Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 7. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Thanks in advance.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] white or grey

Copied from Talk:Poland per 'no response'.

Polish flag is white-red not grey-red. Look here for example [1] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks! --Beaumont (@) 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-From a colorimetric point of view: "[people] 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 Wikipedia, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus

Ghirla and M.K. are asking for comments about my behaviour on Wikipedia. I am happy to indulge them by posting the link to their request on a page frequented by many editors who have edited with me in the past - although I am fully aware they may use it as yet another example of (quote from their request): "canvassing supporters on the Polish noticeboard" and "calling on a significant group of like-minded, fellow Poles, whom he recruits to his causes (Molobo, Halibutt, Space Cadet, Lysy, Appleseed, Balcer, etc)."-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLOL: that's the first Request for Comment that apparently the requester wants to keep without comments :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 -трёп- 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll note for the record that per Wikipedia: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 -трёп- 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
To most Americans, and thus to a large portion of users of Wikipedia, 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 (AutoGRAF) 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 -трёп- 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 -трёп- 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 illicit move should be overturned and a legitimate move should be requested through WP:RM. --Ghirla -трёп- 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 (AutoGRAF) 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus

Ghirla and M.K. are asking for comments about my behaviour on Wikipedia. I am happy to indulge them by posting the link to their request on a page frequented by many editors who have edited with me in the past - although I am fully aware they may use it as yet another example of (quote from their request): "canvassing supporters on the Polish noticeboard" and "calling on a significant group of like-minded, fellow Poles, whom he recruits to his causes (Molobo, Halibutt, Space Cadet, Lysy, Appleseed, Balcer, etc)."-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLOL+this: that's the first Request for Comment that apparently the requester wants to keep without comments :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Dzierżon

I came across the Jan Dzierżon article on the talk pages of other users and attempted to copyedit and clean up the namespace. I also posited some questions and ideas on the talk page, but it seems my edits are frowned upon. I do not anticipate being able to copyedit the article further, so I have removed it from my watchlist. I mention the article here because there has been recent dispute with it, and others might be able to provide their expertise. Olessi 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miodzio

Collection of archival Polish newspapers, online: [2] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horilka

Please consider the validity of the article horilka which is voted for deletion now. Although I voted "delete" basing on article content, I am aware that I am not an expert. Also there may be important information in Ukrainian, Polish or Russian langauge I cannot assess.

I am posting this message on all slavic notice boards, because now the voting is participated mostly by amateurs far from horilka. Mukadderat 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cios w Plecy Dziennik Chicagoski 19 Wrzesien 1939.jpg

This image was recently deleted; it seems that the main concern was that we cannot use it under fair use because 'it is not important to the article'. See deletion debate and reply of the user who deleted it when I asked him for more explanation. I believe this is a very useful image - what do you think?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Portal_talk%7EPoland_Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board_550e.html"