Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:01, 10 February 2007

Welcome to the Poland-related notice board!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

The Bomb (play)

I am at loss about the notability of this article about a polish play. A notability tag was removed without comment. Is Maciej Kowalewski notable? Could someone look at it? Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I prodded it, let's see what happens.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since a user is removing prod without any responce, I give you the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bomb (play).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Help, please

Hello. Can someone with better English than mine please help and translate lyrics in Płyniesz Olzo po dolinie? It will be very much appreciated. I can buy you a Czech beer. :) - Darwinek 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, where is my Czech beer? greetings Tymek 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of Saint Stanislaus

Can someone take a look at the following articles:

• International Order of Saint Stanislaus
• Order of Saint Stanislaus
• Order of Saint Stanislaus (Oekrainian chapter of the International Order of Saint Stanislaus)
• The order of Saint Stanislaus. As issued by the head of the Imperial House of Romanov
• The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in Polen in 1990
• The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in the Republic of Poland in 1990

I'm not sure if they need to be merged or renamed. All I know is that looking at them makes my head hurt. Appleseed (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ack! That's a rare mess :) Merge all and salt the earth after the last four redirects (delete).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Move and mediation request

I have moved this from new articles annoucements. Please help those two editors find a common ground.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Poeticbent has unilaterally changed the article's title from "St. Florian's Gate" to the incorrect "Florian Gate," after first vandalizing the article's discussion page, removing the 3 votes against the move, vs. his sole one vote. Please see my note, "Poeticbent's vandalism," on the discussion page of "Florian Gate." logologist|Talk 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanity cruft?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boguslawa Cimoszko.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Livonian War

Right now the redirect Third Livonian War is pointing at Polish-Swedish wars. What should it redirect to? Appleseed (Talk) 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish–Swedish War (1600–1629). Which is another disambig, after the article I wrote was split of into subarticles some time ago, a decision I am not that happy about but...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jarosław Kaczyński article

Dev920 keep adding Jarosław Kaczyński article to the Category:LGBT people from Poland. Jogers (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is LOL. Now, more seriously, the refs that are used to back up this rather amusing claim are somewhat dubious: gaycitynews.com, www.pinknews.co.uk and www.thegully.com - all three seem like a minor new sites with an evident POV. Per WP:BLP I'd suggest that unless such claims can be verified by more reliable sources, they are discarded based on not being reliable (failing to satisfy WP:RS). In any case, please comment in the discussion at article's talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Przemsyl?

Among requested articles about Poland is "Przemsyl" (no details given). I was going to remove it as a typo for Przemyśl but the word has disturbingly high number of ghits on .pl. Could someone take a look and remove it if is really just a typo? Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it also could refer to:

• Przemysł I - Duke of Greater Poland
• Przemysł II - king of Poland, son of Przemysł I
• Przemysł Inowrocławski - Duke of Inowrocław

"Przemysl" it self is a "typo"/version without diacritics, but what was on authors mind... who knows Radomil talk 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pl wiki has no article on 'Przemsyl' and I'd agree with Radomil that it's a poor typo.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello fellow neighbours. :) Would you be interested in supporting/participating in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Czech Republic? I think it is much needed as there is no platform on EN Wiki concentrating on Czech articles. You can vote or comment here: . Have a nice day. :) - Darwinek 10:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the creation of Czech noticeboard some time ago. I strongly support users from that country (and possibly from Slovakia as well) working together. Unfortunatly my knowledge of that region is too limited to be able to offer any significant content help.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination). And slightly less interesting: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boguslawa Cimoszko.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jagiełło/Jogaila odyssey cnt.

See Talk:Jogaila for newest RM and User:Angusmclellan/Jogaila mediation for related mediation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the mediation request is now at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New articles bot - help add/fix rules

See Portal_talk:Poland/New_article_announcements#User:AlexNewArtBot_-_New_Article_Bot. Rules: User:AlexNewArtBot/Poland. First run results: User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandLog. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

The unreferenced article Father of the Nation lists Piłsudski for Poland. Is this accurate? Appleseed (Talk) 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, opinions on Pilsudski differ, but if there is a personality who can be regarded as Father of the modern Polish Nation, I do not see anybody else but him. I think most of my fellow countrymen will agree Tymek 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but for balance with regards to the length of Polish history, I have added Mieszko I who was the founder of the historical Polish state. Deuar 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was actually a dispute about this but the person adding the category to Piłsudski article declined to take part in the discussion. I am neutral on this issue - we need references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well mayby Piłsudski is considered to be father of Polish nation in former Kongresówka or Galicja, bu in ex-Prussian Partition he is surely not. Here he wasn't (and still isn't) popular person. Radomil talk 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays we call it Greater Poland. :-) Why isn't he liked there? Appleseed (Talk) 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only in Grater Poland, also in Eastern Pommerania and Silesia. Here as fathers of independence are known persons like Dmowski (for his work during wwI, and vision of national state), Haller, Paderwski, Korfanty, Taczak, Dowbór-Muśnicki and so on. Piłsudski is seen as person that doesn't care of Kresy Zachodnie. In our POV he was only interested in conquering "wild fields" of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine instead fighting for Silesia or Gdańsk. He is also disliked for his May Coup d'Etat. In Western Poland much more preferable was democracy, and apolitical army - model of state promoted by Haller and Dowbór-Muśnicki. Radomil talk 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. While personally I tend to have "Galician-like views" on him, I remeber some of these controversies. Generally, Endecja, one of major political forces then, didn't like him very much, so to speak. I do not think the label "Father of the nation" applies. The definition of the latter implies some kind of national consensus around the man in question (and it was not really the case, as the opposition was quite strong). Maybe Casimir the Great is a better candidate?--Beaumont (@) 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other candidates could be: Bolesław Chrobry, Kazimierz Odnowiciel, Przemysł II (I know, not well know, probably this eliminates him from list), Władysław Łokietek and Tadeusz Kościuszko Radomil talk 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize - I wrote that Pilsudski may be considered the father of MODERN Polish Nation. As far as times before II Polish Republic, there are several important personalities worthy mentioning Tymek 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

II RP had many fathers, Piłsudski IMHO is too controversial to be the one in this list. Beter to leave him... On the other hand Kościuszko could be good candidate for father of Modern Polish nation, he started, during insurection, to build nation of all citizens, not only nobles. Radomil talk 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, do we have to stick to one person? The Germans have a whole bunch of them as Fathers of the Nation. Why don't we chose say 5 of them? Tymek 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not consider to this... Look at Iran, many controversial notable figures in very long hitory, like Khomeini, but only Cyrus as father of nation. Radomil talk 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So, if we are supposed to choose only one, I will cast my vote on Mieszko I Tymek 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too Radomil talk 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too --Beaumont (@) 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mieszko has a very distinct advantage − uncontroversial ;-) Deuar 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for him too, but we need references. Appleseed (Talk) 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congress of Gniezno

Are there any paintings representing the Congress of Gniezno? I googled for images in English and Polish (zjazd gnieznienski) but found nothing. Appleseed (Talk) 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind, nor were my search useful. A trip to Gniezno with a camera may be in order, and a local guide would be invaluable. I'd bet there are some semi-forgotten paintings, sculptures and similar objects, for example at Gniezno Cathedral.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I'm surprised at the dearth of artwork related to this event, especially since the article declares it "one of the more important events in Polish history". Appleseed (Talk) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So... would anyone like to volunteer to take some photos in Gniezno? Appleseed (Talk) 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Czechoslovakia

Can someone find a citation for this (mine) claim? It would be good if someone would write a short article about the Polish territorial acquisition (1938) to get rid of the misconception that the aquisition of the dispiuted teritories was done "together" with the III Reich. Mieciu K 11:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia; unfortunatly it's unreferenced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that article needs to be renamed. How about Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts? Appleseed (Talk) 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. And while we're on the subject of renaming, perhaps someone can think of a better title for The first game: December 18, 1921. Hungary - Poland 1-0. Appleseed (Talk) 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking to yourself, Apple? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

qp10qp said that replying to oneself is the first sign of madness. Should I be concerned? :-) I only wish I could reply in the affirmative to my Congress of Gniezno question. Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to rename The first game: December 18, 1921. Hungary - Poland 1-0, you can do it, but I do not know what better title you can come up with. Tymek 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Poland v Hungary (1921)? Appleseed (Talk) 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it would suggest that it was one of many friendlies. We have to emphasize this was the very first international of Poland. Otherwise there will always be someone wanting to delete it, just like Poland v Brazil (1938) Check out discussion on this page, I had a lot of problems with some users Tymek 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The significance of the game should be emphasized in the body of the article, not the title. Appleseed (Talk) 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a person from Zaolzie, I can say following. Argument of Polish-German cooperation in 1938 is bulshit. This argument was spread by Czech propaganda before the war and during the Communist era until 1989. Often "nicely" said as "fascist Beck's Poland" etc. Fact is that Poland didn't give a fock about Germany, they just took their chance - Munich Agreement. In Polish view Zaolzie should have been Polish already in 1920. - Darwinek 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone who reads this board knows this. However, it's important to be on the lookout for articles that spread such old propaganda and misinformation. Not too long ago we saw WWII myths presented as fact (see the history of the "Tuchola Forest myth" redirect). Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Watts in his book "Bitter Glory" accurately described all ins and outs of Polish-Czech conflict for Zaolzie in 1920s and 1930s. Should I put down some quotes from this book? Tymek 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would very much apreciate that. Mieciu K 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I have some time, I'll do it Tymek 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked the "Bitter Glory" book. He gives a very interesting insight about ways in which the Czechs gained control over Zaolzie and their tricks (they acted in a very dirty way). But before I add it - a question about copyrights? Anybody would answer? I do not want to waste my time, cause there's a lot of stuff on it. Tymek 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright? The Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 should answer some specific questions, in general if you are copying text as a means of scientific studies and as long as you reference it properly, keep the quotes at reasonable lenght nobody should complain. Mieciu K 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Quotes are always OK. Publishing long parts (~chapter+) is usually not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Voivodeships 1921-1939

I am working on Polish Voivodeships in the interwar period,

Should anybody have some more info about them, share it

Tymek 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Category:Polish_historical_voivodeships_(1921–1939).

To keep things manageable, how about we create Łódź Voivodeship (1921-1939) and Lublin Voivodeship (1921-1939), so that information about historic voivodeships is kept separate from information about present day Łódź Voivodeship and Lublin Voivodeship ? Balcer 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I have already put down some info on Lodz Voivodeship 1921-1939

Anyway, as soon as I started, user LUCPOL deleted my works on Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship, removing some important info and adding some curious facts e.g. claiming that Silesian Language was one of official languages back then (never heard of it). Tymek 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not completely. See: and diff. LUCPOL 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question: why 1921-1939 and not 1918-1939?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Per pl-wiki, the first five (among them Lódź and Lublin) were created in 1919, with others added in the following years. Maybe a better way to go then would be to have Łódź Voivodeship (historical) and Lublin Voivodeship (historical), which would address all the past voivodeships with that name? Balcer 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Map of Poland was not fully completed until 1921, after adding Wilno and Upper Silesia. I guess this is why it is 1921-1939 (I did not come up with this span of time). Anyway, we should cooperate with each other, otherwise there will be a conflict. I mean LUCPOL and his edits, he destroyed all my work. Seeing this, I start to think it does not make sense to do anything Tymek 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Read above. LUCPOL 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, your work is not destroyed, it is still sitting in the history of article and can be restored. What is the issue with User:LUCPOL, anyway? Balcer 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think LUCPOL's contributions deserve some scrutiny. Despite my objections, he created many categories related to the dubiously named "Metropolis Katowice" (I can't find them now; hopefully they were deleted). He also seems to think Silesia is its own country or some sort of subunit of the EU (see this). I tried to discuss these issues with him but was unsuccessful. Appleseed (Talk) 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tymek trochę przesadził. Za bardzo nerwowo i panicznie się tym zajął. Tu jest toczona dyskusja pomiędzy mną i Tymkiem na temat autonomicznego województwa śląskiego (oraz jego i moich zmian): . Najważniejsze by nie przesadzać w słowach. Appleseed - ty również trochę przesadziłeś tą opinią i tym linkiem. Przeczytaj sobie mój opis zmian w tym linku, on wyjaśnia wszystko. LUCPOL 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As we all know, Silesia is not well-defined, and it is divided among several countries. As I wrote on your talk page, "I think the only solution is to avoid creating subcategories for regions. It doesn't make sense to create categories such as 'Universities and colleges in Silesia' that will include schools from three countries. We would have the same problem if someone created a category such as 'Universities and colleges in Galicia'." And yet you created all these categories. Appleseed (Talk) 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will remove this category. LUCPOL 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't just referring to Category:Education in Silesia, but to every subcategory of Category:Silesia that implicitly requires Silesia to be a well-defined region, which it is not. The only categories I can think of that should remain there are Silesian culture, Dukes of Silesia, and the two voivodeships. Appleseed (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They should be definitely nominated at WP:CFD. - Darwinek 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not about being panicky, nervous or exaggerating. LUCPOL made changes which deleted important and true facts, this should never happen:

• population of counties was removed - why?

• several counties were removed - why?

• population of cities was changed, without providing source

• Swietochlowice was added to cities even though it was not a city then and LUCPOL knows it

• Siemianowice was a city not an urban commune

• Zaolzie cities were removed, plus Frysztat county - wouldn't it be better to leave them adding note "since October 1938"?

• Silesian as an official language - how did you come up with this?

Anyway, LUCPOL is from Silesia, I will leave it to him. Please work it out, otherwise we will provide wrong info Greetings to all Tymek 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Widzę Tymek, że jednak zamierzasz tu prowadzić dyskusję, więc proszę - czytaj chociaż odpowiedzi bo powtarzasz ciągle te same sprawy:

"Dlaczego zmieniles zawartosc artykulu o Autonomicznym Wojewodztwie Slaskim w latach miedzywojennych?"

Misplaced Pages opiera się na tym, że można stale poprawiać i zmieniać hasła. Artykuł starałem się jak najbardziej upodobnić do artykułu w polskiej wersji językowej.

"Zachowales sie nieladnie, tak sie nie robi, usunales sporo wiadomosci ktore sa istotne i jak najbardziej prawdziwe"

Początek zdania zostawiam bez komentarza. Jeśli chodzi o drugą część tego zdania: nie usunąłem sporo wiadomości. Prawie nic nie usunąłem. Głównie dodałem infobox i zrobiłem zmiany redakcyjne (zamieniając nieczytelne dane na tabele z polskiej wikipedii). Przypatrz się dokładnie moim zmianom.

"usunales tez powiat frysztacki ktory nalezal do tego wojewodztwa w okresie jesien 1938-wrzesien 1939"

Ja w artykule przedstawiłem dane z 1929, wtedy nie było tego powiatu w województwie. Po za tym, z twojej wersji wynika, że Chorzów (pop. 128 900) był większym miastem od Katowic (pop. 126 200) co nie było prawdą. LUCPOL 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wedlug spisu powszechnego Polski z 1931 roku Chorzow byl wiekszy od Katowic"

Czy aby na pewno? PS. Zobacz też tu.

"Powiat frysztacki nalezal do tego wojewodztwa od roku 1938, ale nie rozumiem dlaczego calkowicie go usunales, skoro istnial (wystarczylo napisac, ze istnial w latach 38-39)"

Tu się z tobą zgadzam. Ale o tym później.

"A co z tym jezykiem slaskim? Gdzie to znalazles?"

Dane przeniosłem z pl.wikipedii. Wiem, że ten język był nieoficjalny, lecz infobox ma w kodzie wpisane "Official" (czego nie ma na pl.wikipedii) i stąd te komplikacje. Nie mniej jednak poprawiłem - wpisałem adnotacje Non official. PS. Czeski również wtedy nie był oficjalnie uznawanym językiem w województwie.

Mam do Ciebie propozycję, utwórz proszę tabelę z miastami i powiatami tak jak jest w artykule lecz z twoimi danymi. Dane są znacznie bardziej czytelne dzięki tabeli. Tabelę wprowadź w brudnopisie lub w mojej dyskusji lub po prostu w dyskusji artykułu. Jeśli będzie wszystko OK to podmieni się tabele w artykule na twoje dane. Nie mam nic przeciwko. LUCPOL 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It must be said that Czech language ceased to be official in Zaozie area after 1938 annexation of Zaolzie by Poland. It was forbidden to use it officially. - Darwinek 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LUCPOL I said I would leave it to you, so please... Just remember - use some brains while editing Tymek 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tymek. Wpisz swoje dane w tabelki "miasta" i "powiaty" tak jak jest w artykule. Dla mnie wszystko jedno czy to będą dane z pl.wikipedii czy twoje, byle by były to dane uporządkowane w tabelach. LUCPOL 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wszystkie dane sa w tym materiale ktory usunales. Nie widze sensu szukac w Roczniku Statystycznym i wklepywac to od nowaTymek 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nie zrozumiałeś mnie. Chodzi o to, aby te twoje dane wpisać w tabele: "miasta" oraz drugą tabelę "powiaty". LUCPOL 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LUcpol prosze Cie... w jaki sposob Austria dostala po 3. Powstaniu Slaskim czesc Gornego Slaska? Skad bierzesz takie rewelacje? Tymek 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racja, mój błąd. Mój angielski nie jest biegły, myślałem że chodzi o to, że tereny Górnego Śląska były cały czas podzielone pomiędzy kraje (i dlatego dopisałem Austrię), teraz rozumiem że w tekście chodzi tylko o autonomiczne województwo śląskie. Mój błąd już poprawiłem. LUCPOL 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Zrobiłem tabele według twoich danych. Tabele (moje i twoje) oraz dyskusja ich dotycząca jest tutaj. LUCPOL 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Some Admin should decide what to do. I told you e.g. that Chorzow was bigger from Katowice back in 1931, this is what the Year Book says and you are asking if I am sure. Please Piotrus or somebody solve it. Thank God you removed some of your blunders Tymek 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jezu, człowieku. Po co ty ciągniesz ten temat? Ja te pytanie kiedyś zadałem, a ty wygrzebujesz jakieś stare pytania i ciągniesz ten temat w nieskończonosć. LUCPOL 11:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)