old, and none of it is too good (especially after the copyright paranoia people deleted most of the TIME covers :( Copyleft photos needed! Also, more photos for Solidarity article (which I am slowly moving toward a PR/FAC level) would be appreciated!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about these?Space Cadet 02:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• File:Lechu.JPG
• File:Lech Walesa Time.jpg
• File:Lechu z robolami.jpg

Great, but this TIME cover is not really GDFL - you should be more careful with the tags (I corrected it - let's see how many minites will it take before it will be deleted, eh...). Anyway, thanks for such a quick reply. Could you add captions to the pictures (date, etc.)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Article names for old Polish titles (kanclerz, etc.)

Regarding titles from Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I think we need some rule, and Wikipedia:Naming convention (titles) is no help here. Should we go with [[kanclerz]] or [[Chancellor (Poland)|chancellor]]? Kanclerz is shorter, Chancellor is English. As W:NC state that we should concentrate on making Wiki more user-friendly than editor-friendly, I am begining to think that the second option is better, but I think may merit further discussion. Also, the problem appears because some title are untranslatable (starost), sound strange even after translation (voivode) or are so different from the original that Polish users would be confused (koniuszy - Equerry, stolnik - Pantler.) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is always the option to use both: kanclerz (chancellor). Titles that use more rare English words (I had never seen the word pantler before today) should certainly not be English only. (Is stolnik similar/equivalent to de:Mundschenk, by the way?). Articles with many titles will look messy with double naming, though. Kusma (討論) 04:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where a suitable translation exists, I think we should use it. "Chancellor (Poland)", "equerry", "voivode", and "pantler" all fit the bill. You don't hear about pantlers very often, but I checked dictionary.com and m-w.com, and they both list it. Appleseed (Talk) 14:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding equerry, I think this is a wrong translation and we should go with Master of the Horse (see discussion).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would go with:

• "Chancellor (Poland)," to distinguish from other "chancellors," making the article specific to Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth;
• specific English equivalents for the Polish "starosta," which may vary with the Polish word's multifarious applications ("starosta" is the Polish for "elder," i.e. a senior person or functionary);
• "governor" for the Polish "wojewoda" (governor of a "województwo," or "province"; for a discussion of "województwo" as "province," please see my remarks in "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland," under "Expert opinion");
• "equerry (Poland)" for the Polish "koniuszy," if the term is used for "an officer charged with supervision of the horses belonging to a royal or noble household" or, as in present-day Britain, for "a personal attendant to [a] royal household." "Master of the Horse" seems to mean pretty much the same thing, but is clunkier than "Equerry."

logologist|Talk 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish Category

Hey, czesc! I just wanted to mention that I made a category for Polish Wikipedians! If you would like to join, please go here

Category:Polish Wikipedians

If this is irrelevant on this talk page then please feel free to delete. Thank You! User:Wikieizor 1 April 2006

Tnx for the info, I have added this to {{User Poland}}.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem on Polish Wikipedia (Antypolonizm)

A certain administrator has made serious changes to the article on antypolonizm, subsequently deleting any changes made by other users ("NPOV" of course masquearading as the main reason) and ignoring any kind of discussion, going as far as to block his own essay regarding the subject. Could someone help me out? There are some really abusive admins over there, all the more harmful since they completely change the context of articles, terrorising other users into inaction through their misunderstanding of NPOV policy. I am waiting for administrator opinions, though I know it may be wishful thinking. Anyway, thanks for any input or help on the subject. 5.0

PS I guess Hitler was reading some Polish right-wing newspapers full of political slogans (themselves responding to anti-semitism) and that influenced his outlook on Poles. I ask you, what was before Jedwabne? What do you call the persecution of Poles on racial, cultural, etc. grounds for centuries before? Who does he think he is anyway?

Regarding your first point, I replied at pl:Dyskusja Wikipedii:Administratorzy. I am not sure I understand your second point (para). PS. Please create an account if you plan to talk here in the future - it helps identify who is speaking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Need help

This is not a specific to Wikipedia, but I am a regular Wikipedian and thought to ask fellow Wikipedians. I would like to contact a museum in Poland: http://www.wilanow-palac.art.pl about an item of Polish heritage from the late 18th/early 19th century that is in my possession. Specifically I believe it may have once belonged to Artur Potocki (1787-1832), it has his family crest and initials on it. The museum seems to have other pieces from the same family online. I need help with an email to the Museum as I do not speak Polish. Would anyone be interested in helping me in contacting the museum? I'm in the USA and have no idea how our family came into possession of it. -- Stbalbach 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Try sending them an email at this adress dzialsztuki@wilanow-palac.art.pl - it is their "arts departament" they are suposed to be educated people so somebody there will probably speak english. And by the way what do you intend to do with this item sell it, donate it, keep it? Mieciu K 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried emailing all your suggestions and never heard back. I don't think it's worth much (perhaps a few hundred dollars on ebay), but if it has any value to a museum or family I would be happy to donate it. I believe it's probably part of a larger collection that was dispersed at some point in time. -- Stbalbach 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish soccer (football) in late 1930s

Hi this is Tymek 02:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Right now I am working on my project about all things connected with Polish football in the late 1930s Whowever wants to add up something - you are welcome Starting point for me is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Roster_in_World_Cup_Soccer_France_1938

I have just started so I have just described players who took part in 1938 World Cup game vs Brazil I am planning to write about more players, about Polish football team in 1936 Berlin Olympics, about 1939 game vs Hungary and far more stuff

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw

Heads up. It seems that an article that started out as a relatively neutral take on a controversial building is now being turned into a propaganda piece by User:Ghirlandajo and User:Irpen. Balcer 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, if you think that by recruiting revert warriors and making them troll like this, you will spread your POV around Wikipedia, you are wrong. The Wikipedia law: once you start POV-pushing in one place, you will encounter symmetrical response in scores of other articles. Please think twice before posting divisive comments next time, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going on record and practically admitting that you are engaged in a campaign of WP:Point edits. It will come very handy in case of any future WP:RfC. Balcer 12:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please don't start a slander. This board had already seen its share. In what way was I turning this into a propaganda? My edit was explained at talk. When you made a sourced objection, I modified my edit. It was Molobo, who turned the article into propaganda by a hasty copying info from an external site without even bothering to copyedit and integrate his text into an existing article. --Irpen 10:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that before you started conversing on the talk page, you and Ghirlandajo first reverted me 3 times without making any comments on the talk page, and accused me of vandalism. So your claim that you "explained yourself in talk" is not exactly chronologically truthful, though I do appreciate that eventually you entered the discussion and attempted to tone down your version. Obviously, as I ran against the 3RR limit and the skewed POV was still there, I made a quick note here so that other people interested in the subject could comment. My comment above was made at a very specific time, and referred specifically to this diff which you were repeatedly making. Now, this is my personal opinion only of course, but I believe that when you inserted this text, you were not guided by objectivity and neutrality. Rather, through your twisted choice of words, you were trying to make the destruction of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw into an event of epic significance with worldwide implications, which it clearly was not. Furthermore, you tried to make the article into an object lesson about Poland's hypocrisy, which is definitely POV. You might convince yourself that you had other reasons, but to an outside observer your motivations seem obvious Balcer 12:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer we need to find a sentence about how the "unruly" Poles didn't know how benevolent the Tsar was in granting them this wonderfull object of art. Sadly the civilising mission of Russia in Poland failed when in outburst of typical Polish Catholic barbarity and Russophobia Poles destroyed this wonder of the world. I am sure Ghirla and Irpen will find necessary sources confirming this. --Molobo 10:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I did not accuse you in vandalism. I started "conversing at the talk page", as you put it, at once when you started conversing instead of just removing the text that seemed to you inappropriate.

As long as you were removing the text and justified your removal in the edit summaries only, I restored it back and explained why in edit summaries too. Once you started to ask at talk page, I immediately responded. Please don't start a series of unwarranted accusations what were my true reasons. My reasons are explained at talk as well. You might know them better then myself. Than there is no point to argue here since what I say doesn't matter if you convinsed yourself that you know the true answers already.

Once you brought it here, we've got Molobo with Space Cadet and there will soon be more people. The article will turn to an edit war with the prevailing side to be just the one with more friends to do reverts. I think this is worse for an article than the disagreement we had, especially since it was being discussed. It will take much longer to get certain individuals calm down so that the article would leave the rv war cycle and be returned to a normal editing mode. --Irpen 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The text you and Ghirlandajo reverted to 3 times ([7], [8], [9]) was not just inappropriate, it was blatantly incorrect. Nowhere in the Polish constitution of 1921 was there any explicit mention of Poland's commitment to Christian ideals [10]. Keep in mind that agreeing to stop inserting false information is not a compromise, it is simply the correct thing to do. As to your intentions, I leave it to each Wikipedian to make up his/her mind.

As for more people editing the article, since when has that been a problem? I always thought that this is the whole point of Wikipedia: the more people edit, the more balanced and neutral the article will become, at least in the long term. In that light, I must disagree with your argument that some people have to be somehow kept out from editing articles. Balcer 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, you plainly twisted every word I said above. I thought you could do better than that. --Irpen 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, may I suggest you avoid ad hominem and reply to Balcer's points? Btw, what does User:Alex Bakharev, who contributed much to that article, has to say?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the ad hominem, Piotrus? Have you heard of a straw man logic? I don't need to defend things that I haven't said. If you want me to elaborate and explain how Balcer's statements about my views are wrongly inferred from them, I could do that especially for you. I don't need to defend the positions that I never actually took, like that additional editors is bad and/or what are my intent (besides one can never prove an intent). Still, if you are interested, I will elaborate on my intent if you feel like you don't know them and would like to find out.

As for the article's discussion, it belongs to an article talk page. Oh, and while you are at an ad hominem topic, have a word with your wikifriend. This edit summary was nothing but an attempt to get on my nerves (though unsuccesfull this time). Regards, --Irpen!

Józef Zajączek

Ghirlandajo readds false information the the article, mainly that he was "the first and last" prince of Poland. I don't know where he found the information(I will it is in one guess one of the XIX century Imperial Russian books our Russian contributors like to quote), but the information is false as brothers of Poniatowski had that title. Please correct this false information: [11] --Molobo 10:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this time Ghirla is right. His edit is referenced [12], and it was me who added that particular point. Note that according to the source he was not just a 'prince' but a 'prince of Poland'. He was certainly not the first or last prince, but I find it likely he might have been the first and last 'prince of Poland'. Perhaps we can elaborate more on the title to make it not as confusing. Finding what was his title in Polish and Russian would help - it is possible the source is mistaken, or it is possible the title was indeed unique.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments appreciated

At Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Old Swiss Confederacy. Granted, it's not Poland related per se, but I think it should not be equaled to such FAs as PLC or History of Poland (1945-1989). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

On damages made by Soviet Occupation inflicted on Poland: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn/4/biuletyn4_51.html http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn/13/biuletyn02_2.html In Polish. Perhaps I shall translate and create article on that. Meanwhile Polish users and editors working are welcome to use the information. --Molobo 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Molobo blocked for a month

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is high time for that. Molobo's actions were casting a black pall over all Polish editors on Wikipedia writing on historical topics, and generated a lot of ill will. I am somewhat surprised that we ourselves could not bring him to order and it required an action by an admin.

Molobo's absence should be a good opportunity to go over most of the articles he distorted in a more neutral spirit and create versions everybody can live with, hopefully ending the multi-national revert wars that have become an epidemic lately. Balcer 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I only wonder what would happen to the good ol' Molobo and his friends argument once Molobo himself is out on a forced leave. Will our fellow RGB editors change it to some other argument? Did anyone of us earned an equally bad reputation in order to replace Molobo as the scapegoat? I only fear it's going to be me... :) //Halibutt 18:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have not followed his edit close enough. I really thought he was not that bad, but if even you, Balcer, are glad to be rid of him, I guess I'll have to seriously think about that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A to temu zaczął spurować na pl-wiki, naja :P Już jesteśmy z nim w zaawansowanej dyskusji o śląskości ;) D_T_G (PL) 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of Category:World War II ships of Poland

Hello! Just wanted to let you all know that I have started a cleanup and standardization effort of Category:World War II ships of Poland and its subcategories. Feel free to stop by and join in! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Czeski Cieszyn

Cześć. Moglibyście zajrzeć na artykuł o Czeskim Cieszynie? Jakiś wandal stale kłócił się ze mną i w końcu dodał tam szablon NPOV. Chciałbym znać wasze zdanie, czy myślicie, że artykuł jest naprawdę nieobjektywny. Dzięki. Jeśli uważacie, że artykuł jest objektywny, to poprostu usuńcie ten szablon. -- Darwinek 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is about Český Těšín, and possibly also about History of Cieszyn and Těšín.--Austrian 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Although this is a Polish Wikipedians noticeboard, our preffered language is English (as to not estrange other contributors interested in Poland but not knowning Polish). Could you translate your message? Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Hi. Could you look at Czeski Cieszyn article? Some vandal still fighted with me and finally he placed the NPOV template there. I would like to know your opinion, if you think that the article is really subjective. Thanks. If you think like me, that it is just ok, feel free to remove that tag. -- Darwinek 09:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename Polish September Campaign to Invasion of Poland?

See Talk:Polish_September_Campaign#Invasion_of_Poland_1939 and comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename Władysław II Jagiełło to Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania

Please comment at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło to stop this monstrosity from happening.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)