Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Boroughs or districts?

There seems to be inconsistency in the way we categorize dzielnice of Polish cities - we have for example Category:Districts of Kraków and Category:Districts of Katowice, but Category:Boroughs of Warsaw and Category:Boroughs of Poznań. Following discussion with Poeticbent at User talk:Kotniski#Districts of Kraków, we propose renaming the borough categories to districts (so Category:Boroughs of Warsaw would become Category:Districts of Warsaw and so on). This would seem prefereable, as "borough" for a division of a city has only fairly localized usage in English. Any objections?--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. No objections. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support enthusiastically. I've always called subdivisions of cities, "districts." "Borough" is used in inconsistent ways and has something of an antique flavor, as in "rotten boroughs." Nihil novi (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Standarization = good. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, so I proposed the change at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 7, with a link to this discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Polish parishes in USA

Several months ago I began a series of articles on Polish-American parishes in the U.S. Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England I thought that this topic is important because it is linked with the history of the two countries, Polish and U.S.. However, few voices of those who have no knowledge of the "national parish" caused that I stopped writing further articles in English. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 15 about St. Joseph Parish, Norwich Currently, I write them in Polish Wikipedia.pl:Kategoria:Polonijne parafie rzymskokatolickie w Stanach Zjednoczonych Therefore, I have a question for this forum. Is Parish (which consists of church, cemetery, people, priests, and the history of Polish immigrants) is notable or not? Can I continue to write in English, or whether the subject is not important?--WlaKom (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that they are notable. If they weren't, I'd assume that the entire corresponding category system would be gone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England is a perfect place to explain problems of Polish parishes.Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The question is related to U.S., not just New England. Parishes in New England are just small percentage of all. Most of them are located in IL, PA, NY. --WlaKom (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Future of WikiProject Poland - assistants needed

As I noted above, there is a series of gnomish WikiProject-related tasks that I've been doing for years and that I may be unable to do for the next 15 months. It would be highly appreciated if volunteers would step up to take them over. They involve:

1. monitoring of the new Poland-related article feed. This should be done weekly, and it entails:

   a) checking if the article is encyclopedic and if not, prodding and if necessary nominating it for deletion

   b) slapping appropriate cleanup needed templates on the articles needing them

   c) check if a creator of a Poland-article has been welcomed and invited here (see our welcome template above)

   d) if an article is a DYK quality, nominate it to T:DYK and inform the creator that he should do so himself in the future; if the article is close to but not a DYK quality ask the creator to improve it to a DYK quality and nominate it

2. watchlist and monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland
3. monitoring the Poland article news for:

   a) deletion discussions not reported in deletion sorting and report them there

   b) FA/GA nomintions and reviews as well as move requests, commenting on them and announcing them here when appropriate

4. replying to help requests here
5. monitoring our archive size and when it gets to ~200 create a new one
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment should continue; there are still many Poland-related articles that are unassessed (and many that are not tagged with our {{WikiProject Poland}}. Once an article is templated, it will feed into a cleanup listing, a list of most popular pages, and many other similar useful outlets.
7. occasionally spreading the good will and teamwork spirit by handing out awards

I don't know if somebody would like to step in into my unofficial role as the coordinatoor of this project, but if so, please don't hesitate to step up.

Here is a list of things that we should do but are not, a sort of my own "to do" list for this project that I wanted to implement one day. As I may not be able to do so anymore, perhaps somebody else could:

1. deal with backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Cleanup listing
2. write a report on our WikiProject for Wikipedia:Signpost (example)
3. create an A-class and eventually B-class reviews for our assessments
4. create a monthly wikiproject newsletter

Here is a list of my personal Poland-related articles that will be in need of adoption:

1. cleanup, monitoring and creation of missing articles from the List of Poles from the Polski Słownik Biograficzny
2. as above for a smaller list at User:Piotrus/List of Poles from HoI

On a final note, I want to thank User:Kpalion and User:Poeticbent for taking care of Portal:Poland. I was always happy to know that this task is being done by such reliable editors as yourself. I want to thank User:Kotniski for his activity in the geography-related aspects of the projects, and many, many others for their content contributions (I will not list you here, because that would be one very long list of nearly all active users here). You are a great team, and I am sure you'll do just fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if there will be anybody willing to replace you here. We will see. I will not make such a promise, as my time is too limited, and one needs hours and hours of their free time to do it all. Tymek (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

True. In this context, Piotrus is what we are constantly being told doesn't exist: the indispensable man. Nihil novi (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe PasswordUsername/Antinationalist & Co., M.K. or Deancon etc. could temporarily take over:)? That would be fun:). --Jacurek (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better to have more than one person to do this. You list seven main gnomish WikiProject-related tasks. Perhaps each job could be done by a different person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsovian (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could even use trolls. Loosmark (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion serious and constructive. This is not a laughing matter. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My bandwidth unfortunately is limited, as demonstrated by my not getting past the death of Bishop Albert at the History of Riga for some time now. As Piotrus has laid out his "run-rate", if you will, activities, I would suggest we wait to see what the outcome is of the EEML proceedings and then move forward with whatever concrete actions might be necessary. Speculation and cheeky cynical comments about leaving the metaphorical wolves to look after the sheep don't really advance the conversation here. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A few things come to mind. One, and I realy do not like trying to fix something already working, the portal, if you all wanted, could be set to autorotation of content, which would only really involve news items as potentially needing updates. Also, regarding the tasks outlined above, maybe the best thing to do would be to have people sign off on the various individual tasks they would be willing to perform, and then some of the rest of us can do what we can to ensure that those activities are carried out. John Carter (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers still needed! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• You can ask of course, but the nuclear winter over our portal is fast approaching, because the blast can already be seen in the distance.[1] --Poeticbent talk 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Let us hope that you are wrong. In either case, there should be some members of this project left that are not under any restrictions. Isn't there really anybody else willing to do the above tasks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Why many Polish editors (including me) are unable to present and defend our opinions the way Skaperrod does? Is this the matter of culture, education?
    • In many cases Polish editors have acted with aggression against Nazi propaganda. Anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda isn't tolerated here, the anti-Polish one can be opposed by instead to work we have to look for sources proving that the Nazis lied.
    • I don't accept assertive editors, who not only remove my edits but even POV tags, on the basis of obscure German "sources", eg. schoolbooks written by teachers. I don't like also continuous surveillance and delivering. Kindergarden "civility" is enforced by banning.
    • There is a question "Współrządzić czy nie kłamać" (historically regarding PAX). But was it worth to accept biased compromises, eg. regarding the Polish-Soviet war? Is a compromise based on lies valuable?Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Nationalistic editors are allegedly a plague User:Moreschi/The_Plague. What about Pomeranian nationalists? Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Western-centric cultural imperialism isn't a problem for Western people, they aren't aware of it. They see Poland through the eyes of German or Soviet/Russian occupants and it's O.K. A Polish editor has a choice - to accept such "sources" or to be branded as a funny nationalist, who mumbles in poor English about his small problems, like Communism. Who cares about the funny aborigines of "Eastern Europe".Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Back on subject. Helpers needed, possibly for a year. Come on, people - it will be a shame to see all of this fall apart... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Last call for action... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if there has been any discussion elsewhere but as far as I can tell no-one has yet to offer to take over any of the tasks. As a editor who has never created an article, only 1000ish edits and being busy with my own Polish projects I was reluctant to even discuss trying to take on some of the work done by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus.

Still I have had a look over the first list and consider the following within my ability 1b, 1c, 3a, 3b and maybe 5 if someone explains what is needed. I assume for 5, when required I edit the discussion page such that MiszaBot points at new archive and edit the description to match the new archive. Do I need to create the archive page or does MiszaBot automatically?

Further I offer to help out more with 1a and 4. I am unlikely to help with 1d, 2 and 7 until I am much more experienced. Not clear what 6 entails hence if someone explains more I may offer.

Finally I can’t really assist with the second and third list. Still I don’t mind working on the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Cleanup listing when I have time.

Not sure if I can do it but the offer is there to try to cover a number of the tasks if necessary Jniech (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up! Re: 5, I am pretty sure the bot will create it on its own. 6 is simple - it involves tagging appopriate articles with {{WPPOLAND}}, and adding class= and importance= parameters when missing. The two lists linked in that section need to work - they are generated automatically by other bots. The cleanup is useful for more "to do" stuff, the popularity one is more of a trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: Are you willing to monitor my progress for as long as you can? If I have more questions, would you prefer to discuss them here, your talk page or my talk page?

To the other editor, even taking some of Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus tasks is going to be massive extra work for me and there will be a learning curve, hence I would appreciate understanding when I make mistakes. Jniech (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just call me Piotrus. Feel free to ask me questions, here or on my talk, and I'll try my best to give you advice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask Piotrus to stop doing those administrative duties I offered to take over? These are 1b, 1c, 3a, 3b and 5 starting 8am tomorrow (UK time) as I feel I need to be dropped in at the deep end. If you have time then monitor them and if after 12 hours I seem to have missed something then drop a hint on my talk page/your talk page/here.

Further I suggest we share 1a, 4, 6 & 7 for as long as Piotrus is able to edit.

I will be discussing with Piotrus various questions I have on his talk page.

Any members with questions about me direct them here or to my talk page. I can’t replace Piotrus but will do my best to keep the administration under control and help out as best I can with editing Wikipedia pages. Jniech (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The way things are going, I will have to stop them very soon anyway :> Good luck to you all, it was a privilege to be able to help with this project for those five years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PGE Arena

Hello. To illustrate the PGE Arena Gdańsk, all we have available is this rather horrid non-free imagining here. I found something from about 18 months ago that showed the stadium as more than just a hole in the ground. Is there anyone in, near or passing through Gdańsk who would be able to take a picture of this building without going too far out of their way? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, pl wikipedia's version of Wikipedia:Requested pictures is pl:Wikipedia:Zamówienia na obrazki. I've added a request for the relevant picture to the Pomeranian Voivodeship subsection here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Many, many thanks

As almost everybody knows, some of our editors will be taking involuntary Wikibreaks and some will be subject to topic bans. Before they go, I would like to thank them for all the work they have done here, especially on articles that are within the scope of this WikiProject. Dziękujemy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Polish population transfers (1944–1946)

The title doesn't describe the content, it's about the "repatriacja" only, ignoring DP and soldiers return, transfers from Western and Southern Europe.Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did some preliminary work there. You're welcome to look for additional sources about the Polish population transfers from the rest of Europe. It sounds important enough. --Poeticbent talk 16:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The first line says "Polish population transfers from the former eastern territories of Poland".Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment at talk.[2] The problem is that Poles were forcibly resettled only from the Soviet Union, which can be described as "expulsion of Poles" (per wp:lede). The article Displaced Persons camp #The difficulties of repatriation describes the process of repatriation from the West (including Polish) in a different way. Quote. "Over one million refugees could not be repatriated to their original countries and were left homeless as a result of fear of persecution." --Poeticbent talk 16:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is - to describe all transfers in this article, which means rewriting it or to create two (or more) articles. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The article (mis)uses the propaganda word "repatriation". Extreme POV.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1628 (TV series)

I have started trying to take over some of the tasks that Piotrus did for this project. Whilst he can reply, I hope to bounce questions off him. This article I felt was worth being added to this project but was not 100% convince. I asked Piotrus who was against adding WPPOLAND but felt it was “a bit borderline”. As a result Piotrus suggested putting to the group.

Please expect a lot of questions from me over the next few months as I get up to speed. Sorry for this but I hope you agree it worth someone trying to stay on top these tasks. Jniech (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions=activity=good. Let's just hope to see many replies :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish TV series is indeed a borderline case. The good thing is that you can't really go wrong, either way you decide I don't think anybody will protest.  Dr. Loosmark  15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I always liked the idea of taskforce in WikiProjects to indicate that something is related to some other WikiProject, but that system is not fully implemented (MILHIST taskforces are a notable exception - as you can see on the main page of our project). Tag it with TVSERIES/FILM wikiproject, certainly, and Swedish. Polish - I wouldn't, but would I remove it if I saw it? Probably not. PS. In either case, now I am wondering if the series was ever released with English or Polish subtitles, I'd like to see it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A sad day

It seems we have lost a number of members for various lengths due to bans. The project page shows the active status of members was last checked in March. Therefore I plan over the Christmas break to check each member’s active status. I will move all those banned into inactive group unless members have a better suggestion. Jniech (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a sad day. I moved the banned users into a section of their own. If you'd like, I can help you identify active/inactive editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Polish editors should be replaced like The Stepford Wives. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz: Sure, if you want to identify active/inactive editors that fine by me Jniech (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Judyta Papp notable or not?

Never hear of Judyta Papp hence not against the article being deleted but there is some evidence she is notable (e.g. has two books). Anyone think the article is worth saving? Jniech (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I looked into it, and I'm not surprised the article was flagged with the summary: "massive name dropping but no evidence of notability". Papp took 13 photos of celebrities, which were put up for an auction by somebody else, hardly a book publication. The list of references consists of links to 3 photographs she took, no more. --Poeticbent talk 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wesołych Świąt

Traditionally, I want to wish you all Wesołych Świąt i Dosiego Nowego Roku! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus.

Thanks. I also wish you all serene, peaceful and blessed Christmas. Błogosławionych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia i Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku. ;) - Darwinek (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:What they said. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, my dear friends! --Poeticbent talk 21:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to everyone! And a better New Year. --radek (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all --Jniech (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I too wish a Merry Christmas to everybody who works on Poland related topics.  Dr. Loosmark  18:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings to one and all! Wesołych Świąt!--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wesolych swiat dla wszystkich Was, dobrzy ludzie. I nie jedzcie za duzo bo brzuchy beda bolaly! Tymek (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Feliks Rajmund Podkólinski

Hello. Could you look at this article, please? I've prodded it as a marginally notable subject, but perhaps you'll find out more. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Same extra-short stub was created by the same user the very same day on pl wiki, therefore I assume the person is not notable enough unless any sources are swiftly provided. - Darwinek (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is included in the Polish Biographical Dictionary, so that means he is notable ; see User:Piotrus/List_of_Poles/Pobudkiewicz-Przezdziecki. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)(the ghost of Piotrus still haunts these halls)

OK, thanks for your help. I've noted his name in that list previously. Now we have an article consisting of two unreferenced sentences and a little possibility of expanding or verifiyng the content using online sources. Isn't it better to wait until someone with a better grasp of the subject and with an access to Polish sources write really encyclopedic article? --Vejvančický (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod template. There is no need to hurry in this case. This is just one of the ways, how to start an article... I'll watch further development there. Thanks again. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Greetings. Please make a note of my new proposal at Talk:Jewish Polish history during the 20th century#Requested move. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Chopin, Mickiewicz, Słowacki alleged Frankists?

Hi guys, could you have a look at the article about Frankism? A user with some obscure sources claims that Chopin, Mickiewicz and Słowacki were of Frankist descent. It completely ruins an otherwise nice article.--85.222.86.36 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I just checked the Muzeum Historii Polski webpage run by Fortepresse.[3] It says in Polish (last sentence on the page) that with regard to Mickiewicz it is only an unproven theory. Meawhile, Tomasz Łubieński says straight on in Gazeta Wyborcza (16/10/1998) that is just a legend. The poet's mother Barbara z Majewskich Mickiewiczowa was not a descendant of Frankists in his view. It was another Majewski family in Lithuania who were.[4] The rest would have to be checked. -- Poeticbent talk 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming question

Hello. I was wondering if articles like Rakowicki Cemetery should not be moved to more correct name in English, i.e. in this case "Rakowice Cemetery". What do you think? - Darwinek (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The current title is better.  Dr. Loosmark  13:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say in this case that Rakowicki is better, since the cemetery doesn't seem to have any significant connection with the village of Rakowice except that it's by a road leading to there. So readers won't be helped any by the "translation". (Unless it's commonly referred to by that name in English sources, of course.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Gniezno Doors

I have just expanded this considerably, but have had limited sources, including one very old English article, & a collection of Google book snippets. If anyone could add futher refs from good quality sources in Polish (or indeed German), I'd be very grateful. The Polish external link with the good photos seems to have good coverage. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2 0 1 0

Happy New Year to everybody!  Dr. Loosmark  23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy New Year to you and other members of the project as well. Hope 2010 will be much better for this project. - Darwinek (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

Perhaps this additional requested move proposal would draw your attention also? Talk:Nazi concentration camps#Requested move -- Poeticbent talk 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"....Austrians and Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps" says Varsovian there. Xx236 (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you wish to disagree with the fact that Austrian and Polish nationals took part in the running of Nazi camps? Or do you simply wish to attack me?Varsovian (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You attack youself equating the position of Austrians and Poles in the German extermination system.Xx236 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see: you do wish to simply attack me. Could you please be so kind as to post a quote in which I equate the position of Austrians and Poles in the German extermination system? Either that or withdraw your baseless accusation. I said that persons from nationalities other than German also took part in the running of the camps. But given how you have already misquoted me in order to make it seem that I said 'All Poles took part', it's clear that you have little interest in truth. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"....Austrians and Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps". Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryksa

It is probably hoax. There is no sources about Popiel's wife. I proposed this article to be deleted. Maglocunus (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I added some sources about legendary Ryksa. --WlaKom (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming problem - Silesia, Silesian Piasts

Hello, I would like to suggest some discussion about Naming conflicts in the Silesia region.

Since the second half of the first millenium the region was inhabited by Slavs. It was part of Great Moravia, Bohemia and since 992 of Poland. There are different opinions about when did it finally shifted from Poland to Bohemia again. Some sources claim that since 1202 it was an idependant region but it is a minor opinion. The main opinion, widely accepted in English literature, claims that it was part of the fragmented state (Fragmentation of Poland) since 1138 to 1327-1329 when king of Bohemia enforced his supremacy over the Piast dukes of this region which was accepted in several treties between the monarchs of Poland and Bohemia in the following years.

Since than Silesia shared its history with Bohemia up to 1740 when it was annexed by Prussia. After WWI Upper Silesia was divided between Poland and Geramny. In 1945 rest of the region was reassigned to Poland in Poczdam as an equivalent for Kresy and due to a Polish speaking minority.

It is a brief summarise for more check History of Silesia, Silesian Piasts and etc.

The problem is since when or even if German names of the towns, people and places in Silesia schould be used. When we come to Gdańsk we have a fixed date - 1308 (Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk) but in the Silesia case there are various problems with finding one.

First of all even after shift to Bohemia (itself part of predominantly but not exclusively German Holy Roman Empire) the duchies of Silesia were ruled by Piasts - the first Polish royal dynasty that ruled Poland for over 400 years. What is more it was the oldest branch of this dynasty. Some members of the dynasty germanised and some did not. For instance last dukes of Opole from the 16th century did not know German at all and ruled a predominantly (even still in 1945) Polish part of Silesia.

The Lower Silesian Piasts germanised faster though there is no fixed date to all of them and it is hard to find one even for singular members of the family.

The towna names also germanised for centuries. For instance Legnica was still called Legnicz and Lignitz in the 15th century and the modern German form of Liegnitz became predominant only in the 18th century. The same with Strzelin (15th century: Strelin, Strelen and modern German Strehlen).

The question is when to start using modern German names for that towns. Can we call a 15th century duke i.e Henry from Liegnitz when this name of the town did not even exist then? On the other hand schould we use the forms of Legnicz or Lignitz that were in use in those times (That would be the most apropriate from the historical point of view but quite misleading).

We cannot find one date for the whole region as the process of Germanising was unequal even in its different parts (It was the quickest in the south and west and slowest in the north and east along the Polish borderline). Yet there is an editor who changes the names of all dukes without any leading thought and without a discussion about the whole problem. He uses modern German names for people and places in the Medieval times when they did not even exist yet.

To avoid such situations I would like to propose a major discussion for the whole of Silesia so we could create some rules, similar as in the case of Gdańsk, and stick to them.

The same post was also put on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.

Best Wishes Opole.pl (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Silesian names were (old) German from the very beginning, or we know only the Latin translations of the names, see Ząbkowice Śląskie.Xx236 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This may help... From WP:NPOV#Article naming:

• Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used (italics added)

In other words... the names used by English language historians may help resovle this issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

-=-=

Many English language historians read German and use German sources, almost noone reads Polish and uses Polish sources. In another words - let's continue pro-German bias. Kind of "Let's quote racist description of Afroamerican history, because it exists, in perfect English". Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey... it's the policy... if you don't like it see if you can get consensus to change it. But until that happens, we should follow it. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why am I suddenly tempted to go over to the Polish version Wikipedia and start a debate over whether it should use the English: Edinburgh, the Scottish Gaelic: Dùn Èideann, or the Scots: Embra or E'nburrie in their article on that city (which, in a clear demonstration of polskiphilic bias, they have entitled using the Polish: "Edynburg".) Hmmm... Naaah.

Seriously... I do point you to our article on Edinburgh and how it deals with language issues. The title is in English, but it notes the Gaelic and Scots names prominently (both in the text and in an info box). Nice and neutral. I would think that a similar approach would resolve many of the issues being raised here. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What does Edinburgh and the Scottish Gaelic have to do with anything? The situation with naming in Silesia region is not even remotely similar.  Dr. Loosmark  15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Antanas Mackevicius aka Antoni Mackiewicz

This is conflict behind Polish wikipedians and Lithuanians. Polish or Lithuanian? As for me Polish noble(szlachcic). I would like to see all your opinions :) --marekchelsea (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is welcome to the group as you have added to your user page that you a member. Please add your name to the participants list including your key interests. Sadly I can not help with your query about this person Jniech (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maszewo County

Hi everyone,

I clicked on Random article and got to the page, Maszewo County.

Is Maszewo County a real county? I ask this because of three reasons:

• It does not appear in List of counties in Poland.
• Most of the Gminas claimed in its infobox belong to Goleniów County.
• The article does not have a lead section, references, sources, discussion.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no Maszewo County, Maszewo is a Gmina which is part of the Goleniów County.  Dr. Loosmark  13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is here: Gmina Maszewo, West Pomeranian Voivodeship.  Dr. Loosmark  13:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Maszewo County is asserted to be a county which existed until 1975 (from 1945, presumably). It isn't in Polish Wikipedia, but it may be true.--Kotniski (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be. The article should not cite the population in 2003, link to the webpage [5] etc because it's all confusing.  Dr. Loosmark  18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for looking into this. I will leave it for you to decide what (if anything) to change in the article. (: I now return to my regular random walk through Wikipedia. :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to pl:Podział administracyjny Polski 1950-1957, a Maszewo County didn't exist at that time either, and Maszewo belonged to the Nowogard County. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bartosz Broniszewski

I have a problem with German pseudowikipedian Hubschrauber729. I give a Polish source which contain words:- Choć urodziłem się w Niemczech, to jestem Polakiem(eng version:Though I was born in Germany, but I'm Polish). He doesn't think so and he said that broniszewski is german(sic!). He deleted this source. This is Vandalism!!! Help me with this --marekchelsea (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Janusz Korczak and Simon Soloveychik

"Ideas of Korczak were further developed by many other pedagogues such as Simon Soloveychik." Any fact about it? Simon Soloveychik published mostly in the SU, where any word was censored. Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bund

"The Polish Bundists continued their activities until 1948." - not much information.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidance on Importance level

I am starting to clear down articles requiring an importance level connected to this project. As a still inexperienced editor, I thought I would look at existing articles to get a better feel. Top is the highest level and is meant for ‘must-have’. Therefore I think the following articles should down graded in relationship to this article. I thought I would run it by you to ensure that I have generally gotten the levels right.

Henry III of France was only King of Poland for a short while and as the title of the article indicates has stronger ties outside Poland hence suggesting high importance I feel sufficient.

Bielsko-Biała is a major city but feel top should be for the likes of Warsaw, Częstochowa, and Poznan hence again suggest high would do. Same for the cities of Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Kalisz, Koszalin, Wałbrzych and Zabrze

Konarski Secondary School in Rzeszów I suggest is mid level importance and Kozminski Business School is low

Zygmunt Kurnatowski I have not heard of hence high or even mid.

I think most Voivodeship and county should be mid hence lowing Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship from top to mid.

Further Polish castles do not appear as part of this project (e.g. Niesytno Castle, Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle, Będzin Castle, Bielsko-Biała Museum, Bobolice Castle, Chęciny Castle, Czocha Castle). Is there any reason? Jniech (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The castles should be part of the project.  Dr. Loosmark  13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Other editors, especially Piotrus, have done such a good job that I was surprise to check out 10 Polish castles and not find one part of this project. I will add them ASAP Jniech (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look over the High importance articles. The following are my suggested changes. Please do comment as I do not want to make a mess and further changes won’t be reported here (i.e. if no-one complaints then I will assume I have approximately got the right feel for level of importance)

High to Low

A1 autostrada (Poland)

A2 autostrada (Poland)

A4 autostrada (Poland)

HWDP

Tramways in Poznań

Tramways in Szczecin

High to Mid

Bank Pekao

Boris Chertok

Gerard Antoni Ciołek

Democratic Left Alliance

EuroBasket 2009

Jeremi Wiśniowiecki

Włodzimierz Kołos

Wojciech Korfanty

Category talk:Kuyavian-Pomeranian geography stubs

Category talk:Lwówek Śląski County geography stubs

Pole, Hungarian, two good friends

High to Top

Battle of Vienna

Battle of Warsaw (1920)

Frédéric Chopin

Marie Curie

Katyn massacre Jniech (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ok my personal impression on your proposal is as follows:

High to Low: i would rather demote them to mid save for HWDP which should indeed be low.

High to Mid: mostly agree with you apart from Wojciech Korfanty which should IMO stay High and Boris Chertok which should probably be demoted to Low (as far as I can see the only connection with Poland is he was born in Łódź).

High to Top: agree with all.  Dr. Loosmark  12:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The only connection is that he was born in Poland?! With that kind of logic, the next thing you'll be saying is that Copernicus wasn't Polish!Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Kopernik has nothing to do with the above proposal please discuss your ideas about him on the appropriate talk page. Thanks.  Dr. Loosmark  13:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Kopernik? I was talking about the man who referred to himself as Coppernicus (or Copernicus), there's no need for you to bring plants into the discussion.Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. On reassessment I agree that Wojciech Korfanty should be at high importance.

Further I can see the point about Boris Chertok as he was born in the Russian empire, land now part of the Ukraine and is a Russian national hence limited connections to Poland. Put it another way there about 100 peoples listed with top or high importance in relationship to this project, does he really warrant being 1 of them? I definitely think mid is a better choice and happy to support low. I will see if others agree. Jniech (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankists redoux

Hi again. I edited the article about Jacob Frank, putting in this:

Some Frankists were active during the French Revolution, such as Frank's nephew Moses Dobruška. Many of the Frankists saw Napoleon Bonaparte as a potential Messiah. The Frankists scattered in Poland and Bohemia eventually intermarried into the gentry and middle class. Maria Szymanowska, a piano virtuoso, came from a Frankist family.[4]

In 1883, a Russian magazine Русская старина (Russian Old Times) issued memoirs of an influential official of the Russian ministry of interior, a secret advisor and a staunch anti-Semite O.A. Phzetslavsky. The author of the memoirs announced "sensational news": the mothers of three of the greatest men of Poland (Frederic Chopin, Adam Mickiewicz and Juliusz Słowacki) were converted Jews from the Frankist sect.[5] Although those assertions were never verified they were nonetheless repeated by a number of people, including Mieses and Balaban, early Jewish historians.[6][7][8][9][10] However, they have been long proven false by modern scholars, historians and genealogists.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Additionally, Juliusz Słowacki's mother is considered to have been Armenian [18] and, according to S. Rybczonek, Adam Mickiewicz's mother came from a Muslim Tatar family.[19]

User Galassi changed it to this (deleting sources added by me in the process):

Some Frankists were active during the French Revolution, such as Frank's nephew Moses Dobruška. Many of the Frankists saw Napoleon Bonaparte as a potential Messiah. The Frankists scattered in Poland and Bohemia eventually intermarried into the gentry and middle class, and a number of important cultural figures in Poland are descended from former Frankists, including Frederic Chopin[4], Adam Mickiewicz[5][6][7][8], Juliusz Slowacki [9] and Maria Szymanowska.[10] Although nationalist Polish historians dispute this - the seminal research into the Frankist movement by the historian Meir Balaban has also traced these genealogies to conclusively prove such descent [11].

I reverted it again, but I don't have the time to play the cat and mouse with him. Could someone have a look at it? --85.222.86.36 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Piotr Nowina-Konopka

Hello. Unless you have been living in a cave up in the mountains or under a tree root in the forest, you will likely know that unreferenced biographies of living people are not popular right now. Can anyone do anything to improve Piotr Nowina-Konopka, an article which has been sad and unreferenced for some years now? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Wieluń misinforms

Can someone compare the English and Polish version of Cynk's book?Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Cleanup listing#Unreferenced BLPs

FYI - A massive discussion is taking place at a Request for comment (RfC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. About 50k of articles are currently unreferenced and therefore in danger of deletion, some of those are on Polish subjects, like Tadeusz Piechura speedy deleted for that reason (may be of minor notability). I can see that some editors recently have referenced Hanna Mierzejewska, Franciszek Gągor, Piotr Nowina-Konopka and Robert Brylewski. Yet, many articles are still unreferenced, for instance Jan Vincent-Rostowski, Andrzej Żuławski and Tomasz Bonin. The cleanup link in the title above points to a list of unreferenced articles with the WikiProject Poland template on its talk page. Please revise articles on the list,

1. review them for contentious unsourced information pr WP:BLP concerns
2. add references (you may e.g. lift references from the Polish page, if that page exists)
3. remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template from the article.

We need a lot of hands for this task. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the Jan Vincent-Rostowski, but additional sources are welcome.Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move for Karkonosze

Hello. Karkonosze article is nominated again for a move. Discuss at Talk:Karkonosze#Requested move 2. - Darwinek (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's now a new poll on this. If you commented before, you might want to go and vote, as previous !votes are going to be discounted. Talk:Karkonosze#Poll II.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP

To add to the notification above, with ArbCom's permission, I've created a category for Poland related unreferenced BLPs to gather up all the articles that need sourcing in one place. If these articles don't get sources they may very well be deleted and there's some quite notable people on that list, including Jolanta Kwasniewska, Danuta Walesa, "Papcio" Chmiel, Kazik Staszewski itp.

The full list of unsourced BLPs is here [6] and we need someone to help in going through all these (and there's a ton of them), pick out the ones that are Poland related, add the category, and help reference them. Alternatively, if somebody has some bot-skillz then a simple bot could be set up to auto add the category to articles from that list that are also in other Poland-related categories. But that's beyond my present capabilities.radek (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this point is obvious but wanted to add it explicitly for the purposes of clarification: note that SOME of the articles in this category may very well DESERVE to be deleted, if no reliable sources can be found for them, or if they fail notability guidelines (I haven't noticed any on the notability front yet) - in that case please PROD them.radek (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course once you've reffed an article, please remove the BLP-ureferenced tag as well as this category.radek (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Giant mountains? Karkonosze? Krkonoše? Riesengebirge?

You are invited to participate in a poll. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Joanna Kanska

This page is being vandalised. An unregistered user has changed her from Polish to Russian three times. Further this user has changed her husband from Polish to Moldavian and Romanian. They then blanked the page twice. What steps should I take now? Jniech (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO the best option is to leave a notice on his talk to stop doing it. If he continues then report him here: [7].  Dr. Loosmark  20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. If he will resume to vandalize the article, let me know. - Darwinek (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any chance you could make it 48 hours? I am away this weekend hence can’t watch the article until Monday for sure. Jniech (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's IP's first block ever, so it should be 24 hours. Next one should be longer of course. Let's hope he will not return to vandalize. - Darwinek (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Could another member add Kanska to their watch list for the next 48 hours just encase they return Jniech (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is now under attack from a different IP address 81.159.190.82 Jniech (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. - Darwinek (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's citizenship

Can anyone shed any light on the questions raised at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Became a French citizen in 1835? In particular whether there was any concept of Polish citizenship at that time?--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ewa Gorzelak-Dziduch at AFD

Your input would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Gorzelak-Dziduch. Sorry for the spam, but without a Polish-speaker, we're in the dark. Ray^Talk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wojciech Jaruzelski in Czech sources

http://blog.aktualne.centrum.cz/blogy/petr-klan.php?itemid=4576 is a blog. Are there any more reliable sources?Xx236 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, start with reading some books. - Darwinek (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We replace frequently unreliable sources of blog type by more reliable sources without reading tens of books. I preferred to ask for help instead to start an edit war by cancelling this phrase.Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo request - LOT Polish Airlines head office

Would someone around Warsaw mind photographing the LOT Polish Airlines head office? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bit silly to do that right now, the place will be like everything else in this city right now: surrounded by large piles of snow. Why not email the press office at LOT and ask them for a photo (and the appropriate copyright release)?Varsovian (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can take some pictures, but Varsovian is right that this is not the best season for taking pictures in Warsaw. Please remind me in April. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian, if the press office is willing to send a photo without a copyright, that sounds like a good idea. I would have to try it at some point and see how it goes.

I understand that weather may not be good at the moment - it is alright to wait a month and take the photo whenever it is convenient.

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I noticed there is a Cat:Polish Lithuanians. In my opinion the name is highly inappropriate as Polish people from Litwa have nothing to do with Lithuanians. I propose this category should be renamed to "Polish people in Lithuania" or "Polish people from Lithuania", in line with other categories dealing with specific historical ethnic minorities, like Cat:Hungarians in Slovakia or Cat:Albanians from the Republic of Macedonia. What do you think? - Darwinek (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As for me it's a good idea, then Polish people will not be confused with ethnic Lithuanians.--marekchelsea (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Category:Polish Americans? Move it to Category:Polish people in the United States? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is totally different case as "hyphenated-Americans" is an offically used term in the U.S. Also the United States and European (especially Central and Eastern European) countries have completely different understanding of nationality, the U.S. one being based on the political (country) allegiance, while in European case the nationality denotes (apart from citizenship) also ethnicity. - Darwinek (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Even in Polish wikipedia it is an article called "Polacy na Litwie" , not "Litewscy Polacy" --marekchelsea (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to the current category. Having said that, I think "Polish people in Lithuania" and "Polish people from Lithuania" are clearer. I think you would need both to cover Poles born in Lithuania and those who move there. Jniech (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the category at CFD here. Feel free to vote and comment. - Darwinek (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor assistance (Hubner)

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Danuta_Hubner - comments are good. Slijk (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request regarding Piotrus and helping with this project

I am planning to make a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment regarding Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Please see my talk page for draft. Can anyone help confirm the procedure I need to follow? Jniech (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Zulawy

I found this a bit neglected article (it even didn't have a category) and I wonder what is it's proper English name ("Zulawy"? "Żuławy"? "Żuławy Wiślane"? artificial "Vistula Zulawy"?). In Polish, "Żuławy" is only a shortened form for "Żuławy Wiślane": perhaps the English article also should use a longer form, but I don't know which one. Laforgue (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed the article.  Dr. Loosmark  17:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Czerniawski

This AfD has been relisted for more comment. It's very hard for non-Polish-speaking Wikipedians to figure out whether a contemporary Polish poet meets WP:AUTHOR notability criteria. There are some Polish-language sources mentioned in that discussion. Please take a look at the page and consider participating. The AfD should run until early on Feb. 24. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Eilenberg

I notice that the prominent mathematician "Samuel Eilenberg" (d 1998) is missing from most lists of Polish mathematicians. J.R. Swenson 23 Feb 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.109.238 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no List of Polish mathematicians. Samuel Eilenberg is identified in his article as "a Polish and American mathematician of Jewish descent", and he's included in Category:Polish mathematicians of Jewish descent (as well as Category:People from Warsaw, Category:Polish Jews, and Category:Polish-American Jews), so there's no question that his Polish heritage is acknowledged. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article review

Greetings,

I would like to ask You for help in improving the article "Clan of Ostoja", I need feedback and suggestions how to make the article better. The goal is to make minimum GA class article. There will be more such articles in the future as the there is progress on researching the subject, eliminating many errors that can be found in previous publications. So...if this article will be a good article, more good article will follow in the future.

New rating suggestion would be widely appreciated for the article since there have been lot of improvement done since 8th of February when the article have been rated. This rating is good guidance to follow to improve.

Anyone that can give me some light in the tunnel will be rewarded with lot of gratitude! :)

Best regards, 213.89.182.254 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In your post, I added a wikilink to the article in question. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bronislaw Komorowski

This article now requires URGENT attention as Komorowski is a de facto presidential candidate. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski

Józef Piłsudski is now in the category "Lithuanian people of Polish descent". One doesn't know whether to cry or to laugh.  Dr. Loosmark  17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He was born in Lithuania and his parents were ethnic Poles. What's the problem then? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If we choose to ignore that there was no Lithuania on the map in 1867, he was a Pole from Lithuania and most certainly not a Lithuanian of Polish descent.  Dr. Loosmark  18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

wikt: Lithuanian, A person living in or coming from Lithuania. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I tomorrow go to live in Lithuania I become a Lithuanian?  Dr. Loosmark  19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you go there to stay then yes. That's how the English language works. You come to America to stay and you become an American. If you were born in America, you're a (natural-born) American. Why would it be different for Lithuania? Or Poland for that matter? Copernicus was an ethnic German born in Poland, so he was Polish or not? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea that if I move to Lithuania I become a Lithuanian by default is a complete nonsense. I might become one if I chose so but it is not a given. If what you say would be true then Michael Schumacher and Valentino Rossi would be considered Swiss and British because they live in Switzerland and UK respectively.  Dr. Loosmark  19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Piłsudski is a very good example of why the category should have been left as Lithuanian-Polish people.Varsovian (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is already good, I made category "Poles from Lithuania" and Jozef Pilsudski is there. No problem. --marekchelsea (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_11#Category:Polish_Lithuanians Varsovian (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And what's wrong with that? Nothing prevents him from creating a new category. You can always nominate it for deletion, if you aren't too busy "working" on the 303th squadron article, that is.  Dr. Loosmark  14:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter was discussed in detail and consensus was reached. Marek then ignored that discussion and consensus and unilaterally moved articles into a category with the title that he wanted. Are you sure that that is the way in which WP should be run?Varsovian (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter was discussed in detail and the consensus was not reached. The closing editor made a simple mistake, as there was clearly no evident consensus. If someone is not satisfied with the new category, he should nominate it at the CFD, easy and transparent policy step. - Darwinek (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the closer made a mistake, appeal the decision. However, if there was clearly no evident consensus, the result should have been no change to the title. Would you prefer that outcome? Varsovian (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Plac Trzech Krzyży

An interesting discussion at the talk page on whether the article on Plac Trzech Krzyży should be called Triple Cross Square or Three Crosses Square. Be sure to check it out. //Halibutt 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Should by Square of Three Crosses, place with three crosses within the square.--WlaKom (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity

Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century European Jew who developed a religious movement called Frankism, and ultimately converted to Catholicism with the King of Poland serving as his godfather) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and his doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish women

Dear Gentlemen,

Noticing how the Category:Polish female models and Category:Polish female singers have been well taken care of, I have no doubt that you all admire Polish women fighters as much, so I made new categories that I hope you'll help me to fill in:

Category:Polish female soldiers - for contemporary and earlier era soldiers is a subcategory of Category:Polish women in war - for women not being soldiers, but still known for remarkable actions during war, i.e. Irena Sendler, Krystyna Skarbek.

Polish women have been severely neglected in the Western feminist scholarship. I hope that by producing such categories we'll make it easier for scholars to learn about them.

I'd also like to ask you to add any Polish woman to a female category when you're working on an article or stub. The most general is Category:Polish women that could be used whenever there's no subcategory, but perhaps making more subcategories would be a good solution as well. How about a separate category for Polish noble women for example? Yours truly, the Ghost of --SylwiaS | talk 22:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Janina Lewandowska is badly needed.Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Polish United Workers' Party members

What is the logic of the list?Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Wrocław#Poland

Almost nothing about the period after 1972.Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the content then. - Darwinek (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Are there any Polish reading editors who are able to improve this article? As the President of Poland was amongst those killed there are likely to be many Polish sources available. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tragedy

Very sad day! Condolences. M.K. (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My deepest condolences to your country. I was shocked to see the news this morning. Such a tragedy. SO many top politicians too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stay strong, good people of Poland. My condolences. --Vejvančický (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Voivodeship & provinces

After making this edit (changing "a [[Voivodeships of Poland|voivodeship]], or [[province]], in..." into "a [[Voivodeships of Poland|voivodeship]] ([[Administrative divisions of Poland|province]]) in...") it ocurred to me that to establish a standard format for all these articles a short discussion would be better than unilateral action. :-)

So, would "a [[Voivodeships of Poland|voivodeship]] ([[Administrative divisions of Poland|province]]) in..." be fine for everyone ? - Best, Ev (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have begun to use the "Voivodeship (province)" format in articles (example). If nobody objects, I will implement it for the articles on the voivodeships themselves soon. Best, Ev (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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"). Nihil novi (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the details, Nihil novi. Only now did I see Talk:Voivodeships of Poland 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 the articles.
• The New York Times uses the "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 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)

Jan Dzierzon

Imie i nazwisko Dzierzona zostalo zmieniona na Johann Dzierzon, to jest pisownia niemiecka. Britanica podaje Jan Dzierżoń (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) i tak powinno byc. Rowniez tu (http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017629) angielskie tlumaczenie pracy Dzierzona podaje Dzierżon, Jan. Czy skontaktowales sie z museum w Kluczborku, albo przeczytales dowody i fotokopie w podanych pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka? Pomijanie zrodel polskich jest niedopuszczalne. Ci ktorzy chca zmieniac artykul powinni uznac wage zrodel polskich wage a nie lawirowac na drugorzednych przekladach i niepelnych zrodlach. Podane tez sa wspolczesne artykuly w prasie polskiej i napisane przez Polakow. Trzeba je wniesc do tekstu. Niech chociaz bedzie widoczne ze spoleczenstwo polskie ma silne zdanie na ten temat. Podaje Ci e-mail jezeli chcesz powaznie pracowac bez udzialu szpiegow: erudra@hotmail.com. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) --Soujdspo (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Please note that this is English Wikipedia and so we use English for all communication (so that all editors can take part in discussions). Please note that Johann Dzierzon is the most commonly used name for this man and as such it is the name which Wikipedia uses. Please also note that Johann Dzierzon is the name which is on the man's tombstone. Varsovian (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Please note that this is English Wikipedia and so we use English for all communication (so that all editors can take part in discussions). Please note that Johann Dzierzon is the most commonly used name for this man and as such it is the name which Wikipedia uses.

If this popular name is a result of enforced germanization it should be changed, and it is done in serious scientific world. Example given above. The wrong unjust name can be given as additional with explanation)

Please also note that Johann Dzierzon is the name which is on the man's tombstone.

The tombstone is historical piece and was funded by Austian Beekeepers association before Poland recovered independance. We Polish (you are probably not a Pole) respect history and facts. This is unfortunately used by german chevinists. We consider you act as wrong moraly. You do not know Dzierzon biography and his strugle with Germans but doing thinks on base of unresponsible imagination. Please read scientific and true books not a internet junk and fix you error. You sell Polish heritage.

Volunteers?

As most of you know, Piotrus used to perform a lot of tasks related to this WikiProject. For example, he would monitor new Poland-related articles and, where appropriate, nominate them for CSD or PROD, add applicable clean-up tags, or nominate them for DYK. You can find a more complete list of Piotrus's responsibilities here.

The purpose of this message is to ask whether anybody is willing to help the WikiProject by taking on some (or all) of the work that Piotrus used to do. I know this question comes up frequently, but currently nobody is doing them, so I thought I'd ask again. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am routinely checking out new Poland-related articles. - Darwinek (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Prior to Piotrus being banned, I offered to take over some of his work. Things seemed to be moving in the right direct when in February I my target for number of edits. Sadly as I feared my other Polish related projects require more time and I have fallen away last month. I previously raised the idea of asking for Piotrus to help me but can’t in good faith ask if I am not going to be able to do the work. Can I suggest a group appeal as unless someone does the tasks Piotrus did in the past, things will quickly run away from us? Jniech (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How can we get Piotrus restored to his former activities and competencies? Nihil novi (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We would make a arbitration request amendment regarding Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Please see my talk page for some previous discussion. Jniech (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Darwinek. I wasn't aware that you were reviewing the new articles.

In terms of Piotrus, I'd like to follow up on Jniech's suggestion and make an appeal to ArbCom to allow Piotrus to assist us with some of the "housekeeping" tasks he did in the past—unless you feel that would be stepping on your toes, Darwinek. I modified the draft that Jniech started. You can see it at User:Malik Shabazz/Piotrus. Feel free to edit it if you'd like. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I am watching new Polish articles, though I am not tagging and elaborating them so thorougly as Piotrus did. Bringing back his cleanup abilities would be of great help to this project. I endorse your statement, well phrased by the way. - Darwinek (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also support. The only change I would suggest is about my part. The reason I didn’t ask immediately was I felt someone had to try. I think the appeal should reference this. Perhaps the following would be useful.

When Piotrus was blocked, User:Jniech volunteered to take on some of those responsibilities. Jniech made a good faith effort but for a variety of reasons has been unable to continually maintain the necessary edits. I have asked for assistance, but none of the other WikiProject Poland members have volunteered to step in. Jniech (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, I have made the formal request to ArbCom to amend its WP:EEML decision with respect to Piotrus. Feel free to leave a comment here. Keep in mind that that page is not intended for discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Accented article titles

I opened a move request at Roman Polanski, to move the page to Roman Polański. Do the more experienced editors here have better arguments for this than I apparently do? (My proposal has been unanimously opposed.) It seems like a great many pages currently under accented titles should be deaccented according to the arguments there. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not about "accents", it is about different letters, in this case the Polish alphabet. - Darwinek (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed here about six months ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 2#Polański, not Polanski. For what it's worth, I think the consensus at Talk:Roman Polanski is wrong: In addition to WP:COMMONNAME, we should consider the way the director himself spells the name (if we know it). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

His official website spells it Polanski. Can we assume that he'd make sure his own website spelt his name the way he wants it spelt? Varsovian (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Subcategorization of Polish articles missing coordinates

I've started the process of subcategorizing articles about Polish geographic coordinates that need coordinates into per-voivodeship sub-categories, which I hope will (a) make the task of coding all these articles seem more tractable by breaking it down into chunks, and (b) help editors with a particular interest in coding articles in particular geographic regions by keeping those articles together in a single smaller category.

Please see Category:Poland articles missing geocoordinate data for the subcategories, and WP:GEO for information on how to geocode articles. -- The Anome (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's nationality and citizenship

...are currently under discussion at Talk:Chopin. Any light (as opposed to heat) that can be shed would be welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic Arbcom stuff

Piotr, I feel you are pushing the boundaries of your topic ban and its amendment by engaging here. Novickas (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in understanding how you got that feeling. This is the correct place to discuss articles that are under the ban, by definition. — Coren ^(talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The feeling is based on WP experiences - no diffs, sorry, but take a look at the history of the Copernicus article - that conflicts based on 'X was a Yian' have been extremely contentious here and quickly escalate. As opposed to what I saw as the intent of the amendment: that he would request that sources be added to unref'd BLPs, that categories and project tags be added to new articles, point to possible DYKs. I have no problems with those and it doesn't seem anyone else does either. But discussing ethnicity - a minefield. I know it's possible to interpret his comments above as innocuous and as working towards a compromise. But I really would prefer a slower approach to his re-entry into the topic banned area. It's a jump from 'add a Wikiproject Poland tag to this or that article' to encouraging project members to participate in a major ethnicity argument. The argument at Chopin isn't easy so I don't have any specific ideas about how else he could help improve it without inflaming things. Or how else he could ease back into PL-related topics. Suggestions welcome. Novickas (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see nothing wrong with the discussion above, and I would certainly not count it as violation of his current restrictions. Let us assume good faith, shall we? — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I shall continue to be wary, tho somewhat reassured by the idea that you are watching this page. Novickas (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will resume posting in this thread. Please don't hesitate to let me know if any other concerns arise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

After the past month's unproductive brawl at the "Chopin" talk page, I am pleasantly surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of Piotrus, and I hope that we may continue to benefit from his participation, under the terms of the 6 May amendment of his restriction, permitting him to raise questions and to comment at this page. Nihil novi (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for having to bother you all at this forum, but I strongly have to disagree with the compromised, sockpuppeteer, Nihil, and his being "..."pleasantly" surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of Piotrus...". I am more inclined that the civil tone and productivity (what productivity, on this unresolved matter, still simmering), that you believe is thanks to the highly discredited and banned Wikipedian, aka Prokonsul Piotrus, is actually more as a result of your not making personal attacks of this nature [8]. Whereas, I do not find much of your churlish behavior as boorish, nor it to be boring, I do have to occasionally stifle a yawn now and then. When you come up with this base fawning, without any basis, I have to respectfully disagree. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 158 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please inform User:Radeksz od this; he is the one who usually takes care of Poland unreferenced BLPs. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Józef Elsner

The article on Chopin's piano teacher, Józef Elsner, was recently moved by a German editor, Matthead, to "Joseph Anton Franz Elsner." Elsner originally hailed from Wrocław in mixed-population Silesia, but he spent the bulk of his life in Polish-speaking Lwów and Warsaw.

Another editor has objected to the two middle names, "Anton Franz," by which Elsner is not commonly known (in Poland, Elsner's name appears with the single, different middle name, "Ksawery"). JackofOz has proposed that the article be moved to "Joseph Elsner (composer)," to disambiguate the subject from two architects who are also called "Joseph Elsner."

I have counter-proposed that the article simply be reverted to its original title, "Józef Elsner," the name that the subject used for most of his life.

Interested parties may look in on the discussion here.Nihil novi (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the article's title to the original "Józef Elsner." Nihil novi (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

History of Poland

For a long while, User:Orczar has been working on improving History of Poland article. That article has grown too long, and he is now splitting it into subarticles (See Talk:History_of_Poland#Article_length). The way that the article is being split is however problematic. Instead of using the scheme we developed years ago (and reflected in the Template:History of Poland) new articles are being created, potentially resulting in loss of content (as they seem to be based on content split from Orczar's rewritten History of Poland and not on the old versions) and thus result in the loss of information from the old subpages or (at least in one case) overlapping with the current ones, creating forks. New articles are:

• History of Poland (966–1385) was merged and redirected to Poland during the Piast dynasty
  • how comprehensive was the merge? Has all info from the old articles been incorporated? I am afraid that the merge was not comprehensive; just one quick test: old article started with the mention of Ibrahim ibn Jakub, he is not mentioned in the new one. With all due respect to an editor who has put much time into working on History of Poland, I don't think it is fair to just replace old versions with one's own, without at least an explanation on what information is being removed/added.
  • new name is problematic, as it breaks with our established naming scheme (and is potentially misleading, as the article covers Angevin dynasty as well)
  • edit history wasn't merged (i.e. years of edit history are still present at [9]); that merge now requires an admin to fix it (see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves)
  • Talk page (old discussion, tags, assessments) needs to be moved and merged: Talk:History of Poland (966–1385)
• History of Poland (1385–1569) was merged and redirected to Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty
  • same issues as above: merge comprehensiveness, new name, edit history and talk pages need to be merged
• History of Poland (1569–1795) has now two forks: History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648) and History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648–1764); should it be merged? The forks are also orphaned.
• PS. Can somebody notify User:Orczar of this discussion? Hopefully we can work things out before post-1795 history is affected by forks/mergers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New articles that have been created were merged with the old articles to the degree that this could reasonably be done. The old articles had a lot of unreferenced content that in my opinion could not be reasonably kept (I thought I had explained that). For example History of Poland (966-1385) had the following sentence: "In 966 the Holy Roman Emperor Otto I the Great affirmed the ducal title held by the Polanes leader Mieszko I, which Mieszko had received a few years earlier, by pledging allegiance to the emperor, when he was defeated by Margrave Gero." The author of this sentence seems to have access to some detailed information, but he's not revealing what his source might be; this is too unreliable to be merged. As for the History of Poland (1385-1569), large portions of this article are copied sections of a 1916 book by Julia Swift Orvis; was this material supposed to be merged in? Is this encyclopaedia-type content? Saying that my articles result in loss of content is surely a joke. The richness of the old content can easily be brought back by returning to the versions from before my edits; this is not a problem in Wikipedia. Ibrahim ibn Jakub is mentioned repeatedly; in the Piast Poland article I happened to be using the Arabic version of his name. I thought I was being rather comprehensive and no one would accuse me of omitting Ibrahim (or anything else of essential encyclopaedic substance). The names of the articles are easy to change, I tried to come up with names more descriptive than just dates, didn't think of them as permanent. The Commonwealth era articles were split because of the quantity of the material that I thought was worth bringing to the English speaking audience. As for merging edit history, merging talk pages, "orphaned forks" etc., these are technical issues, that I'm not familiar with, I tried to follow the merging instructions. Again, the old richness and high quality of the material that I have replaced can easily be brought back. Orczar (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. I think that your articles are on a better level than the ones replaced, but could I ask you to move the content you think is dubious to talk of the article, instead of just removing it? Perhaps other editors will be able to find sources for those claims. As for proper merger, at this point it has to be done by an admin - hopefully Malik will help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New article to create: European May 2010 flood (suggested title)

I think somebody should try to create an article on this subject - you could start by translating pl:Powódź w Europie w maju 2010 roku. Once created, the article could also be added to Portal:Current events and even see front page exposure in current news. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was created: May 2010 Central European floods.  Dr. Loosmark  15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is still in a very poor condition and needs lots of work.  Dr. Loosmark  11:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tadeusz Jasiński

I noticed Tadeusz Jasiński, but I'm confused as the body references Tomasz Jasiński. Is this supposed to be about [10] or [11]. I was considering nominating it for deletion, but contacted the author Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus first, and he suggested I bring it up here. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the Polish wikipedia: [12], it's the second one.  Dr. Loosmark  18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, please move the article to Tomasz Jasiński. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I do not see that notability is established for either person. I'll move it for you all if you like, but I think the article needs more references, and lacking those, I'll nominate it for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be notable historian, with the highest academic degree of "professor". - Darwinek (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the university system in Poland, but please see WP:PROF for guidelines on criteria for notability of professors and academicians. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

On a cleanup note, now that the article has been moved, we either need to stub or delete Tadeusz Jasiński. I'd prefer stubbing, of course, but can't help with that, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think stubbing makes more sense, as I think you can establish notability for this one easily. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)