Wikipedia

Talk:Voivodeships of Poland/Archive 1

< Talk:Voivodeships of Poland
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Nihil novi in topic Province: a summary
Archive 1Archive 2

Wikiproject

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Voivodships some time ago to settle the naming conventions for Polish Voivodships, powiats/counties and gmina/communes. Please participate. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:11, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Voivodship? It should be Province!

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It is undesirable to use foreign words in English text where there is an English equivalent, or near to it, as this only confuses those unfamiliar with the term. "Voivodship" is not a word traditionally used in English histories of Poland, and is unfamiliar to English speakers. Moreover, it is ineptly formed as an English word: the suffix "-ship" denotes a condition or state (as in "friendship"), or office (as in "Charles came to the kingship by succession") or skill (as in "his chairmanship has been excellent" or "his scholarship is faulty from time to time" or "his batsmanship was poor in the second innings"); it never means an organisation or area [see for example Chambers' Dictionary on this]. Until recent years, when eight or nine "regions" have been established, there have been no administrative areas within England larger than the "county". So where these exist in other countries English tends to use "province", a word hallowed by history since the Roman Empire (though there are exceptions). It is true that the OED cites three examples of the word "voivodship" from the 18th and 19th centuries, but these are very obscure. On the understanding that the purpose of writing is to communicate, it is better to use a familiar term such as 'province' which is both readily understandable and unambiguous. If in doubt, then a brief note (eg "the area under the jurisdiction of a voivode") could be inserted in parenthesis after the first use of the term "province". Mark O'Sullivan 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "voivodship" is present only in one dictionary, namely Jan Stanisławski's dictionary. A real english word should be present in many dictionaries. And in at least one english dictionary. Try to search for it in any english dictionary and you'll see that it's just absent. For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voivodship

Even if you want to derive it from word "voivod" (in Polish: "wojewoda"), you should translate it as "voivod's area" or "voivod's own land". The word "voivodship" would mean something like "being a voivod" which is not relevant to a part of a country, because "voivod" is a man, not a land.

Many languages have their own versions of word "province", so does Polish. But there is no reason to say "voivodship" while it means just "province".

I suggest changing the word "voivodship" into word "province", which is a real english word. If you want to indicate its polish origin, write: "Province (województwo)". And you can explain that "województwo" comes from "voivod". --Wahwah 10:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. What for?
  2. Why?
  3. Did you forget of paper dictionaries?
  4. Also, the term is actually being used ([1]). contrary to your proposed "Province (województwo)"
  5. I can see only one pro of promoting province over voivodship: the latter has two alternative spellings.

--Halibutt 11:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Voivodship is used in English language. I asked a professional translator about it some time ago. Google shows 81,500 hits, and 31,500 hits for vovideship (and this is english word, not Polish - Polish is województwo). Google define has one defintion other then Wiki - which is more then for some English words. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:04, 21 June 2005 (UTC)


Pros

I'll try to provide some pros.

1: Is it really english word?

First let's take a look if this word really exists in english language.

  1. Webster Unabridged online: negative ([2])
  2. Merriam-webster online: negative ([3])
  3. Polish expert answers this question: negative (in polish) ([4])
  4. Nowy słownik Fundacji Kościuszkowskiej, polish paper dictionary: negative ([5]); the review notices the fact that in this dictionary word województwo is correctly translated, as province
  5. Cambridge online dictionary: negative ([6])
  6. Polish dictionary at www.onet.pl: gives both, and province as the first meaning ([7])
  7. Pocket Langenscheidt (paper): negative

Conclusion: it's not a native english word.

Hi! I found this page on WP:RFC and it got me curious. I'm not sure this changes the conclusion, but it at least was an English word at one point in time. The 2nd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary has two entries, "Voivode" and "Voivodeship" (both sic).
The latter has two senses, "The district or province governed by a voivode" and "the office or dignity of a voivode". There are no citations for either later than the 19th century but the entry is not marked historical or archaic. "Voivodship" is not listed as an alternative spelling but "woywod-" and "woiwod-" both are.
"Voivode" is listed as a synonym for "Vaivode", whose single sense is " A local ruler or official in various parts of south-eastern Europe (in older use esp. in Transylvania)." This entry is listed as historical. — mendel ☎ 05:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

2: What's the origin of this word?

The history of this infamous word is as follows:

  1. Polish word "województwo" has two meanings: (1) property or land of a voivode and (2) idea of being a voivod.
  2. Jan Stanisławski makes up a translation of this word (using meaning (2)?) and gets it printed
  3. Stanisławski's dictionary is the only one printed to contain a translation of this word, so everybody starts using it
I want to dispute the origin of the word. I think the roots may not be Polish, but Slavic. The Serbian language has the military title which was used from the XIX century until WWII named Vojvoda (means general), and Veliki Vojvoda (grand Vojvoda which is equivalent to field marshal). The Northern province is named Vojvodina (land of a Vojvoda, or of many Vojvodas), and when it left the Austro-Hungarian Empire to join Serbia after WWI, it was called Vojvodstvo Srpsko i Baranja. In a modern context, the english word Duke is translated into Serbian as Vojvoda, even though this differes from the earlier meaning. So I'm guessing that Vojvodstvo comes from Vojvoda which comes from Vojevati (to wage war). The fact that the same word exists in these two languages probably means that the root is Slavic, not Polish, and we should see it in other languages too. In fact, when you look at the English wiki page on Archduke if you check the links to other slavic languages you'll see that the title is translated to Nadvojvoda in Serbian and Bosnian (not really a language, but ok), Arcivojvoda in Slovakian and Arcivevoda in Czech. On the other hand - Russian, Ukranian and Bulgarian use different words. Any thoughts? --Nemanja.Ciric

3: Is it really used?

I performed a Google search: I looked from pages in .pl domain, in english, containing the word "voivodship" and "province". The results are:

  1. voivodship: 24700 ([8])
  2. province: 94100 ([9])

Please note that at least top results come with the names of certain provinces, like "Łódzkie province" or "Lubelskie province".

Conclusion: word "province" is also widely used in the same meaning as "voivodship" on Polish websites.

Perhaps this will clarify this matter: it is a translation of a Polish term, invented by Poles and used by all Polish official documents in English. I see no reason to restrict our search to .pl domain, and searching for "voivodeship+province" may yeld many pages with use one for Polish districts and other for non-Polish. The translator I spoke to sais that correct translations of Polish text into English use the term voivodship with a note (I will quote it here soon). Bottom line is that this term exists in English languege and is correct in it's current usage on Wikipedia - i.e. Polish province should be reffered as Polish voivodship.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For me it didn't clarify this matter. You say that this term exists in english language, while it obviously doesn't. You're Polish, thus biased. Maybe an english native speakers and/or language experts (but not polish!) should have a say? And about Googling: Mazowieckie is the most popular province, so let's try to look for it together with "voivodship" and "province". The results are: Mazowieckie+voivodship ([10]): 552 results. Mazowieckie+province ([11]): 1090 results. In conclusion, the word "province" is used more often than "voivodship" in context of polish province. Anyway, are polish provinces so different from provinces in other countries that they need a different word?--Wahwah 21:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not so much that Polish provinces need a different word. Many different countries have their own names for provinces. The French régions, Japanese prefectures etc. This is described on Wikipedia in: Subnational entity. Chelman 13:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Update. 'The guy named Stanisławowski is in fact Jan Stanisławski, a famous Polish linguist [12]. So as you can see, there is some authoirty behind the word voivodeship. And from the mentioned translator, I got this clarification: "TRANSLATOR’S REMARK: voivodship is an administrative unit of Poland, comparable to a province (for example an official (in documents) English version of 'wojewodztwo śląskie' is 'Śąskie voivodship' In other (literature, ect.) publications a version "Silesian Voivodship' may be used as well.; voivode is a head officer of the voivodship according to the administrative division of Poland, the term 'powiat' can be compared to ditric/county. The smalest unit is 'gimna' - this is Polish word used in English (with its plural form " gminas)." Those tranlations are recommended by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs as recommended terminology (see also loanword), and when used, often require an explantion (such as the above translator's remark). As you can see, voivideship is the most correct term for Polish provinces. For their difference from others, see voivodeship. As much as I love standarisation, the fact is there are lots of countries with lots of different names for their provinces - states, county, district, land, etc. Why do you want to deny Poles the right to introduce their own loanword? Finally, I am quite sure your meanings and etymology of the word 'województwo' is wrong (as voivode never ever owned a voivodship) - at least in their present meaning; I will have to check their etymology in Słownik Języka Polskiego. PS. You're Polish, thus biased, LOL, you have been reading meta:How to deal with Poles? Please, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, let's keep it civil. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I checked the link about Stanisławski and let me quote the website: Until recently Polish-English translators had to do with Jan Stanisławski's The Great English-Polish and Polish-English Dictionary or The Kosciuszko Foundation English-Polish and Polish-English Dictionary, both of which were published in the late '50s or early '60s. For nearly forty years they were the largest source of reference, although not always a reliable one due to errors/omissions and a lapse of time.. Isn't the voivodship likely to be one of those errors? The new edition of the other mentioned dictionary (Kosciuszko Foundation Dictionary) translates województwo as province. Now, let's talk about what is a translation. If you translate a polish text into english language, you write english text with the same meaning as polish. It means that you want to use existing english grammar and existing english words. You don't invent the words! You look in the english dictionary, find the right word and use it. Writing voivodship for województwo is like writing thank you from the mountain for dziękuję z góry (thanks in advance).--Wahwah 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Write the the Polish Ministry of Foreigh Affairs, perhaps they will change their mind, it would much ease our trubles. Until then, I will stick with the official Polish guidelines, as every single self-respecting translator (read: people who deal with translation on professional basis) does. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they seem not to stick with their own guidelines. When searching their website for discussed words, we get 315 results for word province ([13]) while keyword voivodship returns only 60 documents ([14]). Can you explain that?--Wahwah 22:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ministry of FOREIGN Affairs beign, well, of FOREIGN Affairs, it is quite possible they use the term province when talking about non-Polish units of administration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let the Ministry of Foreign Affairs speak for itself.

  • Dolnośląskie 0:0 (draw)
  • Kujawsko-pomorskie 0:5 (province wins, [15], [16])
  • Lubelskie 0:2 (province wins, [17], [18])
  • Lubuskie 3:7 (province wins, [19], [20])
  • Łódzkie 0:0 (draw)
  • Małopolskie 0:0 (draw)
  • Opolskie 0:0 (draw)
  • Podkarpackie 0:5 (province wins, ([21], [22])
  • Podlaskie 3:12 (province wins, [23], [24])
  • Pomorskie 4:9 ([25], [26])
  • Śląskie 0:0 (draw)
  • Świętokrzyskie 2:0 (voivodship wins, [27], [28])
  • Warmińsko-mazurskie 0:0 (draw)
  • Wielkopolskie 2:3 (province wins, [29], [30])
  • Zachodniopomorskie 0:2 (province wins, [31], [32])

I performed a statistical test to check if there are reasons to say that word province is more often used than voivodship. Here is the data and the results: 

> P
                    voivodship province
Dolnośląskie                 0        0
Kujawsko-pomorskie           0        5
Lubelskie                    0        2
Lubuskie                     3        7
Łódzkie                      0        0
Małopolskie                  0        0
Opolskie                     0        0
Podkarpackie                 0        5
Podlaskie                    3       12
Pomorskie                    4        9
Śląskie                      0        0
Świętokrzyskie               2        0
Warmińsko-mazurskie          0        0
Wielkopolskie                2        3
Zachodniopomorskie           0        2
> binom.test(cbind(sum(P$voivodship), sum(P$province)), p = 0.5, alternative = 'less')
       Exact binomial test
data:  cbind(sum(P$voivodship), sum(P$province)) 
number of successes = 14, number of trials = 59, p-value = 3.265e-05
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is less than 0.5 
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.0000000 0.3458262 
sample estimates:
probability of success 
            0.2372881

The p-value of 0.00003265 indicates that we can be 99.997% sure that word province is used more often than word voivodship in regard to polish provinces, on website of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.--Wahwah 09:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doubts

Now I'm really confused about it because it seems like this wrong translation is now widely used (lots of hits on Google), so it's difficult or impossible to change it, while I'm really certain that it's really wrong.--Wahwah 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your searches you apparently forgot to check for all variants of the name. For instance, the unit of administrative division in Silesia can be called:
  1. Silesian Voivodship
  2. Silesian Voivodeship
  3. Śląskie Voivodship
  4. Śląskie Voivodeship
  5. Śląsk Voivodship
  6. Śląsk Voivodeship
  7. Slask Voivodship
  8. Slask Voivodeship
  9. Silesia Voivodship
  10. Silesia Voivodeship
  11. Voivodship of Silesia
  12. Voivodeship of Silesia
  13. ... perhaps more...
To get the general idea, compare your search above with the following:
  • Podkarpackie 0:5 (province wins, ([33], [34])
  • Sub-Carpathian 3:1 (voivodship wins, [35], [36])
Anyway, the problem you have with dictionaries is with ambiguity. ALL voivodships are provinces, while not all provinces in the world are voivodships. That's why it is safer to translate the Polish term as province in a dictionary, since it might be used for all cases, while "voivodship" would denote only the Polish traditional unit of administrative division. Get the point? A Pole searching a dictionary for an English equivalent of a Polish voivodship would most likely want to find a universally-applicable version. Halibutt 12:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


By the way, here you have an interesting example of usage of the term province to denote powiat-sized entity. Halibutt 14:11, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Full search of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was so nice to perform a full search on Google, according to Halibutt's suggestions. I checked: "<province> voivodship" and "<province> province" (those two denoted with _1), and "voivodship of <province>" and "province of <province>" (those denoted with _2), for every province, in both polish and english versions of province names. Both "voivodship" and "voivodeship" spellings were taken into consideration. The search results follow:

Now, after summing it up, we have 69 total hits for voivod(e)ship and 123 for province. Statistical test checks if the sample size is big enough to claim that province is used more often than two other words: 

> binom.test(cbind(sum(P$voivodship), sum(P$province)), p = 0.5, alternative = 'less');
       Exact binomial test
data:  cbind(sum(P$voivodship), sum(P$province))
number of successes = 69, number of trials = 192, p-value = 5.949e-05
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is less than 0.5
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.0000000 0.4202916
sample estimates:
probability of success
             0.359375

P-value is very close to zero, indicating that there are reasons to reject hypothesis that voivod(e)ship is used more often than province. With 95% of confidence, we can say that probability of use of word voivodship in any given document regarding polish provinces is between 0 and 0.42. In conclusion, polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs apparently favors word province in regard to polish provinces. --Wahwah 17:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am impressed with the amount of research you did, it is enough for an academic article :) One thing I should clarify: the guideline to use 'voivodeship' is a proposal that is currently being discussed, not an official guideline (yet). Still, as long as this word exists, I prefer to use it - when one hears 'voivideship' one knows instantly it's a Polish province. And note it's not a Wikipedia invention - the over 100,000 worldwide uses of this term show that the harm has been done, it will be hard to put the djinn back in the bottle. Feel free to add some info on this phenomena to the relavant article, and if it's your hobby or professinal area of expertise, try writing an article or something like this (I might have tiem to help you translate and publish it in Polish translator magasine 'Lingua Legis' if you would like). From article on province: In some countries an alternative term is used, such as state (in Australia and the United States), prefecture (in Japan), or region (in France and Italy; the latter uses provincia as a tertiary form of government, akin to a county). Should we insist that state, prefecture, region, etc. are also eliminated? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You say: Still, as long as this word exists, I prefer to use it. What do you mean that this word exists? Maybe it exists in the same way as word "ginormous" does (82500 hits) or "confuzzled" (69,200 hits). But it doesn't exist in any major english dictionary. See one of above sections with dictionary checks. I don't think that there are reasons to claim that "voivodship" is a legitimate english word. Regarding the quotation about alternative terms are used in different countries, please note that terms state, prefecture and region are legitimate english words that can be found in english dictionaries. --Wahwah 18:30, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

The list of results for usage of words voivod(e)ship and province in regard to polish provinces:

Raw results

Statistical test

> binom.test(cbind(sum(P$voivodship), sum(P$province)), p = 0.5, alternative = 'less');
       Exact binomial test
data:  cbind(sum(P$voivodship), sum(P$province))
number of successes = 48224, number of trials = 69356, p-value = 1
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is less than 0.5
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.000000 0.698187
sample estimates:
probability of success
             0.6953111

Statistical test says that there are no resons to reject the hypothesis that word voivod(e)ship is used more often than province on all websites. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted.

Further discussion

These results were not in my favor. The word voivodship is widely used in regard to polish provinces. The whole count of usage of this word is 118,000 ([481]). To summarize:

  • Against voivodship, in favor of province
    • Word voivodship doesn't exist in major english dictionaries
    • Most of english speaking people don't know word voivodship, while they know word province and state
    • Meaning of word voivodship is the same as meaning of word province, and it denotes an administrative region of a country
    • Word province is favored by polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their web publications
  • In favor of voivodship
    • Word voivodship is widely used in regard to polish provinces

--Wahwah 19:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would exclusion of Wikipedia and it's mirrors (if you can filter them out) change the result of your test - note it is better to exlude Wiki when we are discussing use of the word on Wiki, where it is prominent ATM? Another test: use Internet archive or Google advanced tools (if possible) to try to calculate if the usage is getting more common with time (pages by year). Btw, are you doing the analysis in excel (if so, could you send me the xls with formulas, or perhaps make it available for download for more users with a guide 'how to'? I'd love to adapt it to some other wiki-related discussions, and I am sure many other users would find a use for it as well. It could be linked from Wikipedia meta-pages as a general tool. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I will eventually try excluding Wikipedia. I posted my script on my Wikipedia user page so you can see if it's of any help for you. I didn't use Excel anywhere in my research, but the results should be easy to import to Excel. --Wahwah 08:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I found a nice example: Bulgaria: Since 1999 Bulgaria consists of 28 regions (oblasti, singular - oblast), after having been subdivided into 9 provinces since 1987. So they do have their own word for the province, but they don't try to invent anything like obwhast. They just say region or province.--Wahwah 28 June 2005 08:10 (UTC)
Great example :> Introduced by a Dutchman and not revised or discussed since 2003. (because of lack of Bulgarian Wikipedians maybe?) 83.9.19.149 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, Wahwah, I'm really impressed, but it seems you apparently forgot (?) to check the most popular terms. For instance, you checked "voivodship of Greater Poland" (3), "voivodeship of Greater Poland" (8) and "province of Greater Poland" (330), but you apparently forgot to mention the "Greater Poland Voivodship" (659). Halibutt June 30, 2005 13:58 (UTC)
Wrong. I did include it. Look up, I've made a pointer for you. --Wahwah 30 June 2005 14:35 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, now I see it. So, in this case, the Greater Poland Voivodship beats all other options at least 2:1. Also, there is a number of other problems with your searches. For instance, you've searched for "voivodship of Pomeranian" (1 hit) instead of "voivodship of Pomerania" (19 hits). It doesn't change the fact that "province of Pomerania" (1820 hits) still beats it, but large part (if not most) of links are to sites on pre-1918 provinces and not on actual voivodship (established 1921). On the contrary, the "Pomeranian Voivodship" beats them all by a huge margin (5680 hits), and most links seem to be related to be on the actual Polish unit of administrative division and not some 17th century Swedish fief or 19th century Prussian region. Halibutt June 30, 2005 14:55 (UTC)
My searches aren't perfect, that's for sure. They started, when Piotr Konieczny brought the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an authority (after voivodship), and I wanted to check it. The global search was performed to measure (roughly) current usage of this term, and it proved that it's indeed present on many websites. Now, I'd like to put some order in the discussion. My arguments are written above, and I'd like to know what you think about them.--Wahwah 30 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)
  • Against voivodship, in favor of province
  1. The word does exist in some while it doesn't in others. The reason for that might be the one I already mentioned. Anyway, this is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia and the link to an article on voivodship should suffice.
  2. Similarily, most of English speaking people don't know the word conjunctivitis while they do know the word pinkeye. Which doesn't make the latter term any less accurate or less ambiguous
  3. Meaning of word voivodship is not the same as meaning of word province, as I already pointed out above. Shortly: all voivodships are, logically speaking, provinces. Not all provinces are voivodships. It's a simple method, but it easily lets you check whether two words are exact synonyms or not.
  4. Only in some pages, while others use other versions.

--Halibutt June 30, 2005 16:05 (UTC)

This sounds very nice, but it seems to me that in this discussion I am the only one who supports his theses with examples. (1) Which english dictionaries do contain the word voivodship? (3) Which provinces are not voivodships? If you define voivodship as a polish province, then of course not all provinces are voivodships. For example british provinces aren't, because they're british, not polish. But if you define voivodship as an administrative region of a country, then they seem to me the same (any counterexamples?), because province is an administrative region of a country ([482]). (4) Piotr Konieczny mentioned the Ministry as an authority in this matter and even though they use also term voivodship, they seem to prefer word province. Are there any other authorities available?--Wahwah 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
The way the discussion goes is probably due to the fact that there are only two polish people involved, who vote for using a polish term, and others just don't care about polish administration regions. I think I said everything I had to say in this matter. It's up to you now, if you're going to do anything about it or not. --Wahwah 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
You need to start a discussion on related page if you want to keep the {{moveoptions}} template. Alternatively, you may want to ask for comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
To Wahwah:
Which dictionaries contain the word? For instance Webster's Online and Onet.pl. Also ling.pl, dict.pl (which also uses district as a synonym to it), perhaps more. I must admit I didn't check all of my dictionaries and used only those available online.
Webster's definition of voivodship comes from Wikipedia! I consider this argument invalid. Alternative spelling, voivodeship gives out the Romanian voivodat, which refers to various books on Amazon, all of them written by romanian authors. Conclusion: this cannot be used as a proof that this word is present in english language. The rest of dictionaries you mentioned are polish, and I asked for english dictionaries like, say, Oxford.--Wahwah 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
As to which provinces are not voivodships - it would be easier to list the scarce provinces that are voivodships. However, since you insist... Province of Canada was not a województwo. Neither are Prefectures of Japan, though all of them are, technically speaking, provinces. Same for American and Australian states. Lithuanian Province of Germany was not a voivodship either. States of Germany could also be called "Provinces of Germany", but not "Voivodships of Germany". Also, there is a reson why Voivodships and territories of Canada article does not exist, while Provinces and territories of Canada does. Same for Provinces of Argentina, Provinces of Afghanistan, Provinces of the Netherlands, Provinces of Spain... need more? Halibutt July 6, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
Did you think, why Voivodships and territories of Canada doesn't exist? The explanation is quite obvious to me: this word doesn't exist in english language. And how would you explain to a polish person, what are Provinces of Spain? You would say: "Well, they are just like polish województwo's, they're just spanish..." --Wahwah 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
Not really. Article on Voivodships and territories of Canada doesn't exist for the same reason why there is no page on Gubernyas of Poland or Provinces of Germany. The word voivodship has a very specific meaning and is associated with Poland, not with Canada. Just like you wouldn't call Tennessee a voivodship or a province. Halibutt July 7, 2005 13:27 (UTC)
Waywah, it may interest you to know that in Polish language, województwo is used only to Polish provinces. We have words like prowincja, stan (state), region, prefektura, dystrykt, hrabstwo and others for other country's provinces. Using your logic, however, we should drop them all and use województwo for everything... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't understand the objections to the use of "voivodships." It's the English word for a Polish subnational entity. Words of this sort often aren't well-covered by English dictionaries, so the OED citation is significant. Subnational entities go by lots of different names in different countries. Some places they're provinces, some places they're states, some places they're called by some unique local name. We have, for instance, Oblasts of Russia although oblast is generally regarded as equivalent to "province." I see no problem with this, and I really haven't seen any explanation of why it is problematic. An oblast is an oblast, a voivodship is a voivodship, and a province is a province. Why not call each by its proper name? -- Visviva 15:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Voivodship IS the official word, any half-decent translation comming out of Poland will use the term (unfortunatly there is a lack of decent translations comming out of Poland, so the term is not always used, even when it should be).
I'm not too 100% sure, but arent there regions of Poland which can be described as provinces, but which aren't voivodships? As in "Prowincia" = a region defined by historical and general consensus, "województwo" = a region defined by the authorites, used for administrative purpouses only and subject to change.
There were in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As pl:Prowincja (I Rzeczpospolita) article describes, the term province could be applied to Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Greater Poland and Lesser Poland, each of which was composed of several smaller voivodeships. I will update the PLC article with that terminology. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
No one would think of using anything other than "département" and "arrondissement" for French administrative districts, (including wikipedia Administrative_divisions_of_France) even though these are not "English words", although through greater usage have become more accepted than "voivodship". Therefore we should accept "voivodship" as the correct usage. --217.153.193.6 15:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The English spelling of voivod(e) varies materially. However, some points seem clear. Terminal -e is common; the OED spells voivode, and lists voivodeship as an attested word. This spelling also seems natural to me as a native speaker of English who has read some Eastern European history. V/w and i/y do vary, so googling will understate the populatiry of voivodeship.

I believe voivodeship to be the English word and spelling, although now used in historical contexts; I would be happier with province for even larger units, like the whole of Silesia. I hope this helps. Septentrionalis 18:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The argument with oblast and arrondisement isn't very useful - both words are in their native spelling or direct transliteration. Voivodeship is a made-up word that doesn't function in that form in either Polish or English. It should most definitely not be used. Scyg (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)scyg

Responding to RfC

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • I see two separate issues here:
1. There's dispute above about whether voivodeship (or voivodship) is an English word. The better view, based on the citations given and on my personal experience as a native speaker, is that it is not. On that basis, province should be used.
2. Assuming for the sake of the argument that voivodeship is an English word, and therefore eligible to be used here, which word is better, voivodeship or province? The latter will be much more familiar to readers.
I conclude that province should be used, but with a note somewhere about voivodeship in case a reader happens to encounter it elsewhere. JamesMLane 04:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pushing forward

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Looks like I finally received support in this discussion (thanks!). The conclusion of three native speakers is that word province should be used. I'd like to know if this is sufficient for Polish guys here. --Wahwah 18:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, I am afraid the supports are quite evenly divided between two cases. At this point in our discussion I am more sure that voivodeship should be used then when it begun... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Piotr, English native speakers say that this is not an English word!--Wahwah 07:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
So far I've only seen arguments that the native English speakers don't know the word, not that it doesn't exist. Anyway, if we move all "provinces" to provinces (including states of the USA and Mexico, departments of France, lands of Germany and oblasts of Russia), then it would be fine with me since consistency is what we need. However, IMHO wikipedia would not benefit from such a move. Halibutt 09:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
States, departments and lands are all legitimate English words. I don't know about oblasts of Russia, but look at Bulgaria. They call their provinces "regions" and they note that they are named "oblasti" in Bulgarian language.
Halibutt, it seems to me that you're trying to bring the discussion into absurd. Please, keep with the topic, and the topic is Provinces of Poland.
Wikipedia will definitely benefit from moving Something I don't understand of Poland into Provinces of Poland, because English speaking people will start to understand, what the title means. --Wahwah 12:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Simple Wikipedia would benefit, but this one would not. The fact that the world is rarely used doesn't mean we should discard it. Some English dictionaries use it, most don't. Some English people know it, most don't. No suprise - majority of people have little reason to know the specific and correct term for majority of specialised concepts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
And even the usage of the word in dictionaries proves little as wikipedia is about using proper terms rather than easier-to-understand for an average six-pack-Joe. Finally, would wikipedia really benefit from an article saying that "the Provinces of Poland (commonly referred to in English as Voivodships)... blah-blah"? Halibutt 15:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

So, what Wikipedia says about a situation when some guys cannot achieve any agreement? --Wahwah 11:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for comments has been used. In that case, I guess one can make a vote - see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Also, this may be solved by a normal vote on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see this changed to "Province". I'd also like to see a wider discussion here, from a larger cross-section of the Wikipedia community. --Elonka 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Province inside province inside province ? Sounds stupid

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

If you want to 'translate' "voivodship" into "province", you have to invent another word for a "province", because the English word province is already used in the article for something else that is called prowicja in Polish, and provincia in Latin. It will sound VERY STUPID that a province of Greater Poland consited of 15 provinces, and the privince of Little Poland considted fo 10 provinces.

English word "province" and Polish word "prowincja" are false friends. AFAIK, Polish word "prowincja" is translated into English as "country". In regard to an administrative region of a country, English word "province" is translated into Polish as "województwo".--Wahwah 14:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong. Province is translated to Polish language as "prowincja" - most of the times. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you translate following sentences into Polish?
I went to country for my vacations.
Gary Doer is a premier of province of Manitoba.
--Wahwah 17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
In the first example, it would be 'wieś' (village). Wyjechałem na wieś na wakacje. 'Prowincja' is rarely used in this context, although I think it might have been used like this earlier, before the IIWW. In the second sentence, of course 'prowincja' is the right translation. Gary Doer jestet premerem prowincji Manitoba. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Province and prowincja are not false cognates since both have basically the same meaning and both stem from the same Latin root. The only difference here is that the Polish provinces traditionally are greater than those of other states and are composed of several voivodeships, which in turn are divided onto powiats and communes. Halibutt 06:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, Wyjechać na prowincję would sound as ridiculous nowadays as he took his automobile and led it to his manor where his serfs greeted him cheerfully.. :) But indeed, the word prowincja has a number of different meanings (including the headquarters of various monastic orders - prowincja redemptorystów, for instance). BTW, it's a relatively rare case in Polish, such a phenomenon is observed much more commonly in English than in Polish. Halibutt 09:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish voivodships 1569-1795

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

 
Map showing the voivodships of the Republic of Both Nations

Province of Greater Poland

Province of Lesser Poland

Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Here the first name given is English, then in brackets - Lithuanian, and then Polish.

Duchy of Livonia

The word voivodship is well established in English language so let it stay as it is now.

I'm sorry, but it isn't. I've never seen an English dictionary containing this word. Someone said that it can be found in one of English dictionaries, but it's not available online. You can't say that some word is well established, when it's not present in English dictionaries.--Wahwah 14:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
No dictionary is perfect. There is quite a lot of words, especially restricted to some narrow field of specialisation (like administrative division of Poland) that are not present in a common dictionary. That never stopped people from using them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call an administrative region of a country "a narrow field of specialization". --Wahwah 10:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
"Voivodeship" (spelled as such, with an "e" between the d and the s) is, in fact, to be found in the OED, defined as " 1. The district or province governed by a voivode." Which doesn't mean that we oughtn't translate it as "province." john k 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Using province for voivodship is as correct as using province for US States. Especially as the word voivod(e)ship exists in English language, I see no reason we should not use it. The fact that it is not well known is not a serious argument - this is not simple wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have checked every hardcopy English-language encyclopedia and dictionary I have available to me here, but have been unable to find the word "Voivodship" as a listing in any of them (even if they do list "Vojvodina", which is then described as a province). Which dictionaries have you seen it in? --Elonka 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Try Oxford English Dictionary - it was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I did some more digging... Looks like the root "voivode" (the title of a military commander) is an alternate spelling of the word "waywode". Dictionary.com does have a listing for "waywodeship" [483], which is described as an office, province, or jurisdiction. As for the claim that "Voivodship" is "well-established" in the English language, I looked really hard, but I just can't find any proof of that, sorry. To be "well-established", it needs to be something that's accessible in a typical dictionary, not something that needs a visit to a large library to even find a listing. I'm afraid that I'm still voting for "province" as the English equivalent of the word "Voivodship". --Elonka 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Analysis

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's the analysis of the translations of the word "województwo" and of the specific województwo names, based on different dictionaries, official websites and other sources: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Analysis. Hope it's useful. Ausir 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A vote on which translation of the Polish word województwo should be used in Wikipedia articles has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Województwa vote. Ausir 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Against the consensus

  • The official translation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland at the website of Sejm (Polish Parliament) has voivodship, not voivodeship - see [484] "Article 152: The voivod shall be the representative of the Council of Ministers in a voivodship." NoychoH 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge question

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should this article perhaps be merged with Administrative division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or if not, they need information in their respective lead paragraphs to clarify the differences. --Elonka 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Voivodships existed before and after the PLC. If anywhere, you probably meant Administrative division of Poland. However considering the long history of the Polish voivodships, and the need for quite a few lists and maps, I am sure that there is good reason to have article on Polish voivodship, both separated from the article on voivodships in general (summarizing the use of this term in various countries) and on Polish administrative division, which should summarize the division on many levels (not only voivodships, but powiats and such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"województwo," "voivod(e)ship," "province"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Polish "województwo" is that country's second-level unit of national administration, corresponding to other countries' analogous units that are most commonly rendered into English as "province."

The principal reason why there has been some resistance to rendering "województwo" in English as "province" is that, until the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that were completed in 1795, the Polish cognate term "prowincja" had been applied idiosyncratically to several larger political entities, principally Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, and Lithuania.

This impasse is easily enough resolved by rendering "województwo" as "province," and "prowincja" as "Region."

logologist|Talk 08:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1945 or 1946?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One of our sections currently is entitled Poland's voivodeships 1945-75 (14+2 voivodeships, then 17+5). However I found (sparse) information that presumably first Polish administrative reform post-war took place 1946. I don't know what was the administrative division on the territories taken by Soviets from the Germans, but I think that what we describe as 1945-1972 division might have in fact been 1946-1972 division. A minor point, sure, but in our eternal drive towards perfection, something to consider...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1944 PKWN abolished administrative division of Poland that introduced by Nazi authorithes (Dekret Polskiego Komitetu Wyzwolenia Narodowego z dnia 21 sierpnia 1944 r. o trybie powołania władz administracji ogólnej I-ej i II-ej instancji Dz.U. 1944 nr 2 poz. 8), and de facto restored pre-war administrative division. On 30th March 1945 województwo gdańskie was established (Dekret z dnia 30 marca 1945 r. o utworzeniu województwa gdańskiego. Dz.U. 1945 nr 11 poz. 57), and on 18 May 1945 autonomy of województwo śląskie was delated; on 7 July 1945 województwo rzeszowskie was established. In 1945 Polish authorities established 4 districts (okręgi) on areas outside pre-war Polish borders. In 1946 these districts were transformed, with border changes, into normal voivodships. So in the period 1944-46, there were many changes in administrative division of Poland, and in 1946 firs changes were finished (not started) for four years. Aotearoa from Poland 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1816-1837

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A little known fact is that Congress Kingdom had voivodships from 1816 until 1837. I cannot find any precise information, but from what little I found it appears that each of those voivodships was based on a corresponding department of the Duchy of Warsaw (see Administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw), although since some of the Duchy territory was given to Prussia (and Austria?), some voivodships were probably smaller then the Departments. There were 10 departments (Warsaw, Poznań, Kalisz, Bydgoszcz, Płock, Łomża, Kraków, Lublin, Radom and Siedlce) but only 8 voivodeships (Augustów, Kalisz, Kraków, Lublin, Mazowsze, Płock, Podlesie, Siedlce and Sandomierz). Note that some of those capitals (like Kraków) where not in Congress Kingdom (which did not prevent their name to be used in title...). The reform also made more changes to the lower levels of administration, with the introduction of obwody (larger then powiats).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Voivodeship" and "Province"

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

The Polish term "województwo" really should be rendered on the English Wikipedia as "province." That is the most common English rendering for the major administrative divisions of most countries.

The only semi-rational justification that has been given for using the barbarism "voivodeship" or "voivodship" (there is not even consensus on how to spell the word) instead of "province" is that, until the completion of the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, the cognate Polish "prowincyja" (as it was then spelled) was idiosyncratically used to designate several still greater divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Royal Prussia.

That is hardly a good reason to saddle a modern country with an "English" term as odd as "voivodeship," in preference over "province." A disambiguation is secured easily enough by rendering the 18th-century "prowincyja" into English as "Region." Thus "województwo" is "province" ("Lublin Province"), and "prowincyja" is "Region" ("Greater Poland Region")

The Polish "prowincyja" and the English "province" are what, in translation theory, are known as "false friends." The former, Polish expression should not be rendered into English as "province" but as "region." Nihil novi (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly false friends - these "prowincje" were the major administrative divisions of the country, so the very things you say ought to be called provinces. "Regions" would imply some vague geographical areas. Anyway, Voivod(e)ship is a commonly used translation of województwo in the outside world, so I don't see anything wrong with using it here.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The Wikipedia "prowincja" article specifically states:
"A prowincja (Region), though larger than a province (województwo), was less important in terms of offices and power. In most respects, a prowincja was merely a titular unit of administration; the real power lay with the provinces (województwa)—and, to a lesser extent, with ziemias." Nihil novi (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That was probably written by an editor trying to make the point that you're making, so not a brilliant source to rely on. I suspect that real historians would call a prowincja a province, though I'm willing to be proved wrong (we know województwa were called voivodeships at least often enough for the word to make the OED).--Kotniski (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that an analogy for most of the Polish(-Lithuanian) "prowincje," such as "Greater Poland," might be the American geographical term "New England," which is a region but not a state, province or other actual administrative unit.
The English "voivod(e)ship" was a neologism created in the 18th century by individuals who did not know what to make of "województwo," especially given the idiosyncratic Polish use of the word "prowincja."
More importantly, given that the word "prowincja" has had no native political use in Poland since 1795, what prevents calling a Polish "województwo" a "province"—as would be done in respect to most any other country in the present-day world? Nihil novi (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily - Japan has prefectures, Russia has oblasts, Belarus has voblasts and so on. We tend to follow real-world usage, but with the bias of an encyclopedian towards being correct and accurate. With Poland, there's enough real-world usage to support both voivod(e)ship and province, but since the former is potentially more accurate (people who know the subject will always know unambiguously what's meant, regardless of the historical period(s) in question), we go with that. And although the spelling without the "e" is more common, we go with the "e" because that's what dictionaries say is good English. At least, that's how I see it - I wasn't around when these decisions were originally made. I would still use province or some such if the context didn't make it clear that a province-like thing is being referred to, though.--Kotniski (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps Japan, Russia and Belarus will eventually support a change in the English rendering of their province entities and join those countries that translate them as "provinces." Nihil novi (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, according to the table in the "Province" article, Belarus already does render its entities into English as "provinces." Nihil novi (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
And "Region" does not necessarily "imply some vague geographical areas." Witness Belgium's Flemish Region and Walloon Region. Nihil novi (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
For further examples, see also the "Administrative regions" sub-section of our entry on "Region". - Best, Ev (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Only now do I see this talk page and the Vote on Województwa / Voivodeship / Province of March-July 2006. After a quick look, I found that:

  • The CIA's World Factbook entry on Poland mentions (in its "Government" section): "Administrative divisions: 16 provinces", giving "(wojewodztwa, singular - wojewodztwo)" as local names.
  • Britannica's entry on Poland mentions (in its "Local government" section): "The largest units, at the regional level, are the województwa (provinces), which were consolidated..." The same format is used in other articles.
  • The New York Times uses "province" ("Katowice Province" 16 times since 1981.), while "voivodship" was used 4 times before 1980 and 3 times since 1981. "Voivodeship" doesn't return any results.
  • The BBC provides no return for "voivodeship" or "voivodship", but searching for "Polish province" is another story.

Perhaps requesting a page move to "Provinces of Poland" would be in order. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ev, for looking up these sources.
Your BBC search cites 2 Polish provinces: "the Polish province of Malopolska" (in Polish, "województwo małopolskie" — which may be rendered into English as "Małopolska Province," or Lesser Poland Province); and "the Polish province of Dolnoslaski" (in Polish, "województwo dolnośląskie" — which may be rendered as "Dolny Śląsk Province," or Lower Silesia Province).
Moves to such "Province" titles would be desirable. I hope that the validity of the arguments for such moves will become so evident that a disinterested party will request the moves and an informed majority of discussants will support them.
Thanks again. Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. The BBC also mentioned "Lublin province" once, and "province of Lower Silesia" once. - I do not know how much free time I will be having in the following weeks, so I will have to postpone doing the request myself, as I imagine that the initial proposal & subsequent participation will require some time/effort to improve the chances of an orderly discussion. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Province: a summary

Latest comment: 13 years ago103 comments11 people in discussion

For some years, there has been discussion of how the term “województwo,” designating a highest-level administrative division of the Polish Republic, should be rendered in English. Summarized below are principal arguments for using the English word that is most commonly used for such divisions of various countries: “province.”

  1. Terms, in various languages, that are translated into English as "province" include "wilaya," "marz," "voblast," "khaet," "sheng," "eparchia," "ostan," "khoueng," "faritany," "aimag" and "tinh.” Why should not the Polish "województwo" also be rendered as “province”? The general principle, when translating, is to use words that are commonly used in the target language, rather than needlessly borrowing foreign words.
  2. Before the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned out of existence in the 18th century by Russia, Prussia and Austria, the word “prowincyja” (an archaic spelling for “prowincja”) was used to designate each of several of the Commonwealth’s major regions — Wielkopolska, Małopolska, Royal Prussia, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is therefore sometimes argued that, since this Polish cognate of the English “province” was idiosyncratically used in pre-partition Poland in the sense of “region,” it cannot be used to designate the Polish primary administrative division, the “województwo” (“province”). However, there is no reason to sacrifice the usual English term to an obsolete and idiosyncratic Polish usage. The distinction between the pre-partition regions (“prowincyje”) and Polish provinces (“województwa”) is easily preserved by simply rendering the regions into English as… “Regions.”
  3. There is only one spelling for the English word “province.” There are, however, at least three spellings for the bastardized Polish loanword: “voivodship,” “voivodeship” and—closest to the Polish "województwo," but not used on the English Wikipedia—“voievodship.”
  4. The English rendering of the Polish highest-level administrative division, “województwo,” should be brought into line with the English rendering, as “province,” of the corresponding entities in other countries, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Colombia, Cuba, Congo, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
  5. International guidelines for translators advise that widely understandable words should be used wherever possible, e.g. "If a word is used mostly in translations and only rarely in English-speaking countries, consider replacing it with a commonly known English term with a similar meaning (e.g. plant community instead of phytocoenosis)" (EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators).

It is also noteworthy that the recent replacement of "powiats" by "counties" has been successful and has greatly contributed to improving the understandability of articles about Poland.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, leave it as it is. This topic has been beaten around the table quite a bit, current consensus is Voivodeship. There are bigger fish to fry. Why not put the effort into translating some articles? Ajh1492 (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is a dead horse. Voivodeship has been stable for years, I see no reason to change it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about a major argument: "voivodeship" is against the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says "Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." "Voivodeship" is jargon, understandable nearly exclusively to Polish people. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The horse is well and truly dead. The ship has sailed. Voivodeship is per the MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles)#Administrative divisions. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it says that only in recognition of the fact that past consensus has been to use voivodeship - that doesn't necessarily mean we can't reach a new consensus to use province at least in certain contexts. What would be the arguments against doing that? (But to avoid duplicating the discussion, I suggest we have it in one place rather than two - perhaps WT:WPPL would be a better venue, as there has been discussion there recently about what to call the individual voivodeships, which is obviously a related question.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The simple question is: Which term is being used by current English-language sources? --Elonka 14:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The answer is: both "province" and "voivod(e)ship" are commonly used as equivalents of "województwo". However, "province" is the translation recommended by all the three major Polish-English dictionaries (Fisiak, PWN-Oxford, Kościuszkowski), as well as by the influencial newspaper The Warsaw Voice. --Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed - cite (link to) the sources you use for such claims, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that "voivodeship" literally means "being a voivode" or "the office of voivode". You demanded citations: J. Stanisławski, Wielki słownik polsko-angielski, Warszawa, Wiedza Powszechna, vol. P-Z, p. 563, gives "1. (jednostka administracyjno-terytorialna) province. 2. (urząd) voivodeship; provincial administration <offices>"; Kosciuszko Foundation Dictionary, volume II: Polish-English, by Kazimierz Bulas, Lawrence L. Thomas and Francis J. Whitfield, New York, The Kosciuszko Foundation, p. 640, gives " 1. province. 2. voivodeship; the administration of a voivodeship" ; Wielki słownik PWN-Oxford on CD-ROM (edited by J. Fisiak) gives "1. Admin. province (in Poland); voivodeship spec. 2. (mieszkańcy) province; nasze województwo ma swojego przedstawiciela w senacie our province has its own senator; 3. pot. (urzędy) provincial (council) offices" Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I note that this does not prove that this is widespread use, just the use in those works, and even in all of those, it is just one option, with voivodeship being acceptable as well. Given this, I find voivodeship more useful for disambiguation purposes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
In each dictionary, "province" appears as the first, and thus the principal, English equivalent.
As to disambiguation, what is there to disambiguate? Nihil novi (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
For example, Kraków Province redirects to Seniorate Province, yet you would move Kraków Voivodeship (14th century – 1795) there. You would also be implying that those 11-12th century provinces were the same thing as voivodeships. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. You are referring to "Okres rozbicia dzielnicowego" (the "Period of [Poland's] Fragmentation into Districts [dzielnice]," 1138–1320). However, the earliest provinces (województwa) did not come into existence until 1308, so there is little likelihood of confusing the earlier "dzielnice" (districts or duchies) with the later "województwa" (provinces). Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Region would be perfectly acceptable, if it meant the same thing; Province, however, does mean the same thing, and is far more common in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that we (as wikipedians) should rely on dictionaries, not Google. We need reliable sources of information and can not use OR. Wiktoryn (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes - well, dictionaries and other reliable sources, anyway (not the whole of the Internet, much of which just mirrors Wikipedia in questions like this). In fact PWN-Oxford gives both "province" and "voivodeship" as equivalents to województwo; it marks the former as inexact, and the latter as specialist.--Kotniski (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Province is inaccurate. The correct, technical, specialist term is voivodeship. There were provinces in the history of administrative division of Poland (ex. seniorate province), and we should not confuse those with voivodeships. Or in the 19th century, there was an important transformation of voivodeship into governorates - something that would be more confusing if we talked about provinces. US has its states, France has its directorates, Russia has its governorates and olbasts, Poland has its voivodeships. PS. Some literature (mostly obsolete) translated voivodeship as palatinate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Province is indeed inaccurate, or at best over vague. I see no reason to ever use the word "province" in an article on Poland except as a direct tranclation of "prowincja". Consensus is pretty solid for "voivodeship", and further discussion is basically a waste of time. There are better ways to spend out time than rehashing dead horse arguments. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Weeell, against that, "province" does have the rather significant advantage of being readily understandable. I would say that if the context is one where the technicalities of Polish administrative division are not likely to be of immediate concern to the reader, then "province" is likely to be a better word choice. Though opinions might differ on exactly what those contexts would be.--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Dominus, please see the above citations from dictionaries.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, I remaind everyone of the examples of usage (BBC, Britannica, CIA Wolrd factbook, The New York Times) mentioned in April 2010 in the previous section. "Province" is not only easier to understand, but commonly used by anglophone media. — It also eliminates the need for the otherwise unavoidable parenthetical clarification: "in the Evian Voivodeship (province) of..." — Best, Ev (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Weelll again... against that, we must remember that we're not the media - and if we're to follow the example of the only other encyclopedia on the list, then (according to what we're told in the above thread) the use of parenthetical clarification is exactly the tactic they adopt.--Kotniski (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear about Britannica. Using as example their entry on Dolnośląskie (Lower Silesia), we see that after the definition "województwo (province), southwestern Poland" (that doesn't use any variation of "Voivodeship", but the Polish original), the word "province(s)" is used consistently: "It was established in 1999 when the provinces of Poland were [...] It is bordered by the provinces of [...] It comprises the former provinces (created 1975) of [... and] portions of the former provinces of [...] The provincial capital is [...]". — The same system is used by Britannica with the rest of the Polish provinces. — Ev (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Americana ("Poland," vol. 22, 1986, p. 312) takes the same approach: "Following the reform of the administrative structure in 1973–1975, the number of provinces (województwa) was increased... [I]ncreasing the number of provinces meant the reduction of each in size. In this way Warsaw was able to dilute the political importance of the provincial party chiefs." Nihil novi (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Kotniski said that, although current consensus is for voivodeship, that can be changed if there are good reasons for the change. I cannot see any. As Sylwia said: both "province" and "voivod(e)ship" are commonly used as equivalents of "województwo". So whether "voivodeship" is innacurate or incorrect is not a matter for discussion. "Voivodeship" does have the advantage that it is specific and very well defined: a non-political, non-historical, non-cultural, ephemeral, arbitrarily defined and named high-level administrative division of Poland.

"Province", on the other hand, has no meaning besides "a bounded region on the map that is smaller than a country". Any additional meaning of "province" is supplied solely by context. There is a huge difference between a Canadian province and a Chinese one, and neither is similar in any way to a viovodeship. Add to this the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING that corresponds to a Voivodeship in the largest English speaking countries: the US, the UK, Canada and Australia (I'm not conversant with admistrative regions in Ireland and New Zealand).

Futhermore, "province" usually carries a connotation of historical and/or cultural permanance and continuitity, which Polish voivodeships lack. Their borders and names are completely arbitrary and can be changed at any time for any reason by the Polish government.

"Province" in a Polish context also has the disadvantage that it is used to translate both "prowincja" and "wojewódstwo", and that would create disambiguation problems here on WP, as Piotr has pointed out. There are also back translation problems into Polish; mention "prowincja śląska" to a Pole, and they will scratch their head trying to figure out what that is supposed to mean.

In the real world, there is NO consensus about how to translate "wojewódstwo" into English. Even Polish government sources are inconsistent. The sources provided by Sylwia are very poor quality: Bielczyk is NOT an authority of any note, nor is Serwis Tłumacza, and they speak only for themselves. Using them as sources on WP violates WP:SELFPUB, WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT. The editor of Geomaps is also not an authority in this matter, nor does he claim to be; he or she made a purely editorial decision to use "province", and I doubt that he or she would say that "voivodeship" is incorrect.

Therefore, whether we "voivodeship" or "province", we still have to explain what the word means in the context of Poland. It doesn't really help that "province" is a more common word in English; in fact, it may confuse the reader because of the additional baggage it carries. We would have to explain exactly what it means in a Polish context as we would with "voivodeship", with the added burden of explaining how "province" in this context differs from "province" in other contexts (Canadian, Chinese, etc.) as well as from "province" in other POLISH contexts (prowincja).

The main advantage of "voivodeship" is that it is precise and specific. The main disadvantage of province is that it is vague and has to be defined and disambiguated. In my opinion, "voivodeship" is indeed the right tool for the job at hand, and the one least likely to cause confusion.

Last of all, I don't see any value in continuing this dead horse argument. As another editor has said, we have bigger fish to fry, and the current bickering is a time-wasting distraction. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points, though I don't agree that we shouldn't be discussing something now just because it was discussed at some indeterminate time in the past. But it would help at some point (before we get 42 as the answer) if we could find out exactly what the question is - are we discussing the titles of certain articles, the style of writing in certain types of articles, names of certain categories...?--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski, we are discussing the titles of the articles on Polish województwa, that will then be mirrored by all other articles & categories, both in their respective titles (Rudna, Lower Silesian Voivodeship → Rudna, Lower Silesian Province) and bodies ("sixteen new voivodeships were" → "sixteen new provinces were"). This particular article would be moved to "Provinces of Poland". — Best, Ev (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: There is a huge difference between a Canadian province and a Chinese one, and neither is similar in any way to a viovodeship. Add to this the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING that corresponds to a Voivodeship in the largest English speaking countries: the US, the UK, Canada and Australia (I'm not conversant with admistrative regions in Ireland and New Zealand). Ev (talk)
Of the countries you mention here, the United Kingdom is indeed a special case: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own system of geographic demarcation and administration. New Zealand once had provinces but abolished them in 1876 and now has no separately represented subnational entities. But the other countries do, like Poland, have provinces (principal territorial divisions), though in the United States and Australia they are termed "states." Nihil novi (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: "province" usually carries a connotation of historical and/or cultural permanance and continuitity, which Polish voivodeships lack. Their borders and names are completely arbitrary and can be changed at any time for any reason by the Polish government. Ev (talk)
Poland's provinces (województwa) are not unique in this regard. Provinces should not be considered immutable, anywhere. Just in the United States, principal divisions ("states") have changed their boundaries on a number of occasions. North and South Carolina once belonged to Virginia and later were one province, Carolina, which split in 1729. Maine was once part of Massachusetts. West Virginia separated from Virginia and became a separate state during the American Civil War, in 1863. And so on. Nihil novi (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: Province" in a Polish context also has the disadvantage that it is used to translate both "prowincja" and "wojewódstwo", and that would create disambiguation problems here on WP, as Piotr has pointed out. There are also back translation problems into Polish; mention "prowincja śląska" to a Pole, and they will scratch their head trying to figure out what that is supposed to mean. Ev (talk)
"Province" is not "used to translate both 'prowincja' and 'wojewódstwo'." "Wojewódstwo" is "province." "Prowincja," depending on the historic period, may be "duchy," "district" or "Region." Back-translation likewise has to take these historic contexts into account. Nihil novi (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: whether we [use] "voivodeship" or "province", we still have to explain what the word means in the context of Poland. It doesn't really help that "province" is a more common word in English; in fact, it may confuse the reader because of the additional baggage it carries. We would have to explain exactly what it means in a Polish context as we would with "voivodeship", with the added burden of explaining how "province" in this context differs from "province" in other contexts (Canadian, Chinese, etc.) as well as from "province" in other POLISH contexts (prowincja). Ev (talk)
The meaning of any word depends on context. This certainly does not imply that we cannot use the same word in varying contexts. Were that the case, we could not use the word "province" in respect to all the dozens of countries whose principal divisions are rendered into English by the word "province." Nihil novi (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that "province" can't be used, just that there is no good reason to use it when a more precise word is available that does not require disambiguation. This has no effect on the use of "province" in other contexts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean here by "precision," "disambiguation" and "other contexts"? Nihil novi (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: By precise I mean that "voivodeship" means exactly "wojewódstwo", and nothing else. By disambiguation, I mean that we would have to explain exactly what it means in a Polish context as we would with "voivodeship", with the added burden of explaining how "province" in this context differs from "province" in other contexts (Canadian, Chinese, etc.) as well as from "province" in other POLISH contexts (prowincja). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you have to explain the differences between Polish and Chinese provinces? When you write about Polish taxis, do you have to compare them with Chinese taxis?
As to Polish provinces, there need be no need for disambiguation if "province" is reserved exclusively for "województwo," as already described. Nihil novi (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, "voivodeship" should be used to translate "wojewódstwo" everywhere on WP for the sake of internal consistency. I can't see any case in which "province" would be preferable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please consider point 1 at the top. Nihil novi (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I've read ALL the previous posts on this topic back to 2005. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: Please stop interrupting other editors' posts with your comments. It's irritating and confusing, and downright rude to continue doing so after I asked you not to on your talk page. WP talk pages are not designed for your kind of posting. Please refactor your comments so that my posts remain intact. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is more confusing to have my comments separated from the comments that I am commenting on. See, above, individuals' responses immediately following other individuals' remarks. Nihil novi (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody but you responds INSIDE other editors' posts. Please stop. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody but you writes such interminable posts. Nihil novi (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Making other editors' posts unreadable is vandalism. Do not do it again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop bickering like children, both of you should step back and apologize to one another. Sigh. Some people do respond inside others post, it is not vandalism, but yes, I find it confusing, and I personally suggest not doing so, but replying (in points and quotes) below. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, Dominus Vobisdu. The use of "voivod(e)ship" instead of "province" does not provide more clarity, accuracy or precision to our readers. First, because most anglophones won't understand the word anyway, and second, because these Polish administrative divisions are not so unique and exceptional as to require a special loanword for them.
Currently, every first use of "voivod(e)ship" requires a parenthetical clarification along the lines of "in the Silesian Voivodeship (province) of...", which leaves us exacly where we started, with the use of "province". :-) Unless someone proposes to use a much longer and detailed parenthetical clarification to avoid any confusion between a generic main administrative division of a country and the unique and exceptional Polish case.
The use of "province" is absolutely clear for the averange anglophone: a generic main administrative division of a country. That's all we need to know in most mentions of and references to a województwo. In any case, our intended readership is mature enough to understand that administrative systems differ from country to country, and that Chinese, Dutch, Polish or Spanish provinces won't be exact copies of the Canadian ones.
As always, proper contextualisation should suffice to avoid any confusion. Otherwise, we should be shunning all polysemic words and using a different vocabulary for each individual country, field or area of human endeavour.
Let's remember the main criteria that we should use when deciding on a name: recognisability, naturalness and precision. "Province" is the obvious choice for the first two; regarding the third, I have found nothing yet that requires disambiguation in the form of actual names. — Regards, Ev (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


  • This whole discussion is basically the long-term pining of two editors, Sylwia Ufnalska and Nihil novi. I cite Sylwia's talk page and Nihil novi's talk page as part of their ongoing campaign. This has been talked and discussed and talked and discussed - the horse is dead. Voivodeship IS a valid English denotation of the top-order subdivision of administrative subdivisions within the Republic of Poland (and the Second Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). PLEASE, PLEASE stop putting the dedicated effort you have placed into continually flogging a dead horse and contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Both editors in question are very talented in their work on EN:WP, and both know that we have a tremendous backlog of TOP-level articles in WikiProject Poland that desperately could use their translation and researching talent. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is not pointless, a final veredict has not been rendered, and some of us consider that using "province" instead of "voi(e)vod(e)ship" would be a worthy improvement. :-) Ev (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I must quote what Dominus wrote some time ago on my talk page: I'm a tranlator, too (english native speaker, biology and medicine as well), and when I translate I use "Province of Lower Silesia" etc. However, here on Wikipedia, I have to go with decisions made long ago. The problem is that Wikipedia is increasingly used for reference by people who are not translators. They should be aware that in "real life" the use of "voivodeship" results in confusion, as foreigners usually have no idea what this word means. Some Polish people may not care about it because Polish is a reader-responsible language, so Polish authors do not need to write understandably because readers are responsible for understanding. By contrast, English is a writer-responsible language, i.e. writers in English are responsible for making their texts understandable. (I wrote about the classification and some other problems related to translation in my article, pages 101-104). Importantly, this is reflected in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, as one of the five general principles of Wikipedia is Clarity: Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. "Voivodeship" is jargon, understandable nearly exclusively to Polish people.

I started a similar discussion in Wikipedia many years ago but I was quickly defeated by people saying that a consensus has been reached and now it's too late. I wish I was more experienced then and knew that "voivodeship" is against the principles of Wikipedia. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still use "Province of Lower Silesia" when I translate. However, I translate papers on the distribution of plants, where there is no need to burden the reader with the niceties of Polish administrative divisions. If I were translating material where the meaning did matter, I would use "voivodeship", and after reading through all SEVEN YEARS of the debate over this matter here on WP, I am now convinced that it would be best to stick with the long established consesus and use "voivodeship" everywhere for the sake of internal consistency and precision.
Consensus on this matter was reached FIVE YEARS AGO [[485]]. The votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "voivodeship". I am not in favor of changing it unless there is a VERY good reason. So far, I haven't seen one from you or from Nihil Novi. Nor have you provided any convincing evidence that "voivodeship" is against WP policy.
I told you six months ago that the Bielczyk paper is completely worthless here on WP, yet you continue adding it. I also told you that your changes wre disruptive and only made a mess for other editors to clean up, but you continued to make disruptive edits without gaining consensus.
As for your comments on "reader responsible language" etc, that is all COMPLETE BOLLOCKS!!! What planet are you from??? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Voi(e)vod(e)ship" (there's not even one single standard spelling of this hybrid loanword) has no advantage and every conceivable disadvantage. It is unnecessary, ugly and confusing to all but those unaccountably enamored of it. Nihil novi (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You're going to have to try harder than that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is unnecessary, ugly and confusing to all but those unaccountably enamored of it. Well that is certainly not a NPOV. How do you define ugly words? Ajh1492 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
What is ugly for some can be unique and beautiful for others. Why is voivodeship ugly, but oblast (ex. Smolensk Oblast), Arrondissements of France or German amts? As long as Russia has oblasts, France has departments and arrondissements, Germany has amts, US has states, and so on, I see no reason why Poland should not have voivodeships. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus, you are familiar with "other stuff exists". In this particular case, where we have the choice between two possibilities, our anglophone readership would be much better served with the use of the clear and straightforward "province", instead of being presented with an odd and not readily recognisable loanword like "voivod(e)ship". Isn't that reason enough? — Best, Ev (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a nice principle, but I am not sure if this is applicable here. Perhaps administrative units throughout Wikipedia are confusing and need standardizing, but I ask you again: what makes Polish voivodeship any worse than Russian oblast or French arrondissement? Why not try to reform a lager policy and try to institute an order on a larger scale? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well, let's look at "oblast," an administrative division in some Slavic countries and in some non-Slavic countries of the former Soviet Union. The word "oblast" is a loanword in English, but is often translated as "area", "zone", "province" or "region".
Of the post-Soviet countries, Russia retains the term "oblast," which appears in the Wikipedia article title, "Oblasts of Russia."
But Belarus' cognate "voblasts" ("provinces" or "regions") are, on Wikipedia, described in an article on "Regions of Belarus."
Other post-Soviet countries' oblasts, in many cases now carrying non-Russian names, appear on Wikipedia in articles on "Provinces of Armenia," "Provinces of Kazakhstan," "Provinces of Kyrgyzstan," "Provinces of Tajikistan," "Provinces of Turkmenistan" and "Provinces of Uzbekistan."
Bulgaria's oblasts appear in a Wikipedia article on "Provinces of Bulgaria."
Clearly, on Wikipedia, the principal administrative divisions in most countries that use or previously used "oblast," now appear in articles that use everyday English-language terms, most commonly "province."
Why cannot some Polish-topic Wikipedians understand the wisdom of this, and follow suit? Nihil novi (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
To me, this is just confusing. Why Russian name is kept, but others, translated? We need a rule to clarify this on a larger scale, otherwise we will have people saying things like "if Russians can keep their unique name, why not Poles", and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus, why keep our anglophone readership hostage to some sort of competition between the Poland- and Russia-related areas of Wikipedia? Since when is mimicking the excentricities of Russia-related articles more important than making Poland-related articles easier to understand to our global anglophone readership?
I'm not familiar with English usage for Russian administrative divisions. I don't know whether the loanword "oblast" is the established usage of English-language publications, or whether those publications offer other options that would make articles easier to understand to our anglophone readership. Nor do I care right now. — What I do know is that, luckly for our readership, there's such a word to replace "voivodeship": "province" :-)
Finally, there already is a rule that clarifies this on a larger scale: "limit yourself to passively mirroring common English usage". That is the basis of our general naming conventions policy and the specific naming conventions for geographic names. Let's try Google Books: "Voivodeships of Poland" (ca. 39 results), "Voivodships of Poland" (ca. 91 results), "Provinces of Poland" (ca. 386 results). — Best, Ev (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I also translate papers on the distribution of plants and similar topics :-))). Where I'm from? I'm Polish and I come from Poznań. I'm a science translator (since the early 1990s). And I repeat "voivodeship" is against the principles of Wikipedia Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam!!!!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I love seeing dead horses suddenly come to life with the long, high-pitched sound; summoned by huge egos. — LMK3 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread is becoming decreasingly easy to follow, but I would again suggest to all that this needn't be a simple "A or B" choice, but that there are likely to be contexts where we do better to write "voivodeship", others where we do better with "province" (or "voivodeship (province)", or "province (voivodeship)"). If, as Ev suggested above, the primary question is how to title the articles on the 16 current voivovinces, then I re-offer my suggestion that we might to best to avoid both this issue and the issue of how to translate the names, and apparently follow Britannica, by simply using the titles Wielkopolskie, Dolnośląskie, etc. As to this page, I'm not convinced we need it at all - all the information could be merged into the Voivodeship article and/or the various "Administrative division of Poland..." articles.--Kotniski (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, perhaps there are some instances in which writing "voivod(e)ship" is better for our anglophone readership. Although I can't think of any, I wouldn't rule it out. But those would be exceptions: in the vast majority of cases, using "province" would be far more natural and understandable.
Using the titles "Dolnośląskie", etc, has two huge drawbacks:
1. It doesn't solve the underlying question: we would still have to refer to them as either "voivod(e)ships" or "provinces" in the body of articles. :-)
2. It means using a non-English meaningless tongue-twister instead of an existing English name that makes sense and can be pronounced by our global anglophone readership. To a significant number of educated anglophones, "Lower Silesia" would ring a bell; only a tiny minority would know what to make of "Dolnośląskie".
Honestly, I can't imagine what the Britannica editors were thinking when they adopted the Polish original names in their articles. Best, Ev (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a valid argument for not changing anything, and in fact raises questions on whether we should not focus on reforming and renaming Wikipedia articles that have such "meaningless" names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree: we should focus on reforming and renaming Wikipedia articles that have such "meaningless" names, because they result in the common use of unclear terms throughout Wikipedia. The point is that also "voivodeship" is meaningless to nearly all foreigners. Making articles about Poland readable is not disruptive in any way - it is consistent with the Wikipiedia Manual of Style. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the word Voivodeship meaningless', that's just your opinion. Then how about the word Oblast is that meaningless? How about State? You seem to want everything plain vanilla. You also assume that all readers are limited in their cognitive ability. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus, how can "It doesn't solve the underlying question: [whether to use] voivod(e)ships or provinces" be a valid argument for not changing anything? Even if our articles used the Polish forms "Dolnośląskie", etc, we would still be having this exact same discussion about whether to call them "voivod(e)ships" or "provinces", and I would be using the exact same arguments to adopt the word "provinces". — For the issue of choosing between the words "voivod(e)ship" and "province", the actual names of the województwa is irrelevant. — Best, Ev (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're to look at our names for the 16 present vovinces, I'm trying to remember where they came from originally (they were decided on long before I arrived at WP). Were they taken from a particular source or sources, or were they ad hoc translations? I seem to remember it being claimed that they were taken from a fairly authoritative source, but all the links I can find at the moment seem just to list them using their Polish names. I'd also point out another disadvantage of moving to forms like "Silesian Province" - it creates ambiguity with various unconnected historical entities, such as the Prussian Province of Silesia.--Kotniski (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, good example, I didn't thought of that. And no, I cannot recall the old discussion, the matter I think was settled even before *I* arrived here - you may want to check the archives of the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the link you were referencing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland/Archive2#Wojew.C3.B3dztwa_vote ... Ajh1492 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski, such ambiguity could be easily solved by the indispensable proper contextualisation and the use of parenthetical titles along the lines of "Province of Silesia (Prussia)" and "Province of Silesia (Poland)"... or even using the modern Polish province as the main topic, and placing a hat-note for the historical Prussian one. — A few cases of title disambiguations shouldn't deprive our anglophone readership of an easier understanding of all Poland-related articles. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
My answer to Kotniski: Belczyk's list of province names is an appendix to his detailed article about translation of Polish geographic names. The list is based on a preface to the PWN-Oxford dictionary. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


A thought to consider: if voivodeship (or oblast) was the same as province, we wouldn't have articles on those, just redirects. Because they are distinct, and used in English to boot, they are not redirected, and they are used instead of province. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, the word "voivodeship" is used in English, and as such deserves an article. In English, it has two main separate meanings:
1. Historical region ruled by a voivode (although the word "voivodate" tends to be used in this case).
2. Modern province of certain countries.
Thus, it has the same meaning of "province" (never underestimate the wonders of polysemy :-) But shouldn't be a simple redirect to the entry on "province" for two reasons:
a. Because we still would need to explain the historical regions ruled by a voivode (or create an entry for "voivodate", currently a redirect to "voivodeship").
b. Because the modern voivodeships are specific of certain parts of the world. As such, the word, its etymology and its current usage are better presented in a separate, shorter article, than it would be in an overly long entry for "Province" dealing with all loanwords for each country.
Best, Ev (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The word "voivodeship" should be a redirect to "Provinces of Poland". Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


For actual usage in English-language publications, let's try Google Books: "Voivodeships of Poland" (ca. 39 results), "Voivodships of Poland" (ca. 91 results), "Provinces of Poland" (ca. 386 results). — Google searches are by no means definitive, but they are helpful in showing certain paterns, especially when combines with other examples of usage (BBC, Britannica, CIA Wolrd factbook, The New York Times) mentioned in April 2010 in the previous section. — Best, Ev (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a compelling reason to reverse five-year-old consensus and require changes in literally hundreds of articles on WP. I see a lot of clutching at straws, or worse, as in the case of Nihil's WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, which, in my opinion, put the kibosh on the whole debate. The sources provided leave a lot to be desired. Google searches are scraping at the bottom of the barrel, and indicate that the debate has already run its course and has truly become a dead horse. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's not just hundreds, it's literally tens of thousands of articles (all those village articles the bot created...) But I don't find "dead horse" any better an argument than "don't like it". If there's a change we can make that's going to improve the encyclopedia appreciably, then it's worth doing. I mean, let's take a typical random case like Łopuchowo, Greater Poland Voivodeship. Is the first sentence (or the infobox, or the title itself) going to be improved by replacing the word "Voivodeship" by "Province"? I guess it makes things a bit clearer to the general reader (but: how many general readers are going to be reading such a page? isn't it obvious anyway from the context what sort of beast a voivodeship must be? and don't our hyperlinks make unfamiliar terminology less of a burden than it would be in a paper source?) I can sympathize with the idea, but don't feel inspired enough by it (or confident enough that it's the right thing to do) to make it seem worth doing these 0000's of changes. I'd be more interested in getting the business part of the names right - for example, there's a current proposal to change Subcarpathian to Podkarpackie; and is "Greater Poland" really more recognizable in today's world than "Wielkopolska"?--Kotniski (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
On saturday, before making my first comment in this section, I wanted to get a picture of the dimensions of the possible changes, and checked the number of internal links to "Lower Silesian Voivodeship": about 3500. It would make little sense to even attempt to change them all overnight. Luckily, there's no deadline, and redirects further eliminate any urgence. :-) In any case, if this change is the right thing to do, delaying it would only make things worse.
In cases like the entry on Łopuchowo, the difference would be minimal; I fully agree with your appreciations, Kotniski. But I would argue that those small towns are the exception: in most other cases, the use of "province" instead of "voivodeship" would make things clearer for the vast majority of our global anglophone readership.
What names to use for the provinces is a different matter, best discussed in a different section (or place), to keep this discussion on target. — Best, Ev (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, numerically, these small villages are the rule rather than the exception (probably well over 3000 of those 3500 links are of this type). Though since the articles were created by a bot, it would be relatively easy (assuming they haven't been edited much in the meantime) to change them with a bot as well - if we can find an alternative phrasing for that standard first sentence that would make things appreciably clearer without loss of accuracy.

I do think, though, that the question of what names to use for the provinces is inseparable from this one. I wouldn't want to go around thousands of articles replacing the word "voivodeship" with "province", only to then have to go around again changing the actual names. In any case, our names should ideally be based on what good sources do - the analysis of how sources refer to these entities will inevitably involve both the voivodeship/province question and the Podkarpackie/Subcarpathian type of question.--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, we're on the same page. :-) When considering the small towns & villages to be the exception, I was thinking in "type of article", not numbers. Although I see actual names and use of "voivodeship" or "province" as clearly separated issues that would be easier to handle separately, I always felt that no matter what decision is taken in either case, the sensible thing to do would be to wait for both issues to be solved before actually impementing the changes, to avoid a duplication of efforts. Of course, I agree with you on the use of sources for both issues. — Best, Ev (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


I repeat here my answer to your previous question: Belczyk's list of province names is an appendix to his detailed article about translation of Polish geographic names. The list was based on a preface to the PWN-Oxford dictionary. His other sources included:

It is noteworthy that A. Belczyk followed the rules presented in his article in his translations of travel guides to Poland Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. None of those qualify as an authoritative source for the purposes of this article. They're marginal or trivial, at best. Even taken together, they don't add up to much. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Making a strong case for "province" is not going to be enough to overturn five-year-old consensus. You have to make a VERY strong case against "voivodeship", as well, and that requires VERY good sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu, a "five-year-old consensus" not backed by a strong enough case for the use of "voivodeship" is of little worth against a good case for the use of "province". The mere passage of time does not trump actual arguments. — Ev (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, what kind of sources do you consider very good? As far as I know, there are no formal Polish guidelines for translators concerning geographic names. I mentioned at the very beginning international guidelines for science translators, which advise that widely understandable words should be used wherever possible, e.g. "If a word is used mostly in translations and only rarely in English-speaking countries, consider replacing it with a commonly known English term with a similar meaning (e.g. plant community instead of phytocoenosis)" (EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators). My next question is: are you afraid of the large amount of edits needed if we decide to switch ot province? Kotniski is experienced in the use of bots, so he can design a bot that will do most of the work. Or are you afraid that someone could try to change the consensus again in the future? I'm sure that nobody will, because "voivodeship" is wrong in this sense according to all the major dictionaries (cited above), and people use it simply because they think it's the right translation. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Authoratative sources from the Polish government or PAP would be ideal. Other sources that would count are high level journalistic or academic sources. Polish or otherwise, specifically discussing the translation of the word "województwo" and making specific global recommendations that go beyond simple house style, especially if they state that "voivodeship" is a bad choice.
What doesn't count are instances of the use of either term in a particular publication; those are merely editorial choices that are restricted to the author, editor or publishing house in question. Few, is any, of these writers would claim that their editorial choice had any global validity. WP is not bound by the particular or in house style of othr authors or publishers. There is nothing wrong with WP using the less commonly used term as long as it is servicable. As far as I can see, "voivodeship" is indeed quite servicable, and has worked well for five years.
In the States, we have a decidedly bizarre system of weights and measures. The metric system is clearly superior. Nonetheless, Americans are loathe to part with their system because it does the job well enough, and changing would be a major hassle. There has to be a COMPELLING reason to change, and even the fact that every other country in the world uses the metric system is not good enough. Americans still believe thier system is best for them, as I still believe "voivodeship" is best for WP.
A particular concern of mine is "województwo śląskie", as Kotniski and Piotruś have pointed out as well. Articles on Silesia are prone to attack by Silesian separatists, and I'm sure that a name change would bring them out of the woodwork in droves. If you've ever dealt with these people, as I have, you'd know it's not a pleasant experience.
I'm also concerned about the onames of the pre-1999 voivodeships. You have to admit that names like "Province of Skierniewice" sound bizarre.
Even with Kotniski's bots, there will still be a considerable amount of cleanup work to do. I feel that that time would be better spent expanding and cleaning up the articles we have. Even if "province" is a better translation, is it that much better that we can justify the amount of time to clean up tens of thousands of articles? Only if you prove that "province" is FAR, FAR, FAR superior to "voivodeship", based on authoratative sources, not just on usage counts. In other words, I believe the cost/benefit ratio is far too high.
Finally, I sincerely do believe that "voivodeship" is the best translation for WP purposes, for the reasons I listed above. One of my chief concerns is that readers do not confuse the administrative districts with historical or cultural regions with the same name. Using "voivodeship" makes that distinction clear.
By the way, most of what I translate is on phytocenoses, and I use that word exclusively in my own translations :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu, I think that the exact opposite is the case: that it would have to be proven that "voivodeship" is clearly preferable to "province" in order to use that little-known loanword in lieu of a clear & straightforward word every anglophone would understand. :-) Moreover, for the specific purpose of gauging English usage (and the expectations of our global anglophone readership), the usage of a single major newspaper from an English-speaking country is far more important than the opinions & decisions of the Polish, Japanese or Zambian governments. I dread the day in which a Polish, Japanese or Zambian bureaucrat or politician can decide how the English language should be spoken & written. — Best, Ev (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that last sentence, though I also wouldn't necessarily want the way an encyclopedia is written to be decided by a journalist (just as I wouldn't want my daily newspaper to be written like an encyclopedia). (And since you seem to use "loanword" as a badge of shame, you presumably realize that "province" is also a loanword?)--Kotniski (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski, again, I agree. I was only emphasising that the desires, opinions & decisions of the Polish government have relatively little significance for our specific purposes. I do not use "loanword" as a badge of shame (I'm most definitely not a linguistic purist), and I apologise if my comments gave that impression. My intention when using it was to underline that only people already familiar with Poland would understand the word "voivodeship". — Best, Ev (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
@Ev: You shot yourself in the foot with "in lieu of". Why didn't you use the normal English word "instead"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Dominus: because I'm writing in a talk page, not in an article (mainspace). Likewise, I have absolutely no problem with using "voivodeship" in talk pages. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, have you ever read the EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles? They explain why we should avoid the use of jargon. It is noteworthy that phytocenoses according to British rules should be spelled phytocoenoses, but both words are extremely rare in texts written by British and American botanists. Native speakers simply write "plant communities" instead. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


The controversy between advocates of "province" and of "voi(e)vod(e)ship" (there are three distinct English spellings of the latter word) seems largely a controversy between what Charles Darwin called "lumpers and splitters." But what is the advantage of splitting off "voi(e)vod(e)ship" from the preponderance of other "provinces" in the world?
We have seen that the single Slavic term "oblast" is rendered on the English Wikipedia variously as "province," "region" and "oblast." What is the advantage, to anyone, of such splitting?
If the concern is to disambiguate idiosyncratic pre-Partition applications of the Polish word "prowincyja" (the archaic 18th-century spelling for "prowincja"), this can be accomplished by using "prowincyja" or an appropriate English equivalent to the archaic Polish usage, e.g., "Region".
What rational justification can there be for using "voi(e)vod(e)ship" rather than "province" on Wikipedia, when we do not use native or hybrid expressions for the provinces of other countries that do not use close cognates of the English "province", including Afghanistan (wilaya), Armenia (marz), Cambodia (khaet), China (省, sheng), Finland (läänit), Greece (επαρχία, eparchia), Iran (ostan), Ireland (cúige), Kazakhstan (oblasy), Kyrgyzstan (oblasty), Laos (khoueng), Madagascar (faritany), Mongolia (aimag), North Korea (도, to), Pakistan (suba), Philippines (lalawigan), Rwanda (intara), Saudi Arabia (mintaqah), South Korea (도, 道, to), Tajikistan (veloyati), Thailand (จังหวัด, changwat), Turkey (il), Ukraine (oblast), Vietnam (tỉnh)?
Nihil novi (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Let this poor dead horse rest in peace already. There's bigger fish to fry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You have answered none of the objections to "voi(e)vod(e)ship." You have merely said, in effect, "I just like it." Nihil novi (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolute BOLLOCKS. I've given PLENTY of reasons why "voivoideship" is better.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Profanity is no argument. Nihil novi (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voivodeships_of_Poland/Archive_1&oldid=1087983814"