![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
There is currently Request for Comments in the Coat of arms of Lithuania article, regarding the content of the Belarusian section. It seems to me that participants in this Wikiproject may be interested. Link Marcelus ( talk) 19:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
20:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This page mentioned has been slated for merging into Human torpedo. While the merge seems to have had overwhelming support, the source article is currently littered with citation needed tags, and since I cannot speak Polish to evaluate the given sources myself, I would defer to those who do speak the language for implementing the merger. It would therefore be much appreciated if those who speak the language could assist with implementing the merger. Any discussion would be welcome here. Felix QW ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The draf Draft:Kupala seems in a good spot, but it requires content talking about the potential medieval or modern invention of the deity. Polish wikipedia has that part, so is anyone interested in translating that for the draft? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (
per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X})
06:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Siege of Mantua (1799) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mazovia#Requested move 30 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I had
a good discussion with @
Piotrus on my talk. The core of our concern is whether we can or cannot categorise people as having "Polish nationality", and thus include them in the nationality-based
Category:Polish people tree (a child of
Category:People by nationality), at times when there was arguably no "Polish" state, particularly during
History of Poland (1795–1918) a.k.a. "
partitioned Poland".
Nationality is the legal connection between a state and its nationals (subjects or citizens), which cannot exist without a state. However, if we do not categorise Poles as having had a nationality during this period, we may be erasing them from history just because
their state was destroyed by the
Partitions, which I as a historian really don't want to do, and I think we here will all agree that this shouldn't happen. The
history of the Poles during the partition should definitely documented; we just need to decide which way we can best approach their categorisation in the face of this nationality question. I suggested we could instead categorise people as "ethnic Poles" during this time, and thus put them in the
Category:People by ethnicity tree, because
ethnicity is about self-identification and does not require a state. Piotrus wasn't sure whether that was a better idea, and recommended I take the discussion here, so here I am.
I'll summarise both approaches here, but I'd encourage everyone to read our good discussion if they like to understand our reasoning in more detail:
The nationality-based approach
|
---|
According to the nationality-based approach, we could interpret various political entities as (partial) "successor states" to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which afforded their subjects a "Polish nationality", and include their "People from" categories in the nationality-based Category:Polish people tree. This is already the case for Category:People from Congress Poland and Category:People from the Duchy of Warsaw, but not yet for Category:People from the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and Category:People from the Grand Duchy of Posen (and perhaps others). This would solve many categorisation issues. With some minor adjustments, the category trees can continue to function as they have.
|
The ethnicity-based approach
|
---|
According to the ethnicity-based approach, we could interpret individuals living within the Russian, Prussian and Austrian Partitions as "ethnic Poles" on a case-by-case basis if they self-identified as such, and include them in ethnicity-based categories such as Category:Polish Austro-Hungarians and Category:People from the Russian Empire of Polish descent. This would also solve many categorisation issues. The great advantage is that we avoid the whole issue of a lack of a sovereign Polish state which affords its subjects a Polish nationality.
|
Finally, Piotrus appears to contradict himself about how things were, and therefore what we should do, leaving me a little confused:
Both simultaneously?
|
---|
|
We would both really appreciate your input!
Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
2. formal : the fact or status of being a member or citizen of a particular nation. That is the formal, legal definition.
[first] the official right to belong to a particular countryand
[third] the state of belonging to a particular country or being a citizen of a particular nation. Those are legal definitions.
This category is for articles on people according to their civic nationality (legal affiliation with a state).That is Britannica definition 2. ("being a member or citizen of a particular nation") and the first and third Cambridge definitions ("the official right to belong to a particular country" and "being a citizen of a particular nation").
I think that the way Piattoeva uses the word "nationality" is synonymous with "national identity"}, you have the right to make that assumption, but it is again your WP:OR, the fact remains that even legally some countries (in this case the Soviet Union) define nationality differently. If you want you can build a category tree: Category:People by civic nationality, which will be limited to this narrow understanding of nationality. But the existing tree must reflect the full meaning of the concept.
legal affiliation with a state. So if you think this should be changed, it is up to you to nominate that category for renaming, not up to me. Right now, the category follows the same definitions I have been using.
So if you think this should be changed, it is up to you to nominate that category for renaming, not up to me. Right now, the category follows the same definitions I have been using, false; the category is properly named, you just trying to impose on others very narrow understanding of the notion, that goes contrary to the reliable sources. QED Marcelus ( talk) 19:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Marcelus also seems to favour the nationality-based approach by identifying C-Poland, D-Warsaw, KoGaL and GD-Posen as non-sovereign "Polish states", which is indeed probably the simplest answer to the question. There just seems to be a bit of confusion about what the term "nationality" means, false and mirepresentation of my words. The question if mentioned countries were "Polish" or not is irrelevent; because the notion of nationality is much broader than the narrow definition you are trying to impose on others. There is no confusion, reliable sources are conclusive in the matter: nationality is both "belonging to certain state" and "belonging to certain group of people who are united by a common culture, history, traditions etc." Marcelus ( talk) 19:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Further to the 2022 merge/rename of C18 Polish people by occupation to people of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
On WP:CfD there is an important discussion concerning the categorization of people living in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as the shape of the category tree concerning people of Polish nationality. Because of the subject matter, it seemed to me that this discussion might be of interest to participants in this Wikiproject.
Link: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023 August_21#Category:18th-century people from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation Marcelus ( talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
It looks like deletion sorting wasn't used on this bundled nomination so I wanted to alert any interested editors in this AFD that was nominated today. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church in America#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Poland:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long
Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Grnrchst ( talk) 13:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Józef Abelewicz § Requested move 3 October 2023.
Cukrakalnis (
talk)
12:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the only way to resolve the issue and get more people to comment on this, as this issue is also relevant to other countries and not just Poland. -- E-960 ( talk) 13:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you help to disambiguate links to Chmielnik? There are 62 articles linking to Chmielnik and it is often not clear which Voivodeship is correct. A list of the relevent articles is at Disambig fix list for Chmielnik. If it helps you can go to your preferences (drop down list top right), choose the "Gadgets" tab & scroll down to Appearance & put a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" & this will highlight relevant links.— Rod talk 11:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner.
DFlhb (
talk)
11:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
A recently indeffed user posted at Wikipediocracy about a series of edits performed by Materialscientist using the semi-automated tool AutoWikiBrowser (edits are tagged "AWB"). Materialscientist has been removing the German names of settlements in Poland that were previously in Germany (particularly in East Prussia). The example that I looked at at random was Końcewo, a village formerly in East Prussia, which appears to be fairly typical: the edit summary is "unsourced/poorly sourced/unnecessary, removed: {{lang-de|, has a population" and they also removed the population from the article text, leaving it in the infobox. I discussed these removals with them at their user talk: User talk:Materialscientist#In the spirit of the first user box on your user page ..., but although they grant that I make good points, they have declined to self-revert as recommended by the rules for use of the tool when edits prove controversial. They did subsequently update the population at Końcewo and add a reference, and their only additional similar edit after I started the discussion (also with AWB) appears to me to be Osiniak-Piotrowo, also formerly in East Prussia, where at the same time as they removed the former German name, they updated the population figure, adding a reference. But in that article, the former German name had a reference, albeit to a genealogy.net website. Previously at Nowy Probark, another village formerly in East Prussia, Materialscientist removed a former German name sourced to this book. Is this not a reliable source?
I was initially unsympathetic to the complainant, who is indeffed as a sock of a user banned for POV. But I cannot see how removing all mention of the historical context from places that were in Germany prior to World War I, in some cases for centuries, is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I disagree that the former names are WP:UNDUE, and I believe this is minimal information that a reader should be able to search by. I imagine there are settlements in Silesia that were Polish- or Lusatian-speaking prior to the Nazi era (we do not appear to have ever had the former German name at Ogrodzona, Silesian Voivodeship, where Materialscientist only removed the in-text population; compare Rakowice Małe, in Upper Silesia, where they removed only the former German name although the edit summary also refers to removing a redundant population that was not present), and I'm not sure about Pomerania. But checking Polish Wikipedia reveals that (in addition to having images of all these places, which we really should add to our articles), they usually do have the former German names. For example, pl:Końcewo, pl:Nowy Probark, pl:Rakowice Małe, also pl:Ogrodzona (województwo śląskie) (Polish Wikipedia has the former German name, English didn't) and pl:Budzieszewice (Pomerania), but not pl:Osiniak-Piotrowo. So I am wondering what the view is here—and at WikiProject Germany, where I will also be posting.
Yakikaki posted at Materialscientist's talk page saying that they had added historical information to some articles that had been removed to their surprise.
JBW expressed general agreement with my points, and
Lourdes supported my argument that Materialscientist should self-revert under the policy governing semi-automated edits (currently the last post in the talk-page section). However, there have been earlier edits also removing information on the past from the mostly very short articles on these settlements. And in April 2022, the bot operated by
Qwerfjkl
was approved for the task of removing sentences of the format Before 1945 the area was part of
Germany (
East Prussia)
that had been present when the articles were bot-created. I would argue that it would have been preferable to reference that statement as context for the former German names. The argument for removing it appears to have been UNDUE, and in February 2022
E-960 was removing referenced former German names with that rationale, for example at
Budzieszewice (which as I noted above, has the former German name in the Polish Wikipedia article; someone else has since restored it here, but without the reference).
HerkusMonte added some of these names, and references for them, and apparently restored the sentences after a previous removal;
discussion at their talk page started by E-960 and hatted after it became a debate between E-960 and someone else over POV. So I am bringing the issue to the two relevant WikiProjects to gauge consensus on the removals of the former names, especially the automated removals performed by Materialscientist. (I won't further repeat my position or my responses to Materialscientist's arguments.) My other reason is that since Materialscientist has declined to self-revert, and used a semi-automated tool, reverting the removals will be a big task, especially if references are restored or added at the same time and/or if something other than simple restoration is done about the unsourced and outdated population figures, and would be best done as a coordinated effort. (I have not tried to establish when Materialscientist began doing this; the person posting at Wikipediocracy referred to a couple of months, but that may not be correct. Nor have I tried to establish what categories they were working from. So I don't know how many articles are affected, and haven't looked at how many removals E-960 did.)
In addition, I will mention only here, that a regular poster on Wikipediocracy added that Materialscientist has also used AWB to remove former Ukrainian names of places in Poland: Lalin, Poland; Srogów Dolny; Niebieszczany; Pakoszówka. I am not sure how controversial these edits are, since these are borderland places or former pockets of Ukrainian speakers within Polish territory, rather than places with a long history as part of Germany and its predecessor states. Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
"Legnica (Polish: [lɛɡˈɲit͡sa]; German: Liegnitz, pronounced [ˈliːɡnɪts]; Silesian: Ligńica; Czech: Lehnice; Latin: Lignitium)". So, just having Materialscientist revert will not resolve the issue of neutrality and the placing of undue emphasis on just one historical period over the others. -- E-960 ( talk) 12:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
"Legnica (Polish: [lɛɡˈɲit͡sa]; German: Liegnitz, pronounced [ˈliːɡnɪts]; Silesian: Ligńica; Czech: Lehnice; Latin: Lignitium)"Saturating an average stub municipality article with history from the German period is just as bad and damaging to the accuracy of the article as an anti-German perspective in my opinion. -- E-960 ( talk) 17:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion and see no disagreement that the removal of former long-term names should be reverted. Disagreement appears to be mostly over whether other names (including early Latin) should be also used. I also note the point made by Materialscientist themself among others that names should be sourced and more sourced information on history should be included to provide context. I consider my first reason for bringing this here (and to WikiProject Germany) to have been satisfied: finding out whether editors active in the field agree with me that the name removals were deleterious. The second was to figure out how best to fix it if there was such agreement.
In the meantime I've been working on individual articles, developing sources with the assistance of the pl.wikipedia and dt.wikipedia articles and adding referenced population figures as well as the former names where I can. But I'm hampered by not only lack of time and the enormous volume of Materialscientist's edits, and by the need to check everything carefully (this is partly due to the POV editing Materialscientist and E-960 have in the past reacted to: on both English and German Wikipedia, the former names of Probark and Nowy Probark had been (re)added reversed by editor(s) with more zeal than care for accuracy / linguistic knowledge, and it's still all mucked up on de.) ... but also by my inability to read Polish, so that I can only use Google translate to tease out what Polish Wikipedia states and to look at and cite sources that it cites, and can't do an adequate search. So I am unable to verify or include the sometimes quite complex administrative history of these places since 1945, or in most cases information about medieval and 18th-century overlords that I might be able to tease out of Google if I could read Polish. I've been working on villages, partly because larger settlements provide a lot more source material to determine whether there was a local mixed linguistic tradition / coexistence of names, partly because the nature of the Ostsiedlung led to a number of villages originating as German-speaking settlements, partly because those tiny stubs are most in need of expansion and most likely to have gone unnoticed when they were damaged in a mistaken semi-automated editing run—or badly restored, with the reference not being reinstated and possibly even the name being wrong. But the nature of the available sources—further restricted by my inability in Polish—means my work can only be a start. In some cases the corresponding article is also a stub on pl. and/or de.; in others, they have a well developed article. I've been able to put in registered historic buildings, because I can see and understand the entry on an official list. I've been able to evaluate and add images. I've looked at lists of notable residents, but haven't yet found one where there's an article on English Wikipedia. And all of this takes me quite a bit of time (including peering at Prussian official gazeteers/administrative lists in pdf and via Google Books and searching in vain for what looks like an excellent Polish regional newspaper source that Polish Wikipedia cites via an offline archive).
I've been reverted today at Końcewo by E-960, with an accusation of POV pushing. My edits there were based on what I was able to reference. Please, you editors who can read Polish, come in on this effort and either supplement my work with what history and other information on these little places you judge to be worth mentioning and can cite sources for (thereby fixing the POV that results from my uneven ability and the need for sources), or assist with a broad revert of Materialscientist's edits and work out a system for expanding these articles as a collective effort. As I stated early on to Materialscientist, simply removing what information we have—especially when it includes removing references—is the perfect as the enemy of the good. I won't say it's throwing the baby out with the bath water, since E-960 left the unreferenced German name Konzewen so a reader can at least find out what place that is by searching. But I can't do this all by myself, especially since I can't do the Polish part at all adequately! Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yngvadottir and Piotrus, pls do not edit war and then accuse others of wrong doing, pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines where it's clear that questionable edits can be reverted and a disscussion should take place. Also, it is worth familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:What is consensus? - "Consensus is not a majority vote." -- E-960 ( talk) 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I would support a mass revert of Materialscientist's edits. Here at Frysztak they also removed the Yiddish name, of a town that had a 3/4 Jewish population before the Holocaust. — Kusma ( talk) 11:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
My sense is that the existing guidelines at WP:PLACE cover most of this ground anyway. A summary of the relevant points is that:
The guidance does not distinguish names used by an occupying power during a time of war. My sense is that such names need not be in the lede, but should be mentioned as part of the relevant historical account.
Cheers. Bermicourt ( talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
At this point it looks like a broad consensus has been reached here that the former German names of these towns which are now in Poland and Russia should be present in the articles. As far as verifiability is concerned, this book - [3] - has the information needed for towns east of the Oder-Neiße Line. As I have said, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia editing tools, but I would propose that all of Materialscientist's removals of these names be reverted, and then the aforementioned reference being automatically included after the former German name for all articles that have lang-de which are located in modern Poland and Kaliningrad Oblast, RU. It would be extremely tedious to sort through Materialscientist's extensive edit history to revert his edits, particularly for a user without rollback privileges. And I am only guessing it would be possible to automatically add the citation in all the appropriate articles; perhaps it is a harder task than that.
It is certainly possible that some of the formerly listed German names are incorrect, erroneous transcriptions or otherwise mistaken. However the vast majority can be assumed to be correct, and incorrect names can be dealt with on a case by case basis as those errors are noticed. The removal of these names, >99% of which are accurate, on the basis of the <1% that may be incorrect, is not justified. There is no agenda to assign false German names instead of the true ones to towns formerly located in Germany which all formerly had German names. Ascended Dreamer ( talk) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
References
A large number of places have been to added to List of cities and towns in Poland in recent edits which need disambiguation because there are places with this name in more than one Vivodeship and it often unclear which is the intended link. You can identify these by going to your Preferences (drop down list top right), going to the "gadets" tab, scrolling down to "Appearance" and putting a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
An RFC is in progress on whether the Free City of Danzig should be listed as a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland. Participation is welcome at: Talk:Invasion_of_Poland#RFC:_Free_City_of_Danzig. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear editors! Cause of recent events in Polish politics English Wikipedia has seen increased number of edits on related topics, including Polish constituencies of Sejm and Senate. Some issues resolved as of lack consensus on the matter of naming those articles. For clarity of navigating through articles and correctness of these names I propose creating following naming policy:
Sources
Most recent official sources avalible in English refer to Polish: okręg wyborczy as 'constituency', despite its literal translation being 'electoral district'. See: here, here, here ( PKW) and here ( Senate).
Constituencies in Poland are numbered from 1 to 41 (Sejm), and 1 to 100 (Senate). They do not have proper names like it is in most English speaking countries. Their official list can be found in Annexe no. 1 (Sejm) and Annexe no. 2 (Senate) of the Election Code of 2011 ( ISAP).
Naming
As of the above I propose following naming policy:
for the constituencies of the Sejm, where an X is a number.
for the constituency of the Senate, where an X is a number.
Argumentation
Sejm constituencies in my opinion do not need specifing their Polishness ;) in the title because of the Sejm unique name. That is the opposite in case of the Senate constituencies (as noticed by Moondragon21 ( talk · contribs) in Old revision of Poland's 1st Senate district).
The c in Constituency in the title should be in my opinion capitalised as it refers to one specific entity and therefore becomes its name. However when mentioning Senate constituencies or general entity of Senate constituency it should be lowercased.
When mentioning Sejm constituency its number should be used primarely, as it is strictly defined and widely used. Proper name of the coresponding constituency electoral commission (okręgowa komisja wyborcza, OKW) is not, e.g. Sejm website using city names without roman numeral here. Therefore OKW proper name should be used secondary, as an adjunctive way of locating the constituency, e.g. in brackets, like it is in Template:Parliamentary constituencies in Poland or here on official website by PKW (using square brackets).
Connected
As of the above, names of following should be revised in my opinion:
Also, what do you think of merging pages List of constituencies for the Senate of the Republic of Poland and Electoral districts of Poland? Or maybe extracting from the recent list of Sejm constituencies? (It should be symetrical in my opinion). — Antoni12345 ( talk) 08:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
All town and city articles have a reference to the TERYT website - http://www.stat.gov.pl/broker/access/prefile/listPreFiles.jspa which then gets redirected to https://eteryt.stat.gov.pl/eTeryt/rejestr_teryt/aktualnosci/aktualnosci.aspx. But this seems to only be a home page. For the benefit of those of us who are not fluent in Polish, can someone please give details of how to search for a particular place name? Thanks, Kiwipete ( talk) 21:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Asian Month already has a long tradition and regularly produces a good number of solid articles. Wikimania 2024 will take place in Kraków. In the German Wikipedia, we came up with the idea of organizing a Polish Month competition modelled on the Asian Month competition. The aim of the competition would be to increase the number of articles with Polish topics in as many Wikipedias as possible. The rules and tools of the Asian Month competition could be adopted. What do you think? Who would take part? Who else could be involved? (The Wikimania organisers? Wikimedia Poland?) Kind regards, --~~ Sebastian Wallroth ( talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
At
Third Cabinet of Mateusz Morawiecki, is it
WP:DUE to include 'Morawiecki's third government was dubbed "two-week" or "zombie government" by various media, due to its anticipated short-livedness.
'? I saw the matter mentioned
here at ANI and am hoping others with knowledge of the topic will monitor the article.
Johnuniq (
talk)
09:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robots of Stanisław Lem#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Max19582: Apologies for the late reply. As Poland is a European country, I thought the articles related to Poland should be written in British English (rather than American English). What do you think? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 10:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.(from MOS:TIES)
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate variety of English template on its talk page.(from MOS:RETAIN) Max19582 ( talk) 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WuWa, Wrocław#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I've now added a "Removal of PiS government" section to the Polish constitutional crisis article that contains information about the recent developments, including the recent arrests. It needs much, much more from someone who actually understands Polish politics. — The Anome ( talk) 15:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kraków has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
As World Kociewie Day on the 10 February is approaching I thought I might post here to see if anyone would be interested in helping to improve the Wikipedia entry for Kociewie?
I've also had a go at creating a Kociewian userbox here. Wikociewie ( talk) 12:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stara Kosianka#Requested move 2 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I left a discussion at the village pump about the mass errors of Polish village names on English Wikipedia. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I have had a request from @ Shhhnotsoloud to remove the hatnote I added to this article. I neither completely agree nor completely disagree with their sentiments, but it seems that the use of hatnotes, in particular Other places and See also is widespread in articles that are disambiguated. I can find no mention of hatnotes in WP:MOSPOL. Could project members please add their thoughts? Thanks, Kiwipete ( talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
In the above discussion, a couple editors think the above subject may be notable but have provided no evidence of notability. I would like to avoid pushing this to AfD unnecessarily, so can someone who is familiar with Polish sources be able to weigh in on the notability question? -- Tavix ( talk) 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Krajków, Łódź Voivodeship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article states that it belongs to Gmina Wieluń, but its related article on the Polish wikipedia states that it is in Gmina Mokrsko. What's more, the Polish article states that it is part of the town of Krzyworzeka, Łódź Voivodeship, i.e. not a separate town in its own right. There is no content here that could be merged into Krzyworzeka.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Kiwipete (
talk)
08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see these contribs from a new account: [9]. I have almost no knowledge of IPA and have no idea if this is correct or not. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear editors, if someone would be willing to or had some free time to review my recent rewrite of the list of Ministers of the Interior of Poland, I would be greatful. As I'm a beginer in editing with proper references :-) I would be thankful for both editorial and meritoric feedback on my edits.
While reviewing please note I deliberately used title "Minister of Internal Affairs" with regard to the interwar and communist period, and "Minister of the Interior" to the modern era – in the first case there were no official English translations of the title so I used the direct translation of it, whereas in the second case there was an English translation used by the MSW which is the one mentioned. Also please give your opinion on using coloured background of the party name cell in the last one of the tables (in other two it wouldn't serve any pupose in my opinion) – I was using here and in other aspects the pattern established by the British lists of ministers, for e.g. here.
I also proposed merging the article Ministry of the Interior (Poland) into this article. I have steated my reasons here and they stand unchanged. (I haven't kept my promise on the date stated, but I was distracted lately :-). — Antoni12345 ( talk) 13:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I've created an article for Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk. Unfortunately, I cannot read Polish, so I have to rely on machine translation from sources, so I may have made errors. Could some native Polish speaker review the article, and check it against the native-language sources?
She is also mentioned in this book, to which I don't have access. — The Anome ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the article Warsaw City Council currently contains six lists of the council members, which I wonder if provide a reader with any meaningful information. Also overall majority of listed persons do not have individual articles, and in my opinion would fail to meet notability guidelines for creating them. I would be graetful for any opinion from more experienced editors. Chears!
P.S. Alternatively, maybe creating separete article-list titled "List of Warsaw City Council members", where councilors of all terms could be listed is an option.-- Antoni12345 ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stadion im. Kazimierza Górskiego (Płock)#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 18:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Upper Silesian metropolitan area#Requested move 6 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Starting this July, we will see a new contest on the scene - the Developing Countries WikiContest ( WP:DCWC)! Think of it as a WikiCup but only for articles and media on developing countries.
Competitors may submit GAs, GTs, FAs, FTs, FLs, FPs, and DYK and ITN entries from/on developing countries to gain points and climb the leaderboard. Points are also awarded to those who review GAs, FAs and FLs.
Poland is listed as a developing country for the purposes of this contest and articles related to it are eligible to be submitted for points, so I encourage everyone here to sign up and compete with editors from around the world to create high-quality content!
Append your name to the DCWC signup page today!
Best wishes, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/ my edits) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Eric of Pomerania#Eryk Pomorski would benefit from input from a Polish-speaking editor. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 11:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
There is currently Request for Comments in the Coat of arms of Lithuania article, regarding the content of the Belarusian section. It seems to me that participants in this Wikiproject may be interested. Link Marcelus ( talk) 19:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
20:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This page mentioned has been slated for merging into Human torpedo. While the merge seems to have had overwhelming support, the source article is currently littered with citation needed tags, and since I cannot speak Polish to evaluate the given sources myself, I would defer to those who do speak the language for implementing the merger. It would therefore be much appreciated if those who speak the language could assist with implementing the merger. Any discussion would be welcome here. Felix QW ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The draf Draft:Kupala seems in a good spot, but it requires content talking about the potential medieval or modern invention of the deity. Polish wikipedia has that part, so is anyone interested in translating that for the draft? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (
per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X})
06:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Siege of Mantua (1799) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mazovia#Requested move 30 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I had
a good discussion with @
Piotrus on my talk. The core of our concern is whether we can or cannot categorise people as having "Polish nationality", and thus include them in the nationality-based
Category:Polish people tree (a child of
Category:People by nationality), at times when there was arguably no "Polish" state, particularly during
History of Poland (1795–1918) a.k.a. "
partitioned Poland".
Nationality is the legal connection between a state and its nationals (subjects or citizens), which cannot exist without a state. However, if we do not categorise Poles as having had a nationality during this period, we may be erasing them from history just because
their state was destroyed by the
Partitions, which I as a historian really don't want to do, and I think we here will all agree that this shouldn't happen. The
history of the Poles during the partition should definitely documented; we just need to decide which way we can best approach their categorisation in the face of this nationality question. I suggested we could instead categorise people as "ethnic Poles" during this time, and thus put them in the
Category:People by ethnicity tree, because
ethnicity is about self-identification and does not require a state. Piotrus wasn't sure whether that was a better idea, and recommended I take the discussion here, so here I am.
I'll summarise both approaches here, but I'd encourage everyone to read our good discussion if they like to understand our reasoning in more detail:
The nationality-based approach
|
---|
According to the nationality-based approach, we could interpret various political entities as (partial) "successor states" to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which afforded their subjects a "Polish nationality", and include their "People from" categories in the nationality-based Category:Polish people tree. This is already the case for Category:People from Congress Poland and Category:People from the Duchy of Warsaw, but not yet for Category:People from the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and Category:People from the Grand Duchy of Posen (and perhaps others). This would solve many categorisation issues. With some minor adjustments, the category trees can continue to function as they have.
|
The ethnicity-based approach
|
---|
According to the ethnicity-based approach, we could interpret individuals living within the Russian, Prussian and Austrian Partitions as "ethnic Poles" on a case-by-case basis if they self-identified as such, and include them in ethnicity-based categories such as Category:Polish Austro-Hungarians and Category:People from the Russian Empire of Polish descent. This would also solve many categorisation issues. The great advantage is that we avoid the whole issue of a lack of a sovereign Polish state which affords its subjects a Polish nationality.
|
Finally, Piotrus appears to contradict himself about how things were, and therefore what we should do, leaving me a little confused:
Both simultaneously?
|
---|
|
We would both really appreciate your input!
Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
2. formal : the fact or status of being a member or citizen of a particular nation. That is the formal, legal definition.
[first] the official right to belong to a particular countryand
[third] the state of belonging to a particular country or being a citizen of a particular nation. Those are legal definitions.
This category is for articles on people according to their civic nationality (legal affiliation with a state).That is Britannica definition 2. ("being a member or citizen of a particular nation") and the first and third Cambridge definitions ("the official right to belong to a particular country" and "being a citizen of a particular nation").
I think that the way Piattoeva uses the word "nationality" is synonymous with "national identity"}, you have the right to make that assumption, but it is again your WP:OR, the fact remains that even legally some countries (in this case the Soviet Union) define nationality differently. If you want you can build a category tree: Category:People by civic nationality, which will be limited to this narrow understanding of nationality. But the existing tree must reflect the full meaning of the concept.
legal affiliation with a state. So if you think this should be changed, it is up to you to nominate that category for renaming, not up to me. Right now, the category follows the same definitions I have been using.
So if you think this should be changed, it is up to you to nominate that category for renaming, not up to me. Right now, the category follows the same definitions I have been using, false; the category is properly named, you just trying to impose on others very narrow understanding of the notion, that goes contrary to the reliable sources. QED Marcelus ( talk) 19:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Marcelus also seems to favour the nationality-based approach by identifying C-Poland, D-Warsaw, KoGaL and GD-Posen as non-sovereign "Polish states", which is indeed probably the simplest answer to the question. There just seems to be a bit of confusion about what the term "nationality" means, false and mirepresentation of my words. The question if mentioned countries were "Polish" or not is irrelevent; because the notion of nationality is much broader than the narrow definition you are trying to impose on others. There is no confusion, reliable sources are conclusive in the matter: nationality is both "belonging to certain state" and "belonging to certain group of people who are united by a common culture, history, traditions etc." Marcelus ( talk) 19:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Further to the 2022 merge/rename of C18 Polish people by occupation to people of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
On WP:CfD there is an important discussion concerning the categorization of people living in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as the shape of the category tree concerning people of Polish nationality. Because of the subject matter, it seemed to me that this discussion might be of interest to participants in this Wikiproject.
Link: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023 August_21#Category:18th-century people from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation Marcelus ( talk) 22:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
It looks like deletion sorting wasn't used on this bundled nomination so I wanted to alert any interested editors in this AFD that was nominated today. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church in America#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Poland:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long
Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Grnrchst ( talk) 13:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Józef Abelewicz § Requested move 3 October 2023.
Cukrakalnis (
talk)
12:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the only way to resolve the issue and get more people to comment on this, as this issue is also relevant to other countries and not just Poland. -- E-960 ( talk) 13:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you help to disambiguate links to Chmielnik? There are 62 articles linking to Chmielnik and it is often not clear which Voivodeship is correct. A list of the relevent articles is at Disambig fix list for Chmielnik. If it helps you can go to your preferences (drop down list top right), choose the "Gadgets" tab & scroll down to Appearance & put a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" & this will highlight relevant links.— Rod talk 11:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner.
DFlhb (
talk)
11:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
A recently indeffed user posted at Wikipediocracy about a series of edits performed by Materialscientist using the semi-automated tool AutoWikiBrowser (edits are tagged "AWB"). Materialscientist has been removing the German names of settlements in Poland that were previously in Germany (particularly in East Prussia). The example that I looked at at random was Końcewo, a village formerly in East Prussia, which appears to be fairly typical: the edit summary is "unsourced/poorly sourced/unnecessary, removed: {{lang-de|, has a population" and they also removed the population from the article text, leaving it in the infobox. I discussed these removals with them at their user talk: User talk:Materialscientist#In the spirit of the first user box on your user page ..., but although they grant that I make good points, they have declined to self-revert as recommended by the rules for use of the tool when edits prove controversial. They did subsequently update the population at Końcewo and add a reference, and their only additional similar edit after I started the discussion (also with AWB) appears to me to be Osiniak-Piotrowo, also formerly in East Prussia, where at the same time as they removed the former German name, they updated the population figure, adding a reference. But in that article, the former German name had a reference, albeit to a genealogy.net website. Previously at Nowy Probark, another village formerly in East Prussia, Materialscientist removed a former German name sourced to this book. Is this not a reliable source?
I was initially unsympathetic to the complainant, who is indeffed as a sock of a user banned for POV. But I cannot see how removing all mention of the historical context from places that were in Germany prior to World War I, in some cases for centuries, is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I disagree that the former names are WP:UNDUE, and I believe this is minimal information that a reader should be able to search by. I imagine there are settlements in Silesia that were Polish- or Lusatian-speaking prior to the Nazi era (we do not appear to have ever had the former German name at Ogrodzona, Silesian Voivodeship, where Materialscientist only removed the in-text population; compare Rakowice Małe, in Upper Silesia, where they removed only the former German name although the edit summary also refers to removing a redundant population that was not present), and I'm not sure about Pomerania. But checking Polish Wikipedia reveals that (in addition to having images of all these places, which we really should add to our articles), they usually do have the former German names. For example, pl:Końcewo, pl:Nowy Probark, pl:Rakowice Małe, also pl:Ogrodzona (województwo śląskie) (Polish Wikipedia has the former German name, English didn't) and pl:Budzieszewice (Pomerania), but not pl:Osiniak-Piotrowo. So I am wondering what the view is here—and at WikiProject Germany, where I will also be posting.
Yakikaki posted at Materialscientist's talk page saying that they had added historical information to some articles that had been removed to their surprise.
JBW expressed general agreement with my points, and
Lourdes supported my argument that Materialscientist should self-revert under the policy governing semi-automated edits (currently the last post in the talk-page section). However, there have been earlier edits also removing information on the past from the mostly very short articles on these settlements. And in April 2022, the bot operated by
Qwerfjkl
was approved for the task of removing sentences of the format Before 1945 the area was part of
Germany (
East Prussia)
that had been present when the articles were bot-created. I would argue that it would have been preferable to reference that statement as context for the former German names. The argument for removing it appears to have been UNDUE, and in February 2022
E-960 was removing referenced former German names with that rationale, for example at
Budzieszewice (which as I noted above, has the former German name in the Polish Wikipedia article; someone else has since restored it here, but without the reference).
HerkusMonte added some of these names, and references for them, and apparently restored the sentences after a previous removal;
discussion at their talk page started by E-960 and hatted after it became a debate between E-960 and someone else over POV. So I am bringing the issue to the two relevant WikiProjects to gauge consensus on the removals of the former names, especially the automated removals performed by Materialscientist. (I won't further repeat my position or my responses to Materialscientist's arguments.) My other reason is that since Materialscientist has declined to self-revert, and used a semi-automated tool, reverting the removals will be a big task, especially if references are restored or added at the same time and/or if something other than simple restoration is done about the unsourced and outdated population figures, and would be best done as a coordinated effort. (I have not tried to establish when Materialscientist began doing this; the person posting at Wikipediocracy referred to a couple of months, but that may not be correct. Nor have I tried to establish what categories they were working from. So I don't know how many articles are affected, and haven't looked at how many removals E-960 did.)
In addition, I will mention only here, that a regular poster on Wikipediocracy added that Materialscientist has also used AWB to remove former Ukrainian names of places in Poland: Lalin, Poland; Srogów Dolny; Niebieszczany; Pakoszówka. I am not sure how controversial these edits are, since these are borderland places or former pockets of Ukrainian speakers within Polish territory, rather than places with a long history as part of Germany and its predecessor states. Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
"Legnica (Polish: [lɛɡˈɲit͡sa]; German: Liegnitz, pronounced [ˈliːɡnɪts]; Silesian: Ligńica; Czech: Lehnice; Latin: Lignitium)". So, just having Materialscientist revert will not resolve the issue of neutrality and the placing of undue emphasis on just one historical period over the others. -- E-960 ( talk) 12:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
"Legnica (Polish: [lɛɡˈɲit͡sa]; German: Liegnitz, pronounced [ˈliːɡnɪts]; Silesian: Ligńica; Czech: Lehnice; Latin: Lignitium)"Saturating an average stub municipality article with history from the German period is just as bad and damaging to the accuracy of the article as an anti-German perspective in my opinion. -- E-960 ( talk) 17:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion and see no disagreement that the removal of former long-term names should be reverted. Disagreement appears to be mostly over whether other names (including early Latin) should be also used. I also note the point made by Materialscientist themself among others that names should be sourced and more sourced information on history should be included to provide context. I consider my first reason for bringing this here (and to WikiProject Germany) to have been satisfied: finding out whether editors active in the field agree with me that the name removals were deleterious. The second was to figure out how best to fix it if there was such agreement.
In the meantime I've been working on individual articles, developing sources with the assistance of the pl.wikipedia and dt.wikipedia articles and adding referenced population figures as well as the former names where I can. But I'm hampered by not only lack of time and the enormous volume of Materialscientist's edits, and by the need to check everything carefully (this is partly due to the POV editing Materialscientist and E-960 have in the past reacted to: on both English and German Wikipedia, the former names of Probark and Nowy Probark had been (re)added reversed by editor(s) with more zeal than care for accuracy / linguistic knowledge, and it's still all mucked up on de.) ... but also by my inability to read Polish, so that I can only use Google translate to tease out what Polish Wikipedia states and to look at and cite sources that it cites, and can't do an adequate search. So I am unable to verify or include the sometimes quite complex administrative history of these places since 1945, or in most cases information about medieval and 18th-century overlords that I might be able to tease out of Google if I could read Polish. I've been working on villages, partly because larger settlements provide a lot more source material to determine whether there was a local mixed linguistic tradition / coexistence of names, partly because the nature of the Ostsiedlung led to a number of villages originating as German-speaking settlements, partly because those tiny stubs are most in need of expansion and most likely to have gone unnoticed when they were damaged in a mistaken semi-automated editing run—or badly restored, with the reference not being reinstated and possibly even the name being wrong. But the nature of the available sources—further restricted by my inability in Polish—means my work can only be a start. In some cases the corresponding article is also a stub on pl. and/or de.; in others, they have a well developed article. I've been able to put in registered historic buildings, because I can see and understand the entry on an official list. I've been able to evaluate and add images. I've looked at lists of notable residents, but haven't yet found one where there's an article on English Wikipedia. And all of this takes me quite a bit of time (including peering at Prussian official gazeteers/administrative lists in pdf and via Google Books and searching in vain for what looks like an excellent Polish regional newspaper source that Polish Wikipedia cites via an offline archive).
I've been reverted today at Końcewo by E-960, with an accusation of POV pushing. My edits there were based on what I was able to reference. Please, you editors who can read Polish, come in on this effort and either supplement my work with what history and other information on these little places you judge to be worth mentioning and can cite sources for (thereby fixing the POV that results from my uneven ability and the need for sources), or assist with a broad revert of Materialscientist's edits and work out a system for expanding these articles as a collective effort. As I stated early on to Materialscientist, simply removing what information we have—especially when it includes removing references—is the perfect as the enemy of the good. I won't say it's throwing the baby out with the bath water, since E-960 left the unreferenced German name Konzewen so a reader can at least find out what place that is by searching. But I can't do this all by myself, especially since I can't do the Polish part at all adequately! Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yngvadottir and Piotrus, pls do not edit war and then accuse others of wrong doing, pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines where it's clear that questionable edits can be reverted and a disscussion should take place. Also, it is worth familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:What is consensus? - "Consensus is not a majority vote." -- E-960 ( talk) 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I would support a mass revert of Materialscientist's edits. Here at Frysztak they also removed the Yiddish name, of a town that had a 3/4 Jewish population before the Holocaust. — Kusma ( talk) 11:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
My sense is that the existing guidelines at WP:PLACE cover most of this ground anyway. A summary of the relevant points is that:
The guidance does not distinguish names used by an occupying power during a time of war. My sense is that such names need not be in the lede, but should be mentioned as part of the relevant historical account.
Cheers. Bermicourt ( talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
At this point it looks like a broad consensus has been reached here that the former German names of these towns which are now in Poland and Russia should be present in the articles. As far as verifiability is concerned, this book - [3] - has the information needed for towns east of the Oder-Neiße Line. As I have said, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia editing tools, but I would propose that all of Materialscientist's removals of these names be reverted, and then the aforementioned reference being automatically included after the former German name for all articles that have lang-de which are located in modern Poland and Kaliningrad Oblast, RU. It would be extremely tedious to sort through Materialscientist's extensive edit history to revert his edits, particularly for a user without rollback privileges. And I am only guessing it would be possible to automatically add the citation in all the appropriate articles; perhaps it is a harder task than that.
It is certainly possible that some of the formerly listed German names are incorrect, erroneous transcriptions or otherwise mistaken. However the vast majority can be assumed to be correct, and incorrect names can be dealt with on a case by case basis as those errors are noticed. The removal of these names, >99% of which are accurate, on the basis of the <1% that may be incorrect, is not justified. There is no agenda to assign false German names instead of the true ones to towns formerly located in Germany which all formerly had German names. Ascended Dreamer ( talk) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
References
A large number of places have been to added to List of cities and towns in Poland in recent edits which need disambiguation because there are places with this name in more than one Vivodeship and it often unclear which is the intended link. You can identify these by going to your Preferences (drop down list top right), going to the "gadets" tab, scrolling down to "Appearance" and putting a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
An RFC is in progress on whether the Free City of Danzig should be listed as a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland. Participation is welcome at: Talk:Invasion_of_Poland#RFC:_Free_City_of_Danzig. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear editors! Cause of recent events in Polish politics English Wikipedia has seen increased number of edits on related topics, including Polish constituencies of Sejm and Senate. Some issues resolved as of lack consensus on the matter of naming those articles. For clarity of navigating through articles and correctness of these names I propose creating following naming policy:
Sources
Most recent official sources avalible in English refer to Polish: okręg wyborczy as 'constituency', despite its literal translation being 'electoral district'. See: here, here, here ( PKW) and here ( Senate).
Constituencies in Poland are numbered from 1 to 41 (Sejm), and 1 to 100 (Senate). They do not have proper names like it is in most English speaking countries. Their official list can be found in Annexe no. 1 (Sejm) and Annexe no. 2 (Senate) of the Election Code of 2011 ( ISAP).
Naming
As of the above I propose following naming policy:
for the constituencies of the Sejm, where an X is a number.
for the constituency of the Senate, where an X is a number.
Argumentation
Sejm constituencies in my opinion do not need specifing their Polishness ;) in the title because of the Sejm unique name. That is the opposite in case of the Senate constituencies (as noticed by Moondragon21 ( talk · contribs) in Old revision of Poland's 1st Senate district).
The c in Constituency in the title should be in my opinion capitalised as it refers to one specific entity and therefore becomes its name. However when mentioning Senate constituencies or general entity of Senate constituency it should be lowercased.
When mentioning Sejm constituency its number should be used primarely, as it is strictly defined and widely used. Proper name of the coresponding constituency electoral commission (okręgowa komisja wyborcza, OKW) is not, e.g. Sejm website using city names without roman numeral here. Therefore OKW proper name should be used secondary, as an adjunctive way of locating the constituency, e.g. in brackets, like it is in Template:Parliamentary constituencies in Poland or here on official website by PKW (using square brackets).
Connected
As of the above, names of following should be revised in my opinion:
Also, what do you think of merging pages List of constituencies for the Senate of the Republic of Poland and Electoral districts of Poland? Or maybe extracting from the recent list of Sejm constituencies? (It should be symetrical in my opinion). — Antoni12345 ( talk) 08:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
All town and city articles have a reference to the TERYT website - http://www.stat.gov.pl/broker/access/prefile/listPreFiles.jspa which then gets redirected to https://eteryt.stat.gov.pl/eTeryt/rejestr_teryt/aktualnosci/aktualnosci.aspx. But this seems to only be a home page. For the benefit of those of us who are not fluent in Polish, can someone please give details of how to search for a particular place name? Thanks, Kiwipete ( talk) 21:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Asian Month already has a long tradition and regularly produces a good number of solid articles. Wikimania 2024 will take place in Kraków. In the German Wikipedia, we came up with the idea of organizing a Polish Month competition modelled on the Asian Month competition. The aim of the competition would be to increase the number of articles with Polish topics in as many Wikipedias as possible. The rules and tools of the Asian Month competition could be adopted. What do you think? Who would take part? Who else could be involved? (The Wikimania organisers? Wikimedia Poland?) Kind regards, --~~ Sebastian Wallroth ( talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
At
Third Cabinet of Mateusz Morawiecki, is it
WP:DUE to include 'Morawiecki's third government was dubbed "two-week" or "zombie government" by various media, due to its anticipated short-livedness.
'? I saw the matter mentioned
here at ANI and am hoping others with knowledge of the topic will monitor the article.
Johnuniq (
talk)
09:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robots of Stanisław Lem#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Max19582: Apologies for the late reply. As Poland is a European country, I thought the articles related to Poland should be written in British English (rather than American English). What do you think? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 10:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.(from MOS:TIES)
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate variety of English template on its talk page.(from MOS:RETAIN) Max19582 ( talk) 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WuWa, Wrocław#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I've now added a "Removal of PiS government" section to the Polish constitutional crisis article that contains information about the recent developments, including the recent arrests. It needs much, much more from someone who actually understands Polish politics. — The Anome ( talk) 15:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kraków has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
As World Kociewie Day on the 10 February is approaching I thought I might post here to see if anyone would be interested in helping to improve the Wikipedia entry for Kociewie?
I've also had a go at creating a Kociewian userbox here. Wikociewie ( talk) 12:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stara Kosianka#Requested move 2 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I left a discussion at the village pump about the mass errors of Polish village names on English Wikipedia. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I have had a request from @ Shhhnotsoloud to remove the hatnote I added to this article. I neither completely agree nor completely disagree with their sentiments, but it seems that the use of hatnotes, in particular Other places and See also is widespread in articles that are disambiguated. I can find no mention of hatnotes in WP:MOSPOL. Could project members please add their thoughts? Thanks, Kiwipete ( talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
In the above discussion, a couple editors think the above subject may be notable but have provided no evidence of notability. I would like to avoid pushing this to AfD unnecessarily, so can someone who is familiar with Polish sources be able to weigh in on the notability question? -- Tavix ( talk) 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Krajków, Łódź Voivodeship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article states that it belongs to Gmina Wieluń, but its related article on the Polish wikipedia states that it is in Gmina Mokrsko. What's more, the Polish article states that it is part of the town of Krzyworzeka, Łódź Voivodeship, i.e. not a separate town in its own right. There is no content here that could be merged into Krzyworzeka.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Kiwipete (
talk)
08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see these contribs from a new account: [9]. I have almost no knowledge of IPA and have no idea if this is correct or not. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear editors, if someone would be willing to or had some free time to review my recent rewrite of the list of Ministers of the Interior of Poland, I would be greatful. As I'm a beginer in editing with proper references :-) I would be thankful for both editorial and meritoric feedback on my edits.
While reviewing please note I deliberately used title "Minister of Internal Affairs" with regard to the interwar and communist period, and "Minister of the Interior" to the modern era – in the first case there were no official English translations of the title so I used the direct translation of it, whereas in the second case there was an English translation used by the MSW which is the one mentioned. Also please give your opinion on using coloured background of the party name cell in the last one of the tables (in other two it wouldn't serve any pupose in my opinion) – I was using here and in other aspects the pattern established by the British lists of ministers, for e.g. here.
I also proposed merging the article Ministry of the Interior (Poland) into this article. I have steated my reasons here and they stand unchanged. (I haven't kept my promise on the date stated, but I was distracted lately :-). — Antoni12345 ( talk) 13:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I've created an article for Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk. Unfortunately, I cannot read Polish, so I have to rely on machine translation from sources, so I may have made errors. Could some native Polish speaker review the article, and check it against the native-language sources?
She is also mentioned in this book, to which I don't have access. — The Anome ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the article Warsaw City Council currently contains six lists of the council members, which I wonder if provide a reader with any meaningful information. Also overall majority of listed persons do not have individual articles, and in my opinion would fail to meet notability guidelines for creating them. I would be graetful for any opinion from more experienced editors. Chears!
P.S. Alternatively, maybe creating separete article-list titled "List of Warsaw City Council members", where councilors of all terms could be listed is an option.-- Antoni12345 ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stadion im. Kazimierza Górskiego (Płock)#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 18:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Upper Silesian metropolitan area#Requested move 6 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Starting this July, we will see a new contest on the scene - the Developing Countries WikiContest ( WP:DCWC)! Think of it as a WikiCup but only for articles and media on developing countries.
Competitors may submit GAs, GTs, FAs, FTs, FLs, FPs, and DYK and ITN entries from/on developing countries to gain points and climb the leaderboard. Points are also awarded to those who review GAs, FAs and FLs.
Poland is listed as a developing country for the purposes of this contest and articles related to it are eligible to be submitted for points, so I encourage everyone here to sign up and compete with editors from around the world to create high-quality content!
Append your name to the DCWC signup page today!
Best wishes, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/ my edits) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Eric of Pomerania#Eryk Pomorski would benefit from input from a Polish-speaking editor. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 11:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)