Talk:Cieszyn Silesia

message: I suggest to merge Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia into this article, because both regions are practically identical. The differences between them can be described within the unified article. Jan.Kamenicek 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both regions are slightly different in geographical borders. Cieszyn Silesia is also a historical region, Euroregion is a modern, relatively fresh formed body aimed at preserving local culture and maintaining good transborder relations between both countries. Still I think it is no harm to have two separate articles. - Darwinek 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that merging the articles would allow to write one, more complex article on the topic, instead of two separate stubs. The Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia article will hardly ever leave the stub status. Jan.Kamenicek 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can leave the stub status, just look at PL Wiki where the article is not a stub already. - Darwinek 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am afraid that the Polish Wiki article is still a stub too, both according to its size and according to its official status (zalążek artykułu). I still think that one more complex article is better. Jan.Kamenicek 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks leaving both articles separate wouldn't harm anyone. This article could mention the other though. //Halibutt 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am glad that both people I invited to express their opinions accepted it and came to the discussion. However, let's stay at the core of the matter: nobody says that the current status harms anybody, I am asking, whether merging the articles into one would not improve things. Maybe it is only my personal preference, but I quite dislike searching through lots of stubs, instead of reading well written and elaborate articles, containing all important information on the topic. Jan.Kamenicek 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Czech forces were stopped by demand of Triple Entente, not because were  beaten by Poles. See Polish-Czechoslovak_border_conflicts, and  or . Or take a look here , or here , or F. Čapka: Dějiny zemí Koruny české v datech . See Peroutka, Budování státu 1, p. 383. 
On Czech side were 53 death, 7 MIA and 187 wounded, on Poland 92 death and 855 wounded soldiers (Lubomír Kubík, Těšínský konflikt, Votobia 2001, p. 57). So, numbers are clear. 
On other side, must be said, that Czech military action was against will of Entente. --Yopie 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear the whole invasion was against the will of the Entente but your wording is confusing. Czech forces WERE stopped by Polish ones in Skoczów, after the stalemate they were under pressure from Entente to stop the operations, so they stopped 'em. Polish forces were concentrated on Eastern problems and also decided to stop their operations. The end of war story. As for numbers, they do not matter. Just look at some battles of the Great Patriotic War and compare their numbers with the general victor of the war. -- Darwinek (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now is OK. Thanks for rewording. --Yopie 09:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Skoczov

message: - consensus is to leave the article at the current name. Neıl ☎ 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: Teschen is the name established in English for the whole historic pre-1918 region, see Duchy of Teschen. Using only the Polish name is not acceptable. -- Matthead  DisOuß   00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me remind you that the region fell into the Austrian hands in the 1653. Between 1290 and 1653 it was in the Polish or Bohemian kingdoms. Just for the reference that there probably were some other nations before 1918 ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you be favouring a Polish name if it would be "more established in English"? I guess, no. Besides, it is not more established than Cieszyn. - Darwinek (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I think that both variants Teschen/Cieszyn Silesia can be defended with plenty of arguments. I think, that if there is redirection established form Teschen Silesia to Cieszyn Silesia it is enough. By the way I would personaly prefere Teschen Silesia variant, it seems more neutral for me (not involving Czech/Polish controversy), more proper in English (German is more akin to it than Polish), but I am not insisting on renaming of the article. --Qasinka (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect is perhaps enough 

message: Quickfail due to insufficient inline reference density. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: "Cieszyn Silesia is also distinct for its dialect, the Cieszyn Silesian dialect, which differs from the Silesian dialect spoken in Upper Silesia. It is a distinct dialect with predominantly Polish influences; Czech and German influences are also strong."  So it is neither Polish nor Czech - what is it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There'se a separate article: Cieszyn Silesian dialect D_T_G (PL) 20:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  dialects of what?  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Śląsk Cieszyński.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion