Talk:Military Administration in Poland

Title and recent move

We seem to have a similar problem here to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Following a recent unilateral move, we now have a capitalised, short-form title that purports to be, and which the article text asserts as, some kind of official, proper name for this entity/structure. However, again, there is very little evidence that this is the case. A Google Books search reveals a pretty small number of examples of this phrase – and even then only as a lower-case formulation, used in a generic, descriptive sense. Several of the references are in fact, unsurprisingly, to the period of martial law in communist Poland in the 1980s. Hence, this title appears to fail as any of official name, common name OR precise/clear descriptive name. If we're looking for the latter, the previous title was at least clearer and imparted more information. N-HH talk/edits 12:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see references and justification for the title, too. Even the search for German "Militärverwaltung in Polen" doesn't seem to yield too many relevant results. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well here's a bunch of German sources [1], and English sources [2] (I checked before I moved). This was almost certainly an official entity, just like any other German Militärverwaltung. It had a military commander (Militärbefehlshaber) and a staff. Establishing such entities is simply the "standard" thing Germany did at that time in areas that were slated for Wehrmacht control. -- Director (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The very small number of English sources cited there are pretty much the ones I found. My points about generic, non-capitalised descriptions, the lack of clarity and the risk of confusion with the 1980s all still apply and remain unanswered. And even if you can find evidence of the occasional use of a formal title of this sort in some contexts – which we haven't yet – it's not clear we should be using such a title out of such narrow contexts, in a generalist encyclopedia. On the basis of the evidence and logic here, we could start creating similar titles for military formations and units that call them "The Troops of the General", or call local council areas in modern countries "The Jurisdiction of the Local Authority Chief Executive". N-HH talk/edits 23:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is significantly different from Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, as Poland existed as an independent country immediately before it was occupied by the Germans, after which part of it was annexed to the Reich and part of it became the territory ruled by the General Government. So one of the significant factors in the current title of the other article does not apply here at all (ie the bogus "Serbia" that did not exist immediately prior to the invasion and occupation). Characterising it as "unilateral" is unnecessarily pejorative and smacks of an attempt to conflate the move of this article with that of the other one. However, that is not the matter at hand here, and I do not support DIREKTOR's good-faith move to this title. I am sure that if the consensus is that it should be returned to its previous title, DIREKTOR will accept that. I would suggest that no-one undertake any similar moves of Wehrmacht occupied territories while this matter is being discussed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the issue is: are we using a descriptive title, or an official title? If official, as DIREKTOR suggests, we need references for that, and unfortunately the English one he linked is just a google book search for that term, and all results I see there suggest it is simply a descriptive title. Now, this does not imply the move was invalid; in fact the current title may be fine - but let's make it clear whether we are talking about a general concept, or a particular, official name. I am fine with the move if it was to make the title more descriptive, but I am not fine with it if there is a claim it was moved to a "more official" title, at least not until better refs are shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the relevance of the point about Serbia-not-an-independent-country, and hence the distinction, is debatable and has never been properly explained, as opposed to merely asserted. In addition the directly equivalent "Military Administration in Serbia" is one of the other names that has been floated there; but all that is of course a matter for that page. The issue here is nonetheless part of that broader problem, which afflicts many of these related pages – that of obscure and unclear terminology and/or generic phrasings, both of which are found in very few sources, suddenly being elevated into formal "official" titles on WP. Sometimes that comes with added WP:OR-style debates about what alternative titles "mean" or "imply" and whether they are NPOV, when this is all irrelevant. As ever, the question is simple - how do serious sources commonly refer to these areas and administrative set-ups, either in terms of a) a genuinely formal and official, possibly capitalised, name; or b) a more general explanatory and descriptive one? On this page at least, it seems we should probably undo the move (which was indeed unilateral, as noted) and revert to the previous b)-style title of "German military administration in occupied Poland". If the current one is meant to be official, which seems to be the claim, we in fact have no evidence for it; if it's meant to be descriptive, it's lacking in much of the description needed. N-HH talk/edits 00:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving "Serbia" to one side, the general problem with all these articles in my view is the idea that we are using a descriptive term/official title/common name for the governance arrangements as an article title when they are all actually about a defined occupied territory. It just seems counter-intuitive to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait a sec, how about merging the article into Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)? Is this really WP:NOTE? -- Director (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily about WP:NOTE. This article is a content fork of an article with a lot of content forks. The question to my mind is whether this content fork is necessary. It's barely start-class and pretty small, I'd suggest that it could be merged into the other article on that basis, because once the unnecessary background is removed, there won't be that much to merge. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Object to merge. The topic of German military administration on Polish territories is certainly notable on its own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

what about on the basis that it is an unnecessary content fork? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I mean had this institution/entity/state of affairs lasted more than a month or so, it might be justified, but things being what they are.. -- Director (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Seems notable enough to deserve its own entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Um.. why? Care to back that up with any argumentation? I mean, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a guideline. And guidelines ought to be followed.

The way I see it there's two possibilities: 1) this was a historical entity (and thus might deserve its own article), or 2) its an article about the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), a fork. Imo there's no way we can justify with policy keeping an occupation article on about a month's time, when there's an entire article on that occupation already. -- Director (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is about an entity, or a series of them; pretty clearly defined. Unlike the occupation article, which is about a process, and has a much larger scope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. This administration only existed for a very short period of time, and the content of this article could easily be integrated into the section Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)#Occupation, annexation and administration. There is little more that could be added to this article as it was so short-lived. It seems to me that there is one summary article Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) with two major and completely justified content forks General Government and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@Piotrus, well if this is an article about a historical entity: then we need the official name (unless there's a more common colloquial name, which I entirely doubt), and the infobox. Otherwise, if this is a period article about the Occupation of Poland, then it needs to be merged. -- Director (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Certain entities can exist under a descriptive name. If you want to redirect it, go through AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

so, are you saying it is a content fork but it should stay as a separate article? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: we're not proposing deletion. Merging is not discussed via AfDs. -- Director (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a content fork at all. Anyway, with regard to the name, it seems like no one's brought up the common sense fact that this new name is, well, misleading.

Given that the new name does appear to be controversial, how about moving it back to where it was and having the discussion under a standard "requested move" procedure?  Volunteer Marek  08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One other thing, how long the official administration lasted, by itself, is irrelevant for WP:NOTE. There's nothing in the guidelines about any time limits. Notability is determined by other factors, such as coverage in sources.

Furthermore, while Wikipedia:Content forking advises against redundant content forks, which is not what we have here, it is perfectly fine with spinout articles. So the guideline is in fact being followed. Volunteer Marek  09:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is this:

• If this article is about a military occupation entity (as Piotrus says, and as was my original assumption) - then we can keep the article, while the current title and infobox are imo plainly more appropriate and justified (in addition to most likely being more common in sources).
• If, however, this article is about a period in Polish history, i.e. one month or so of the occupation of the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), then its clearly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as we already have a very nice article that covers the period far more appropriately. In such a case a merge would probably be the best course of action.

All I'm saying is wee need to make up our minds regarding what this is. I'm perfectly fine with keeping this article if its about an entity, but not if its about a month-long period. -- Director (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeating myself ad nauseum, this article is about the entity, not a period of history. But this does not mean that its current title is perfect; while I think it is about as descriptive as the previous one is, you still have not provided any sources to prove to me or anyone else it is the official name. So please, stop reacting to requests for sources by straw maning a notability question, and provide them, or drop the issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend meclizine for nausea :). Didn't I post anything? [3] I don't think there are any English-language sources which explain explicitly which was the official name of this very short-lived entity, but German-language sources abound. -- Director (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the move was controversial, the proper thing to do is to move it back and start a "requested move" discussion. Volunteer Marek  19:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm following BRD. I'm not going to revert myself, since I think its a good move, but if someone does - I'm certainly not going to insist. If this is an entity, though, I think this is a title for an entity. -- Director (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)