![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not see any inline references, despite that someone is still removing the tag. As for global template, I do have strong suspicions, that Prussia is not widely recognised as Polish region, the same applies to Žemaitija, Aukštaitija and Latvia.-- Lokyz ( talk) 04:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the irredentist section in toto. The article is about regions of Poland. Volyn or Samogitia are not regions of Poland. Period. There are articles about the evolution of Polish borders for such material. Feel free to move it there. -- Irpen 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Please quote where Davies calls Volhynia and Samogitia as "Regions of Poland". Of course he does not. He sees the same maps as we do. -- Irpen 03:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The key word here is were, Piotrus. The article is not called "historic", "former", etc. The title says "of Poland". Volhynia is not "of Poland". Neither is Samogitia. And your comparison with Vistula Country is very apt. No editor finds it necessary to include Vistula into any article about the current regions of Russia.
A personal favour, if I may. Please do not use email and gadu-gadu to ask anyone to revert for you. -- Irpen 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that the link I used above for Polish historic regions turned from red to blue by the redirect creation. As a starting step, I suggest moving this article there. This would be a long way towards a compromise. We can then discuss what non-Polish regions can be called historically "Polish" but at least the content of the article would math its title. Objections? -- Irpen 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, we need to consider the fact that both regions of Poland and Polish historical regions deserve a main article. Perhaps studying the following categories: Category:Regions of Poland and Category:Polish historical regions can help.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to share my thoughts with the move war raging these days. I disagree with Piotrus in the issue of article name. The article in its current form is only a short and poor list of former historical Polish regions. I propose creating two articles. One called Regions of Poland for regions (also traditional) of nowadays' Poland, it should also mention the history of administrative divisions. This format would be in line with other "Regions of" articles of European countries. "Polish historical regions" article should be expanded and referenced and deal with former historical regions. I believe this "issue" could be easily resolved by that. Just calm down guys. I know there is an intense heat outside these days which affects all of us. :) - Darwinek ( talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article is not clear. The ongoing dispute seems to be about the use of the word "Polish", and indeed that may need a clarification on the background that the territories of former Polish states and the ethnic distribution of Poles did not match in history. "Polish" may refer to both "administered (once) by Poles" (even if only formal, partial etc) and "settled by ethnic Poles" (how many Poles make an area Polish?), the range we get from that is that every region may be called Polish that once had some relation to a Polish authority or population.
Instead of clarifying the title, the lead brings in additional options to include regions into the "Polish historical regions" article, as it states that regions that "are within present day Poland without being identified in its administrative division" are included, leading to the inclusion of a lot of former German regions. In addition, most of the lead is a general definition of ethnographic regions, yet despite being listed somewhere in the article, those are not marked as such.
I do not think it makes sense to have an article Regions that once were or currently are related to some Polish administration or population; or are or were ethnographic regions of modern Poland; or were within the area of modern Poland even if there was no link to Poland in their time being. That would in fact be the correct title of the current article.
I think we should choose a clear and precise title such as Historical regions in Poland to sum the historical regions in Poland. The modern geography ("in Poland") does not leave room for disputes, as it can not be in either ways interpreted like "of Poland" or current "Polish". For regions east of the Curzon line, we already have the Kresy-related articles and History of Poland/PLC-related articles which all could be linked to this article. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understood non-"Polish" historical regions in Poland are not wanted here and created Historical regions in Poland for that. Now that Piotrus merged that back here (section Other), I am even more confused about the intention, the title, the proposed and actual content of this article. If one looks at the [Category:Polish historical regions], one finds stuff like White Croatia. Knepflerle, good luck with firmly editing every entry with the sourced causes that let reliable sources adress it as Polish, the way you anounced this article ought to be handled. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Now user:Knepflerle did a good job creating section headlines that finally match the respective contents (while the former Polish state section might still contain disputed areas as it might be challenged how "Polish" the PLC was). Sections now are:
The current title Polish historical regions does not match
So we still got a title that does not even match one of the article's sections. That has got to be changed. I see only two alternatives to do so:
Any suggestions? Or better abandon and delete? Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
While Piotrus demands from others not to move to a new name without a WP:RM, he himself often moves articles, and then salts the old name to prevent regular users from reverting, as with Michelauer Land/ Michałowo Land. On the other hand, he uses his admin powers to pave his way. -- Matthead Discuß 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Piotrus erred here. Disagreeing with Matthead's earlier move, Piotrus moved the article from Regions of Poland to Polish historic regions. He then rejected his own move by moving it to another "historic(al)" title, Polish historical regions. The naming merits of Michelauer Land vs. Michałowo Land notwithstanding, categorizing redirects is valid. These do not seem to have been done to intentionally block further moves. Olessi ( talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Several of the regions listed as German have much longer history of being part of Bohemia and Austria then Germany. Yet this is not listed. Perhaps we should live the details in articles about them or detail them in full? -- Molobo ( talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not see any inline references, despite that someone is still removing the tag. As for global template, I do have strong suspicions, that Prussia is not widely recognised as Polish region, the same applies to Žemaitija, Aukštaitija and Latvia.-- Lokyz ( talk) 04:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the irredentist section in toto. The article is about regions of Poland. Volyn or Samogitia are not regions of Poland. Period. There are articles about the evolution of Polish borders for such material. Feel free to move it there. -- Irpen 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Please quote where Davies calls Volhynia and Samogitia as "Regions of Poland". Of course he does not. He sees the same maps as we do. -- Irpen 03:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The key word here is were, Piotrus. The article is not called "historic", "former", etc. The title says "of Poland". Volhynia is not "of Poland". Neither is Samogitia. And your comparison with Vistula Country is very apt. No editor finds it necessary to include Vistula into any article about the current regions of Russia.
A personal favour, if I may. Please do not use email and gadu-gadu to ask anyone to revert for you. -- Irpen 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that the link I used above for Polish historic regions turned from red to blue by the redirect creation. As a starting step, I suggest moving this article there. This would be a long way towards a compromise. We can then discuss what non-Polish regions can be called historically "Polish" but at least the content of the article would math its title. Objections? -- Irpen 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, we need to consider the fact that both regions of Poland and Polish historical regions deserve a main article. Perhaps studying the following categories: Category:Regions of Poland and Category:Polish historical regions can help.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to share my thoughts with the move war raging these days. I disagree with Piotrus in the issue of article name. The article in its current form is only a short and poor list of former historical Polish regions. I propose creating two articles. One called Regions of Poland for regions (also traditional) of nowadays' Poland, it should also mention the history of administrative divisions. This format would be in line with other "Regions of" articles of European countries. "Polish historical regions" article should be expanded and referenced and deal with former historical regions. I believe this "issue" could be easily resolved by that. Just calm down guys. I know there is an intense heat outside these days which affects all of us. :) - Darwinek ( talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article is not clear. The ongoing dispute seems to be about the use of the word "Polish", and indeed that may need a clarification on the background that the territories of former Polish states and the ethnic distribution of Poles did not match in history. "Polish" may refer to both "administered (once) by Poles" (even if only formal, partial etc) and "settled by ethnic Poles" (how many Poles make an area Polish?), the range we get from that is that every region may be called Polish that once had some relation to a Polish authority or population.
Instead of clarifying the title, the lead brings in additional options to include regions into the "Polish historical regions" article, as it states that regions that "are within present day Poland without being identified in its administrative division" are included, leading to the inclusion of a lot of former German regions. In addition, most of the lead is a general definition of ethnographic regions, yet despite being listed somewhere in the article, those are not marked as such.
I do not think it makes sense to have an article Regions that once were or currently are related to some Polish administration or population; or are or were ethnographic regions of modern Poland; or were within the area of modern Poland even if there was no link to Poland in their time being. That would in fact be the correct title of the current article.
I think we should choose a clear and precise title such as Historical regions in Poland to sum the historical regions in Poland. The modern geography ("in Poland") does not leave room for disputes, as it can not be in either ways interpreted like "of Poland" or current "Polish". For regions east of the Curzon line, we already have the Kresy-related articles and History of Poland/PLC-related articles which all could be linked to this article. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understood non-"Polish" historical regions in Poland are not wanted here and created Historical regions in Poland for that. Now that Piotrus merged that back here (section Other), I am even more confused about the intention, the title, the proposed and actual content of this article. If one looks at the [Category:Polish historical regions], one finds stuff like White Croatia. Knepflerle, good luck with firmly editing every entry with the sourced causes that let reliable sources adress it as Polish, the way you anounced this article ought to be handled. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Now user:Knepflerle did a good job creating section headlines that finally match the respective contents (while the former Polish state section might still contain disputed areas as it might be challenged how "Polish" the PLC was). Sections now are:
The current title Polish historical regions does not match
So we still got a title that does not even match one of the article's sections. That has got to be changed. I see only two alternatives to do so:
Any suggestions? Or better abandon and delete? Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
While Piotrus demands from others not to move to a new name without a WP:RM, he himself often moves articles, and then salts the old name to prevent regular users from reverting, as with Michelauer Land/ Michałowo Land. On the other hand, he uses his admin powers to pave his way. -- Matthead Discuß 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Piotrus erred here. Disagreeing with Matthead's earlier move, Piotrus moved the article from Regions of Poland to Polish historic regions. He then rejected his own move by moving it to another "historic(al)" title, Polish historical regions. The naming merits of Michelauer Land vs. Michałowo Land notwithstanding, categorizing redirects is valid. These do not seem to have been done to intentionally block further moves. Olessi ( talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Several of the regions listed as German have much longer history of being part of Bohemia and Austria then Germany. Yet this is not listed. Perhaps we should live the details in articles about them or detail them in full? -- Molobo ( talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)