Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive4

message: Dear Polish editors. Despite some of you initially voted keep at the VfD of the original Witkacy's Black Book, it seems to me (correct me if if I am wrong) that most people later realized that it was a bad idea and it's echo is still roaming at Hailibutt's RfA. 
I just want to bring to your attention a new implementation of the same idea by a short-tempered "Ukrainian patriot" fellow who went on crusade with "Russian imperialism in Wikipedia". User:AlexPU started a new black book at his talk page . I tried to talk to the guy politely about the issue (see ), but this was his responce. Since, he is unlikely to consider Poles to be supportes of Russian Imperialism maybe a word or two from moderate readers of this board would be useful. --Irpen 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen, I checked the links and if you insist I can add a comment there. However, I truly think it’s not a good idea. Your advice was very calm and thoughtful, and I cannot imagine anyone would do it better than you did. If he didn’t listen to you, it’s unlikely that he’ll listen to anyone else. Additionally, it seems that his emotions are so stirred at the moment that the more people will try to talk him out of the idea, the more he’ll stick to it. Also, if he’s stubborn, and probably he is, our comments may only make it harder for him to eventually step back from the idea in the future. I think it would be best to ignore it for now, and very likely he’ll just abandon the “Black Book” with time. It’s quite low on his talk page, so if there is no interest in it, he may just move it to archive soon. It’s certainly not the first BB on Wiki nor the last one. I for one found myself recently on HKT’s sockpuppet’s list and only laughed. (no, I didn’t offend anyone, I tried to mediate, lol) Anyhow, it seems that he’s a new user and have to learn his lesson on his own. Please, think about it and let me know what you prefer. --SylwiaS 21:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sylvia, He is not a new user, he is an experienced user that returned from several months Wikibreak. On the other hand, from my past experience with him, he is just short-tempered but not foul-tempered. Therefore, calm persuasions from the Polish editors, who cannot be possibly allies of the Russian Imperialists (he included me in the latter) may actually help to convince him. Personally, I don't care about being in any of such stupid lists and I think I have almost made it to the Witkacy's one at that time. But if he can be convinced to abandon this inflammatory idea, the Wikipedia project might gain some civility. --Irpen 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll think of something tomorrow. Maybe others will too. :) --SylwiaS 00:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I left my comment there. However, I am quite appalled with the remarks made by Ghirlandajo on people of various nationalities. I want to assume good faith, so I'll presume that he didn't know how offending they are. But, since now I feel offended myself, I hope he can realise his mistake and offer us suitable apologies. --SylwiaS 00:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I don't know why this should be discussed on the Polish notice-board. Secondly, I believe it took our Halychyan friend about a month to wade through my 15,800 edits to pick up these particular comments. If such is the case, he would oblige us by citing particular edits which occasioned them. Then, it would be easy to see that most were addressed to a gang of cronies who were the first to call me, Irpen, Mikkalai, Ezhiki, and others "Russian mafia" both within wiki and on external sites. We have just filed an arbitration procedure against them, so everyone is welcome to comment on the appropriate page. --Ghirlandajo 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, I had already assumed that your responses were due to other provocations, however, I still don’t think that they were justified. Incivility of others doesn’t excuse our behaviour, does it? I am Polish, and so your remarks refer to me as well as to the others. Are they deserved? I hope I haven’t done anything to offend you. I am sure that an arbitration procedure is a proper action, however, I am sorry that it could not have been undertaken before expressing opinions which affect all the Poles. If you didn’t mean a general offence, I think you shouldn’t have a problem with offering us your apologies. --SylwiaS 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I don't defend incivility. I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong, but I remind that the comments were addressed to extreme POV-pushers whose disruptive behaviour has been subjected to arbitration procedures. --Ghirlandajo 12:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Could you give me a link to the arbitration page, so that I could comment there? --SylwiaS 13:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Black Book

message: I'd very much like to read "Zbiegostwo ludności Rosji w granice Rzeczypospolitej" from 2004 issue(got that one through off-wiki friend), and their entire 5-part series "Moje spotkania z polskimi inżynierami wojskowymi XVII" - but I cannot get them in US. So if somebody would happen to have the possibility to 'lend online' those articles, I'd appreciate it very much. Note that some of the older articles from Pro Memoria are online, including the 2nd part of the "Moje spotkania..." about "Fryderyk Getkant".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody has access to Pro Memoria and a scanner? 

message: I’ve found an article about economics in pre-war Poland. It’s mostly one-sided opinion, still it provides some information, so I though it might be an interesting read. Here it is 1--SylwiaS 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to incorporate it to Second_Polish_Republic#Economy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics in pre-war Poland 

message: We have quite a few articles dealing with the question of Polish border change after IIWW and they often cover similar events - I'd go as far as to say some of them are nothing but POV forks. Here are some of the related articles - I probably have missed some: Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Potsdam Agreement, Historical Eastern Germany, Human_migration#World_War_II_and_post-World_War_II_Migrations, Oder-Neisse line, Recovered Territories, Revision of borders of Poland (1945), Soviet occupation zone, Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, Treaty of Zgorzelec, Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany. We should fix that - I think most of them should be merged, and all should be categorized (perhaps :Category:Polish-German border issue, or just :Category:Polish borders) and/or linked from a signle template. Similarly, it would be useful to review articles dealing with Polish eastern border.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also (seemingly) redundant articles at Lubusz Land, Neumark (region), and East Brandenburg. Olessi 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Halibutt has made a pretty template at :Template:Polish borders. I think we can use it together with article Territorial changes of Poland after World War II and a new category :Category:Territorial changes of Poland after World War II to sort this mess out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy in Polish/German border articles 

message: See my proposal at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming. Time to end the rule of the 'lauses'. I was kind of suprised, but it may be that translating the nickname is actually the good idea (i.e. 'the Brave' may be better then 'Chrobry' - see my analysis at Talk:Boleslaus_I_of_Poland#Move. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did two more counts: for Talk:Casimir I of Poland and Talk:Boleslaus II of Poland. I'd appreciate help with this - if somebody could start counting from 'bottom up', for example? In addition to giving us data to back up the move, this also generates list of redirects we need to make. This raises another issue: redirects are very useful, especially as Britannica, Columbia, Catholic Encyclopedia and other sources often use strange, latinized or anglicized versions (like Peter Skarga instead of Piotr Skarga, or Johannes Alasco for Jan Łaski - so listing all possible redirects and the creating them makes the job easier for guys at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, who can cross out some of them from their list (not to mention it avoids creating duplicate articles and such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree with the mass moving of articles to Polish spelling, instead of maintaining the Wikipedia policy of keeping "most common English usage" of a name.  This hidden discussion at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming did not generate a clear consensus, and proceeded despite clear opposition. The name changes should be reverted.  Elonka 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another mess - names of Polish monarchs 

message: FYI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Leaving_Vienna]] 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belarus
Zerknijcie na tą stronę, pewien rosyjski wikipedian wprowadza dość kontrowersyjne zmiany w historii z okresu Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodów-w rodzaju "ciężkie prześladowania prawosławnych chłopów przez polskich overlordów", "represjonowana ludność prosi o pomoc cara w Rosji, który broni ich przed Polską" itd.
--Molobo 12:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to translate this gibberish? --Ghirlandajo 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, it's Polish, not gibberish.  It's possible to ask the question without being insolent. Appleseed 14:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post comments in Polish to pl.wiki. This project is not a proper place for Polish-language disputes. --Ghirlandajo 14:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Teraz Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów stała się Polish Empire ;)
--Molobo 13:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure who really went out of control there. You forget to mention that it was you, Halibutt, Molobo, and Lysy who ganged up against me yesterday on the article. It seems like yesterday's disgusting persecution and revert warring was instigated by Molobo when he started wooing revert warriors via the one's own nationality's noticeboard (see above). Halibutt, as usual, was not far way, encouraging Molobo to "feel free to add your 2 cents there" and starting to compose a new black list. As if these five vs. one were not enough, now you are here to recruit more supporters. Kuban Kazak never resorted to such dirty tricks. I've been waiting for your apologies for yesterday's slurs but now it's getting clear to me that it's beneath your dignity to apologise. --Stupid Katsap 17:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I won't go into that besides KK nobody else is supporting your view, since 6 users is not realy a representative sample. I am however suprised by your demand for apology - please show me where have I offended you? On the other hand that page (talk and summaries) contain dozens of your personal attacks about Poles in general and Halibutt in specific, and you don't deem it necessary to reply to his well deserved apology demand.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, a gang of Polish users recruited by one of them at their national notice board are hardly representative of "community's opinion", contrary to your yesterday's assumptions. If there is noone on my side, it's only because I don't deem it worthwhile to post similar announcements on the Russian noticeboard and to recruit people for revert warring, like you do. As for Halibutt's perennial offense - what I should apologise for - for his calling me "vodka pisser", "vodka drinker", or for his starting a black book slandering me? Please specify. --Stupid Katsap and Vodka Pisser 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're mistaken here. Firstly, History of Belarus was on my watchlist, so I didn't have to "be recruited" to notice your POV edits there. Secondly, you have posted an "urgent" announcement complaining on a "gang of Poles" on Russian notice board and I think you should remember this. Myself, I'm not a member of any gang for your information. Finally, it is not true that Halibutt called you a vodka pisser and it's not getting any more true just because you're constantly whining about this. --Lysy (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I posted my announcement a day after Molobo's and hours after you had placed your slur on the Adminsitrators' noticeboard, but thenI  retracted it within several hours, not wishing to drag Russian users into this silly warring, as I termed it then. Secondly, Vodka pissers was a libel applied by Halibutt to Russians in the conversation with me as a Russian, hence the offense was addressed to myself. He already had issues with a similar oblique anti-Russian comment in the past, see his RfA for that. So far, he haven't apologised neither for the first insult nor for the second one. --Stupid Katsap 11:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Belarus

message: http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf
National Identities, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001
Historiography and National Identity among
the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New
Framework1
TARAS KUZIO, York University, Toronto, Canada
Abstract The article surveys Tsarist, Soviet and Western historiography of Russia and how this affected the national identities and inter-ethnic relations among the three eastern Slavs.
Western historiography of Russia largely utilised an imperialist and statist historiographical
framework created within the Tsarist empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Although this framework was imperialist it was gradually accepted as ‘objective’ by the
Western scholarly community. Yet, this historiography was far from being ‘objective’. After
1934 Soviet historiography also reverted to the majority of the tenets found in Tsarist
historiography. Within Tsarist, Western and Soviet historiographies of ‘Russia’ eastern Slavic
history was nationalised on behalf of the Russian nation which served to either ignore or deny
a separate history and identity for Ukrainians and Belarusians. In the post-Soviet era all 15
Soviet successor states are undertaking nation and state building projects which utilise history
and myths to inculcate new national identities. The continued utilisation of the Tsarist,
Western and Soviet imperial and statist historiographical schema is no longer tenable and
serves to undermine civic nation building in the Russian Federation. This article argues in
favour of a new, non-imperial framework for histories of ‘Russia’ territorially based upon the
Russian Federation and inclusive of all of its citizens.
*I recommend all contributors interested in topics related to our joint history on  reading this interesting paper.
--Molobo 12:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful source when debating issues related to Eastern European history

message: Does anybody know if it is possible to make links to googleprint pages ?
--Molobo 18:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific pages? I am not sure. You can always link the book and give the page number in a comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GooglePrint

message: Here’s an interesting survey Auschwitz in consciousness of Poles. I thought that we might add some of the data to one of articles referring to the subject. E.g. 11% of adult Poles had a relative imprisoned in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and 5% had a relative who died there. Any ideas?--SylwiaS 20:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auschwitz in consciousness of Poles 

message: Guys, can you please take a look at Reichskommissariat Ostland, because I can't handle it no more. I tried to fix it but this puzzle is too complicated for my spaced out brain. Thanks. Kosmak aka ET aka Space Cadet 13:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I solved this puzzle, judging from the contributions of the author. A while ago an anon started pumping into wikipedia non-decypherable texts about Imperial Japan of 1930s-1940s. It turned out that he is translating some obscure Japanese book. I guess he is doing here exactly the same, getting himself a name. Sprechen sie Japanglisch? Czy panowie rozumia Engrish? :-) mikka (t) 05:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wymiękam! 

message: Interesting proposal. Worth following if you want to make sure that the rule deciding 'what nationality this person is' is a good one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Ethno-cultural labels in biographies]] 

message: Article needs a serious upgrade. Balcer 18:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[August Cardinal Hlond]] 

message: There is ongoing revert war on article on Poles where it seems the number of Polish people is being disputed with some author using 1971 cenzus numbers as reference and claiming there are less then 10.000 Poles in Britain.Perhaps somebody should take a look ?
--Molobo 12:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war on Poles

message: Hello! Among articles in Polish that appear here rather regularly :) -- there is one, Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz, which is currently listed on Pages needing translation into English (usually it's there for about two weeks).  Perhaps somebody would be interested and translate it.  Thanks, and cheers! - Introvert talk 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz]] - translation requested  

message: After reading this news, I conceived the idea of starting an article on Polish gulag in order to enlarge on the peculiar Polish understanding of human rights. I request everyone interested in the project to help me with materials. Otherwise, I'll have no other option but to use scanty stuff available from Russian sources. Sincerely, Ghirlandajo 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Gulag is the right term for this. CIA secret prison in Poland or sth like this may be better. However the article barely mentions anything except that such a camp might have been localized in Poland - speculation not worthy of a stub, but you may want to expand CIA secret prisons article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that CIA prison system would be the better choice of article since it already covers the Romanian location. Chelman 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanian base is claimed was not used for detention. mikka (t) 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In this case, Katyn Massacre should be merged with Gulag. --Ghirlandajo 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I don't follow your reasoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His reasoning is that if there is much to write about a topic, it deserves a separate article. mikka (t) 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would suggest to wait a bit until the facts are better established and verified. Right now this would qualify for a Wikinews article rather than for wikipedia. If such article is created in the future its title should reflect the official name of the detention centre. --Lysy (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means.  Credit where credit is due!   logologist 05:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polish gulag]] 

message: I have created an article on this subject, but now I think that the 'in Italy' description is not correct. Although Dąbrowski's Legion was created in Italy (and eventually the above should redirect into it), the article as it is now (and as it is linked from most other articles) refers to a larger phenomenon: Polish Legions of Napoleon, perhaps, would be a better name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Napoleon's Polish Legions"?  logologist 03:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polish Legions in Italy]] 

message: Please take a look at :Category:Wikipedia new articles. mikka (t) 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have the Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/to do but few people seem to use it :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've started Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements. Let's see how useful this is going to be. --Lysy (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles list 

message: Could someone, wiser than I am in 19th century Polish history, have a look at Antoni Patek article and comment/expand/rewrite information about “unfavourable decree issued by French government” in Antoni_Patek#Early_life, and “meeting of Dozór Polski in Frankfurt am Main” in Antoni_Patek#Patek.27s_political_life? Also, a Polish source says about evacuation of Polish soldiers after November Uprising organised by Józef Bem, while a French one says about Józef Berri; I left Bem. Is it correct?--SylwiaS 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patek and history of Poland 

message: It seems that we all should add ourselves to this category :Category:Wikipedians in Poland. Only 22 users listed so far.--SylwiaS | talk 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure--SylwiaS | talk 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd say no - it seems like it's about geographical location, not nationality. There seem to be nationality cat. All things consider, this is mostly trivia - only Wikipedia:Babel is really useful. Not that anybody who has seen my userpage would accuse me of being against trivia :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians in Poland 

message: I am sure, many of yours were offended by User:Ghirlandajo. Now his behavior is being considered by Arbitration Committee. Although the case was entitled as "Community vs. AndriyK", all involved parties are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute. In particular,  Rudeness and personal attacks by Ghirlandajo will be considered. You can help by adding Evidence on the special page. Anyone (not only involved parties) may add evidence to this page. Please pay attention that the evidence should be presented in special format. You may also add your comments on the workshop page.--AndriyK 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that my earlier today's edit in AndriyK's RfA triggered the this announcement. While I've had many unpleasant encounters with Ghirlandajo myself, I don't think we need any widening of the antagonism here, and especially do not appreciate the personal tone of the above announcement. I also do not think this is a "Poles vs. Ghirlanadajo" conflict, regardless of how he depicts it. I have seen Ghirlanadajo demonstrating similar rude behaviour against non-Polish (e.g. Lithuanian or Ukrainian) editors as well. As for AndriyK, I think he should try to behave civil and respect other editors, regardless of their point of view. --Lysy (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my announcement was not triggered by your edits. The reson was, as I explained above, the reason was that the Arbitration Committee is considering the Rudeness and personal attacks by Ghirlandajo. I do not think that anybody here was pleased by comments like this one. So I invited everybody (not only you) to provide the Arbitration Committee with more information. Unfortunately, I cannot find Lithuanian (Latvian etc.) notice board.--AndriyK 11:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Ghirlandajo 

message: Kolejne działania pana Ghirlanadajo, tym razem wykasowuje informacje o tym iż Katyn jest kwestionowany przez pewnych autorów z tekstu o Holocaust Denial, sugerując przy tym że oczywiście nie było to ludobójstwo
--Molobo 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo, you again forget that this is not pl.wiki. Please speak English. Your blind revert wars lead to nowhere. --Ghirlandajo 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirlandajo, perhaps you have a dual personality? Just a few days ago you yourself wrote that  the whole affair was forged by CIA propaganda. Don't you agree with yourself?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also want to mention that at this moment, in the article on the subject in Russian Wikipedia, the lead has been turned into a nasty piece of propaganda denying the facts of the massacre - ru:Катыньский инцидент.  Clearly this is not necessarily our concern, but if any users reading this page know Russian, they might want to take a look. Balcer 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Katyn

message: A user showed up that changes civilians murdered in Wola massarce to "execution of the rebels".
I don't want to break 3RR so I am asking for assistance in this matter.
--Molobo 22:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wola

message: Should it be renamed partitions of the PLC? Please comment there. It is not as bad idea as I have thought at first. Your comments would be much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Books overwhelmingly favours Partitions of Poland over Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  (190 books vs :4 books). That settles the question for me. Balcer 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am at the moment abstaining. And please comment (or copy your comments) there. PS. I did the calculation and got the same results :) Nonetheless, Irpen makes an interesting case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with Balcer.  This attempt to rename the article appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Appleseed 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever gets to vote there, please read the discussion carefully. We can think it over thoroughly and only then get to voting. Listing at WP:RM was premature since it will bring in people who have little idea of the complexity of the issue. The current misleading WP:RM summary (see my explanation on why it is misleading), would make wiki-editors unaware of all compexities of the issue to vote fastly without getting into it. I say, either withdraw the WP:RM listing for now, or correct the misleading summary. No one is going to move the article without discussion and AndriyK isn't around these topics with his favorite irreversible move tricks . --Irpen 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting is in full swing and the five-day deadline is almost upon us, so cast your votes. Appleseed (Talk) 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Partitions of Poland]]

message: On Polish Wikipedia we are trying to decide on the most correct translation of terms describing the units of local government in the United States.  Any comments would be welcome.  See :pl:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt amerykańskie miejscowości i podział terytorialny. Balcer 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with correct translation

message: You maybe interested in checking the recent history of List of Poles and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote who thinks that e.g. Artur Rubinstein was not a Pole.--SylwiaS | talk 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Poles and RfC 

message: Are the wives of the overlords/Dukes of Kraków during the period fragmentation considered queens consort?  For example, Agnes of Babenberg. Appleseed (Talk) 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are considered duchesses consort :) --Ghirlandajo 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Duchesses consort" appears to be a valid term, but it's not widely used.  Should I create a new Category:Polish duchesses consort, or just use Category:Polish queens consort?
Why not use plain "consort" in all cases?  It works for persons in all stations, male and female.  Both "Queen" and "Duchess" is superfluous in the expression.  logologist 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not talking about the text of the article--I'm trying to populate :Category:Polish queens consort. Appleseed (Talk) 01:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO Duchess and Queen are different terms and deserve separate cats. We have the same problem with :Category:Russian tsarinas. Neither Sophia Paleologue nor Elena Glinskaya fit into the category, although both might have been called tsarinas by foreign observers such as Herberstein. --Ghirlandajo 09:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queens consort 

message: What is the correct name of the Polish organization "Union of Sibiryaks", Polish deportees in Siberian Gulags? mikka (t) 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Polish ? Związek Sybiraków. --Lysy (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polish Sibiriyaks]] 

message: I've come across references in WP that say Henryk Walezy abdicated.  My understanding is that he never renounced the throne--formally or informally--but that he simply abandoned it.  Would you agreed that "abandoned the throne" is a better term? Appleseed (Talk) 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Space Cadet 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walezy 

message: After several weeks of inactivity, this has became a hot and somewhat controversial topic. More opinions welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs]] revisited 

message: The article is in a wretched condition. Please do something to improve. --Ghirla | talk 10:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Potocki]] 

message: Incidentally, in the article Warsaw uprising an editor had taken the liberty earlier of being *NPOV* enough to call the fighters in the Warsaw Uprising as "heroes". Yes, it was our friend Witkacy. Nice to see your influences.
Jak widać na Wiki nazwanie Powstańców Warszawskich bohaterami to już ciężkie przewinienie...
Miłe...Ciągle da się odkryć coś nowego...
--Molobo 01:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to translate? And maybe you'd like to present the whole quote. Sciurinæ 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, Molobo, could you tell me, apparently the accused, what you've written above? Or did you lose your memory of the English language too, the same way you lost your memory of your calls-for-justice-and-the-German-media sentence on talk:Anti- German sentiment? This is what people call defamation, and the way I know you and against the background of similar actions by you, on Lech Kaczyński and Anti-German sentiment, I doubt it is accidental. The reason why you chose to call for support here is not a compliment but an insult to those here, since the straight-forwardness of your POV-pushing in the said articles, which my statement indicated and the version history of those articles will never forget, implies that you believe the people here will put POV-pushing before constructive help for Wikipedia and support you rather than condemn your efforts. Sciurinæ 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sciurinæ thanks for your concern. Since you take time to enquire about me and engage in discussion. Could you be friendly enough to answer my questions posted to you long time ago about why you deleted information on Nazi atrocities in Poland ,or why you are  erasing information about Nuremberg Trial, could you also tell me why you believe mass murder of African people in one of the first genocide of XX century is irrelevent to history in your opinion? Thanks in advance. I would direct the conversation into my talk page, but you would probably protest.--Molobo 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the topic, eh? And to ensure that, personal attacks so I've to defend myself, thus further distracting from the issue. And not only that. As I read above, you were accused of demagogy. Good description, actually, of your attempts to woo people emotionally. Your three denouncements have nothing to do with my statement and are only to evade. Now to personally defend myself, the first (topic:Germanisation) was just a complete revert of your edits. The children-sentence was not the reason. You know that. And it was the only time I reverted this. Oh, surely you're not guilty of reverting entirely without considering whether some detail was true or not. When did you do it the last time? Yesterday. "Historic", "Commission", indirect speech. By the way, I did once comment myself on my "crime", but anyway you're eager to further use it as propaganda against me. So watch out, or in the end the "crime" can be used in certain contexts against you, Molobo. Second charge: my reverts against your insistance on the criticsm against ... I don't know who it was, only that you revert Alexbulg, who is on all account more reliable in terms of neutrality. If you can convince him, not revert him, that is fine by me. My third charge was actually answered by me on talk:Germany and I'm still convinced it is out of proportion and out of place in the context there, okee? Anyway, I need to end the comment: there's still a defamation to revert. Shame on you, the article Warsaw Uprising wants to go on being a featured article. Sciurinæ 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bez komentarza

message: Pojawił się nowy użytkownik który wprowadza kontrowersyjne zmiany do artykułów o Polskiej tematyce:
.
Komentarze dla przykładu:
Piotrus seems to be a polish extremist, his edits are propaganda pure and against any proofed historical fact and of course against any logic...
if you change that back to his version you support his propagandry... i am very familiar with this theme but i really have not the time to fight in ever articel dealing with polish history with this polish extremists who have a lot of energy and time to change every article back to their propaganda crap...
Ja na razie nie dotykam.
--Molobo 15:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nowy użytkownik

message: Hello, I would like to create a Wikipedia article about my great-great-great grandmother, the Polish author  Agnieszka Lipska Baranowska.  Unfortunately, the only source that I have been able to find is here, but it is in Polish.  Would someone from this community be willing to translate it for me?  Or could you direct me to where I can make a translation request?  Thank you.  Elonka 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume Babelfish et al. does it's usuall terrible job on Polish? I am sure we can help you with that :) Wikipedia:Translations is not that active, but may be a useful link for some other lanagues translations if you need them (German section is pretty good there).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  :)  I should also mention that she is on your  List of Poles, as is her grandson (my great-grandfather) Rodryg Dunin.  I look forward to seeing them added to the wikipedia!  Elonka 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agnieszka Baranowska - done. Merry XMAS (if a bit late).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll take it as a Christmas present, birthday present (12/29) and New Year's present all rolled into one.  Thank you!  I'm sending out an email to many of my Polish relatives (we were scattered by World War II to locations from the United States to Brazil to Australia) to let them know that there is now a biography that they can all read.  Dziękuję. :)  Elonka 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Translation - Agnieszka Lipska Baranowska 

message: As in the question. Which one should we use (I know in Polish it's Piotr, what about other Slavic languages?)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you check here Peter. There's no Pyotr btw. I think the Latin transcription should always be with "i" like Italian Pietro. BTW I like the Finnish Pekka :) --SylwiaS | talk 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Piotr or Pyotr

message: Attention from less involved parties, that is non-Romanians/non-Ukrainians is needed at Bukovina article where the argument goes around inclusion of well-referenced info. Please see article's recent talk and edit hisotry. --Irpen 06:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bukovina

message: The article on Alexander Suvorov claims the massacre of civilians in Warsaw is only alledged and contributors from Russia who added this(Fisenko and Ghirlandajo) have insisted on it claiming Poles claim it happend (as part of their nationalist mythology.
Comments proving or disproving such opinion are welcomed.
--Molobo 10:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided proper references. It worked in the Katyń 'denial' affair, it should work here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A small thing

message: Comments appreciated, I'd like to FAC this article soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Peer_review#Katyń_massacre]]

message: Przeglądnąc strone:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/january/january1/default.htm?homelink=docs
Są tam czasem interesujące informacje o Polsce i wydarzeniach historycznych.
--Molobo 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warto

message: While archiving the old messages I've read about Google books and gmail. It's very useful, indeed, but needs an invitation. If anyone doesn't have it yet, and would like to have, please let me know. I'll send the invitation.--SylwiaS | talk 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google books and gmail 

message: Is it finally decided how we should translate names like: powiat, województwo, gmina, osada itp.?--SylwiaS | talk 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a discussion about the terminology for those interested. Olessi 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography names 

message: Some editors insist that the attempted mass murder of  the Polish village of Koniuchy that resulted in death of at least 32 people including women and children be renamed from Koniuchy Massacre to Koniuchy Incident(Similar attempts have been made by the involved editors to rename Katyn Massacre into Incident)
Please state your view on this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koniuchy_massacre
--Molobo 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Koniuchy Massacre

message: I've nominated the article on Polish mathematician Marian Rejewski on Featured Article Candidates. Please add any comments/criticism/review to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marian Rejewski. — Matt Crypto 00:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome job, Matt, Logologist and others who have worked on this article!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marian Rejewski on FAC 

message: We have, as a subcategory of :Category:History of Poland, the :Category:People's Republic of Poland. I think we should add a category for each era of Poland (based on the :Template:Polish statehood. Similarly, we have as a subcategory of :Category:Polish people the :Category:Polish World War II people - we should create categories for other eras as well. Also, note that we have a :Category:Polish historical images, with a subcategory of :Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth historical images - again, relevant historical categories should be created and used. Corresponding Commons category is :commons:Category:History of Poland and :commons:Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (for obvious reasons there is no need to create image specific cats on commons :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I kind of like having a single "History of Poland" category.  I agree that it's cluttered, but right now it would benefit most from a proper categorization of all the biographical stubs.  For example, the category is full of stubs like this. Appleseed (Talk) 03:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for this we need subcategories. Butigeidis should be moved out of 'history of Poland' category, and into 'Kingdom of Poland people' or something like this category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the Polish categories could do with some cleanup.  I'm continually confused about which categories are available, and what should and shouldn't go in each category, and even when I do research on it, I'm always finding new categories that I was unaware of.  Would it be useful to make a master list category (like under :Category:Poland) that lists all categories that have anything to do with Poland?  Or should we work on making that category have only "gateway" categories that link to other more specific categories?   I'd also recommend that we add some description on some of the category pages that list what types of things should be in that category.  For example, Piotrus, I saw that you removed "History of Poland" from an article, with the comment that the category isn't for people, but there seem to be plenty of other people in that category.  Do we have documentation or consensus anywhere on how these categories are supposed to be used? Elonka 08:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto! I'm confused about the categories too. Well, to tell the truth I usually put whatever and wait for Piotr to change it. So making it clear would save Piotr a lot of time. :)--SylwiaS | talk 09:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are some rules at Wikipedia:Categories and related pages. The most important rule of thumb is to use only the most specific subcategories - this is why if we have a category that belongs to the category History of Poland, there is no need to stick history of Poland in addition to it. I admit, however, that from time to time I wish there was a Wiki option that would allow us to display articles and subcategories of lower level - but hopefully it is something that will be included in the future release of MediaWiki software. Definetly we should add descriptions to various categories - so feel free to do so with any category you are using. And soon, if nobody else wants to do it, I'll propose new categoroies to be created as described above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that people shouldn't be placed in the History of Poland category; it should be enough that they're in one or more of the "Polish people" subcategories.  And while we're on the subject, I think we should be conservative with creating "people" categories.  It makes sense to categorize a person by office (e.g. prime ministers, kanclerz), occupation (e.g. poets, queens consort), or achievement (saints, Nobel prize winners), but I think that wishy-washy, awkward categories like "Natives of the Lesser Poland Voivodship", "World War II people", "Polish patrons of arts" only serve to clutter up WP. Appleseed (Talk) 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  logologist|Talk 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If "Poland under Partitions (1795-1918)," without "History of," then why not "Poland during World War II"?  logologist|Talk 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I like the idea. And I agree with logologist that "Poland during World War II" would be good.  Or perhaps "Poland in World War II" or "Poland 1939-1945".  However, "Poland under partititions" is a bit vague for me.  Perhaps we should add the years to all the categories? like: :Category:Poland prehistory (pre-966), :Category:Kingdom of Poland (966-1569), :Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1795-1918), (etc.) That will make it more clear for people who are making a new article to tell which category they should use.  Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, so :Category:Poland during IIWW sounds quite good. Years would make them longer, so I'd vote against using years, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe adding the dates to cathegories' descriptions would solve the problem?--SylwiaS | talk 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd assumed that "IIWW" was a typo on your part, Piotrus.  The correct category name would be :Category:Poland during WWII, yes? Elonka 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Poland during World War II":  "In" suggests actual war-related activity, which may not always be the focus.  If "World War II" is abbreviated, clarity would require a space between "WW" and "II" — "WW II."  logologist|Talk 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this going to be a really large category?  If not, I'd suggest just incorporating it into "Poland prehistory".  Ditto with most of the others...  Since we're splitting out the history regions above, I think it would be appropriate to include an article about a person into the category of their era, rather than having a separate "people" category unless it really needs splitting out.  Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't expect this category to be too broad, I definetly don't think we should have only one category for things (events) and people. People should have their own, separate category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Borough," to a person not living in one, can be pretty archaic-sounding ("Rotten borough").  I like "district" (e.g., Warsaw's "Żoliborz district").  logologist|Talk 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to avoid conflict with other Wikipedia regional categories, shouldn't we add the word "Poland" or "Polish" to all of these?  Instead of :Category:Boroughs of Krakow, use :Category:Boroughs of Krakow, Poland. Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many cities in the world call their subdivisions "districts," e.g. Antwerp, Hong Kong, Vienna and cities in China and the United States.  logologist|Talk 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's worth keeping, for trains and planes and automobiles and factories and whatnot.  Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we decide if a man is from one category or another? I mean if someone lived and did important things in two periods. Do we add him to both?--SylwiaS | talk 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I second the idea.  logologist|Talk 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't really see how it would work. There are interlinks in articles that allow to find all the needed information about the period. Grouping people like that will be awkward. What a person who died in 1710 has to do with a person who was born in 1740? There are biographies in the articles that give all the needed information.--SylwiaS | talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To subdivide the History of Poland category, I propose we use the naming scheme from Template:History of Poland, which avoids the awkwardness and imprecision of the "statehood" naming scheme.
* :Category:Prehistory of Poland (until 966)
* :Category:History of Poland (966–1370)
* :Category:History of Poland (1370–1572)
* :Category:History of Poland (1572–1795)
* :Category:History of Poland (1795–1918)
* :Category:History of Poland (1918–1939)
* :Category:History of Poland (1939–1945)
* :Category:History of Poland (1945–1989)
* :Category:History of Poland (1989–present)
You'll notice that I made some changes to the years.  I believe the death of Kazimierz Wielki, and not the Union of Krewo, to be a better dividing point between PotP and PotJ.  Also, I prefer 1572, rather than 1569, as the divider between the PotJ and PLC.  However, I'm still not sure if 1989 or 1990 is the better year to divide between PRL and 3PR.  I plan to eventually adjust the dates in the exiting articles to match these changes.  What do you think? Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the categories are ok, but I'd like to keep dates the same as in the corresponding articles (for consistency). If you can make a good argument to changing the chronology scheme (again...) then I won't mind, but until this is done I'd suggest to keep the dates as they are today. Of course, in the case of 1569 vs 1572 there is no good answer so either we toss the coin or just forget about this and go with what we have now (because this is going to come again and again, year after a year...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish historical categories cleanup 

message: Proposed by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Poland under Partitions (1795-1918)," without "History of," then why not "Poland during World War II"?  logologist|Talk 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I like the idea. And I agree with logologist that "Poland during World War II" would be good.  Or perhaps "Poland in World War II" or "Poland 1939-1945".  However, "Poland under partititions" is a bit vague for me.  Perhaps we should add the years to all the categories? like: :Category:Poland prehistory (pre-966), :Category:Kingdom of Poland (966-1569), :Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1795-1918), (etc.) That will make it more clear for people who are making a new article to tell which category they should use.  Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, so :Category:Poland during IIWW sounds quite good. Years would make them longer, so I'd vote against using years, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe adding the dates to cathegories' descriptions would solve the problem?--SylwiaS | talk 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assumed that "IIWW" was a typo on your part, Piotrus.  The correct category name would be :Category:Poland during WWII, yes? Elonka 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Poland during World War II":  "In" suggests actual war-related activity, which may not always be the focus.  If "World War II" is abbreviated, clarity would require a space between "WW" and "II" — "WW II."  logologist|Talk 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this going to be a really large category?  If not, I'd suggest just incorporating it into "Poland prehistory".  Ditto with most of the others...  Since we're splitting out the history regions above, I think it would be appropriate to include an article about a person into the category of their era, rather than having a separate "people" category unless it really needs splitting out.  Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't expect this category to be too broad, I definetly don't think we should have only one category for things (events) and people. People should have their own, separate category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Borough," to a person not living in one, can be pretty archaic-sounding ("Rotten borough").  I like "district" (e.g., Warsaw's "Żoliborz district").  logologist|Talk 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to avoid conflict with other Wikipedia regional categories, shouldn't we add the word "Poland" or "Polish" to all of these?  Instead of :Category:Boroughs of Krakow, use :Category:Boroughs of Krakow, Poland. Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many cities in the world call their subdivisions "districts," e.g. Antwerp, Hong Kong, Vienna and cities in China and the United States.  logologist|Talk 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's worth keeping, for trains and planes and automobiles and factories and whatnot.  Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new categories 

message: * :Category:Polish Navy destroyers - empty Emax artifact, I deleted it, there is a larger cat of :Category:Destroyers of Poland anyway --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we decide if a man is from one category or another? I mean if someone lived and did important things in two periods. Do we add him to both?--SylwiaS | talk 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I second the idea.  logologist|Talk 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't really see how it would work. There are interlinks in articles that allow to find all the needed information about the period. Grouping people like that will be awkward. What a person who died in 1710 has to do with a person who was born in 1740? There are biographies in the articles that give all the needed information.--SylwiaS | talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To subdivide the History of Poland category, I propose we use the naming scheme from Template:History of Poland, which avoids the awkwardness and imprecision of the "statehood" naming scheme.
* :Category:Prehistory of Poland (until 966)
* :Category:History of Poland (966–1370)
* :Category:History of Poland (1370–1572)
* :Category:History of Poland (1572–1795)
* :Category:History of Poland (1795–1918)
* :Category:History of Poland (1918–1939)
* :Category:History of Poland (1939–1945)
* :Category:History of Poland (1945–1989)
* :Category:History of Poland (1989–present)
You'll notice that I made some changes to the years.  I believe the death of Kazimierz Wielki, and not the Union of Krewo, to be a better dividing point between PotP and PotJ.  Also, I prefer 1572, rather than 1569, as the divider between the PotJ and PLC.  However, I'm still not sure if 1989 or 1990 is the better year to divide between PRL and 3PR.  I plan to eventually adjust the dates in the exiting articles to match these changes.  What do you think? Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the categories are ok, but I'd like to keep dates the same as in the corresponding articles (for consistency). If you can make a good argument to changing the chronology scheme (again...) then I won't mind, but until this is done I'd suggest to keep the dates as they are today. Of course, in the case of 1569 vs 1572 there is no good answer so either we toss the coin or just forget about this and go with what we have now (because this is going to come again and again, year after a year...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category deletion / renaming