Talk:Katowice: Difference between revisions

Warning/request

Please stop playing with reverts over such minor details. Discuss it here and reach a consensus or in a week I will ask this page to be protected and other Wiki mediation procedures are started.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the discussion you can find here and here. As Gzornenplatz does not accept the german goverment, the Duden, the use in the German press, the homepage of the city, the Wikipedia on pl or de and even the embassy of Poland as proof there is no way to convince him; you might read the discussion itself on this pages ...Sicherlich 16:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, in that case since we have a rather clear problem, has anybody tried to start vandal-related procedures? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm more active on .de so I'm not to much into the procedure on en --> I just know the mentioned discussions, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily and the blocking of Gzornenplatz by Jimbo ...Sicherlich 18:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit war

As the edit war is not stopping. Here is what is going and will happen if you don't stop: Regardless of whether or not the activity should properly be called an "edit war", most users consider sustained episodes of animated cut-and-thrust editing to be undesirable, and if they observe it happening and cannot talk the parties out of it or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process, they may request protection of the article to enforce a cool down period. Users who persist in this behaviour may be subject to, in severe cases, arbitration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you might check here for the discussion itself, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz for the request for arbitration and as well User talk:Jimbo Wales for the discussion Gzornenplatz had after he was blocked by Jimbo .. there are a some more pages e.g.: Talk:Gdansk and Talk:Pila to see the discussions...Sicherlich 09:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Read most of it. Lots of talk but little action, and I want those reverts to stop. Any idea how long will it take before something helpful is done here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i have no clue .. at the german wikipedia edit wars like this are handled with less bureaucracy and Gzornenplatz was blocked there several times .. at the moment for some weeks ...Sicherlich 17:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As promised, I have requested protection for this page for a cool down period (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). If it doesnt help, I will have to consider further and more direct actions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And honestly, wasting your time on former name or not...it is childish, all of you concerned. Toss a coin, agree on a result, and go do some constructive stuff I know you are all very capable off. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for temporary injunction

Please join my request for a temporary injunction regarding Gzornenplatz at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily#Request_for_temporary_injunction Fred Bauder 14:45, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

History synopsis

I wonder whether historical synopsis of Katowice is correct – e.g. “The area was owned by the Poles since the 10th century, being ruled by Silesian Piasts dynasty until partitions of Poland in 1795”. AFAIK, the Katowice region was annexed by Prussia after Wrocław (Breslau) Treaty, 1742 – that would indicate, that prior to that date it was not local Piast duchy, but integral part of Silesia (under direct Austrian rules).--MWeinz 11:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Names of districts

the most districts of katowice had never a German name, Why should they have it now? New European 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Katowice in news

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Trade_hall_collapse_in_Poland - at the moment, in top Google News stories too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Two pictures right at top of article

These are not appropriate right at the top.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Original name of the village

Source: [1] Space Cadet (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not "original" name. This one source is "zero". This is mistake, this name not exist. Katowice city never to be name "Kątowice". Never. Only you write this mistake down in Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to my sight as quite credible and objective, indeed one can easly say it is to a keen reader of Wikipedian resources quite a boon. Rarely one finds a sight of usefull additions to the article that extend the knowledge of etymology regarding settlements such as this particular one. I would consider it most unsettling to see such interesting info to be erased from this page entry. Best regards.--Molobo (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Katowice is city, not village
2. This page [2] (virtual cosmos etc) is not reliable source
3. In books (etc) - name "Katowice" is as village and city, in books has not name "Kątowice"

LUCPOL (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please write more clearly. Third point is not understandable. As to village/city, Katowice was a village once just like most of the towns and cities.--Molobo (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

4. This one source write: "Znane od 1598 jako wieś (Kątowicze)", not write "oryginalna nazwa "Kątowice". In article be written about "original" name - hoax. LUCPOL (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ekhem ? Could you write this in a way it can be understood ? Your current sentence is completely ungrammatical and I can't make sense of it.--Molobo (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

re 3. Template:Pl icon W książkach (o Katowicach) zarowno o wsi i mieście nie występuje nazwa "Kątowice"

re 4. Template:Pl icon Do artykułu Katowice dopisano "Original Polish: Kątowicze" co jest hoaxem, nawet w tym nierzetelnym źródle pisze coś innego - "Znane od 1598 jako wieś (Kątowicze)", a nie "oryginalna nazwa "Kątowice". LUCPOL (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, write in English so others can understand what you want to tell.--Molobo (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote in English (higher) + additionally Polish. LUCPOL (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your English is very difficult to understand, also this is English Wikipedia, most users don't understand Polish so in public discussions it shouldn't be used.--Molobo (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Having had a quick google, I see there are many references to the first written mention being in 1598, but only a few give Kątowicze as the form used - the majority give Katowicze. Does anyone know of an authoritative source for this?--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Polska - Nowy leksykon geograficzny" Kwiatka i Lijewskiego. Space Cadet (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Which gives what? Kątowicze presumably? And what makes this more authoritative than all the other sources that give Katowicze? Maybe it was just a misprint.(I have a copy of "Dzieje Katowic" from Muzeum Historii Katowic, which gives Katowicze - of course that could be a misprint too, but this form does seem to be more popular on Google).--Kotniski (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Google hits are misspelled "Katowice", you realize. Space Cadet (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise that, but the precise quotation is given in various places as "nova villa Katowicze" (or in some versions "villa nova"). Search for that precise phrase and you'll get quite a lot of hits (none if you replace Katowicze here with Kątowicze). Of course this doesn't prove anything, since all the hits could originate from one erroneous source, but I'm still unconvinced by the "ą" version.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Kątowicze. It caused too much unnecessary BS. Space Cadet (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Katowice voting district

After Silesian plebiscite the city was included in Poland, because its overall votes were for Poland. Only the precise urban area voted for German, while the neighbouring Katowice suburbs and rural areas voted for Poland. The voting distrcit was composed of the city, rural areas and castle area(strange I know).--Molobo (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Ok, rephrased per agreement with LUCPOL(on his talk page).--Molobo (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

The graph on demographics in the article needs some tweaking. Is it correct that the population of the city in 1783 was 284 people? Anyway, the graph needs a better explanation as to what it is representing. Maybe a legend or something else to explain it. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pollution

Shouldn't this article mention the fact that Katowice is one of the most polluted cities in Europe? Rkarlsba (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it still? I thought it had been cleaned up a lot in the past few decades. There is a reference in the article to that. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

B-class review

Failed due to insufficient citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Urban/metro population

The numbers for Urban (2,746,000) and Metro (4,620,624) in the infobox are unreferenced. Can anybody provide refs? Otherwise we should remove them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

These numbers are inside of all wiki articles on cities within the upper silesian metropolis. The older data (from 2007) you can find here European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) on page 93. For newer we can ask in Wiki PL. See also Katowice urban area and Upper Silesian metropolitan area. --Beschu (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)