Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 6 December 2006

Archives

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

Connection between Poles and Vandals

AfD?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Connection between Poles and Vandals -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And while we are at it, let's deal with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian connections to Mieszko I.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Polish statehood

Would anyone like to accept the challenge of expanding four articles related to early Polish statehood? They have been stubs for a while, and I thought about nominating them for deletion; however, the presence of interwikis suggests that editors on other WPs think it's a worthwhile topic (even if the articles are mostly translations of en).

• Kingdom of Poland (1025–1138)
• Kingdom of Poland (1138–1320)
• Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385)
• Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)

Appleseed (Talk) 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if they are stubs today, each has the potential to be expanded into articles like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and (to a lesser extent) articles about later reincarnation of the Polish state (Congress Kingdom, Second Polish Republic, People's Republic of Poland and such). We may however consider merging of some of the above articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. My message was an invitation to expand those articles. Appleseed (Talk) 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jan Matejko

Ghirla insists he was a Czech painter and has other 'great' ideas how to improve this article. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing again? Sigh... --Ghirla 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, could you explain your concerns? Regional notice boards are designed for collaborating on articles related to those regions, and soliciting comments is part of that process. In fact, you do the same thing on the Russian board. Appleseed (Talk) 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Polabian Slavs

I am uncertain about the title and content of Polabian Slavs. Clarification and/or feedback at Talk:Polabian Slavs would be appreciated. Olessi 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names)

This important naming convention is near completion, with annoucements at NC, RfC/P and VP(P) - so if you have not read it, or want to make some comments, now is the time. Barring serious issues being raised, this will become an official guideline in the near future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Artur Żmijewski (movie maker)

This article is currently a stub, but it has a lot of resources in Polish, English and French language. It would be nice if somebody could destub this article. And there is another problem, the name of article. Should it be:

• Artur Żmijewski (movie maker)
• Artur Żmijewski (filmmaker), or
• Artur Żmijewski (film director)? Visor 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think film director is the more proper term, but there are users with better 'feel' of the language than me. Logologist?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:The_Holocaust#Why_there.27s_no_article_on_the_Soviet_POWs.3F

After a valid question was raised (per title), Ghirla noted that the editors should concentrate on that topic instead of wasting time on 'nonesense' such as Soviet crimes. After I replied that Soviet crimes are notable as well, I was accussed (by other editors) of 'horrendous slur' and 'aggressive and revisionist behaviour'. Perhaps some of you would like to comment on the situtation? Especially since this discussion is being advertised as 'outrageous claim' in other places...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Polish articles by quality

There are Germany articles by quality, Lithuania articles by quality, Taiwan articles by quality...heck, there are Narnia articles by quality :D Who would be interesting in maintaining Poland articles by quality? See what needs to be done.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Polish biographies nominated for deletion

• Antoni Dunin
• Rodryg Dunin

I'm posting about these here, since some of the sources used were in Polish, so it would be helpful to have Polish-speakers participate in the deletion discussions. --Elonka 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki

Not that I think it is an important piece of info, but... we have articles about many smaller masts. What's wrong with this one?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting case of copyright paranoia

See User_talk:Postdlf#Commons_revert and User_talk:Postdlf#Image:Ba.C5.82t.C3.B3w_Park_Jurajski_001.jpg. And the worst thing is that he seems to be right: commons:Commons:Derivative works... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Filharmonie i opery

Kiedy ktoś będzie miał czas to trzeba uzupełnić artykuł http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_concert_halls o filharmonie w Polsce: http://pl.wikipedia.org/Filharmonia. Chyba wszystkie inne kraje europejskie mają wypisane, tylko Polska nie. To samo z operami: trzeba je wpisać w http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_opera_houses ze spisu: http://pl.wikipedia.org/Polskie_teatry_operowe. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

Interesting discussion centered around NPOV issues. Comments appreciated. For a more bizzare discussion, see Talk:History of Poland (1918–1939) - fortunatly that user refrains from editing articles (so far).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: increasingly ugly revert war and deteriorating discussion. Civil comments and cool heads needed to stabilize situation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

I have requested moves for four of the Wielkopolska Uprising articles plus the disambig. I had previously supported the current title but have now reversed my position. The voting for all articles will take place on the disambig talk page. Please share your thoughts. Appleseed (Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

white or grey

Copied from Talk:Poland per 'no response'.

Polish flag is white-red not grey-red. Look here for example KRID

Well, not so clear, see Flag of Poland for more details. The question is - should we stick to the law or to the common usage, the president webside included? My preference is for the latter (i.e. "white"). That's less surprising. However, the Flag of Poland article, which discusses the matter in details, should present the correct ("grey") color (or both). Comments? --Beaumont (@) 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I find "grey" somehow surprising. Have you seen it anywhere? Nothing is explained. AFAIK, the surprise is not recommended, yet the color is justified by the law. If you express your preference to follow the above proposition I'll do it. Any other suggestions?--Beaumont (@) 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See, unfortunately, we are not free to invent reality at Misplaced Pages, but instead have the duty to report it. When the Polish flag was legally defined in 1980, likely no one thought about how it should be displayed on a shining computer screen. Consequently, the law as it exists today, specifies a shade of white which, according to thoughtful people who have been discussing this matter on the Polish Misplaced Pages talk page pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski and updating the article pl:Flaga Polski (and the English interwiki equivalent at Flag of Poland) have reasonably arived at a calculation for the white of the flag, which, on a bright, luminescent computer screen -- which after all, is a source of light, and not a reflecting surface like an actual flag in real life -- does appear a bit gray. But that's only so because of contrast: If you viewed the page, instead, on a black/dark background, you would not have the sensation of seeing gray. It would look white.

As we know from comparing sheets of white paper, some white is whiter than other. Polish law, for better or worse, has carefully described the whiteness of the white of the flag, and this legal whiteness has in turn been calculated recently for display on the computer screen by Polish Wikipedians. If, in the future, Polish law says something else about the display of the flag on computer screens, then we will of course update the depiction of the flag once again. For now, however, I ask, what is more factual? Simplistically assuming the whitest white of the computer screen -- a lightbulb, really -- or present the shade of white (and the shade of crimson stipulated by the same law) faithfully, according to the letter of the law? I invite thouse who can, to follow the discussion on the Polish Misplaced Pages, where it has been going on for quite a while. There is no need to campaign for the pure white of the flag under every article that makes use of the flag. I suggest that on the English Misplaced Pages, the correct place for the English-language discussion is at Talk:Flag of Poland. The matter has also been raised at the Village pump at the Wikimedia Commons, since the repeated mutual reverts of the uploaded newly computed flag versions have led to the freezing the old flag versions as protected files, for now. But I suggest that the center of the sustained discussion and offered expertise is on the Polish Misplaced Pages talk page for pl:Flaga Polski, not on Talk:Poland or pl:Dyskusja:Polska, or even here. Let's keep the conversation focused and factual, as opposed to wage a campaign of agitation for one point of view or another wherever possible, repeating the same thing over and over, or as Polish Wikipedian Krid has admitted doing, replacing the link to the flag on other wikipedias' "Poland" article with a Polish-language message of protest... That's vandalism, surely, not a way to build consensus. --Mareklug 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks! --Beaumont (@) 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-From a colorimetric point of view: " have reasonably arived at a calculation for the white of the flag, which, on a bright, luminescent computer screen -- which after all, is a source of light, and not a reflecting surface like an actual flag in real life". This means that the people you are referring to translated from a light-absorbing surface colorplane to a light-emitting one. This means that they did the translation knowing the result wuould be, by a perceptive point-of-view, wrong.

-From a perception point of view: "If you viewed the page, instead, on a black/dark background, you would not have the sensation of seeing gray. It would look white." Wrong, have a look yourself:

-From a common sense point of view: If the flag is expected to be white, while it appears grey (and even on a black background it would never be white), then somebody, even in good faith, made a mistake, and should admit it, instead of keeping on supporting a blatantly wrong version.

-Furthermore, keeping the discussion on pl:Flaga Polski will cut out everybody who does not know Polish. As the result of the discussion will affect a lot of pages all around Misplaced Pages, an international talkpage should be chosen to settle this matter.

--RedMC 11:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on plwiki seems to converge to a consensus supporting my first proposition. The rationale is partially coherent with user:RedMC stance. The main expert, who actually created the "grey" flag supports it too. To avoid edit wars I refrain from quick changes here, but at the moment there is no strong support for the "grey" version (with one exception of the article where the flag is described in details and the "grey" color explained to the reader). --Beaumont (@) 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections started today

An important event, and some users who are running for office may be familiar to some of you. In the end, isn't voting in those elections as important as voting in our national ones? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sagan

Dear Polish friends, Sagan was a redirect to Żagań, because it is the only appelation of the duchy used in Western sources prior to 1945. Unsurprizingly, most articles linking to Sagan actually refer to Żagań. All the other Sagans were listed on Sagan (disambiguation), linked from Żagań through Template:Redirect. Today some guys destroyed the redirect and moved dab page to Sagan, which is now a collection of American surnames. I don't have time to dispute with such military ignorance of our policies and historical usage, but think that some of you may want to check this systemic bias on Talk:Sagan. --Ghirla 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll note for the record that per Misplaced Pages:Spam#Canvassing, this sort of an electioneering post is frowned upon. And, just FYI, Francoise Sagan appears to be French, not American. --Atlant 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If asking for an opinion about Polish towns on the Poland-related noticeboard qualifies as "spamming", then you should label WP:RFC as "spam". --Ghirla 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To most Americans, and thus to a large portion of users of Misplaced Pages, the name Sagan is strongly associated with Carl Sagan, while they never heard of Sagan the Duchy. In light of that, having Sagan as the disambiguation page makes sense. 99.9% of users will want to get to Carl Sagan when they type Sagan into the search box, and this option saves them a detour through Żagań. Still, that is just my personal opinion. Both solutions are essentially fine with me. Balcer 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Balcer. When I think of Sagan, I think of Carl, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do think about Françoise Sagan first, because she's more famous in France than Carl... :) But that's beside the point. Maybe this discussion should be moved to the related talk page? Personally, the current disambig page is more or less OK for me, but maybe other editors will have different opinions? -- Grafikm 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should encourage American ignorance, because it's not an American project in the first place. --Ghirla 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF before you get in trouble. --Atlant 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You found a wrong guy to issue threats to. I am off to investigate how you moved Sagan (disambiguation) to Sagan. It seems admin tools were seriously abused in performing this move. Best, Ghirla 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I indeed discovered that a redirect was deleted in the circumvention of WP:RM. My policy towards admin's abuse is strict. I suppose the move should be overturned on sight. --Ghirla 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no trouble because it's not a threat. The similar, yet more popular problem with Georgia (the country and the US state) was subject of quite countless debates, and was finally turned into a disambig while it pointed, IIRC, to the US state. So the subject is definitely worth looking into. And Ghirla is right in a way, because there is already enough systemic bias on WP, there is no point creating/encouraging more... -- Grafikm 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)