Portal talk:Poland/New article announcements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/to do
It would be nifty if this was actually a template that we could use in the News section of Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/to do - no point in duplicating the same idea on two pages, don't you think so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. As I understand it, these are two different things. An article on the TODO list does not have to be new and vice versa. Also, personally I find the todo quite arbitrary choice and difficult to use. --Wojsyl (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Referenced"
Now, I'm confused. How do we now to which of the sections to add a new article ? How many references does an article need to be considered as "referenced" ? --Wojsyl (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- One is enough. I just want to drive the point that we should add references to the new articles. Unreferenced article may as well be fiction - for all that the reader knows, he has to google to verify it anyway. On the sidenote: external links are not considered references, just as further reading is not a reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see, still I'm not sure if this distinction is useful here ... --Wojsyl (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you prefer, I can use the template {{Unref-talk}} whenever you or sb else posts an unreferenced article ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see, still I'm not sure if this distinction is useful here ... --Wojsyl (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed that template from the page, both because it is broken, and because it is antagonistic to new users. I also strongly disagree that "External Links" are not valid as a reference. Many many valid and celebrated wikipedia articles get by just fine with just an "External Links" section instead of specifically noting which things are links and which are references. It is improper to individually chastise editors on their talk pages for not including a "References" section. Elonka 04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- While the template can use some work, the consensus that is WP:CITE should be respected. If everybody would use his or her own style of referencing, chaos would ensue. If you don't agree with WP:CITE or template, suggest changes on their relevant talk pages. Once again I'll repeat that The ==External links== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A consensus is not policy. It is a guideline. Perhaps we are having trouble with semantics? The citing discussion is a guideline, not policy. It is a request, it is not a demand. It is a recommendation, not a requirement. It is a "please do this" not a "you must do this." Many of the articles which you have listed as "unreferenced" are referenced, they're just not referenced in the way that you would like. I do agree that those articles which have no links, sources, or references whatsoever do qualify as "unreferenced", and that the user who created that article should be requested to supply a source. But to list an article as "unreferenced" simply because it has references in its "External links" section instead of a "References" section, is overkill. When I created the Saint Raphael Kalinowski page, I was careful to list the source material on the page, including a clear link to the Vatican's biography page, and a link to a page which listed many books about Raphael Kalinowski. And yet you still saw fit to place an "Unreferenced" template on my user page, chastising me for not providing references. That was inappropriate, since the page was clearly referenced. You could have simply changed the "External Links" section to say "References", and the problem would have been addressed. Or to put it another way: One of the key elements of this wiki environment, is that if you don't like what a page says, that you can go in and change it. It's inappropriate to go chasing after an author and say, "I don't like the way you did it, you should fix it," instead of just going in and fixing it yourself, especially when it's a minor formatting issue. Elonka 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes but this is not a minor {{sofixit}} issue. But how on Earth am I or anybody else know whether the external links you provided are references or not, or a combination of some? Yes, I can spend hours going through the sites and seeing if information matches... or I can spend few minutes telling you how to do it proper, thus saving everybody time in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps because the links said things like "Vatican's press release about his canonization," "Biography" and "References to several published biographies"? Elonka 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but this is not a minor {{sofixit}} issue. But how on Earth am I or anybody else know whether the external links you provided are references or not, or a combination of some? Yes, I can spend hours going through the sites and seeing if information matches... or I can spend few minutes telling you how to do it proper, thus saving everybody time in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- A consensus is not policy. It is a guideline. Perhaps we are having trouble with semantics? The citing discussion is a guideline, not policy. It is a request, it is not a demand. It is a recommendation, not a requirement. It is a "please do this" not a "you must do this." Many of the articles which you have listed as "unreferenced" are referenced, they're just not referenced in the way that you would like. I do agree that those articles which have no links, sources, or references whatsoever do qualify as "unreferenced", and that the user who created that article should be requested to supply a source. But to list an article as "unreferenced" simply because it has references in its "External links" section instead of a "References" section, is overkill. When I created the Saint Raphael Kalinowski page, I was careful to list the source material on the page, including a clear link to the Vatican's biography page, and a link to a page which listed many books about Raphael Kalinowski. And yet you still saw fit to place an "Unreferenced" template on my user page, chastising me for not providing references. That was inappropriate, since the page was clearly referenced. You could have simply changed the "External Links" section to say "References", and the problem would have been addressed. Or to put it another way: One of the key elements of this wiki environment, is that if you don't like what a page says, that you can go in and change it. It's inappropriate to go chasing after an author and say, "I don't like the way you did it, you should fix it," instead of just going in and fixing it yourself, especially when it's a minor formatting issue. Elonka 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Wikipedia:Did you know
This is a good place to 'advertise' some of the more interesting, recent articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article sorting
This page is rather short now, but when it will grow long, the section "Other" will be rather invisible. Therefore from experience with Russian new articles I would recommend not to be very strict with dates and sort articles not for date of creation, but for date of "detection" as well. If an editor from Bangladesh or Zimbabwe creates an unwikified article Professor A. Donda (missing!; and Professor A. Dońda as well), it may sit unnoticed for ages, and for all practical purposes it makes sense to think about it as "new" when you detect it. mikka (t) 03:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. I will move this section then to Alerts at the top :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Images?
What do you think of adding image notifications here as well? First, more people may figure out which articles can benefit from linking to this image, second, we can spot some unsourced images often uploaded by newcomers and provide the necessary tags (or force them to, before the image is deleted).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Here's one precedent: Wikipedia:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board/New_images --Ghirla | talk 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea!--SylwiaS | talk 04:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page instructions
I'm still not entirely sure how this page is supposed to be used, especially the "Lost and Found". Can some intructions or overview be added to it? For example, is "Lost and Found" for *any* article that's Poland-related, or only for articles that have been created in the last few months? And if I run across an article in January, that was created in December, which section should it be added to? Elonka 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Lost and found is bascically for articles that have not been edited by any of our estabilished Polish editors and therefore 1) need copyedit 2) are not linked from articels they should be 3) are unkown to us here 4) etc. At least, that's the rule of thumb we seem to be using. If the Dec or older articles are not fit for 'lost and found', then I think there is no point in listing them here - but if you want, do so. It won't hurt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- And who exactly are the "established Polish editors", and how is that status determined? Normally for a project like this, there's a "list of participants" where people who are interested in the project can add their name. Please tell me where that is located? If there isn't one, then we should have a "Participants" section on the Notice Board. Elonka 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that all members of our noticeboard are 'the participants'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify who I mean by 'member of our noticeboard'. By that I mean anybody who posts from time to time there, no need to formaly sign up anywhere is needed. Also, probably the phrase I used above about "estabilished Polish editors" was less then fortunate, "estabilished Poland-interested editors" would better describe my vision. In the end, it's quite simple: those editors tend to congregate in a single place, and all would benefit from editors, who are interested and knowledgable in a given subject, from inspecting new articles related to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that all members of our noticeboard are 'the participants'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- And who exactly are the "established Polish editors", and how is that status determined? Normally for a project like this, there's a "list of participants" where people who are interested in the project can add their name. Please tell me where that is located? If there isn't one, then we should have a "Participants" section on the Notice Board. Elonka 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polish death camps
Hello all. I recently stumbled upon the article on Polish death camps phenomenon. It was poorly written so I gave it a try and referenced some of the remarks there. Do you think that the phenomenon deserves a better article than a mere stub? Or should we leave it as it is? Halibutt 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Like many others it does. Shouldn't this post be at the noticeboard? I don't think many ppl are watching this page :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Laurynas Gucevičius vs Laurynas Gucewicz vs Wawrzyniec Gucewicz
Let's chose the name. And I am afraid I already know the outcome. Renata 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I replied on the article's talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polish mountain ranges
I've created a series of Polish mountain ranges stubs. I wonder how these should be sorted. Often they do not have established English names. What should be their titles ? Should the names be translated to English ? --Lysytalk 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- If they don't have a common English name, leave them as they are (Polish), if we are wrong this will be correct sooner or later. Lot's of things don't have English name; Ural is Ural...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New articles bot
Please support my request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#New articles bot. This will save all reporters much time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
