Wikipedia talk:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Joint project: Polish-Muscovy War (1605-1618)

I'd like to propose that Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian (and anybody else who wants to join, you will excuse me if I won't list everyone here, I tried to reach everybody on the Wikipedia:Regional notice boards) Wikipedians join forces and try together to promote some articles to FA, instead of (what seems to be more common, unfortunately) fighting over which name should go first and similar petty issues :>

In this spirit I invite you all to comment on Polish-Muscovy War (1605-1618), an article I (mostly, wiki being wiki) have written over the past few months. It can definitely benefit from introducing Russian/English spelling of some names/people that I added knowing only Polish spelling, adjusting my Polish POV and adding more info from Russian/other sources I have no access to. I believe this article is fairly comprehensive, and we can make it reach FA. In few days I will submit it to Peer Review, and if there are no disputes on PR/article's talk page I will submit it to FA in over a week.

Once again, I invite your comments and edits, and hope this will be the first of many similar projects that proves we can work on together, to show our Eastern European history and culture to English-speaking world, most of whom unfortunately seem never to heard about Muscovy of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If you like this initiative. For now, I invite everybody to copy their replies to my talk page; if there is enough interest, perhaps we can create a separate page to discuss it (Wikiproject:Eastern Europe or sth like this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Joint project: Polish-Muscovy War (1605-1618)

Just letting you know that there are two things that should be adressed before I am comfortable with FACing this: 1) a map 2) Assurance by some Russian editors that Modern_legacy is NPOV - when I wrote it, I expected some 'trouble' and much editing there, but almost nothing was changed. Also, a friend of mine asked how strong would be a resentment to Poles around 1630s? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean how much resentment was still there by 1630s? I can't tell of hand but I will try to see what I can find. --Irpen 06:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. My friend and are fans of the 163x fictional universe, and I would go even so far as to say we will have serious say in the future of PLC and Muscovy in that universe. We are considering now some scenarios, and one of the issues we are trying to research is if one of the monarchs died around 1635, how feasible the project of unia troista (Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovy Commonwealth) would be then. Even barring that fictional angle, I personally would love to see more Russian sources added to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

.... The rest on this is moved to Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth. --Irpen 21:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Coming back to the PM-war article, I wish I knew more on the topic to contribute, because my feeling is that non-Polish POV is underrepresented (understandably, since Russian editors didn't work much on it), but, unfortunately, I am not prepared to make extensive edits to it right now. regards, --Irpen 22:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Games with names

This problem is as old as the Wikipedia itself. Many people (myself included) added/inserted/changed placenames and it caused quite some stirr, bad blood and revert wars. An interesting recent twist of these battles included even rearranging the order of secondary names, like, for example this particular edit which switched the order of Polish and Russian name for a city in Ukraine.

All we have in the policy for now is a WP:3RR rule. Better than nothing but I believe we could do better than that. Amending or adding to official policy is not a realistic option. What I propose is a kind of voluntarily self-imposed ethics code among all E. European editors who agree. The rule would be that to play with names is only allowed when the editor also brings some other useful info to the article, even if just a little bit. On a different, but related dispute, I think that it should almost always be Kiev and not Kyiv, but I do this change only when I am ready to do something else for an article. Such a tradition, will result in faster improvements of many articles, since an opportunity to insert a favorite name would cause enough itching to do some research and extra writing. This rule would not apply to reversions of others' edit. That is if someone, however significantly, contributes to the Warsaw article but adds "Varshava", to the first line, the naming part of the edit may be reverted at once. But the insertion of an extra name is allowed only as a part of an edit that brings to article some improvements. For more on this, please see Talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi#On_adding_relevant_names_and_even_changing_their_order as well as my user talk:Irpen. Please comment at the talk of this page rather than my or any other talk so that we all can keep track. Please edit this proposal and co-sign, if you agree. Thanks! --Irpen 22:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

(Please discuss at talk)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: "Games with names" proposal

Why not consistently use a place's current name? (Variants can still be given parenthetically at the name's first occurrence in the article.) Ancestors who used a different name or different version of the name are increasingly unlikely to object, as time passes (and they pass away). logologist 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not about which name to use (mostly we use current names). This is about what names to list and how in the very first sentence of the article. When the placename is introduced, sometimes a name in other language is given next to it. The problem is that it often gets too crowded and cluttered and we get silly fights with adding, removing or even reordering(!) names. Please check the example I was referring to. All this particular edit did was switched the order of Polish and Russian name for a city in Ukraine. We cannot prevent this from happening. But at least if we accept the rule, that such edits have to come with some other useful additions/improvements, we will get something useful from this. In the previous edit war about Kijow in the first line of Kiev (not the short war from yesterday, but really a hotter one some months ago), this war raging and there was lots of bad blood. It ended very well, though, when Piotrus simply wrote a couple of sentences for the History section about the time of PLC, and introduced Kijow Voivodship in the text. No one objected, BTW. So, this rule will hopefully encourage such edits rather than recent important additions and rearrangements in Kamianets-Podilskyi. --Irpen 03:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following: in the article, mention all alternative names in language alphabetic order in the lead (so, for example, Bielorusian first, then Polish, then Russian, then Ukrainian). Try to use the English name where possible (i.e. when there is a consensus - like with Moscow, Warsaw or Kiev) - this would also be according with Wikipedia:Use English policy. Now, when English name is rarely used and there are similar number of Google hits for two or more competing names, I suggest we do the following: use the name of the country given city belonged to/preson had a nationality of in the contemporary timeframe (like was done with Gdańsk/Danzig dillema, see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) and also mind context (so when reffering to an article from History of Poland series, always mention Polish name in parenthesis, when from History of Ukraine, always mention Ukrainian one in parenthesis, etc.). If somebody feels that other spellings should be used, let them add them in parenthesis, again in the alphabetical order. How does that sound? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think these are all good ideas and we are moving in the right direction. But lets separate the issues. I was mainly talking about how we introduce the name of the city in the first line of the article about the city itself. Often, there are names relevant enough to be there just next to the main name (chosen in accordance with the policy). The best example is Lviv. The Polish name, inserted in the very first line, next to the currently most conventional Ukrainian, is warranted. The problem is where to draw the line in what and how relevant other names have to be in order to be mentioned not just within text but in the first sentence. This threshold is somewhere between Lwiw and Kijow (as I said Kijow is also warranted in the article in the context but not in the first sentence).
My feeling is that a whole bunch of names in the very first sentence causes clutter and, if possible, it is best to have a separate etymology section, just one or two paragraphs down. That's exactly what I did for Kamianets-Podilskyi. Not all editors found this satisfactory. Polish name is already back in the first line (see edit history), and I expect the Russian name will soon follow (see talk there). However, this time, I am talking not about the general policy with names yet, but about the common sense tradition which applies to the first line of the article only. The ethics rule I propose is that inserting/moving names in the first line requires to bring some meaningful (even minimal) improvements to the article in something else too. Please reread my original proposal. I just want to motivate editors to do something for the article if they care about it enough to play with names. As for the essence of Piotr's response, I fully agree, but this is a subject of a related but different discussion. Regards, --Irpen 19:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Please note that History of Kiev is now a separate article and Kijow Voivodship is mentioned there in the context. So, no one really cut Kijow from Kiev, it just moved with the History of Kiev where it undoubtedly belongs. --Irpen 19:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered setting up a nomenclature box listing variants of a name? logologist 15:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we can consider lots of things, but, again, this is a separate issue for now. Whatever we do, there will be editors willing to challenge names and their order. My consern for now is to request that editors not to do things like [1], [2], [3], [4], or [5] without doing something else for an article too. Please see above. Thanks! --Irpen 07:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that historic-names order becomes practically irrelevant, once they've all been banished to a nomenclature box. I wouldn't connect name-tinkering to substantive article contributions (which I've just made to Kamianets-Podilskyi).

By the way, how do you see the arguments for "Kiev" vs. "Kyiv"? logologist 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvement to K.-P. article. I would not consider name tinkering to be a substantive contribution either and the substantive contributions are what we really need. It just want to encourage users to make them. It's just common sense. If one cares so much about the topic, that it even matters, which name goes first and which goes second, do something for an article you care about so much!
Thanks for your interest in my view on Kiev/Kyiv. Please take a look at discussions that include my responces at Talk:Kiev/Archive02 and references thereof. Feel free to contact me for more. Regards, --Irpen 03:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Dear, Irpen. Before trying establishing new conventions, rules, etc. read the existing policies carefully and follow them (what you do not do as I pointed you out many times). Concerning the problems you're addressing here: this problem is solved by the exiting policies and gaidelines. And it's solved exactly as proposes Piotrus: use the local (or rather the most close to the local) name in the title of the main article, unless there is well known English name (like Kiev, Moscow, Odessa etc.). Then list alternative names at the begining of the article and make redirects with all alternative names. That's all. Why does not it work? Because you and like-minded users do not follow this simmple guidelines trying to insert Russian-styled names where they do not belong to. Just stop doing it and you'll avoid name-related edit wars.
Concerning the names in different languages. I find it extremely usefull to have them listed at the beginning of the article. It even not a matter of someone's "national pride". This is a matter of convenience. This is the principle of Wikipedia that anybody can add any usefull and corect information. Why do you remove it? Why do you spoil the articles?
This is the principle of Wikipedia that anyone can edit articles whether it is major edits or a small tipo correction. Please do not try to establish your own rules on the top of Wikipedia official policy. This is contrproductive.
What I'll do now,I'll put back the Polish names of Kiev and Chernihiv and I'll see Ghirlandajo blaming me for "Polish Nationalism" ;) --AndriyK 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to establish new conventions. I proposed that several users take a volunteer pledge that will help develop articles faster. You proposal would end up with dozens of names for every city and would make articles look ugly. Additionally, there will be edit warring for the order of the names (should Polish name preceed the Russian on or follow it?).

Right now, if someone adds Polish name to Kiev, someone else will add Lithuanian name, someone else a German name, Greek, etc. This would be just clutter. The name in the first line should only be the name that may be found in English usage, Lwow is an example. The name in the text may be any name that is appropriate in the context, like Kijow Voivodship. In your particular example, if you return the Polish name in the first line of the Kiev and Chernihiv articles, there may be two consequences: it will either be reverted (and if not by me, than by someone else, because there was a consensus, see talk), or someone would add Varshava to Warsaw's first line to make a WP:Point, also only to see it removed. --Irpen 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your privat opinion, I do not care about.--AndriyK 23:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic mythology

copied from Polish NB

Honestly, I don't know who writes most of this (well, anons do), but I have nominated some of this stuff to VfD previously. See especially the Polish_mythology#Slavic_and_Polish_folk_magic and Special:Whatlinkshere/Polish_mythology. There is so much strange stuff there that I don't know what we should do - some of it may be legitimate, some may be bogus - not my area of expertise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I previously attempted to draw attention to these totally unreferenced articles with bogus content. There is little data on Slavic gods, almost all of it derived from Vladimir's pantheon as described in Primary Chronicle, therefore detailed descriptions of their worship are most likely forged by Slavic neo-Pagans. Lada and Lado, for instance, are obviously pseudo-gods. --Ghirlandajo 15:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
So should we do something, or let it be?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Belarus

Input from other editors is needed to stop what increasingly looks like a revert war.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with translations

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. Baltic languages includes Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Polish. Thanks, --Soman 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alternative words for Germans

Do East Slavic language have alternative words for Germans, as in slang? If so please add them, with a small explanation and perhaps translation at the following article: Alternative words for Germans. Thanks in advance, Rex 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] appeal to civic-minded East European Wikipedians re: 1956

Hi guys, A bunch of Hungarian Wikipedians are trying to get the article about our 1956 Hungarian Revolution to win on the Article Creation and Improvement drive (shortcut: WP:AID) so it can get all cleaned up and imprroved and ready for featured article status on the anniversary, Oct. 23. The thing is, we need votes! My co-conspirator Istvan originally wanted to appeal specifically to the Czech Wikipedians and form a Czech-Magyar alliance (they help us with 1956, in return we help them with Prague Spring...) but I couldn't find any specific Czech noticeboard. :) So I guess there's no harm in casting a wider net! We would greatly appreciate your votes and assistance, in return we will glady help you on any similar matters regarding Solidarnosc, Orange revolution, Prague Spring, 1905 revolution or anything else you'd need a hand with. Na zdorovie/Na zdrave/Na zdrowie! :) K. Lastochka 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7796 Járacimrman

Please note that asteroid 7796 Járacimrman has been proposed to be renamed to 7796 Jaracimrman, dropping the diacritic mark for the Czech personage Jára Cimrman. 132.205.93.148 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakhva

  • Found recently on a Belarus government website:

    29 April 2004, the regular session of the Heraldry Council under the President of the Republic of Belarus considered designs for 10 coat-of-arms of various administrative localities of Belarus. Nine of them were approved by heraldry specialists - the coat-of-arms and the flag for the town of Osipovichi, as well as flags and coat-of-arms for eight villages of Luninets District (Bostyn, Bogdanovka, Bolshye Chuchevichi, Vulka2, Dyatlovichi, Kazhan-Gorodok, Lakhva, Redigerovo).

    Anyone who can assist with finding the Lakhva coat of arms, the help would be much appreciated. Skeezix1000 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, liberally defined, are placed on general probation and parole

This interesting phrase is one of the remedies under consideration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision. I believe many editors would find it interesting.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Slavic WikiProject

Hello West Slavic editors, I am notifying any Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and Sorbs that I have proposed a a West Slavic WikiProject to foster co-operation and a fair representation of our interests here on Wikipedia, so if you're interested voice your support. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Median Europe

A newly created article on Median Europe is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Median_Europe proposed for deletion} - comments appreciated. Pundit|utter 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)