Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:32, 25 October 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 Archive 9

Useful templates

Please note we have two functioning userboxes:

This user is a member of the WikiProject Poland.

{{User WikiProject Poland}}

{{User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}

There is also a Portal:Poland/Welcome that can be used to notify users about this noticeboard and our related projects. Just slap {{subst:Portal:Poland/Welcome}}--~~~~ on their usertalkpage - it has its own heading.

Help save images of Polish mil. insignia

How? Go to Polish_Armed_Forces_rank_insignia. With the exception of land army officers (copyvio of ), all other are free. Local Misplaced Pages copies should be tagged with {{PD-PolishGov}} instead of now depreciated {{Military-Insignia}}; for officer images - go to commons:Rank_insignia_of_the_Polish_Army, upload a vertical copy of the image and update the PARri page. Misplaced Pages local images should also be moved to Commons; use {{Polishsymbol}}.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Żarnowiec (Deluge)

One more misleading battle - Battle of Żarnowiec (Deluge) took place in Żarnów. Look at: pl:Bitwa pod Żarnowem. Please correct its name or something. --Hiuppo 09:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of several of PLC voivodeships

There is a proposal to rename:

• • Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507-1795) → Navahrudak Voivodeship
  • Połock Voivodeship → Polatsk Voivodeship
  • Witebsk Voivodeship → Vitebsk Voivodeship

Please comment at respective talk pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion with these voivodships. A few others have been renamed in the last month or so, for example Mstsislaw_Voivodeship. There is also a categorisation mess. We have Category:Former voivodeships of Poland (14th century–1795) and Category:Former_voivodeships_of_Lithuania, with some voivodeships in both, some in one only, and not according to any particular plan. For example, the Vilnius one is in the second category, while Witebsk Voivodeship is in both. Deuar 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Jews in Poland

There is no discussion there, only emotional editings of the article. I doubt very much that the result is better than the original text.Xx236 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The original text at least passed the FA some time ago. But recently this article has been going down the drain... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Endecja

The Polish term "Endecja" derives from the initials "ND," for "Narodowa Demokracja," or "National Democracy" (as the latter article states). I therefore propose replacing "Endecja," where it occurs, with "ND." This will relate more directly, for Anglophone readers, to the prewar Polish political party's name — and be pronounceable. No substance at all is lost thereby. Nihil novi 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead and change it. - Darwinek 11:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that many English sources use the term endecja: .-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the alternative, obvious as it is, never occurred to them. It's often darkest under the lamppost. And how do you think Anglophone readers pronounce "endecja"? Also, why is it often spelled in English with a lower-case "e"? Would the same authors spell the names for members of the respective American parties, "republican" or "democrat"? The authors simply haven't thought about these matters. Nihil novi 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Piping links to National Democracy (Poland) or using simple redirects should take care of most of it. The question is, should we use the English term National Democracy, Polish Narodowa demokracja, endecja, or the abbreviation ND - and if so, in which order and combination.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that editors should in principle be free to follow their honest preferences. For my part, I propose using what is easiest for English-speakers to understand and that doesn't distort historic truth. Nihil novi 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Polish geography:Infoboxes v Geoboxes

Following heated discussion with the Geobox guru Caroig, I think we are close to finding the correct formats for Geoboxes to describe Polish locations (voivodeships/counties/gminas, towns/villages, and presumably Poland itself). (Geoboxes are a type of infobox which aim to present data in a unified format for geographical features everywhere, in particular to allow automatic parsing for e.g. export to other wikis.) As I am in the process of trialling my bot which creates missing articles on gminas and villages, I decided to use Geoboxes in these articles. You can see how they look by examining some of these articles (here), although the agreed format of the Geoboxes will be slightly different from the format(s) currently contained in those articles.

Question: does anyone have any objection to my attempting to convert the infoboxes in existing articles (mainly voivodeships, counties and some towns) to Geoboxes? Presumably it can be done without loss of fields, though I haven't looked at that in detail yet. --Kotniski 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be subject of wider discussion of at least several Polish users. Pros and cons should be analysed. - Darwinek 21:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame User:Balcer is not here; he was quite involved with that stuff.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd support Infobox. It is well established and less dependent on one single user. Cities and towns of Poland already use this one. - Darwinek 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Geobox have some new interesting features. But suitable Infobox Settlement used in Polish towns and villages looks almost the same. Am I wrong? --Hiuppo 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have an idea how to reconcile the two: take a look at {{Infobox Serbia municipality}}. (It is based on {{Infobox Settlement}}, but the principle is the same): the country-specific infobox actually "subclasses" the general one, doing the argument name conversion, supplying default data & links and providing the same look & feel, while the "interface" to the individual articles remains the same. At least, that would spare running a bot or AWB through hundreds of articles.

As for Geobox vs. Infobox, I don't have a particular opinion: they seem to be competing in a way. Duja► 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that we would want to create yet more versions of the same thing - there seem to be more than enough already... It's unfortunate that the two main developers can't get together and produce a unified tool. But at least it means we get to make a choice.

At this point I'll include links to some other recent discussions largely on the same issue: this one and this one (which is preceded by this one).

Leaving aside issues of principle for the moment, I'll just comment on the appearance of the various boxes. Taking each category separately:

• Towns and villages. Infobox City/Settlement and Geobox|Settlement give more or less the same results (look at e.g. Bydgoszcz v. Bratislava, Bełcz Wielki v. Siciny). The last of these doesn't yet have a map of Poland, but this can easily be added if necessary. Personally I think Geobox is slightly neater, particularly since a) it says right at the top what category the thing is in (City, Village or whatever), b) it puts the map lower down where it isn't so much in the way, and c) it displays the population properly (simply as Population, rather than as Population: City or Population: Village, which seems unnatural and possibly misleading).

• Voivodeships. I looked at a few articles with Infobox Voivodeship - I didn't see anything that wouldn't look very similar with Geobox|Region (except for the points above).

• Powiats. I looked at a few of the Xxx County articles and they don't currently seem to have infoboxes of any type. Geobox|Region could certainly be used; presumably also there's an Infobox County or something like that.

• Gminas. Look at Gmina Abramów (Geobox) and Gmina Aleksandrów, Lublin Voivodeship (some kind of Infobox, but formatted quite differently than Infobox City/Settlement). I don't know what the history of this is - presumably someone was developing the Infobox Gmina separately. But it needs to be changed - either by using the Geobox or by a more appropriate standard Infobox.

As you will see from the above, I'm slightly in favour of Geoboxes from an appearance point of view. I also support the philosophy of a single and machine-readable box scheme for all geographical features, though it will obviously never work unless they can be unified with existing Infoboxes. The point about Geoboxes being dependent on just one developer is a good one, though I get the impression that Infobox Settlement and other such are in a similar position. The point about Infoboxes being established for Poland articles may also be relevant, although there are now many Geoboxes in existence too (mostly created by my bot), and there exist tools for converting one to the other whichever way we decide.

Enough from me for now. --Kotniski 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems evident to me that infoboxes and geoboxes need to be merged; and that this issue affects more than just our little Polish community. Isn't there some WikiProject where this is already discussed? From my experience, infoboxes are much more popular (although I think the geoboxes look more 'refined' to the end user). Can we merge the geoboxes into infoboxes, retaining functionality and advantages of both approaches? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

Please help decide whether the article should be merged/split/deleted by participating in discussion on talk (there is also an AfD ongoing).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How to translate operacja wilenska

See the disambiguation of Operation Wilno, it's talk page and ongoing debate and comment if operacja wileńska is correctly translated to English as Operation Wilno. Despite my assurances, several non-Polish speakers seem to disagree... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, stop trying to turn English Misplaced Pages into a Polish dictionary. -- Matthead      O       16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Piotruś doesn't want to do that. Mind WP:CIVIL, please. - Darwinek 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)