Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Silesian School of Iconography

Dear Poland experts: I was asked to check the article Silesian School of Iconography, which was recently added to the encyclopedia. I replied to the editor who added it, explaining the problem with the many promotional external links in the article, but I can't understand the references so I can't tell which facts are supported by independent published sources. It seems to me that the article needs to be trimmed of some promotional material in order to meet Wikipedia standards; can someone from this project (who maybe knows what iconography is) please take a look at it? Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for First Partition of Poland

First Partition of Poland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Dialect overhaul

I am working on a project to rework the articles about dialekty and gwary. I have a few proposals.

1. Currently it seems many of our articles are based on Nitsch's original classification. I propose we use the classification at dialektologia.uw.edu.pl as it's a combination of most modern analyses. We can probably mention these old classifications.
2. I propose we use the translation dialect group for dialekt and dialect for gwara. Alternatively, using dialect for dialect and subdialect for gwara, but this does not seem right to me. This would entail moving the articles via WP:RM (Although I propose ethnolect for Silesian.)
3. What would be a good agreed upon way to translate samogłoski jasne a pochylone? This is crucial for understanding Polish dialectology; this is also relevant for Middle Polish and Old Polish.
4. I propose we include explanations of major isoglosses and sound changes such as Masuration at Polish dialects as opposed to separate articles, making the separate articles redirects. This would allow us to mention these isoglosses at individual dialect articles while pointing to the main article. Vininn126 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Hi, first of all let be begin by thanking you for your contributions to the topic. However, if I may, I have reservations about how you are naming the articles. Specificly the fact that you translate word "dialekt" as "dialect groups" which on its own seems to be very much made up term, not used to categorise any other dialects of other languages. Subsequently, you are also naming "gwara", which should translate as "subdialect", as "dialects" instead. I also notices that when the Polish article is in plural, like "gwary chełmińsko-dobrzyńskie", you translate them as singular, in this case "Chełmno–Dobrzyń dialect". I personally think we should stick to already existing standars of translation, even if you personally find those terms not as descipitive as you would like. As such, I would petition of reverting "dialect groups" back to "dialects" (dialekty) and "dialects" to "subdialects" (gwary), and using plural names where Polish bibliography uses those. Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Dialect group is definitely not a made up term?

This standard does not make sense for Polish at all - dialekt is a group of dialects which have a few common features, namely whether they have final voicing between words and masuration. Anything else is specific to that region. Subdialect does not make sense for this at all. Vininn126 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda Also, as to the plural-singular distinction - this is because within Chełmno-Dobrzyń you can have a dialect particular to a singular village. Within the material cited, it's translated as gwara, not gwary. Vininn126 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vininn126. Hi, please notice that your link to "dialect group" got redirected to "dialect". Almost all aricles on Wikipedia use term dialect, not "dialect groups". I was able to find onlh a few articles about dialects in Slovenian that use term "dialect groups", but in that case it is direct translation of term "narečna skupina" instead of "govor" (dialect). In Polish, its dialects are refered to as "dialekty" not "grupy dialektowe/grupy dialektów" etc. I also doubt English sources use "dialect groups" instead of "dialects". As such, we should stick to what sources use, not what you think is "the most accurate term in accordance to your reaserch". Same with subdialects. Listen, I'm not here to argue if Polish linguistist got the categoristion of dialects right or wrong, becouse I'm not a Polish linguist. But I'm here to argue what's a proper translation in accordance to dictionary and current sources. If one day, majority of sources come to conclusions that "dialect groups" (grupy dialektowe) is a better term, and start using them, we will change names of articles on Wikipedia too. But for now, I'm still standing behind what I wrote above.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda A redirect is not indicative that a term is "made-up". The term "dialect group" may instead be explained within it, or seen otherwise. Within Polish linguistics, classifying them as sub-dialects/dialects as opposed to dialects/dialect groups does not make sense. Your literal translations also do not necessarily apply. I'm trying to explain this to you as someone deep within the Polish linguistic community, and I'm reporting to you what I've seen after having talked with Poles within the community as well. I'm not trying to be "smarter-than-you", just relate what I see as someone involved in the community. Vininn126 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not accusing you of acting "smarter than others" or anything. I'm just explaining why I disagree with your opinion and your idea. As I said, writing Wikipedia is about what sources say, not what you think sources should say instead. Also "I talked to bunch of people and they agreed" is not a proper justification to move tone of articles to new names. And no, article about dialects does not explain what "dialect group" is, or even really mentions it. Just so you know. Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda I understand. I still completely disagree - while I may have just "talked to a bunch of people" (current scholars in the field, I'll add) you have not. Googling "dialect group" brings up plenty of results, as well, it's not completely unjustified. I am beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current translation is what's best. Vininn126 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski

An editor has requested that Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski be moved to Wladimir Krzyzanowski, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)