Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I am very dissapointed in the PCOTW progress. Except for my first major edit (which involved mostly merging subarticles into one main article), happened during the COTW process :( --] <sup>]</sup> 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
I am very dissapointed in the PCOTW progress. Except for my first major edit (which involved mostly merging subarticles into one main article), happened during the COTW process :( --] <sup>]</sup> 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
::
::If it wasn't for both of my computers breaking almost at the same time... ]] July 6, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:55, 6 July 2005
Discussions
Old
Zastanawiam się czy nie byłoby dobrze wkleić gdzieś przed listą art do zrobienia/poszerzenia nastepującego tekstu z ikonkami wikibooksowymi. Cały tekst sciągnołem z duńskiego notice boardu. Vuvar1 01:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC):
Wstawilem w tabelke.--Witkacy 10:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Przejrzałem artykuł Wigilia. Jeśli ktoś pamięta jakieś konkretne metody wróżenia (poza siankiem), to proszę dopisać Silvermane 11:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To-Do List
This page attempts to organize and keep track of the articles on Poland and Polish related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Each article is assigned a level of completedness according to the following scale:
- stub, a paragraph or two, completely inadequate. - maybe a few paragraphs, but coverage is inadequate, still missing some basic information. - Many paragraphs, covers all, or almost all, basic information, provides a bit of depth. - Featured article status, or has gone as far as it can go, as in the case of a simple list.
When rating articles keep in mind the subject at hand. A very broad topic could be considered inadequate even if it is much longer than another article on a very narrow topic.
Please update the page as you see fit.
Witam
Witam wszystkich i zapraszam na kawe :)--Witkacy 12:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... rozumiem że za każdą kanapeczkę trzeba zapłacić Poland-related artykułem, czy tak? Bo jeśli nie, to co się wrzuca do tej puszki obok? Halibutt 15:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Witaj Azarelo. Halibutt, dzis wyjatkowo w nastroju sielankowym z powodu otwarcia, kanapki sa za free - ale jak masz jakies drobne Poland-related artykuly, to mozesz smialo wrzucic do puszki :)--Witkacy 15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
W zwiazku z tym ze zjadles najwiecej kanapek a puszke omijales - mam tu cos dla Ciebie do rozkrecenia Hallibucie: Current events in Poland - pracowales jako dziennikarz wiec nie bedziesz mial z tym problemu ;)--Witkacy 17:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dzień dobry, a co to za flaga, jakaś taka militarna ? Wojsyl 16:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wstawilem taka sama jaka jest na polskim portalu - polonia za granica uzywa flagi z orzelkiem, a ze jestesmy tu na wikipedii ang. jezycznej.. :)--Witkacy 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Również jestem, zaś flaga jak najbardziej cywilna. Bandera MW ma przecież wcięcie, to (z mojego żeglarskiego POV), nasza handlowa/cywilna bandera :) Radomil 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
W przypadku history of Poland, bylo jedynie o historii, tutaj mozna o wszystkim. Prywatne strony sa caly czas w ruchu, wiec miejmy nadzieje ze sie rozkreci. --Witkacy 17:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No nie, litości, zajmowałem (i zajmuję) się dziennikarstwem, ale nie mam siły na codzienne duplikowanie doniesień PAPu na wiki. Trochę za dużo roboty, zostawiam to zapaleńcom od WikiNews. Halibutt 15:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Polish Collaboration of the week
Co o tym sadzicie? Moze co dwa lub co trzy tygodnie?--Witkacy 17:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Co dwa tygodnie jest chyba za malo osób. więc moze trzy? na poczatek proponuje rozbudowac Mikolaj Rej --Azalero 19:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Masz racje, co trzy a nawet co miesiac. Gdyby sie rozkrecilo za jakis czas, i nastapila fala nowych uzytkownikow, mozna zawsze zmniejszyc odstep.--Witkacy 06:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A co do pierwszej nominacji, proponowal bym Wawel&Co.--Witkacy 10:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Może być Wawel. Kiedyś spędziłem w katedrze wawelskiej trzy dni na wykładach z historii sztuki, więc chętnie pomogę. Halibutt 15:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Swietnie dodam Twoje poparcie na stronie Polish Collaboration of the Week.--Witkacy 09:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ja bym proponowal rotowac co dwa tygodnie (da sie zrobic, panowie, co to dla nas) miedzy 3 typami artykulow: 1) stubem do PolCoTW 2) czyms wiekszym co mozna poprawic na FA - cos jak AIDrive i 3) czerwonym linkiem do rozbudowy w stuba --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Czołem, potrzebuje poparcia: Anti-Semitism in Poland dyskusja i artykul. Niestety jest to znowu HKT. --Ttyre 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Witam:) Aczkolwiek ja ostatnio mam bardzo malo czasu na wiki. Na dodatek niepotrzebnie sie znowu wdalem w dyskusje z HKT :) Szopen 07:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ten HKT chyba nie dazy Polske wielka sympatia...--Witkacy 07:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zapewne to nadinterpretacja, ale HKT kojarzy mi się z panami Hansemannem, Kennemannem i Tiedemannem :) Radomil 07:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rzeczywiscie pasuje ;)--Witkacy 10:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chopin - kolejna bezsensowna dykusja, na temat kolejnego polskiego patrioty... Ale mam nadzieje ze osoba ktora kwestionuje Chopina polskosc da spokoj.--Witkacy 07:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mysle ze te przepychanki maja sens, zwlaszcza w tak waznych haslach jak Anti-Semitism. W rankingu google.com ten artykul zajmuje 10 pozycje. Moje kolejne propozycje sa w talk. --Ttyre 09:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No tak, oczywiscie, chodzilo mi tylko o te niekonczace sie dyskusje na temat narodowosci poszczegolnych Polakow - strasznie meczace. Jezeli kiedys mozna bylo ironicznie powiedziec "no tak, moze papiez tez nie jest Polakiem co?!? (chodzi o Jana Pawla)" to juz jest na to za pozno, bo jakis czas temu ktos chcial zrobic z niego Litwina... :)--Witkacy 10:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mowiac o przepychankach - zobaczcie ta w ktorej obecnie uczestnicze: talk. --Ttyre 15:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eh. Staram sie balansowac to wszystko, ale niekiedy glupota ludzka nie ma granic. Naprawde, co niektorzy maja przeciwko Polsce? Mozna by o anty-polonizmie zrobic niezly doktorat...zreszta, pewnie sa. Eh. 9/10 to marnowanie czasu, ktory mozna by poswiecic na lepsze artykuly. Te nazwy miast to tez mnie rozsmieszaja, aczkolwiek jesli ktos sie spodziewa, ze ja bede pisal Danzig przy PLC, to niech czeka tatka latka. Choc - dla szlachty byl Gdansk, dla mieszkancow w zasadzie Danzig. Eh. Ide cos poedytowac konstruktywnie :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No jak nie widzisz szarlotki? Stoje tu od pieciu minut z talerzykiem powoli bita smietana opada - prosze smacznego :) Co do antypolonizmu - trzeba rozbudowac artykul. Dzis bylo wspaniale przedstawianie, gdy czern sie rzucila na Halibutta. Czy to nie ciekawe ze gdy ktos wciska niemieckie nazwy do polskich artykulow, w ktorych one sa potrzebne jak pryszcz na... , dostaje lizaka i buziaka w czolko od adminow, a ten co go zrewertuje klapsa? Czy nie ciekawy jest fakt, ze ktos kto doda polskie nazwy do niemieckich miast, zostanie spalony na stosie? A ten co przyniesie drewno i rozpali lizaka i czolego buziaka od adminow w policzek? Jeszcze ten litwiak chcial "zarobic" na dzisiejszej wojence, jakies punkty dla swoich litewskich marzen i sie wcinal w dyskusje, jak sep ktory tylko czeka na okazje by wsadzic komus noz w plecy. Jak bedziesz tam w Wilnie na wycieczce to namaluj kotwice na jakims budynku lub przystanku ;) Sytuacja na wikipedii w zasadzie przedstawia historie Polski. Z kazdej strony atakuja, a sprzymiezencow nie widac.--Witkacy 22:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nazwy
A tak z nieco innej beczki: myślałem jak rozwiązać cały problem nazw miejsc. Zastanawiam się nad tym od jakiegoś czasu i powoli dochodzę do wniosku, że jedynym sprawiedliwym rozwiązaniem byłoby ustalenie jednolitych zasad dla wszystkich takich miejsc na wiki, niezależnie jakiego kraju by dotyczyły. Jak widać choćby na przykładzie Gdańska głosowania częściowe nie rozwiązują problemu, zwłaszcza przy takim a nie innym zachowaniu Krzysia. Myślę że podobnie będzie z najnowszym pomysłem DeirYassina odnośnie spraw polsko-litewskich. Dlatego uważam, że chyba należałoby przymierzyć się do przygotowania propozycji ogólnowikipediowej zasady co do toponimów wymienianych w nagłówku, jak również toponimów używanych w treści artykułów. Halibutt 15:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Popieram idee ogolnowikipediowej zasady toponimow. --Ttyre 15:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tak, to dobry pomysl, tylko zanim dojdzie do jakis ustalen, nastapi tysiace revertow.. :)--Witkacy 16:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I powinno to byc ustalone w formie logicznej dyskusji a nie glosowania w ktorym 90% osob nawet nie wie dokladnie o jakie miasto chodzi przy oddawaniu swojego krzyzyka (jak w wypadku glosowania gdanskiego). Ogladalem sobie ludzi ktorzy tam glosowali na niemiecka forme nazwy - byl np. taki 14-latek ktory glosowal za niemiecka forma, jak dobrze pamietam Amerykanin. Jestem w 100% pewny ze nigdy sie nie interesowal Gdanskiem, i bardzo prawdopodobne ze pierwszy raz o takim miescie uslyszal tutaj na Wiki - ogladajac jego contributions zwrocilem uwage ze chyba lubi poprostu glosowac, bo strzelal swoje glosy pod rzad w wielu roznych glosowaniach. Przegladajac dalej trafilem na jego obrabianie artykulu o grupie muzycznej Rammstein - wyciagnelelem wiec wniosek, ze dlatego glosowal na Danzig, bo lubi metal i kojarzy mu sie z grupa Danzig albo poprostu poprzez sluchanie Rammsteinu poczul sympatie do Niemcow lub niemieckiego jezyka... Reszta glosujacych raz sie pojawila na glosowanie i nigdy wiecej nie dyskutowala ani nie brala udzialu w tworzeniu artykulow o Polsce - Krzysiek wrecz organizowal przyjazdy na te glosowanie i oddanie glosu oczywiscie na sranzig jak Samoobrona w wyborach samorzadowych... I tak panowie tworzy sie encyklopedia !! :)--Witkacy 16:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Czy jest sens tworzenia oddzielnego hasla na ten temat skoro jest Christmas Eve tylko po to, zeby dodac ze to polska nazwa tego swieta? a moze lepiej powiekszyc ten Christmas Eve o akapit na temat polskiej wersji tego swieta i tam umiescic polska nazwe. Dodatkowo w Christmas Day jest caly gotowy akapit na temat Christmas Eve w Polsce Christmas_Day#Central_Europe --Azalero 07:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Trudno powiedziec czy jest sens tworzenia oddzielnego hasla - faktem jest jednak ze na temat wigilii w Polsce (i jej roznic w stosunku do zachodniej czesci europy) mozna by bylo napisac spory artykul.--Witkacy 08:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dzięki za zaproszenie
Zawsze przyjemnie przeczytac cos z sensem :) Tak na marginesie, ta twoja 'paraliteracka zabawa' bardzo mi wyglada na role playing game. Jesli mozna - gdzie tak grasz? Bo z kontekstru wynika, jakby to bylo na jakis zajeciach z obcokrajowacami? Jako czlonek Polskiego Towarzystwa Badania Gier jestem tym fachowo zainteresowny :) Co do edukacji w zaborach/komunizmie, to mysle, ze masz racje. Ruskie bardzo skutecznie stosowaly w edukacji 'divide and conquer' by zniweczyc dominujaca polska kulture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
... And a lady (I answer in English to make JCarriker happy). I play in internet that's why the society is so various. If you are really interested I'd rather provide you with all the particulars in an email (if you don't mind) as I don't want to take even more of the precious space, which should be devoted to discussions on articles.
Now to JCarriker
Oh my, I have a real problem now. I wrote the longest post here and would have to do the most tiring work. Would it be agreeable to you, if I offer a short summary instead of an exact translation? I posted a comment on Misplaced Pages for the first time about two days ago or one in your time zone. I received a few encouraging comments as well as an invitation to this board. So, in my post I simply state my thanks and a not-so-short explanation of where I came from and why I found Misplaced Pages such a wonderful and useful tool. I also wanted to leave to my Polish colleagues a chocolate (or a box of pralines) for their superior work. As my post doesn't cover any topics, which should be discussed here, but refers to my personal experience, I considered it, even before, a bit out of place, only that I thought it would be the easiest way to address everyone here. So, if you don't mind, I would hang on here for a week in the Polish version and then delete the post entirely as it will not be live any more.
BTW I assure you that there is nothing on this page that wasn’t said on discussion pages before. Only that when we see a Polish flag with a Crowned Polish White Eagle, we feel like at home and speaking Polish seems only natural. --SylwiaS 02:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My main concern is to get the section about other users translated, other translations can wait, and you don't necessarily have to do it. I have left you more specific comments on your talk. -JCarriker 05:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
"Nie wiem jednak, czy będę pomocna w Waszych artykułach."
Wydaje mi sie ze wrecz przeciwnie :)--Witkacy 09:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Mam do Was pytanie o Rzeczpospolitą. Nie odnosicie wrażenia, że sowiecki system edukacji był nastawiony na wyraźne odcięcie Księstwa Litewskiego od Królestwa Polskiego? Dlaczego właściwie Białorusini tak wyraźnie podkreślają swoją przynależność do Litwy a nie do Polski?"
Trafne spostrzezenie, co do sowieckiego systemu edukacji. Co do Bialorusinow, mozna by bylo zaprosic do dyskusji kogos z bialoruskich uzytkownikow obecnych tu na wiki, bo tez mnie to troche dziwi--Witkacy 09:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English please
Gentlemen, I am someone that has come to your aid when you needed it at Vilnius— but I must protest the primary use of Polish on the page. True this is the Polish collaboration, but its on the English wikipedia. I strongly suggest you at the least offer translations of your discussion on this page. It's not your user page, it's a public space and other wikipedians have a right to know what it is your discussing. I'd also strongly discourage you from talking about other users, on a collaboration project in a language that they don't understand. I'll give you a day to offer a translation of that discussion, if I don't see one I'll alert the users you were talking about of it. I have worked positively with y'all in the past and it is my hope we can do so in the future, but your actions her are going to encourage Anti-Polish sentiment not stir an interest in covering Polish topics better. -JCarriker 00:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
While I agree you have a point about this being English wiki, I would like to point out that there is plenty of Machine Translations Polish to English online, and anybody interested can translate their entries. Nothing in the above context is 'secret'. Witkacy may translate this (as he wrote most of it), if not, feel free to MT it yourself and post it here if you think it is important enough. Note that I have seen my name used in Lithuanian and Russian-language discussions but I never felt they were planning anything conspicious. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wrong place
While I am positivly suprised about the activity of this board, I'd like to suggest moving talk to, well, talk, and keeping this front page clear for to-do list and other templates/useful things. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Moim zdaniem niech zostanie tutaj. Na samym poczatku zastanawialem sie czy dyskusje nie rozpoczac na stronie dyskusyjnej - ale pustka na tej stronie by zaswiecila. Zostala by tylko to do lista i linki do trzech projektow.--Witkacy 09:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Piotr, I deleted my Polish message, I still feel that the rest of the thread is not connected to the subject of this page, but I don’t want to touch any messages of others. Please, feel free to move it or delete if it’s ok with everyone. I see JCarriker's point of view, if we care about opinions of others, we should let them participate in our discussion. I’ll email you soon. --SylwiaS 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and justice for all
Widowisko ---> "sprawiedliwosci" - Boothy443/Chris 73 (nie pierwszy raz) zlamal regule trzech cofniec, lecz nie zostal zbanowany chroniac sie "immunitetem". Halibutt mial takie same prawo (jak pan B. i pan C.) zgodnie z wynikiem glosowania lamac regule trzech cofniec i chronic sie immunitetem, zostal ... zbanowany... Wedlug orwellowskiej zasady "sa rowni i rowniejsi " ... tykalni i nietykalni ... --Witkacy 20:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please use English, especially when reffering to other users. Unfortunately, Halibutt's behaviour broke 3RR and bordered on POINT, so it is not all white and black - although, as I stated, I am on his side. But it is difficult to be the only person defending him against many. Anyway, in what looks like a clear violation of 3RR block rule, halibutt has been blocked for over 24h. Feel free to voice your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Halibutt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Juz swoje zdanie tam napisalem. Co tam wiecej pisac, jak o jedno pieterko wyzej widnieje moj raport o zlamaniu 3rr przez Krzysia a jeszcze wyzej przez Bocika w identycznej sprawie jak Halibutta... Halibutt zlamal regule 3rr.. i Krzysiek tak samo (i to juz chyba 3 raz). Albo sie wszystkich banuje, albo nikogo. A nie wybiera. "...share a history between Germany and Poland.." moze sluzyc za alibi do wszystkiego.--Witkacy 10:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jakby ktos znalazl czas - przydałoby sie przetlumaczyc, bo po anglijskiemu jest tam tylko pare słów...Aż razi,a ja na razie nie mam czasu. Vuvar1 18:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aby nie dublowac funkcji polecam korzytac z polskiego Wikinews albo wrzucic do tamtejszej kawiarenki prosbe o pomoc. --Derbeth 10:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tak zrobilem :) Wystawilem juz tam prosbe, jak narazie dwie osoby sa zainteresowane.--Witkacy 11:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Editing sections
I've got problems editing sections of this article. When I want to edit only part of talk and click on , I get another section. What's going on? BTW, I use Opera internet browser. --Derbeth 10:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mam ten sam problem, nie wiem dlaczego tak sie dzieje. Sprawdze pozniej jak to jest rozwiazane na innych notice boardach --Witkacy 11:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nie wiem skad te przesuniecie - potrzebny jest jakis wiki-expert--Witkacy 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same problem here (Firefox).. Halibutt 12:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. Problem was caused by <h2> tag used at the beginning, which confused Wiki mechanism. I think this shows one should be very careful mixing Wiki code and HTML - take this in consideration in the future. --Derbeth 14:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bot-generated articles
At pl, there's a project to use a bot to generate/update articles about Polish cities, counties and communes: pl:Misplaced Pages:Automatycznie generowane artykuły. Maybe the same data (when it's compiled) could be used to generate them at en:? Ausir 18:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here are two examples of articles which will be used as templates for future bot-generated ones: Gostyn, Stary Gostyn. Ausir 22:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pomysl bardzo ciekawy. Tylko proponowal bym autorom zmienic tabelke na bardziej "nowoczesna" w stylu jak mamy na Poland (cieniutkie ramki) i potrzebne jest jeszcze oczywiscie miejsce na herb i flage i wstawienie link oficjalnej strony miasta, rowniez do tabelki--Witkacy 11:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Polskie nazwy owych miast zostaly skasowane. Moze Ci co tak zaciekle wstawiaja niemieckie nazwy do polskich miast, a szczegolnie do artykulow o polskich partiach, klubach etc. powinni wyruszyc teraz na wschod i walczyc tam o trzymanie sie regul wikipedii? Co Wy o tym sadzicie?--Witkacy 19:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: The Polish names of these cities have been removed. Maybe those who so vociferously put in German names into articles about Polish cities, especially articles about Polish political parties, sports clubs etc. should now set out for the East and there fight to uphold the rules of Misplaced Pages? What do you think about this?Witkacy 19:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)Witkacy 19:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Przywrocilem w Minsku (nie wiem na jak długo), ale w Kijowie to sie szykuje wojna :) Vuvar1 00:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: I restored it in Minsk (don't know for how long), but in Kiev war is looming.Vuvar1 00:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Przywrocilem w Kijowie.Space Cadet 01:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: Restored it in Kiev. Space Cadet 01:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rok 2005 był to dziwny rok, w którym rozmaite znaki na niebie i ziemi zwiastowały jakoweś klęski i nadzwyczajne zdarzenia... (Sienkiewicz) ;)--Witkacy 08:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: Year 2005 was a strange year, during which various signs in the sky and on the earth heralded some disasters and extraordinary events. (Sienkiewicz quote, modified opening line of With Fire and Sword) ;)--Witkacy 08:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Czy naprawdę warto się o to bić? Miasto przecież w praktyce należało do Korony tylko od 1569 do 1654, czyli mniej niż sto lat. Od momentu utracenia Kijowa minęło już ponad 350 lat. Polacy nigdy nie byli większością w tym mieście, choć wiem oczywiście że byli tam pokaźną mniejszością aż do początków XX wieku. Tak więc, mości panowie, może dajmy już spokój. Zamiast wojenek revertowych, lepiej napisać porządny rozdział o wkładzie Polaków w historię Kijowa. Balcer 03:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: Is it really worthwhile to fight over this? After all, the city belonged to the Crown in practice only from 1569 for 1654, i.e. less than a hundred years. Since the time of Kijów's loss over 350 years have already passed. Poles were never a majority in the city, though I know of course that they formed a significant minority until the beginning of the 20th century. So, gentelmen, give it a rest. Instead of fighting revert wars, it would be better to write a proper chapter about the contribution of Poles to the history of Kiev.Balcer 03:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chyba warto, jednak. Space Cadet 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: Probably worthwhile, after all. Space Cadet 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mam złe przeczucie że jeżeli będziemy upierali się przy nazwie Kijów w Kiev, to w odwecie ktoś będzie próbował wcisnąć Варшава do Warsaw. I trudno będzie z tym się spierać. Jeśli rządzenie Kijowem przez sto lat upoważnia nas do wciskania polskiej nazwy, to według takiej samej logiki to samo należy się Rosjanom, szczególnie że ich rządy w Warszawie skończyły się nieledwie sto lat temu. Balcer 05:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: I have a bad premonition that if we will persist in sticking Kijów into Kiev, then in retaliation someone will try to stick Варшава into Warsaw. And it will be difficult to argue with this. If ruling Kijów for 100 years gives a right to include the Polish name, then according to the same logic the same right applies to the Russians, especially since their rule in Warsaw ended less than 100 years ago. Balcer 05:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Co do Warszawy, niema tam ani niemieckiej nazwy ani rosyjskiej - "za to" co owe nacje wyczynily dla tego miasta. Co do Kijowa - nalezal do korony, wczesniej do Litwy, ktora rzadzil krol Polski (wiec miasto bylo dluzej pod wladaniem polskim jak Wroclaw niemieckim). Tu chodzi jednak o cos innego - zobacz ze niemieckie nazwy sa praktycznie w kazdym artykule miasta, ktore nalezalo (w jakims tam czasie) do Niemiec. Dlaczego niemiecka nazwa jest na tyle wazna by wstawic ja w artykule Rumia na pierwszy plan, chodz byla to zabita dechami wioska (gdy nalezala do Niemiec) - a Kijow ktore bylo waznym osrodkiem, ma nie miec polskiej nazwy? Wcale mi tam wielce nie zalezy by polska nazwa miasta byla wymieniona w pierwszej linijce artykulu, ale tylko wtedy gdy rownoczesnie niemieckie nazwy nie beda wymienione na pierwszym planie, w artykulach o miastach w Polsce. (z jednej strony polskie nazwy sa kasowane, a z drugiej obce nazwy dodawane praktycznie wszedzie - juz nie bede wspominal o artykulach o dzisiejszych dzielnicach Szczecina...) I w tym caly sek.--Witkacy 08:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: That for warsaw, there mute neither german names neither russian for it for this city - " " that that nation wyczynily. That for kiev for crown - nalezal, for lithuania wczesniej, rally under city polish < poland > ( polish ktora rzadzil krol bylo dluzej wladaniem as german ) Wroclaw. However, it walks about here other cos it see german names from (with) in (to) company ltd. practically - article city kazdym, there in (to) for germany time ( ) ktore nalezalo jakims. Why I am on in article on foreground german name so many (so much) < rear > ] wazna wstawic Rumia, it killed village ( chodz byla dechami when for germany ) nalezala - but Kijow ktore bylo waznym osrodkiem, has not polish miec? There name of city in first line absolutely greatly me not polish < poland > mentioned zalezy byla artykulu, but then when on foreground german name not mentioned rownoczesnie beda, in (to) about cities in poland artykulach. Polish names from one part company ltd. erase (, but foreign names added practically from second (other) wszedzie about about today's districts - not juz bede wspominal artykulach Szczecina. ) And in (to) it .sec caly --Witkacy 08:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rozumiem o co ci chodzi i dlatego zapraszam do dyskusji pod Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming. Jedynym wyjściem z tych wojen edytorskich jest stworzenie jakiegoś standardu dla wszystkich miast europejskich, w miarę neutralnego i do zaakceptowania dla wszystkich. Na razie tylko dyskutujemy, ale może wyjdzie z tego jakieś głosowanie. Balcer 08:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: I know what you mean and so I invite for discussion under Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Vote naming. Creation of some reasonably neutral standard acceptable for all is the only way to avoid these edit wars over all European cities. For now we are only discussing, but maybe some vote will emerge from it. Balcer 08:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Popieram Balcera. Te dziecinne sprzeczki o nazwy są po prostu żałosne. Napiszcie jakies artykuły zamiast marnować czas na te rewerty. Niech Niemcy, Ruskie i inne ciemnoty maja frajde z nazw, a my miejmy frajde z najlepszych artykułów. Zamiast kłócić się o Mińsk na tej żałosnej stronie (przeciez to prawie stub), doprowadzcie Warszawe czy Kraków do poziomu FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: I support Balcer. These childish squabbles over names are simply pathetic. Instead of wasting time on these reverts, write some articles. Let Germans, Russians and others have satisifaction from names, but let us have satisfaction from excellent articles. Instead of brawling about Minsk (only a stub after all), improve Warsaw or Krakow articles to FA quality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No tak, standard jest konieczny. (tylko ze ta dyskusja jest jedynie na temat Polski i Litwy i nie rozwiaze rzadnego problemu, tak jak dyskusja gdanska) i rowniez jak juz wyzej pisalem (przydadek Gdanska) glosowanie niema sensu, bo tylko garstka ludzi glosujacych wie cos wogole o tematyce glosowania i nieliczni sa tym tematem zainteresowani - glusuja bo.. lubia lub po kolezensku... Nie wiem dlaczego nie jest stosowana najprostsza zasada "Gdy Gdansk byl polski, polska nazwa, gdy byl niemiecki, niemiecka nazwa". A co do nazw w pierwszej linijce - wszedzie bym przesunal do kategorii "City name" czy cos podobnego, i tam umiescil nazwy w roznych jezykach. Rowniez bym nie stosowal "cross-naming" bo to tylko oszpeca artykuly.
English translation: But so, standard is indispensable. This discussion is from (with) about poland only ( only and lithuania and not problem rozwiaze rzadnego, discussion so as ) gdanska and rowniez as ( ) mute meaning juz wyzej pisalem przydadek Gdanska glosowanie, because handful of people knows about topic only glosujacych cos wogole glosowania and not numerous company ltd. this theme interested (concerned) - glusuja because. lubia Or for (after) kolezensku. Why I do not know simplest principle not be applicable < apply (use) > " when polish < poland > Gdansk byl, name polish < poland >, when german byl, german name ". But that for names in first line for category - " city " wszedzie przesunal name if (or) similar cos, and there in (to) name umiescil roznych jezykach. Not " " Rowniez stosowal cross-naming because it only oszpeca artykuly.
Ewentualnym rozwiazaniem, by bylo uzywanie na stronach miast wylacznie obecnych nazw - a w artykulach dotyczacych np jakiegos tam Guntera ktory urodzil sie w Gdansku podczas gdy byl niemiecki, niemiecka nazwa. Podobnie Polaka ktory urodzil sie np w Wilnie. Co do ziem Rzplitej pod zaborami mozna by bylo sie dogadac, ze nazwy beda uzywane zawsze w kontekscie do danej osoby. Wiec jesli jakis Litwin urodzil sie w Wilnie w owym czasie, uzywamy litewskiej nazwy, jesli Polak polskiej, jesli Rosjanin rosyjska forme nazwy miasta. --Witkacy 10:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: A possible solution would be using only current names in articles about cities - in articles concerning for example Gunther (Grass) who was born in Gdansk when it was German, the German name can be used. Similarly for a Pole born in Wilno, for example. As to the lands of the (Polish-Lithuanian) Commonwealth during the partitions, we could compromise that the names will be used always in the context of the person discussed. So if some Lithuanian was born in Vilnius at this time, we use the Lithuanian name, if a Pole, the Polish name, if a Russian, the Russian name. Witkacy 10:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Generalnie rzecz biorąc masz rację, ale tu docieramy do kłopotu z narodowością. I nie mówię tu tylko o Jagielle czy Domeyce, ale w ogóle o wszystkich osobistościach Rzeczypospolitey. Halibutt 12:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
English translation: In general you are right, but here we reach the main problem with nationality. And I am not talking here only only Jagiello or Domeyko, but in general about all persons of the Commonwealth. Halibutt 12:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
No tak, jeden problem rozwiazany kolejny sie wylania :) Co do uzywania roznych nazw w kontekscie do danej osoby, mowie tu o latach po rozbiorach. Poza kilkoma przypadkami klotni o narodowosc, jak narazie byl w porownaniu do wojen na artykulach miast relatywny spokoj. --Witkacy 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
English translation: Oh yes, if one problem is solved, the next one appears :). As to using various names in the context of the given person, I am talking here about the years after the Partitions. Except for a few examples of disagreements about nationality, so far the issue has been quiet, at least in comparison with revert wars about city names. --Witkacy 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Czas przeszły uzasadniony. Jak tylko połączymy obie kwestie zaraz się zacznie. Narodowość niestety jest na tyle płynną sprawą, że trzeba jednak wybrać jakieś jaśniejsze kryteria. Halibutt 15:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
English translation: Time past < proceed > reasonable < substantiate >. As both (both of) only joint problem right now < pestilence > begin. Unfortunately, nationality is liquid case on so many (so much) < rear >, that however, it is necessary to choose some (certain) brightest (plainest) criteria. Halibutt 15:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
English translation: You are right - it is hard to find the golden mean. --Witkacy 22:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like to know the details of the above discussion, because I believe it is about a topic in which I take interest, and I would like to know what people are saying. I have translated what is here using the machine translator at poltran.com, but the results are not intelligible. I humbly request that someone who understands what was said here to please clean up these translations enough that one can understand the details of the conversation. Thanks. Nohat 07:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check the recent history of those articles - as you can see, I expanded the history section in their leads. Now they are better and, accidentaly, mention Kijów and Mińsk in the RELEVANT historical contexts. It appears that revert wars have ended. It may be prudent you apply this same tactic to other disputed articles - instead of waging revert wars, just expand the relevant part to prove your point. Isn't it better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to add to the above and say one more time, that despite I "participated" in Kiev revert war (though not just reverting, but trying to patiently explain in talk), I fully agree with Polish names for Kiev in relevant context. Recentrly someone replaced Kijów by Kiev in the Kijów Voivodship article and it became Kiev Voivodship instead of original Kijów Voivodship. I returned Kijów there so the article starts not with "Kijów(Kiev)Voivodship was an...". I don't insist on Kiev being a very second word in an article, but I think the conventional name of the city has to be displayed prominently, again not because it is Russian but because it is a conventional English name. If anyone would like to remove Kiev from the intro sentence, it's OK with me as long as it is still mentioned prominently. Peace! --Irpen 16:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Propozycja
Na stronie Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming zaczęło się od dyskysji o Polsce i Litwie, ale teraz dyskutowane są też propozycje o stworzeniu jakiegoś ogólnego standartu. Może wkleję tutaj moją propozycję rozwiązania problemu. Wszelkie komentarze mile widziane. Oczywiście wszystkie liczby to tylko moja pierwsza propozycja.
As many of current revert wars are fought over such small details as where a particular name is placed, we need to make very specific rules to put a stop to them. The first paragraph of the article is often especially problematic, so let's make specific rules describing where we put names other than the current name in the first paragraph.
1. First sentence of the article If a name other then the present one is placed here, it must fulfill stringent criteria, most important being widespread use in the English language in the present day. To make things more quantitative, use in more than 10% of English language webpages containing the name of the given city, as shown by Google (and minimum 1000 webpage hits), should qualify the name to be placed here.
Note the obvious special case: if the city has its own proper name in English (as evidenced by overwhelming number of Google hits), then the name in the language of the country it is in of course prominently given independent of Google numbers, ex. Copenhagen (København),Warsaw (Warszawa),Rome (Roma) etc.
Note:If the city is large enough to warrant an entry in a major English language encyclopedia (Britannica, Columbia etc.) and if that entry mentions names in other languages in its first line, then those names can also be included in the first line of Misplaced Pages article about the city.
2. Sentence somewhere in the first paragraph - something like: "historically, the city has also been known as", "the city is also sometimes referred to as" etc. For a name to be included here, it must have belonged to a state using the language being cited, in a legitimate way, for at least half a century (so that military occupations don't count etc.). If it did not belong to that state, it can still be included, with appropriate explanation, if current usage threshold passes, say, 3% of webpages on Google (and minimum 500 webpage hits).
Note: in especially complicated cases (Gdansk etc.) a special section on Names might be added at the bottom of the header.
2.1 Another sentence somewhere in the first paragraph - if a name does not fall into above two criteria, and yet the city had/has a significant (over 10%) national minority using that name, one may include a sentence: "Historically, the city had a ______ minority which called the city ________ (language)" or "Currently, the city has a _______ minority which calls the city _______ (language). In case of controversy a reliable source should be provided to justify the claim.
4. Body of the article - History section - Any name which for some reason did not fit into criteria 1 and 2 can be mentioned in the body of the article, with an explanation of why it is being included.
Note: If it is shown that the Google results have been in any way manipulated specifically to make a name fit rule 1 or 2, that name will be removed.
Specify which version of google -> google.com as opposed to its regional editions. --Ttyre 18:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The most mainstream version of Google, so google.com. I am not an expert on Google so I hope the criteria I proposed are reasonable and not easy to subvert. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Balcer 18:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about this Note:If the city is large enough to warrant an entry in a major English language encyclopedia. There are articles about small villages in UK, US, Canada, etc.- I don't see why Poland or other non-Anglosphere countries should be held to a different standard. If such a standard is necessary I would say a Polish encyclopedia would be better than an English one. The common denominator in the English wikipedia should be the English language, not an Anglo-Amero POV. -JCarriker 13:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Improved 'to do'
Well, seeing as this place is - contrary to my early gloomy predictions - quite lively, I have decided to improve our 'to do' list (on the top of main page). I hope it is more useful now. Feel free (or compelled) to expand it. Also, note that we have quite a few articles which with little effort can be taken to the FA status (trust me, as a person with 10 FA under his belt, I can judge the article's quality :>). If any of you would like to work together with me and bring them up to FA quick, let me know. Otherwise, I'll do it myself, but it will take longer :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ladnie rozbudowales liste. Chcialbym ponownie prosic wszystkie Panie i Panow na Polish Collaboration of the Week i o oddanie glosu, lub dodanie wlasnej propozycji do listy. Jezeli nie macie nic przeciwko, to w poniedzialek ustanowimy w imie kolektywu.. naszego kandydata.--Witkacy 02:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...rowniez zapraszam do wpisywania ciekawostek o Polsce tutaj...--Witkacy 13:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Moze zainteresuje kogos te glosowanie: dzienniczek uwag, oddanie glosu z tendencja negatywna wobec propozycji kasowania tej strony, mile widziane :)--Witkacy 10:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ATM I have to object, but as I wrote, it can be made a FA with some effort. May I suggest some of you drop the city names issue and instead help adress the objections to this article? I am sure our dear papież would approve. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"English translations"
The "English translations" appearing on this page, in response to a request, are without doubt the most abysmal that I have ever seen. Were they produced by a computer program? If English translations are called for in such a semi-private context (I have my doubts), then why not instead provide competent, concise English summaries? The current ungrammatical, unidiomatic Poglish hodge-podge is completely pointless, except perhaps as satire. logologist 10:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not a semi-private area, this is a public space on the English wikipedia. English should be the primary language used. I have been assured that English will be used more and that translations will follow. I will be watching for them. As for Nohat's post of poltran.com's translations, its well intetioned but not particularly useful. -JCarriker 11:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed they're terrible. That's why I requested at the bottom of the discussion that they be cleaned. I honestly would like to know what the discussion is about, and the MT has provided only a fleeting glimpse. I implore anyone who speaks Polish to please clean them up and make them at the very least intelligible if not grammatically perfect. The poltran translations are intended to be a spur to overcome the inertia of the trying to translate an entire discussion. Nohat 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nohat, if you will look again at the discussion, you will find that some parts of this translation are already improved. Generally this discussion leads to working out common rules, which might be applied to similar cases in future. Proposition of the rules is below this discussion in a thread titled Propozycja. Please, feel free to share your opinion about the rules with us. --SylwiaS 16:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. Witkacy in particular seems to not use any diacritics in his Polish, which the translator appears to choke on. Even if you can't/don't want to provide complete translations of the comments, it would be very helpful if the untranslated Polish words could be replaced with approximate English translations. Thanks! Nohat 19:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Once again I ask all users of this page to use English. We are on English Wiki BY CHOICE, so let's abide by the standards here, ok guys? Instead of viewing non-Polish users as annoyance, I think it is much better to think of them as friends, who are likely to help us here and elsewhere. Positive thinking, people, is the key :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Slubowanie
Ten obraz przedstawia koronacje czy jakies "inne slubowanie"? --Witkacy 14:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is this paintin shows coronation or some opther "oath"
Jest to powierz;enie Rzeczposolitej i jej narodów w opiekę Matki Boskiej (ogłoszenie jej Królową Polski) w obliczu Potopu Radomiltalk 15:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is enthrusting Mother of God with Rzeczpospolita and its nations (proclamation Her as Queen of Poland) during the Deluge
założenia tej encyklopedii stanowczo zabraniają używania innego języka oprócz angielskiego? Zdaje się, że jej centrala znajduje się w Stanach Zjednoczonych, gdzie kilkanaście lat temu sąd orzekł, że nie wolno zabraniać pracownikom u McDonalda mówienia po hiszpańsku tylko dlatego, że przełożeni i konsumenci ciekawi są, co pracownicy prywatnie mówią między sobą. logologist 06:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Translation: Do the assumptions of this encylopedia firmly forbid the use of any other language except English? It seems to me that its headquarters is located in the United States, where a dozen years ago a court ruled that it is not legal to prevent the workers of MacDonalds from speaking among themselves in Spanish only because their superiors and customers are curious what the workers are saying privately among themselves. logologist 06:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is a voluntary project, not a company, so the above situation does not apply here. And this is an English speaking project. If you don't want to speak English, simply join the Polish Misplaced Pages. Ausir 15:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We speak English in the articles, but this is POLISH WIKIPEDIANS' NOTICE BOARD (duh!). Nothing interesting for non-Poles. Space Cadet 15:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Denmark, Russia, Quebec all have boards. All in English. Misplaced Pages does not exclude people who are interested in topics because of nationality. To do so would be discrimination. Surely you are not suggesting that?-JCarriker 16:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, mentioning that other boards are in English is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Please show a rule that there should be no articles in languages other than English on en.wikipedia.org. And nobody is excluding any nationality here. If someone is interested in Polish topics, he should learn Polish... --Akumiszcza 16:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The simplest solution to this problem is to find some page on Misplaced Pages where using Polish does not disturb the peace and does not contravene the rules, and transfer discussions in Polish there. I am sure there must be dozens of possibilities here, using someone's talk page for example is the first thing that comes to mind. Balcer 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think using a user talk page would go over well. Creating a Polish mailing list for the collaboration, or perhaps a sister board, Polish Collaboration on the English wikipedia on pl.wikipedia? -JCarriker 16:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be best if you let the non-Poles decide what is and isn't interesting to them instead of deciding for them by holding discussions in Polish and refusing to translate those discussions to English. Nohat 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe I might have created (unwillingly) this issue when pointing out at several talk pages to this board messages as an indication that several recent Minsk and Kiev changes (as of now reverted) were just WP:Point edits. This might have caught attention of several users involved in those disputes to this board who got frustrated finding the discussion is in Polish. However, I think the demands are rather overblown. If Polish editors wanted to have these discussion secret, they could have easily accomplished it on or off WP. Possibilities are abundant. Personally, I don't assume they would do that because, few misunderstandings aside, those communicating on these board are valuable contributors and are unquestionably ethical and good-faith editors. Yes, sometimes people loose their temper, so what? It happens with all editors and many active editors of all ethnicities received 24-h bans which works well to cool off the temper. Besides, the POV differences very often happen between the Polish editors and Russian or Ukrainian or Belorussian or Lithuanian editors. If the Polish side would want to discuss how to "conspire" and develop team plans on pushing certain views into the articles in questions, discussing them in such an open project, even EXCLUSIVELY in Polish, would not allow any "secrecy" because the editors from the above nations would be able to understand written Polish or at least get a general idea of what's going on.
So it seems obvious to me that Polish is used just out of convenience rather than to hide something. I think this is rather overblown. True, on other boards and projects editors communicate in English. Russian, Ukrainian boards and portals are exclusively in English. Personally, I would use English. But I don't think the hype about this issue is justified. -Irpen 19:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Irpen, thank you for understanding. You are right, Polish was used just out of convenience. In fact just a week ago all talks here were in Polish. Since JCarriker asked us to use English, there is more English messages here now. But we didn't see it necessary to translate all what was said before, as many topics here are old now and not discussed anymore. However, as soon as Nohat told us that he was interested in the Minsk/Kiev discussion, authors of their posts started to translate them. It takes a while, I know, but almost everything there is translated now. There was really no bad will intended in using Polish. Also no one said that he would not translate. I understand that the “cities name” problem is live and I’m glad that Nohat and others are interested in looking for common solution. Regards --SylwiaS 21:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right the issue is over hyped. I origninally brought up the subject, when I noticed User names in the text other than the posters. That problem was not simply a linguistics problem and has since been corrected. Balcer has dilegenlty given his time to translating, but I believe we can only ask so much. The importance lies in encouraging English to be used here, as SylwiaS and Piotrus and others are doing by using it on the page, and thus encouraging others to do so as well. Dispite a few rude comments this discussion has been quite civil and productive on both sides. -JCarriker 21:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
As I wrote to Nohat in his talk page, this board is definitely more open than, lets say, the mailing lists. It is pretty clear that the mailing lists are not available to all the interested wikipedians, yet important decisions are taken there (that is outside of wikipedia). If people are allowed to discuss the wiki content outside of the... well... wiki content, then I see no problem with such discussions here in Wiki space being in Polish. After all at any time any user can request a translation or join in (which is not the case with mailing lists). Halibutt 02:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Collaborations are open associatons for anyone who are interested in a topic, to use Polish exclusivley is to exclude people. I think it is unfortunate your OK with that. Poles have few friends on wikipedia, out side of your fatherland, friends it is necessary to have if your going to achieve your goals. You just lost one of your best. I'll be removing all Polish related topics from my watchlist, including Vilnius. I'm afraid you will find other wikipedians won't go so quitely. Good luck. -JCarriker 10:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I support JC on this, as I wrote above. By using Polish we intentionally wall ourselves in our own little Polish-speaking ghetto. I, for one, am not interested in this - if I wanted to speak Polish, I'd be on Polish wiki, not here. I hope JC changes his mind, and I apologise to him and all of our English-speaking friends for the trouble. Please don't let this tiny problem, now mostly resolved, make you loose faith in us. The entire Polish-language-on-this-board issue is, for me, a technical matter, which has been mostly resolved now. Let the tempers cool and resume the constructive work, ok guys? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wycieczka?
I was thinking lately about organising some kind of meeting of those of us (i.e. en-wiki editors) in Poland. As just 'a meeting' seems rather tiring (and besides there is the pl:Misplaced Pages:Zlot_Wikimedian_z_Europy_Środkowej_i_Wschodniej), what do you think about some kind of a few-days trip? For example, to Wilno or Lwów or some other interesting place I bet most of us haven't been to (although some are fighting a wars in wikispace for it :D)? Or a 2-days trek in Polish mountains? Time - somewhere in July (I am definetly going to miss the offical meeting in August, as I won't be in Poland from 11th August till December). Anybody interested? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seems interesting. Count me in (at least provisionally) Halibutt 02:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Prawdopododobnie całe to spotkanie w Krakowie zdominuje sprawa ostatniego protesu i proponowanych zmian. Poza ty jeden ze zbanowanych wikipedystów (Kwiecień) zaczął już chyba nagonkę w prasie na temat cenzury, nierówności i przekraczania uprawnień przez adminów - więc może być gorąco....(tego spotkania raczej nie polecam osobom o słabych nerwach, ale nieoficjalne inicjatywy to co innego...:)). Vuvar1 14:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am rarely fequenting Polish wiki, and their talk pages ever rarer - could you tell us more about this Kwieceń and other problems on pl wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
sorki,że po polsku: Po pierwsze nie będe obiektywny, bo sam zaprzestałem kilka dni temu działalności na pl: Wiki. Sprawa ma się tak- od kwietnia zaczął tam działać gościu o tymże niku. Strasznie był on kontrowersyjny i nie stronił od ostrego języka, ale wkład miał ogromny jak na tak krótki czas. Admini zaczeli go banować, a temu w to graj... Ma dynamiczne IP i mogą mu "nask..." jak to mówił. Obie strony nie przebierały w wulgaryzmach szczególnie na liscie dyskusyjnej. Gościu ma obecnie kilkadziesiąt kont- zarówno wandalizujących (ataki na Tawa i Beno), jak i normalnych. Sytuacja się zaogniła jak dostał bez podania powodu (troche w tym racji jest) bana na 14 dni od Tawa. On stał sie terrorystą ,a Admini zaczęli też na niego polowanie i no i nowym się czasem (rzadko, bo rzadko) dostaje przez pomyłkę. 11 osób rozpoczęło protest, a to zostało średnio przyjęte przez zpołeczność. Ja już nie zmogłem. Oficjalna strona protestu została przeniesiona tu.Gościu ma też własnego bloga gdzie zjeżdza równo i przesadnie pl:Wiki. Podkreślam- nie jestem obiektywny! Vuvar1 15:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And other POV: His contributoion was not so big. Most of his editons were in discusinons, containing mostly personal atacks, edit wars and so on. Group of Wikipedians want's to negotiate with this person, asking rest of them (or rather "us") to wait, and tolerate him for... few months. Actions of Kwiecień and his sock-puppets were such big problem, that many Wikipedists stop (or at least minimalise contributions) participating in project. This situation forced some administrators to defend wikipedia and ban all old and new sock-puppets of Kwiecień. After this small grup of contriutors that wanted to find "compromise" with troll started protest in defending of "freedom of word" (It is other POV which mayby helps You to find Yours POV or NPOV as You wish :) ) Radomiltalk 19:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the best title is - maybe it's too long, but it explains and embraces everything. Vuvar1 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dukes
I'm sorry that I put so many dukes into "to create/translate section", but I think this period of Polish history need to be realy developed (and we have quite good sources from pl: Wiki). Vuvar1 16:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
25 years after 1980
The 25th anniversary of the 1980 strikes which led to the creation of Solidarity is approaching. It would be a great moment to make Solidarity (or some other related article) into a Featured Article. We have about 2 months before the date, which should be plenty of time. Anybody else thinks this is a good idea? Balcer 02:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I second. Let's put it as PCTW first, the article is short. Still, looking at NO activity with Wawel, I am afraid there is going to be little collaboration. I wish people would stop playing those silly Polish city name/nationality wars and instead put those time into helping us with this article... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Narodowosc
Rydel z Czalexem po cichu dodaja w kolejnych artykulach "bialoruski watek".
Ignacy Hryniewiecki ktory krecil sie w polskich kolkach rewolucyjnych. Encyklopedia PWN mowi wyraznie "..car zginal 1881 na ulicy od bomby rzuconej przez Polaka (I. Hryniewieckiego);.."
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz ktorego rodzina prawdopodobnie pochodzila z Kijowa. Co wystarcza by dodac go do kategorii "szlachta bialoruska"... Nie mialbym nic przeciwko gdyby dodali go do kategorii "litewska", ale "bialoruska" to absurd.
It was all discussed on Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. I reverted one of his changes, since he deletes a useful disambig (Persia to Persian Empire in Chodkiewicz), but as usuall, I am not going to waste my time on those revert wars. However, I would like to raise one question: did Bielorusian nationality exist in 17th century, or was it simply part of a Ruthenian one that developed individuality in 19th century? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Juliusza Kossaka--Witkacy 16:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emax uploaded it without a source, name or author info. One of Kossaks, perhaps? The third is Witkacy's upload. More to come. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Close to FAC
Virtuti Militari and History of Poland (1945-1989). Virtuti needs references, so I ask all of you who have contributed to it (Halibutt, especially) to provide them. I will nominate them to FAC soon, so if you want to make any final adjustments before the review process begins (PR was just archived), do so now, so voting is faster and supports more common. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wiki upgrade
Hurray! Gentlemen, recent upgrade of the wiki engine allows for moving all the articles that lack diacritics to their proper place! At last!
I believe that for the RoTW contributors we should always leave a redirect from non-diacritical version to the proper one. Other than that, at last Piłsudski and Radziwiłł are where they should be from the beginning. Halibutt June 28, 2005 11:12 (UTC)
Moving an article makes an automatic redirect from non-diacritical version, so it's a bit easier. BTW, I think someone should make a bot or something to change the html characters into normal (unicode?) characters in the text. The editing would be easier in the future. --Akumiszcza 28 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)
After moving only thing to do is to check out and correct redirects that leads to redirect Radomiltalk 28 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)
BTW, look at Talk:Gdansk. The article name was Gdańsk and it was ok... Now the title can be changed to Gdańsk and some opposition appeared. Well, my home city is a controversial one :-) --Akumiszcza 28 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)
To preserve history of edits, it's better to move the page instead of copy the paste. However, if there alraedy is an article with old name (for example, a redirect) it must be deleted, beacuse move function works only if there is no page with the target name. As I am an admin, I will be happy to move stuff, just list exactly what should be moved to where, and make sure there are no objections at talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 28 June 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Proszę o opinie w sprawie ujednoliceia nazwenictwa powiatów , bo obecnie mamy 2 modele X County (zdecydowanie dominujący) oraz Powiat of X- trzeba zdecydować jak ma być. Ja sam skłaniam się do wersji z County, ale można stworzyć redirecty z Powiat of X. Obecnie wygląda to tak. Jeszcze raz proszę o sugestie! Pozdrawiam! Vuvar1 29 June 2005 10:44 (UTC)
Ja bym byl za uzywaniem Powiat (szczegolnie ze niema dokladnego odpowiednika, czasem jest tlumaczony jako County a czasem jako District) - ale raczej w krotkiej formie jak na tej stronie http://www.powiat-gniezno.pl/en/Gniezno Powiat--Witkacy 29 June 2005 13:36 (UTC)
Ukraińcy np. zostali przy swoich rejonach (w formie: X Raion). Vuvar1 29 June 2005 13:57 (UTC)
County to po polsku hrabstwo, więc nie jest to poprawne przetłumaczenie. Z drugiej strony wiele angielskich internetowych stron polskich powiatów ma county. Sam już nie wiem. Czy jest jakaś oficjalna zasada na ten temat? Balcer 29 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)
OK- If we have Voivodship and gmina ("Those tranlations are recommended by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs as recommended terminology"), propably it should be powiat (per analogiam) :).So, is X Powiat acceptable? Vuvar1 29 June 2005 19:05 (UTC)
I agree with Halibut. Powiat of XXX sounds best and it's more difficult to make a mistake and call it Powiat gnieźnieźnieński instead of Powiat Gniezno. --Akumiszcza 30 June 2005 14:16 (UTC)
OK. Should I move them to X Powiat or wait for more opinions? Vuvar1 2 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
Gmina
On a slightly different topic - I'd oppose creation of a zillion of articles on gminas. I guess it would be much easier to describe those entities in articles on towns. Halibutt June 30, 2005 13:36 (UTC)
Not zillion articles about gminas, but only 2500. It is not so big number (and this is the far, far future). Vuvar1 30 June 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Well, 2500 is still much, especially when you add all the former gminas. Also, most of the articles on a gmina would consist mostly of the info that should also be found in an article on the town or a central village. Which makes most of such articles pretty obsolete to me (see Ockham's razor). Halibutt June 30, 2005 15:57 (UTC)
I can say that you are right, but only for 2-3 years :) Vuvar1 1 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
Voting
Just in case you didn't notice it, there's yet another voting at Talk:Gdansk... Halibutt June 29, 2005 10:46 (UTC)
Well, not much move, but still... Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Z. has finally given up.. Halibutt June 30, 2005 13:32 (UTC)
Hmm, it is true I have not seen him vandalise anything lately. I am unprotecting Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for a test period. If nothing happens, we may try unprotecting Lithuania and Wilno articles and others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 30 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)
Translation: I invite you to the "game/party" of the hypocrites...
No big surprise there. At the time that article was created I was against it, since the term Anti-Polonism is non-existent in English, and it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to promote new words, however justified they might be. Still, the article remained obscure, so I left it alone (disccouraged by nasty personal attacks by one Polish user/troll who has since left). In recent days Witkacy started linking the article or its related category all over the place, and now we are seeing a predictable backlash from the Misplaced Pages community. Unfortunately, I suspect the vote for deletion will be overwhelming. Balcer 4 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
I would have no problem with Anti-Polish sentiment as a title. Anything that is intelligible and easy to understand for a typical user of English Misplaced Pages would be fine. Antipolonism is almost never used in English. Plus it is unfortunately a word loaded with implicit POV, given the way it is used in Poland. Balcer 4 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
First of all, the voting is about the article at all, not about the name. Is Anti-Polonism not intelligible and easy to understand for a typical user of English Misplaced Pages? Balcer nie zastanawiales sie dlaczego inne tego typu artykuly nie sa podawane do kasacji? Nie zostal dodany przez nazwe... --Witkacy 4 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
"Rename" is a valid option when voting for deletion. In fact, I hope it offers a compromise solution. Look, even if the word anti-polonism was not a neologism, I would still personally prefer to avoid using it, given its popularity among people writing books like this. As for the other articles, I can only say that one bad article does not justify another one. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is full of bad or inadequate articles. Balcer 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Zwroc uwage na powod: "What's here can mostly be incorporated into Polish September Campaign, Holocaust, History of Poland, and Ethnic slurs. Even after the cleanup by Jayjg, it remains absurdly POV. The rest of it needs to go, as it's little more than uncited WP:NOR and a magnet for POV-pushers" - nazwa ma tu najmniej do znaczenia. W koncu to encyklopedia, wiec dlaczego Anglik ma nie wiedziec co to Antypolonizm, skoro jest uzywany w jego jezyku? W tego uzytkownika mniemaniu morderstwa i szyderstwa wobec Polakow to POV ... :) Jednak tylko polski artykul wzbudza zainteresowanie inne anty- juz nie - dlaczego? Odpowiedz powinna byc dopisana do artykulu :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
Witkacy, would you be able not to use Polish language on English WP ? It is considered to be impolite by some, particularly those, who do not know the language. Thanks. --wojsyl (talk) 5 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
I really would be far from thinking that the fact that the word is used by some right-wing parties in Poland affects non-Poles at any way. Moreover, I think that the effort here should be focused on writing an objective article without caring what the parties might say. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some words have an agenda behind them, and they are inherently non-neutral. Take a look at another example in what circumstances this word is often used (and here). Don't you find it curious that the concepts of anti-semitism and anti-polonism somehow seem to run together in these publications?
Finally, let me add a quote by Jerzy Turowicz from this article, which explains the issue well (I will translate this if someone requests it):
Oczywiście Ojciec Święty odróżnia antysemityzm od antyjudaizmu. Antyjudaizm dotyczy płaszczyzny ściśle religijnej. Antysemityzm może być także rasistowski, niemniej jednak faktem jest, że ma pewne chrześcijańskie korzenie -- i temu Ojciec Święty nie przeczy. Oskarżenia o Bogobójstwo, katechizacja z tak zwanym "nauczaniem pogardy", to właśnie chrześcijańskie korzenie antysemityzmu. Dlatego też jest dużo do zrobienia w Polsce, gdzie badania opinii społecznej wykazują, że duży procent ludzi uważa, że Żydzi dzisiaj rządzą krajem, co jest absurdem. Żydów było 3,5 mln przed wojną, a dzisiaj jest ich kilka tysięcy. Są Polacy, którzy lubią usprawiedliwiać antysemityzm antypolonizmem środowisk żydowskich. To jest zupełnie błędne postawienie sprawy, bo antypolonizm jest skutkiem antysemityzmu. Antypolonizm jest nieraz krzywdzący i niesprawiedliwy, ale jest wynikiem tego, że rodzice czy dziadkowie Żydów, urodzonych w Ameryce, którzy przyjechali tam z Polski i przywieźli swoje doświadczenia, byli ofiarami tego antysemityzmu. Pogromy, dyskryminacja, niechęć na uniwersytetach -- oni ten bagaż ze sobą przywieźli i on w reakcji powoduje antypolonizm, więc tego nie można stawiać na równi.Balcer 5 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
Poszukiwanie za wszelką cenę symetrii cierpień, naginanie rzeczywistości do tego samego wymiaru zniszczenia narodu, przyczyniło się do ukucia terminu „antypolonizm” jako odpowiednika „antysemityzmu”. Mają to być zjawiska równorzędne i warte siebie. Ksiądz Michał Czajkowski mówił: „Zawsze podkreślam, że nie można stawiać na równi antypolonizmu i antysemityzmu. Tu nie ma symetrii. Żydowski antypolonizm nikogo nie zabił. Antysemityzm zabił miliony” (Artur Domosławski, „Spowiedź Kościoła”, „Gazeta Wyborcza” z 16-17 IX 2000). Nie da się też sprawy załatwić w sposób następujący: my – was, wy – nas. My mieliśmy być pomocnikami hitlerowskich katów, ale wy gnoiliście nas w ubeckich kazamatach. My antysemici, lecz wy – stalinowcy.Balcer 5 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
Byłem na wykładzie prof. Jerzego Roberta Nowaka, który przyjechał do parafii na zaproszenie naszego proboszcza. Gdy znajomi pytają mnie, o czym było spotkanie, odpowiadam, że o Żydach. Dowiedziałem się, że oni są odpowiedzialni za nasze niepowodzenia, także przyszłe. Chyba że zrobimy z nimi porządek (może wywieziemy na Madagaskar, jak głosiły napisy na murach w moim mieście dwadzieścia parę lat temu?).
Profesor stwierdził, że w Polsce nie ma antysemityzmu tylko antypolonizm. Tak wielki, że sięga korzeniami całego świata, o czym świadczą liczne przykłady dostarczane mu przez słuchaczy i czytelników. Szerzą go wszędzie obecni Żydzi. Każdemu narodowi dostało się po trochu, poza Prawdziwymi Polakami-Katolikami (prof. Nowak osobiście decyduje, kto do tej grupy należy).
Siedziałem w kącie i przygotowywałem kontrargumenty, gdy do głosu doszła publiczność. Zdrętwiałem: tezy Nowaka są akceptowane nie w 100, ale w 200 proc.! Ludzie urządzili słowną krucjatę przeciwko Żydom, wykupującym nas Niemcom, szkodnikom Polski... przeciwko całemu światu, który nic innego nie robi, tylko szkodzi Polsce. Próbując trzeźwo ocenić sytuację, doszedłem do wniosku, że jestem Żydem-antypolonistą! W sali wrzało. Prof. Nowak prosił, aby nie mówić, że za wszystko odpowiedzialni są Żydzi, tylko wskazywać, który konkretny Żyd. Posypały się nazwiska, tytuły gazet, nazwy partii politycznych, fundacji i organizacji. Większość tytułów można znaleźć w moim domu, są moimi ulubionymi albo przynajmniej takimi, po które sięgam, słucham ich, z którymi sympatyzuję. Okazało się, że należy czytać jedynie „Niedzielę”, „Nasz Dziennik” i słuchać Radia Maryja. Reszty plugastwa nawet nie dotykać.
Bacler..., jak narazie, to nawet nie zostal stworzony watek antpolonizmu wsrod Zydow w artykule... Nie zgadzam sie rowniez z Turowicza zdaniem, bo niby co ma wspolnego szkalowanie Polakow na granicach, w Stanach czy w Europie zachodniej lub pomysl Niemcow wyniszczenia calego narodu polskiego z antysemityzmem? Wiec 852,000 (sic!) stron ktore zawieraja w google slowo "polish jokes" tez jest skutkiem antysemityzmu? A Meta How to deal with Poles, rowniez? :) A tak na marginesie w polskim MSZ powstal katalog antypolonizmow http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Katalog+antypolonizm%C3%B3w+mSZ A Rotfeld stwierdzil ze bedzie wpieral kazda organizacje ktora zajmie sie walka ze szkalowaniem Polski--Witkacy 5 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
Lot's of interesting material. Instead of translating it here, I would ask you to add the relevant section to the AP article itself, describing its abuse (?) by far-right nationalistic parties in Poland. Note also that most far-right nationalistic parties, no matter what country they come from, use similar aguments, dividing the world between 'us' and 'them'. This, however, should not discredit the concept - just as, for example, social darwinism should not discredit social evolutionism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 5 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
I admit that maybe I am being oversensitive on this whole issue. I can see now some evidence that, as language evolves, the term anti-polonism appears to be coming into wider use, at least in Polish. Come to think of it, if we make the article about it balanced and rational, discuss how the very formulation of the idea of antipolonism is still a work in progress, plus include some discussion of the way the term is misused by some groups, then it might become a very useful article. Balcer 5 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)
What I wanted to say, but couldn't do it properly in English was: Nie dajmy się zwariować. I know that there are biased media but it doesn't mean that I have to waste my time and learn their opinion or bother to search for words that are not ill used by them. I think those people deserve nothing but being ignored. There is not a problem with the word itself only with their POV. Paying them attention I would only do them a favour, so what's the point? I believe that the article here will be as balanced as possible, because our goal is to show the real problem, not the alleged one. So maybe it's even better that we'll use the same word, as some people might want to confront the biased opinions with Misplaced Pages. I think it's a good idea to additionally show how the word is misused, but I would be careful here as well not to spoil the main object of the article. To quote once more a Polish phrase: Krowa, która dużo ryczy... I think that the main problem with them is that they are making a big fuss, not that they are very popular or influential. We just don't like them, are ashamed of them, so they irritate us more and because of that are more visible for us, but still it doesn't mean that e.g. nationalist parties have any serious chances in elections etc., which shows real support of people. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
One more thing to calm you down. There are of course idiots in every country or nation, what is important is not to let them fool you. I think the situation in Poland is really not a bad one. Please, see an anti-Semitism global report: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/global2004.html. The situation in Poland is comparable to that in Finland, which is famous for taking particular care of their minorities. Surprisingly the USA are not included in the report, so that's what I've found instead: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/ADL_audit.html --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
I'm afraid your view of the question may be somewhat too optimistic. I suggest you take a look at the latest report by the Council of Europe and its Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (link to report), especially the special chapter Konieczność walki z antysemityzmem w Polsce. Balcer 5 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
In IZAK-releated news, I'd appreciate comments at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Article_division, where IZAK seems bent on DELETING the article (!) splitting it into subarticles instead of summarising, arguing that There is no need to have this become a "FA", as that matters little about its encyclopedic value. More comments on this would be welcomed, especially as I would like for this article to be FACed soon (just need to upload some more pics and summarise a little). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
Polish Intelligence in World War II
More to do :). A new report on the contribution of Polish Intelligence services to the Allied war effort just came out. ( see article in Polish). A joint British-Polish commission carefully studied this issue and came to interesting conclusions. For example, 44% of the information British intelligence received from agents on the ground in occupied Europe came from Polish agents. We need an article about the work of this commission. Any suggestions as to the title? Balcer 4 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
Great. By the way, it seems that the British are on some kind of charm offensive lately. Take a look at this article. It appears that Polish veterans will lead the upcoming 50th anniversary victory parade in London, in atonement for their exclusion from the great victory parade in 1946. Balcer 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
I am very dissapointed in the PCOTW progress. Except for my first major edit (which involved mostly merging subarticles into one main article), almost nothing happened during the COTW process :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
If it wasn't for both of my computers breaking almost at the same time... Halibutt July 6, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
- stub, a paragraph or two, completely inadequate. 
- maybe a few paragraphs, but coverage is inadequate, still missing some basic information. 
- Many paragraphs, covers all, or almost all, basic information, provides a bit of depth. 
- Featured article status, or has gone as far as it can go, as in the case of a simple list. 
