This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Needs redirecting to wikitionary (or whatever it is called) or substantial expansion if actually notable). I don't know how to do redirects myself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
If the only content of the article is a definition (which this is) than it belongs in the wikitionary. Even a stub article should have more than a single line. If you know more about the subject than please go ahead and expand the article to more than just this definition. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you like me to place the appropriate tag on the article for you to reflect that you are working on it? You will need to make regular edits to the page over the next few hours and days to reflect that it is in use. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
As you are the only contributor and won't be able to work on the article I am going to suggest it's deletion. As you have plans to expand it eventually replacing the one line that currently exists will be easy enough. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jasynnash2, I'm afraid you don't understand quite how Wikipedia works. There is no deadline for edits to Wikipedia. It's perfectly legitimate for an article to exist as a simple stub for ages, only to be improved by some other independant editor. The fact that nobody is working on it is not a reason for deletion; look at WP:NOEFFORT. The idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary refers to topics where there is little more potential for content beyond the definition of the word. Something like this, which is a regional dish, can potentially have information on it's history, variations, cultural signifigance and other things that extend beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. The fact that such information merely hasn't yet been added to the article does not mean the entire article should be scrapped. -Verdatum (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
The "deadline" you speak of are the underconstruction & inuse tags which both reference time frames for the editing (one so many hours and the other so many days). Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see, you wanted to delete the article independantly of the tag, and you were just making sure it wasn't actively being revamped. All is well. -Verdatum (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see that although the title uses the spelling with an ⟨a⟩, the article uses an ⟨o⟩, and no explanation is given for either. Is the spelling with ⟨a⟩ standard Polish and the spelling with ⟨o⟩ Silesian? Spacemarine10 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Wodzionka" is colloquial/Silesian:
[wodzianka] Also used in the form wodzionka; this variant is mostly colloquial in nature, but is also often used to emphasize the Silesian origin of the dish, especially by people who know the Silesian dialect and culture.
