Wikipedia

Talk:Voivodeships of Poland: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Assessment: banner shell (Rater)
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiProject Polandbanner shell|class=BC|importancevital=yes|1=High}}
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 12
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Voivodeships of Poland/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index= }}
 
== 1816-1837 ==
 
A little known fact is that [[Congress Kingdom]] had voivodships from 1816 until 1837. I cannot find any precise information, but from what little I found it appears that each of those voivodships was based on a corresponding department of the Duchy of Warsaw (see [[Administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw]]), although since some of the Duchy territory was given to Prussia (and Austria?), some voivodships were probably smaller then the Departments. There were 10 departments (Warsaw, Poznań, Kalisz, Bydgoszcz, Płock, Łomża, Kraków, Lublin, Radom and Siedlce) but only 8 voivodeships (Augustów, Kalisz, Kraków, Lublin, Mazowsze, Płock, Podlesie, Siedlce and Sandomierz). Note that some of those capitals (like Kraków) where not in Congress Kingdom (which did not prevent their name to be used in title...). The reform also made more changes to the lower levels of administration, with the introduction of obwody (larger then powiats).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== "''[[Voivodeships of Poland|Voivodeship]]''" and "[[Province#Polities translated "province"|Province]]" ==
 
The [[Polish language|Polish]] term "''[[województwo]]''" really should be rendered on the English Wikipedia as "[[Province#Polities translated "province"|province]]." That is the most common English rendering for the major administrative divisions of most countries.
 
The only semi-rational justification that has been given for using the [[barbarism (linguistics)|barbarism]] "voivodeship" or "voivodship" (there is not even consensus on how to spell the word) instead of "province" is that, until the completion of the [[partitions of Poland|partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]] in 1795, the [[cognate]] Polish "''prowincyja''" (as it was then spelled) was [[idiosyncrasy|idiosyncratically]] used to designate several still greater divisions of the [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]]—[[Greater Poland]], [[Lesser Poland]], the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]], [[Royal Prussia]].
 
That is hardly a good reason to saddle a modern country with an "English" term as odd as "voivodeship," in preference over "province." A [[disambiguation]] is secured easily enough by rendering the 18th-century "''prowincyja''" into English as "[[Region]]." Thus "''województwo''" is "province" ("[[Lublin Province]]"), and "''prowincyja''" is "Region" ("[[Greater Poland]] Region")
 
The Polish "''prowincyja''" and the English "[[province]]" are what, in [[translation]] theory, are known as "[[false friends]]." The former, Polish expression should not be rendered into English as "province" but as "[[region]]." [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 
:Hardly false friends - these "prowincje" were the major administrative divisions of the country, so the very things you say ought to be called provinces. "Regions" would imply some vague geographical areas. Anyway, Voivod(e)ship is a commonly used translation of województwo in the outside world, so I don't see anything wrong with using it here.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::I beg to differ. The Wikipedia "''[[prowincja]]''" article specifically states:
::"A ''prowincja'' (Region), though larger than a [[voivodship|province]] (''[[województwo]]''), was less important in terms of offices and power. In most respects, a ''prowincja'' was merely a titular unit of administration; the real power lay with the [[voivodeship|province]]s (''[[województwo|województwa]]'')—and, to a lesser extent, with ''[[ziemia]]''s." [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:::That was probably written by an editor trying to make the point that you're making, so not a brilliant source to rely on. I suspect that real historians would call a prowincja a province, though I'm willing to be proved wrong (we know województwa were called voivodeships at least often enough for the word to make the OED).--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::::I think that an analogy for most of the Polish(-Lithuanian) "''[[prowincja|prowincje]]''," such as "[[Greater Poland]]," might be the [[United States|American]] geographical term "[[New England]]," which is a [[region]] but not a [[state (United States)|state]], [[province]] or other actual administrative unit.
::::The English "voivod(e)ship" was a [[neologism]] created in the 18th century by individuals who did not know what to make of "''[[województwo]]''," especially given the [[idiosyncratic]] Polish use of the word "''[[prowincja]]''."
::::More importantly, given that the word "''prowincja''" has ''had'' no native political use in Poland since 1795, what prevents calling a Polish "''[[województwo]]''" a "[[province]]"—as would be done in respect to most any other country in the present-day world? [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 20:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, not necessarily - Japan has prefectures, Russia has oblasts, Belarus has voblasts and so on. We tend to follow real-world usage, but with the bias of an encyclopedian towards being correct and accurate. With Poland, there's enough real-world usage to support both voivod(e)ship and province, but since the former is potentially more accurate (people who know the subject will always know unambiguously what's meant, regardless of the historical period(s) in question), we go with that. And although the spelling without the "e" is more common, we go with the "e" because that's what dictionaries say is good English. At least, that's how I see it - I wasn't around when these decisions were originally made. I would still use province or some such if the context didn't make it clear that a province-like thing is being referred to, though.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well, perhaps [[Japan]], [[Russia]] and [[Belarus]] will eventually support a change in the English rendering of their [[province]] entities and join those [[Province#Polities translated "province"|countries that translate them as "provinces."]] [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::Oh, according to the [[Province#Polities translated "province"|table in the "Province" article]], [[Belarus]] already does render its entities into English as "provinces." [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::And "[[Region]]" does not necessarily "imply some vague geographical areas." Witness [[Belgium]]'s [[Flemish Region]] and [[Walloon Region]]. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::For further examples, see also the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Region&oldid=353123066#Administrative_regions "Administrative regions"] sub-section of our entry on "Region". - Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 
Only now do I see this talk page and the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland/Archive2#Vote on Województwa / Voivodeship / Province|Vote on Województwa / Voivodeship / Province]] of March-July 2006. After a quick look, I found that:
*The CIA's ''World Factbook'' [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html entry on Poland] mentions (in its "Government" section): "Administrative divisions: 16 provinces", giving "(wojewodztwa, singular - wojewodztwo)" as local names.
*''Britannica'''s [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/466681 entry on Poland] mentions (in its "Local government" section): "The largest units, at the regional level, are the ''województwa'' (provinces), which were consolidated..." The same format is used in other articles.
*''The New York Times'' uses "province" ([http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&query=%22Katowice+Province%22&srchst=nyt&hdlquery=&bylquery=&daterange=full&mon1=01&day1=01&year1=1981&mon2=04&day2=13&year2=2010&submit.x=31&submit.y=13 "Katowice Province"] 16 times since 1981.), while "voivodship" was used [http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&daterange=period&query=voivodship&srchst=p&hdlquery=&bylquery=&mon1=09&day1=18&year1=1851&mon2=12&day2=31&year2=1980&submit.x=27&submit.y=9 4 times] before 1980 and [http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&daterange=period&query=voivodship&srchst=nyt&hdlquery=&bylquery=&mon1=09&day1=18&year1=1851&mon2=12&day2=31&year2=1980&submit.x=16&submit.y=5 3 times] since 1981. "Voivod'''e'''ship" doesn't return any results.
*The BBC provides no return for [http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&scope=all&q=voivodeship "voivodeship"] or [http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&scope=all&q=voivodship "voivodship"], but searching for [http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&scope=all&q=%22Polish+province%22 "Polish province"] is another story.
Perhaps requesting a page move to "Provinces of Poland" would be in order. - Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 
::Thank you, [[User:Ev|Ev]], for looking up these sources.
::Your [[BBC]] search cites 2 Polish provinces: "the Polish province of Malopolska" (in [[Polish language|Polish]], "''[[województwo małopolskie]]''" — which may be rendered into English as "[[Małopolska]] [[Province]]," or [[Lesser Poland]] [[Province]]); and "the Polish province of Dolnoslaski" (in Polish, "''[[województwo dolnośląskie]]''" — which may be rendered as "[[Dolny Śląsk]] [[Province]]," or [[Lower Silesia]] [[Province]]).
::Moves to such "Province" titles would be desirable. I hope that the validity of the arguments for such moves will become so evident that a disinterested party will request the moves and an informed majority of discussants will support them.
::Thanks again. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 
:::My pleasure. The BBC also mentioned [http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&scope=all&q=%22Lublin+province%22 "Lublin province"] once, and [http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&scope=all&q=%22province+of+Lower+Silesia%22 "province of Lower Silesia"] once. - I do not know how much free time I will be having in the following weeks, so I will have to postpone doing the request myself, as I imagine that the initial proposal & subsequent participation will require some time/effort to improve the chances of an orderly discussion. - Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 
::::I agree. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 05:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 
== Province: a summary ==
 
For some years, there has been discussion of how the term “województwo,” designating a
highest-level administrative division of the Polish Republic, should be rendered in English. Summarized below are principal arguments for using the English word that is most commonly used for such divisions of various countries: “province.”
 
# Terms, in various languages, that are translated into English as "province" include "wilaya," "marz," "voblast," "khaet," "sheng," "eparchia," "ostan," "khoueng," "faritany," "aimag" and "tinh.” Why should not the Polish "województwo" also be rendered as “province”? The general principle, when translating, is to use words that are commonly used in the target language, rather than needlessly borrowing foreign words.
# Before the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned out of existence in the 18th century by Russia, Prussia and Austria, the word “prowincyja” (an archaic spelling for “prowincja”) was used to designate each of several of the Commonwealth’s major regions — Wielkopolska, Małopolska, Royal Prussia, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is therefore sometimes argued that, since this Polish cognate of the English “province” was idiosyncratically used in pre-partition Poland in the sense of “region,” it cannot be used to designate the Polish primary administrative division, the “województwo” (“province”). However, there is no reason to sacrifice the usual English term to an obsolete and idiosyncratic Polish usage. The distinction between the pre-partition regions (“prowincyje”) and Polish provinces (“województwa”) is easily preserved by simply rendering the regions into English as… “Regions.”
# There is only one spelling for the English word “province.” There are, however, at least three spellings for the bastardized Polish loanword: “voivodship,” “voivodeship” and—closest to the Polish "województwo," but not used on the English Wikipedia—“voievodship.”
# The English rendering of the Polish highest-level administrative division, “województwo,” should be brought into line with the English rendering, as “province,” of the corresponding entities in other countries, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Colombia, Cuba, Congo, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
# International guidelines for translators advise that widely understandable words should be used wherever possible, e.g. "If a word is used mostly in translations and only rarely in English-speaking countries, consider replacing it with a commonly known English term with a similar meaning (e.g. ''plant community'' instead of ''phytocoenosis'')" ([[EASE Guidelines|EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators]]).
 
It is also noteworthy that the recent replacement of "powiats" by "counties" has been successful and has greatly contributed to improving the understandability of articles about Poland.[[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 10:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Nope, leave it as it is. This topic has been beaten around the table quite a bit, current consensus is Voivodeship. There are bigger fish to fry. Why not put the effort into translating some articles? [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 11:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:I agree it is a dead horse. Voivodeship has been stable for years, I see no reason to change it. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 11:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
I forgot about a major argument: '''"voivodeship" is against the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]''', which says "[[Plain English]] works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." "Voivodeship" is jargon, understandable nearly exclusively to Polish people. [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 12:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:The horse is well and truly dead. The ship has sailed. ''Voivodeship'' is per the MOS - [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles)#Administrative divisions]]. [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::Well, it says that only in recognition of the fact that past consensus has been to use ''voivodeship'' - that doesn't necessarily mean we can't reach a new consensus to use ''province'' at least in certain contexts. What would be the arguments ''against'' doing that? (But to avoid duplicating the discussion, I suggest we have it in one place rather than two - perhaps [[WT:WPPL]] would be a better venue, as there has been discussion there recently about what to call the individual voivodeships, which is obviously a related question.)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::: The simple question is: Which term is being used by current English-language sources? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 14:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: The answer is: both "province" and "voivod(e)ship" are commonly used as equivalents of "województwo". However, '''"province" is the translation recommended by all the three major Polish-English dictionaries (Fisiak, PWN-Oxford, Kościuszkowski), as well as by the influencial newspaper ''The [[Warsaw Voice]]'''''. --[[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::::: Citation needed - cite (link to) the sources you use for such claims, please. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Note that "voivodeship" literally means "being a voivode" or "the office of voivode". You demanded citations: '''J. Stanisławski, Wielki słownik polsko-angielski''', Warszawa, Wiedza Powszechna, vol. P-Z, p. 563, gives "1. (''jednostka administracyjno-terytorialna'') province. 2. (''urząd'') voivodeship; provincial administration <offices>"; '''Kosciuszko Foundation Dictionary''', volume II: Polish-English, by Kazimierz Bulas, Lawrence L. Thomas and Francis J. Whitfield, New York, The Kosciuszko Foundation, p. 640, gives " 1. province. 2. voivodeship; the administration of a voivodeship" ; '''Wielki słownik PWN-Oxford''' on CD-ROM (edited by J. Fisiak) gives "1. ''Admin.'' province (''in Poland''); voivodeship ''spec.'' 2. (''mieszkańcy'') province; '''nasze województwo ma swojego przedstawiciela w senacie''' our province has its own senator; 3. ''pot.'' (''urzędy'') provincial (council) offices" [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks. I note that this does not prove that this is widespread use, just the use in those works, and even in all of those, it is just one option, with voivodeship being acceptable as well. Given this, I find voivodeship more useful for disambiguation purposes. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 00:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::In each dictionary, "province" appears as the first, and thus the principal, English equivalent.
::::::::As to disambiguation, what is there to disambiguate? [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 01:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::For example, [[Kraków Province]] redirects to [[Seniorate Province]], yet you would move [[Kraków Voivodeship (14th century – 1795)]] there. You would also be implying that those 11-12th century provinces were the same thing as voivodeships. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 03:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::No, I wouldn't. You are referring to "''Okres rozbicia dzielnicowego''" (the "Period of [Poland's] Fragmentation into Districts [''dzielnice'']," 1138–1320). However, the earliest provinces (''województwa'') did not come into existence until 1308, so there is little likelihood of confusing the earlier "''dzielnice''" (districts or duchies) with the later "''województwa''" (provinces). [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:* [http://www.google.ca/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Voivodeship%2C+Poland&btnK=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=Voivodeship%2C+Poland+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e062a5e12583d70e&biw=1120&bih=736 '''Voivodeship, Poland -wiki'''] About '''3,540,000 results''' (0.28 seconds) We're talking ''millions'' of Google hits here, sans Wiki. — [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:*Compared to ''tens'' of millions for '''[http://www.google.ca/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Voivodeship%2C+Poland&btnK=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=Province%2C+Poland+-wiki&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a5cd2b76ad938b6a&biw=792&bih=425 Province, Poland -wiki]'''. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 14:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:*Compared to ''hundreds'' of millions for '''[http://www.google.ca/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Voivodeship%2C+Poland&btnK=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=Region%2C+Poland+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e062a5e12583d70e&biw=1120&bih=736 Region, Poland -wiki]'''. So? — [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 15:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::''Region'' would be perfectly acceptable, if it meant the same thing; ''Province'', however, does mean the same thing, and is far more common in English. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 15:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I think that we (as wikipedians) should rely on dictionaries, not Google. We need reliable sources of information and can not use OR. [[User:Wiktoryn|Wiktoryn]] ([[User talk:Wiktoryn|talk]]) 16:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes - well, dictionaries and other reliable sources, anyway (not the whole of the Internet, much of which just mirrors Wikipedia in questions like this). In fact PWN-Oxford gives both "province" and "voivodeship" as equivalents to ''województwo''; it marks the former as inexact, and the latter as specialist.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
Province is inaccurate. The correct, technical, specialist term is voivodeship. There ''were'' provinces in the history of [[administrative division of Poland]] (ex. [[seniorate province]]), and we should not confuse those with voivodeships. Or in the 19th century, there was an important transformation of voivodeship into governorates - something that would be more confusing if we talked about provinces. US has its states, France has its directorates, Russia has its governorates and olbasts, Poland has its voivodeships. PS. Some literature (mostly obsolete) translated voivodeship as [[palatinate]]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Province is indeed inaccurate, or at best over vague. I see no reason to ever use the word "province" in an article on Poland except as a direct tranclation of "prowincja". Consensus is pretty solid for "voivodeship", and further discussion is basically a waste of time. There are better ways to spend out time than rehashing dead horse arguments. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::Weeell, against that, "province" does have the rather significant advantage of being readily understandable. I would say that if the context is one where the technicalities of Polish administrative division are not likely to be of immediate concern to the reader, then "province" is likely to be a better word choice. Though opinions might differ on exactly what those contexts would be.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::Dominus, please see the above citations from dictionaries.[[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
At the risk of stating the obvious, I remaind everyone of the examples of usage (BBC, ''Britannica'', CIA Wolrd factbook, ''The New York Times'') mentioned in April 2010 in the [[Talk:Voivodeships of Poland#"Voivodeship" and "Province"|previous section]]. "Province" is not only easier to understand, but commonly used by anglophone media. — It also eliminates the need for the otherwise unavoidable parenthetical clarification: "in the Evian Voivodeship (province) of..." — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:Weelll again... against ''that'', we must remember that we're not the media - and if we're to follow the example of the only other encyclopedia on the list, then (according to what we're told in the above thread) the use of parenthetical clarification is exactly the tactic they adopt.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::I guess I wasn't clear about ''Britannica''. Using as example their entry on [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/673188 Dolnośląskie] (Lower Silesia), we see that after the definition "''województwo'' (province), southwestern Poland" (that doesn't use any variation of "Voivodeship", but the Polish original), the word "province(s)" is used consistently: "It was established in 1999 when the '''provinces''' of Poland were [...] It is bordered by the '''provinces''' of [...] It comprises the former '''provinces''' (created 1975) of [... and] portions of the former '''provinces''' of [...] The '''provincial''' capital is [...]". — The same system is used by ''Britannica'' with the rest of the [http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=polish+province Polish '''provinces''']. — [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 23:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::''[[Encyclopedia Americana]]'' ("Poland," vol. 22, 1986, p. 312) takes the same approach: "Following the reform of the administrative structure in 1973–1975, the number of '''provinces''' (''województwa'') was increased... [I]ncreasing the number of '''provinces''' meant the reduction of each in size. In this way Warsaw was able to dilute the political importance of the '''provincial''' party chiefs." [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Kotniski said that, although current consensus is for voivodeship, that can be changed if there are good reasons for the change. I cannot see any. As Sylwia said: both "province" and "voivod(e)ship" are commonly used as equivalents of "województwo". So whether "voivodeship" is innacurate or incorrect is not a matter for discussion. "Voivodeship" does have the advantage that it is specific and very well defined: a non-political, non-historical, non-cultural, ephemeral, arbitrarily defined and named high-level administrative division of Poland.
 
"Province", on the other hand, has no meaning besides "a bounded region on the map that is smaller than a country". Any additional meaning of "province" is supplied solely by context. There is a huge difference between a Canadian province and a Chinese one, and neither is similar in any way to a viovodeship. Add to this the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING that corresponds to a Voivodeship in the largest English speaking countries: the US, the UK, Canada and Australia (I'm not conversant with admistrative regions in Ireland and New Zealand).
 
Futhermore, "province" usually carries a connotation of historical and/or cultural permanance and continuitity, which Polish voivodeships lack. Their borders and names are completely arbitrary and can be changed at any time for any reason by the Polish government.
 
"Province" in a Polish context also has the disadvantage that it is used to translate both "prowincja" and "wojewódstwo", and that would create disambiguation problems here on WP, as Piotr has pointed out. There are also back translation problems into Polish; mention "prowincja śląska" to a Pole, and they will scratch their head trying to figure out what that is supposed to mean.
 
In the real world, there is NO consensus about how to translate "wojewódstwo" into English. Even Polish government sources are inconsistent. The sources provided by Sylwia are very poor quality: Bielczyk is NOT an authority of any note, nor is Serwis Tłumacza, and they speak only for themselves. Using them as sources on WP violates [[WP:SELFPUB]], [[WP:NOTE]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]. The editor of Geomaps is also not an authority in this matter, nor does he claim to be; he or she made a purely editorial decision to use "province", and I doubt that he or she would say that "voivodeship" is incorrect.
 
Therefore, whether we "voivodeship" or "province", we still have to explain what the word means in the context of Poland. It doesn't really help that "province" is a more common word in English; in fact, it may confuse the reader because of the additional baggage it carries. We would have to explain exactly what it means in a Polish context as we would with "voivodeship", with the added burden of explaining how "province" in this context differs from "province" in other contexts (Canadian, Chinese, etc.) as well as from "province" in other POLISH contexts (prowincja).
 
The main advantage of "voivodeship" is that it is precise and specific. The main disadvantage of province is that it is vague and has to be defined and disambiguated. In my opinion, "voivodeship" is indeed the right tool for the job at hand, and the one least likely to cause confusion.
 
Last of all, I don't see any value in continuing this dead horse argument. As another editor has said, we have bigger fish to fry, and the current bickering is a time-wasting distraction. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 08:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:You make some good points, though I don't agree that we shouldn't be discussing something now just because it was discussed at some indeterminate time in the past. But it would help at some point (before we get 42 as the answer) if we could find out exactly what the question is - are we discussing the titles of certain articles, the style of writing in certain types of articles, names of certain categories...?--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::Kotniski, we are discussing the titles of the articles on Polish ''województwa'', that will then be mirrored by all other articles & categories, both in their respective titles (Rudna, Lower Silesian Voivodeship → Rudna, Lower Silesian Province) and bodies ("sixteen new voivodeships were" → "sixteen new provinces were"). This particular article would be moved to "Provinces of Poland". — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: ''There is a huge difference between a Canadian province and a Chinese one, and neither is similar in any way to a viovodeship. Add to this the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING that corresponds to a Voivodeship in the largest English speaking countries: the US, the UK, Canada and Australia (I'm not conversant with admistrative regions in Ireland and New Zealand).'' <small>[[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]])</small>
:Of the countries you mention here, the [[United Kingdom]] is indeed a special case: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own system of geographic demarcation and administration. [[New Zealand]] once had [[province]]s but abolished them in 1876 and now has no separately represented subnational entities. But the other countries do, like Poland, have [[province]]s (principal territorial divisions), though in the [[United States]] and [[Australia]] they are termed "states." [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: ''"province" usually carries a connotation of historical and/or cultural permanance and continuitity, which Polish voivodeships lack. Their borders and names are completely arbitrary and can be changed at any time for any reason by the Polish government.'' <small>[[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]])</small>
:Poland's provinces (''województwa'') are not unique in this regard. Provinces should not be considered immutable, anywhere. Just in the [[United States]], principal divisions ("states") have changed their boundaries on a number of occasions. [[North Carolina|North]] and [[South Carolina]] once belonged to [[Virginia]] and later were one province, [[The Carolinas|Carolina]], which split in 1729. [[Maine]] was once part of [[Massachusetts]]. [[West Virginia]] separated from Virginia and became a separate state during the [[American Civil War]], in 1863. And so on. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 10:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: ''Province" in a Polish context also has the disadvantage that it is used to translate both "prowincja" and "wojewódstwo", and that would create disambiguation problems here on WP, as Piotr has pointed out. There are also back translation problems into Polish; mention "prowincja śląska" to a Pole, and they will scratch their head trying to figure out what that is supposed to mean.'' <small>[[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]])</small>
:"Province" is ''not'' "used to translate both 'prowincja' and 'wojewódstwo'." "''Wojewódstwo''" is "province." "''Prowincja''," depending on the historic period, may be "duchy," "district" or "Region." [[Translation#Back-translation|Back-translation]] likewise has to take these historic contexts into account. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 10:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Dominus Vobisdu mentioned: ''whether we [use] "voivodeship" or "province", we still have to explain what the word means in the context of Poland. It doesn't really help that "province" is a more common word in English; in fact, it may confuse the reader because of the additional baggage it carries. We would have to explain exactly what it means in a Polish context as we would with "voivodeship", with the added burden of explaining how "province" in this context differs from "province" in other contexts (Canadian, Chinese, etc.) as well as from "province" in other POLISH contexts (prowincja).'' <small>[[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]])</small>
:The [[meaning (linguistics)|meaning]] of ''any'' [[word]] depends on [[context (language use)|context]]. This certainly does not imply that we cannot use the same word in varying contexts. Were that the case, we could not use the word "[[province]]" in respect to all the dozens of countries whose principal divisions are rendered into English by the word "province." [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::I'm not saying that "province" can't be used, just that there is no good reason to use it when a more precise word is available that does not require disambiguation. This has no effect on the use of "province" in other contexts. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:::What do you mean here by "precision," "disambiguation" and "other contexts"? [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 10:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::::@Nihil novi: By precise I mean that "voivodeship" means exactly "wojewódstwo", and nothing else. By disambiguation, I mean that we would have to explain exactly what it means in a Polish context as we would with "voivodeship", with the added burden of explaining how "province" in this context differs from "province" in other contexts (Canadian, Chinese, etc.) as well as from "province" in other POLISH contexts (prowincja). [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:::::Why do you have to explain the differences between Polish and Chinese provinces? When you write about Polish taxis, do you have to compare them with Chinese taxis?
:::::As to Polish provinces, there need be no need for disambiguation if "province" is reserved exclusively for "''województwo''," as already described. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 11:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::As far as I am concerned, "voivodeship" should be used to translate "wojewódstwo" everywhere on WP for the sake of internal consistency. I can't see any case in which "province" would be preferable. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Please consider [[Talk:Voivodeships of Poland#Province: a summary|point 1 at the top]]. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 11:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::::I've read ALL the previous posts on this topic back to 2005. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
<small>@Nihil novi: Please stop interrupting other editors' posts with your comments. It's irritating and confusing, and downright rude to continue doing so after I asked you not to on your talk page. WP talk pages are not designed for your kind of posting. Please refactor your comments so that my posts remain intact. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small>It is more confusing to have my comments separated from the comments that I am commenting on. See, above, individuals' responses immediately following other individuals' remarks. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 11:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
::<small>Nobody but you responds INSIDE other editors' posts. Please stop. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 11:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>Nobody but you writes such interminable posts. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 12:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
::::<small>Making other editors' posts unreadable is vandalism. Do not do it again. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 12:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::::<small>Please stop bickering like children, both of you should step back and apologize to one another. Sigh. Some people do respond inside others post, it is not vandalism, but yes, I find it confusing, and I personally suggest not doing so, but replying (in points and quotes) below. EOT. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
 
:I disagree, Dominus Vobisdu. The use of "voivod(e)ship" instead of "province" does not provide more clarity, accuracy or precision to our readers. First, because most anglophones won't understand the word anyway, and second, because these Polish administrative divisions are not so unique and exceptional as to require a special loanword for them.
 
:Currently, every first use of "voivod(e)ship" requires a parenthetical clarification along the lines of "in the Silesian Voivodeship (province) of...", which leaves us exacly where we started, with the use of "province". :-) Unless someone proposes to use a much longer and detailed parenthetical clarification to avoid any confusion between a generic main administrative division of a country and the unique and exceptional Polish case.
 
:The use of "province" is absolutely clear for the averange anglophone: a generic main administrative division of a country. That's all we need to know in most mentions of and references to a ''województwo''. In any case, our intended readership is mature enough to understand that administrative systems differ from country to country, and that Chinese, Dutch, Polish or Spanish provinces won't be exact copies of the Canadian ones.
 
:As always, proper contextualisation should suffice to avoid any confusion. Otherwise, we should be shunning all polysemic words and using a different vocabulary for each individual country, field or area of human endeavour.
 
:Let's remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_titles&oldid=442115629#Deciding_on_an_article_title main criteria] that we should use when deciding on a name: recognisability, naturalness and precision. "Province" is the obvious choice for the first two; regarding the third, I have found nothing yet that requires disambiguation in the form of actual names. — Regards, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
 
* This whole discussion is basically the long-term pining of two editors, [[User_talk:Sylwia_Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] and [[User_talk:Nihil_novi|Nihil novi]]. I cite [[User_talk:Sylwia_Ufnalska#Some_references_that_support_.22province.22_for_.22wojew.C3.B3dztwo.22|Sylwia's talk page]] and [[User_talk:Nihil_novi#Some_references_that_support_.22province.22_for_.22wojew.C3.B3dztwo.22|Nihil novi's talk page]] as part of their ongoing campaign. This has been talked and discussed and talked and discussed - the horse is dead. '''Voivodeship''' IS a valid English denotation of the top-order subdivision of administrative subdivisions within the Republic of Poland (and the Second Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). PLEASE, PLEASE stop putting the dedicated effort you have placed into continually '''[[flogging a dead horse]]''' and contemplating '''[[how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?]]''' Both editors in question are very talented in their work on EN:WP, and both know that we have a tremendous backlog of TOP-level articles in WikiProject Poland that desperately could use their translation and researching talent. [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 15:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
::The discussion is not pointless, a final veredict has not been rendered, and some of us consider that using "province" instead of "voi(e)vod(e)ship" would be a worthy improvement. :-) [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
I must quote what Dominus wrote some time ago on [[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|my talk page]]: ''I'm a tranlator, too (english native speaker, biology and medicine as well), and when I translate I use "Province of Lower Silesia" etc. However, here on Wikipedia, I have to go with decisions made long ago''. The problem is that Wikipedia is increasingly used for reference by people '''who are not translators'''. They should be aware that in "real life" the use of "voivodeship" results in confusion, as foreigners usually have no idea what this word means. Some Polish people may not care about it because Polish is a reader-responsible language, so Polish authors do not need to write understandably because readers are responsible for understanding. By contrast, English is a writer-responsible language, i.e. writers in English are responsible for making their texts understandable. (I wrote about the classification and some other problems related to translation in my article, [http://www.ease.org.uk/artman2/uploads/1/ESE_nov07.pdf pages 101-104]). Importantly, this is reflected in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia Manual of Style]], as one of the five general principles of Wikipedia is Clarity: ''Writing should be clear and concise. [[Plain English]] works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.'' "Voivodeship" is jargon, understandable nearly exclusively to Polish people.
 
I started a similar discussion in Wikipedia many years ago but I was quickly defeated by people saying that a consensus has been reached and now it's too late. I wish I was more experienced then and knew that '''"voivodeship" is against the principles of Wikipedia'''. [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 18:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Yes, I still use "Province of Lower Silesia" when I translate. However, I translate papers on the distribution of plants, where there is no need to burden the reader with the niceties of Polish administrative divisions. If I were translating material where the meaning did matter, I would use "voivodeship", and after reading through all SEVEN YEARS of the debate over this matter here on WP, I am now convinced that it would be best to stick with the long established consesus and use "voivodeship" everywhere for the sake of internal consistency and precision.
 
:Consensus on this matter was reached FIVE YEARS AGO [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland/Archive2#Vote_on_Wojew.C3.B3dztwa_.2F_Voivodeship_.2F_Province]]. The votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "voivodeship". I am not in favor of changing it unless there is a VERY good reason. So far, I haven't seen one from you or from Nihil Novi. Nor have you provided any convincing evidence that "voivodeship" is against WP policy.
 
:I told you six months ago that the Bielczyk paper is completely worthless here on WP, yet you continue adding it. I also told you that your changes wre disruptive and only made a mess for other editors to clean up, but you continued to make disruptive edits without gaining consensus.
 
:As for your comments on "reader responsible language" etc, that is all [[WP:BOLLOCKS|COMPLETE BOLLOCKS]]!!! What planet are you from??? [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
"Voi(e)vod(e)ship" (there's not even one single standard spelling of this [[hybrid word|hybrid]] [[loanword]]) has no advantage and every conceivable disadvantage. It is unnecessary, ugly and confusing to all but those unaccountably enamored of it. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 19:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:This sounds like a case of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. You're going to have to try harder than that. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:''It is unnecessary, ugly and confusing to all but those unaccountably enamored of it.'' Well that is certainly not a NPOV. How do you define ''ugly words''? [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::What is ugly for some can be unique and beautiful for others. Why is voivodeship ugly, but [[oblast]] (ex. [[Smolensk Oblast]]), [[Arrondissements of France]] or German [[Amt (country subdivision)|amt]]s? As long as Russia has oblasts, France has departments and arrondissements, Germany has amts, US has states, and so on, I see no reason why Poland should not have voivodeships. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Piotrus, you are familiar with "other stuff exists". In this particular case, where we have the choice between two possibilities, our anglophone readership would be much better served with the use of the clear and straightforward "province", instead of being presented with an odd and not readily recognisable loanword like "voivod(e)ship". Isn't that reason enough? — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::It's a nice principle, but I am not sure if this is applicable here. Perhaps administrative units throughout Wikipedia are confusing and need standardizing, but I ask you again: what makes Polish voivodeship any worse than Russian oblast or French arrondissement? Why not try to reform a lager policy and try to institute an order on a larger scale? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 02:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::Very well, let's look at "[[oblast]]," an administrative division in some [[Slavic peoples|Slavic]] countries and in some non-Slavic countries of the former [[Soviet Union]]. The word "oblast" is a [[loanword]] in English, but is often translated as "[[area (subnational entity)|area]]", "[[wikt:zone|zone]]", "[[province]]" or "[[region]]".
::::::Of the post-Soviet countries, [[Russia]] retains the term "oblast," which appears in the Wikipedia article title, "[[Oblasts of Russia]]."
::::::But [[Belarus]]' [[cognate]] "[[voblast]]s" ("provinces" or "regions") are, on Wikipedia, described in an article on "[[Regions of Belarus|'''Regions''' of Belarus]]."
::::::Other post-Soviet countries' oblasts, in many cases now carrying non-Russian names, appear on Wikipedia in articles on "[[Provinces of Armenia|'''Provinces''' of Armenia]]," "[[Provinces of Kazakhstan|'''Provinces''' of Kazakhstan]]," "[[Provinces of Kyrgyzstan|'''Provinces''' of Kyrgyzstan]]," "[[Provinces of Tajikistan|'''Provinces''' of Tajikistan]]," "[[Provinces of Turkmenistan|'''Provinces''' of Turkmenistan]]" and "[[Provinces of Uzbekistan|'''Provinces''' of Uzbekistan]]."
::::::[[Bulgaria]]'s [[oblast]]s appear in a Wikipedia article on "[[Provinces of Bulgaria|'''Provinces''' of Bulgaria]]."
::::::Clearly, on Wikipedia, the principal administrative divisions in most countries that use or previously used "[[oblast]]," now appear in articles that use ''everyday'' [[English language|English-language]] terms, most commonly "[[province]]."
::::::Why cannot some [[Poland|Polish]]-topic Wikipedians understand the wisdom of this, and follow suit? [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::To me, this is just confusing. Why Russian name is kept, but others, translated? We need a rule to clarify this on a larger scale, otherwise we will have people saying things like "if Russians can keep their unique name, why not Poles", and such. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::::::::Piotrus, why keep our anglophone readership hostage to some sort of competition between the Poland- and Russia-related areas of Wikipedia? Since when is mimicking the excentricities of Russia-related articles more important than making Poland-related articles easier to understand to our global anglophone readership?
 
::::::::I'm not familiar with English usage for Russian administrative divisions. I don't know whether the loanword "oblast" is the established usage of English-language publications, or whether those publications offer other options that would make articles easier to understand to our anglophone readership. Nor do I care right now. — What I do know is that, luckly for our readership, there's such a word to replace "voivodeship": "province" :-)
 
::::::::Finally, there already is a rule that clarifies this on a larger scale: "limit yourself to passively mirroring common English usage". That is the basis of our general [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming conventions]] policy and the specific [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)|naming conventions for geographic names]]. Let's try Google Books: [http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Voivodeships+of+Poland%22&num=100#q=%22Voivodeships+of+Poland%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=MfU2ToqmEsX50gGwirmIDA&start=40&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cb4036bba8414c1e&biw=1366&bih=673 "Voivod'''e'''ships of Poland"] (ca. 39 results), [http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#q=%22Voivodships+of+Poland%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=9fU2Ts3rCcTr0gGA8ri_BQ&start=90&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cb4036bba8414c1e&biw=1366&bih=673 "Voivodships of Poland"] (ca. 91 results), [http://www.google.com/#q=%22Provinces+of+Poland%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=RPY2TruZLITy0gGtj6GGDA&start=400&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cb4036bba8414c1e&biw=1366&bih=673 "Provinces of Poland"] (ca. 386 results). — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 18:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
*French, Dutch, Danish, Spanish and Rumanian Wikipedias use derivatives of Voivodeship ... See the Interwiki links to this page. [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
Funny, I also translate papers on the distribution of plants and similar topics :-))). Where I'm from? I'm Polish and I come from Poznań. I'm a science translator (since the early 1990s). And I repeat '''"voivodeship" is against the principles of Wikipedia''' [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam!!!![[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
<hr width=50%>I love seeing dead horses suddenly come to life with the long, high-pitched sound; summoned by huge egos. — [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
This thread is becoming decreasingly easy to follow, but I would again suggest to all that this needn't be a simple "A or B" choice, but that there are likely to be contexts where we do better to write "voivodeship", others where we do better with "province" (or "voivodeship (province)", or "province (voivodeship)"). If, as Ev suggested above, the primary question is how to title the articles on the 16 current voivovinces, then I re-offer my suggestion that we might to best to avoid both this issue ''and'' the issue of how to translate the names, and apparently follow Britannica, by simply using the titles [[Wielkopolskie]], [[Dolnośląskie]], etc. As to ''this'' page, I'm not convinced we need it at all - all the information could be merged into the [[Voivodeship]] article and/or the various "Administrative division of Poland..." articles.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:Kotniski, perhaps there are some instances in which writing "voivod(e)ship" is better for our anglophone readership. Although I can't think of any, I wouldn't rule it out. But those would be exceptions: in the vast majority of cases, using "province" would be far more natural and understandable.
 
:Using the titles "Dolnośląskie", etc, has two huge drawbacks:
:1. It doesn't solve the underlying question: we would still have to refer to them as either "voivod(e)ships" or "provinces" in the body of articles. :-)
:2. It means using a non-English meaningless tongue-twister instead of an existing English name that makes sense and can be pronounced by our global anglophone readership. To a significant number of educated anglophones, "Lower Silesia" would ring a bell; only a tiny minority would know what to make of "Dolnośląskie".
:Honestly, I can't imagine what the ''Britannica'' editors were thinking when they adopted the Polish original names in their articles. Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::It is a valid argument for not changing anything, and in fact raises questions on whether we should not focus on reforming and renaming Wikipedia articles that have such "meaningless" names.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 02:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::'''I agree: we should focus on reforming and renaming Wikipedia articles that have such "meaningless" names''', because they result in the common use of unclear terms throughout Wikipedia. '''The point is that also "voivodeship" is meaningless''' to nearly all foreigners. Making articles about Poland readable is not disruptive in any way - it is consistent with the Wikipiedia Manual of Style. [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't call the word ''Voivodeship'' '''meaningless''', that's just your opinion. Then how about the word ''Oblast'' is that '''meaningless''? How about ''State''? You seem to want everything ''plain vanilla''. You also assume that all readers are limited in their cognitive ability. [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Piotrus, how can "It doesn't solve the underlying question: [whether to use] ''voivod(e)ships'' or ''provinces''" be a valid argument for not changing anything? Even if our articles used the Polish forms "Dolnośląskie", etc, we would still be having this exact same discussion about whether to call them "voivod(e)ships" or "provinces", and I would be using the exact same arguments to adopt the word "provinces". — For the issue of choosing between the words "voivod(e)ship" and "province", the actual names of the ''województwa'' is irrelevant. — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
If we're to look at our names for the 16 present vovinces, I'm trying to remember where they came from originally (they were decided on long before I arrived at WP). Were they taken from a particular source or sources, or were they ad hoc translations? I seem to remember it being claimed that they were taken from a fairly authoritative source, but all the links I can find at the moment seem just to list them using their Polish names. I'd also point out another disadvantage of moving to forms like "Silesian Province" - it creates ambiguity with various unconnected historical entities, such as the Prussian [[Province of Silesia]].--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:Uh, good example, I didn't thought of that. And no, I cannot recall the old discussion, the matter I think was settled even before *I* arrived here - you may want to check the archives of the old [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland]]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::I think this is the link you were referencing [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland/Archive2#Wojew.C3.B3dztwa_vote]] ... [[User:Ajh1492|Ajh1492]] ([[User talk:Ajh1492|talk]]) 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:Kotniski, such ambiguity could be easily solved by the indispensable proper contextualisation and the use of parenthetical titles along the lines of "Province of Silesia (Prussia)" and "Province of Silesia (Poland)"... or even using the modern Polish province as the main topic, and placing a hat-note for the historical Prussian one. — A few cases of title disambiguations shouldn't deprive our anglophone readership of an easier understanding of all Poland-related articles. :-) Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:My answer to Kotniski: Belczyk's [http://serwistlumacza.com/content/view/78/ list of province names] is an appendix to his [http://serwistlumacza.com/content/view/27/32/ detailed article about translation of Polish geographic names]. The list is based on a preface to the PWN-Oxford dictionary. [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
A thought to consider: if [[voivodeship]] (or [[oblast]]) was the same as [[province]], we wouldn't have articles on those, just redirects. Because they are distinct, and used in English to boot, they are not redirected, and they are used instead of province. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</sub> 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:Piotrus, the word "voivodeship" is used in English, and as such deserves an article. In English, it has two main separate meanings:
:1. Historical region ruled by a voivode (although the word "voivodate" tends to be used in this case).
:2. Modern province of certain countries.
:Thus, it has the same meaning of "province" (never underestimate the wonders of polysemy :-) But shouldn't be a simple redirect to the entry on "province" for two reasons:
:a. Because we still would need to explain the historical regions ruled by a voivode (or create an entry for "voivodate", currently a redirect to "voivodeship").
:b. Because the modern voivodeships are specific of certain parts of the world. As such, the word, its etymology and its current usage are better presented in a separate, shorter article, than it would be in an overly long entry for "Province" dealing with all loanwords for each country.
:Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:The word "voivodeship" should be a redirect to "Provinces of Poland". [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
For actual usage in English-language publications, let's try Google Books: [http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Voivodeships+of+Poland%22&num=100#q=%22Voivodeships+of+Poland%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=MfU2ToqmEsX50gGwirmIDA&start=40&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cb4036bba8414c1e&biw=1366&bih=673 "Voivod'''e'''ships of Poland"] (ca. 39 results), [http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#q=%22Voivodships+of+Poland%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=9fU2Ts3rCcTr0gGA8ri_BQ&start=90&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cb4036bba8414c1e&biw=1366&bih=673 "Voivodships of Poland"] (ca. 91 results), [http://www.google.com/#q=%22Provinces+of+Poland%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=RPY2TruZLITy0gGtj6GGDA&start=400&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cb4036bba8414c1e&biw=1366&bih=673 "Provinces of Poland"] (ca. 386 results). — Google searches are by no means definitive, but they are helpful in showing certain paterns, especially when combines with other examples of usage (BBC, Britannica, CIA Wolrd factbook, The New York Times) mentioned in April 2010 in the previous section. — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:I still haven't seen a compelling reason to reverse five-year-old consensus and require changes in literally hundreds of articles on WP. I see a lot of clutching at straws, or worse, as in the case of Nihil's [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] argument, which, in my opinion, put the kibosh on the whole debate. The sources provided leave a lot to be desired. Google searches are scraping at the bottom of the barrel, and indicate that the debate has already run its course and has truly become a dead horse. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::Oh, it's not just hundreds, it's literally tens of thousands of articles (all those village articles the bot created...) But I don't find "dead horse" any better an argument than "don't like it". If there's a change we can make that's going to improve the encyclopedia appreciably, then it's worth doing. I mean, let's take a typical random case like [[Łopuchowo, Greater Poland Voivodeship]]. Is the first sentence (or the infobox, or the title itself) going to be improved by replacing the word "Voivodeship" by "Province"? I guess it makes things a bit clearer to the general reader (but: how many general readers are going to be reading such a page? isn't it obvious anyway from the context what sort of beast a voivodeship must be? and don't our hyperlinks make unfamiliar terminology less of a burden than it would be in a paper source?) I can sympathize with the idea, but don't feel inspired enough by it (or confident enough that it's the right thing to do) to make it seem worth doing these 0000's of changes. I'd be more interested in getting the business part of the names right - for example, there's a current proposal to change Subcarpathian to Podkarpackie; and is "Greater Poland" really more recognizable in today's world than "Wielkopolska"?--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:::On saturday, before making my first comment in this section, I wanted to get a picture of the dimensions of the possible changes, and checked the number of internal links to "Lower Silesian Voivodeship": about 3500. It would make little sense to even attempt to change them all overnight. Luckily, there's no deadline, and redirects further eliminate any urgence. :-) In any case, '''if''' this change is the right thing to do, delaying it would only make things worse.
 
:::In cases like the entry on Łopuchowo, the difference would be minimal; I fully agree with your appreciations, Kotniski. But I would argue that those small towns are the exception: in most other cases, the use of "province" instead of "voivodeship" would make things clearer for the vast majority of our global anglophone readership.
 
:::What names to use for the provinces is a different matter, best discussed in a different section (or place), to keep this discussion on target. — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Well, numerically, these small villages are the rule rather than the exception (probably well over 3000 of those 3500 links are of this type). Though since the articles were created by a bot, it would be relatively easy (assuming they haven't been edited much in the meantime) to change them with a bot as well - ''if'' we can find an alternative phrasing for that standard first sentence that would make things appreciably clearer without loss of accuracy.<p>I do think, though, that the question of what names to use for the provinces is inseparable from this one. I wouldn't want to go around thousands of articles replacing the word "voivodeship" with "province", only to then have to go around ''again'' changing the actual names. In any case, our names should ideally be based on what good sources do - the analysis of how sources refer to these entities will inevitably involve both the voivodeship/province question ''and'' the Podkarpackie/Subcarpathian type of question.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:::::Kotniski, we're on the same page. :-) When considering the small towns & villages to be the exception, I was thinking in "type of article", not numbers. Although I see actual names and use of "voivodeship" or "province" as clearly separated issues that would be easier to handle separately, I always felt that no matter what decision is taken in either case, the sensible thing to do would be to wait for both issues to be solved before actually impementing the changes, to avoid a duplication of efforts. Of course, I agree with you on the use of sources for both issues. — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
I repeat here my answer to your previous question: Belczyk's [http://serwistlumacza.com/content/view/78/ list of province names] is an appendix to his [http://serwistlumacza.com/content/view/27/32/ detailed article about translation of Polish geographic names]. The list was based on a preface to the PWN-Oxford dictionary. His other sources included:
*Krzysztof Dydyński, Poland (Lonely Planet Publications, 2002)
*Mark Salter, Gordon McLachlan, The Rough Guide to Poland (Rough Guides, 1999)
*Norman Davies, Heart of Europe. A Short History of Poland (OUP, 1984)
*Library of Congress: Poland - A Country Study (http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/pltoc.html)
*U.S. Department of State: Poland (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2875.htm)
*Encyclopedia Columbia, hasło Poland (http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/Poland.html)
*http://www.1uptravel.com/geography/poland.html
*http://www.sftpwtg.com/data/pol/pol.htm
*http://www.ramsar.org/ram_rpt_13e.htm
*http://goeasteurope.about.com/cs/poland
*http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/10/01/html/gg_20011001.html
It is noteworthy that A. Belczyk followed the rules presented in his article in his translations of travel guides to Poland [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 09:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:Sorry. None of those qualify as an authoritative source for the purposes of this article. They're marginal or trivial, at best. Even taken together, they don't add up to much. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 10:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:Making a strong case for "province" is not going to be enough to overturn five-year-old consensus. You have to make a VERY strong case against "voivodeship", as well, and that requires VERY good sources. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 10:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::Dominus Vobisdu, a "five-year-old consensus" not backed by a strong enough case for the use of "voivodeship" is of little worth against a good case for the use of "province". The mere passage of time does not trump actual arguments. — [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 15:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
Dominus, '''what kind of sources do you consider very good'''? As far as I know, there are no formal Polish guidelines for translators concerning geographic names. I mentioned at the very beginning international guidelines for science translators, which advise that widely understandable words should be used wherever possible, e.g. "If a word is used mostly in translations and only rarely in English-speaking countries, consider replacing it with a commonly known English term with a similar meaning (e.g. ''plant community'' instead of ''phytocoenosis'')" ([[EASE Guidelines|EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators]]). My next question is: '''are you afraid of the large amount of edits needed''' if we decide to switch ot province? Kotniski is experienced in the use of bots, so he can design a bot that will do most of the work. Or '''are you afraid that someone could try to change the consensus again''' in the future? I'm sure that nobody will, because "voivodeship" is wrong in this sense according to all the major dictionaries (cited above), and people use it simply because they think it's the right translation. [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:Authoratative sources from the Polish government or PAP would be ideal. Other sources that would count are high level journalistic or academic sources. Polish or otherwise, specifically discussing the translation of the word "województwo" and making specific global recommendations that go beyond simple house style, especially if they state that "voivodeship" is a bad choice.
 
:What doesn't count are instances of the use of either term in a particular publication; those are merely editorial choices that are restricted to the author, editor or publishing house in question. Few, is any, of these writers would claim that their editorial choice had any global validity. WP is not bound by the particular or in house style of othr authors or publishers. There is nothing wrong with WP using the less commonly used term as long as it is servicable. As far as I can see, "voivodeship" is indeed quite servicable, and has worked well for five years.
 
:In the States, we have a decidedly bizarre system of weights and measures. The metric system is clearly superior. Nonetheless, Americans are loathe to part with their system because it does the job well enough, and changing would be a major hassle. There has to be a COMPELLING reason to change, and even the fact that every other country in the world uses the metric system is not good enough. Americans still believe thier system is best for them, as I still believe "voivodeship" is best for WP.
 
:A particular concern of mine is "województwo śląskie", as Kotniski and Piotruś have pointed out as well. Articles on Silesia are prone to attack by Silesian separatists, and I'm sure that a name change would bring them out of the woodwork in droves. If you've ever dealt with these people, as I have, you'd know it's not a pleasant experience.
 
:I'm also concerned about the onames of the pre-1999 voivodeships. You have to admit that names like "Province of Skierniewice" sound bizarre.
 
:Even with Kotniski's bots, there will still be a considerable amount of cleanup work to do. I feel that that time would be better spent expanding and cleaning up the articles we have. Even if "province" is a better translation, is it that much better that we can justify the amount of time to clean up tens of thousands of articles? Only if you prove that "province" is FAR, FAR, FAR superior to "voivodeship", based on authoratative sources, not just on usage counts. In other words, I believe the cost/benefit ratio is far too high.
 
:Finally, I sincerely do believe that "voivodeship" is the best translation for WP purposes, for the reasons I listed above. One of my chief concerns is that readers do not confuse the administrative districts with historical or cultural regions with the same name. Using "voivodeship" makes that distinction clear.
 
:By the way, most of what I translate is on phytocenoses, and I use that word exclusively in my own translations :) [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 18:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::Dominus Vobisdu, I think that the exact opposite is the case: that it would have to be proven that "voivodeship" is clearly preferable to "province" in order to use that little-known loanword in lieu of a clear & straightforward word every anglophone would understand. :-) Moreover, for the specific purpose of gauging English usage (and the expectations of our global anglophone readership), the usage of ''a single'' major newspaper from an English-speaking country is far more important than the opinions & decisions of the Polish, Japanese or Zambian governments. I dread the day in which a Polish, Japanese or Zambian bureaucrat or politician can decide how the English language should be spoken & written. — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 21:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with that last sentence, though I also wouldn't necessarily want the way an encyclopedia is written to be decided by a journalist (just as I wouldn't want my daily newspaper to be written like an encyclopedia). (And since you seem to use "loanword" as a badge of shame, you presumably realize that "province" is also a loanword?)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::::Kotniski, again, I agree. I was only emphasising that the desires, opinions & decisions of the Polish government have relatively little significance for our specific purposes. I do not use "loanword" as a badge of shame (I'm most definitely not a linguistic purist), and I apologise if my comments gave that impression. My intention when using it was to underline that only people already familiar with Poland would understand the word "voivodeship". — Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:::@Ev: You shot yourself in the foot with "in lieu of". Why didn't you use the normal English word "instead"? [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 08:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::::Dominus: because I'm writing in a talk page, not in an article (mainspace). Likewise, I have absolutely no problem with using "voivodeship" in talk pages. :-) Best, [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 
Dominus, have you ever read the [[EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles]]? They explain why we should avoid the use of jargon. It is noteworthy that ''phytocenoses'' according to British rules should be spelled ''phytocoenoses'', but both words are extremely rare in texts written by British and American botanists. Native speakers simply write "plant communities" instead. [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
:The controversy between advocates of "[[province]]" and of "[[voivodship|voi(e)vod(e)ship]]" (there are three distinct English spellings of the latter word) seems largely a controversy between what [[Charles Darwin]] called "[[lumpers and splitters]]." But what is the advantage of splitting off "voi(e)vod(e)ship" from the preponderance of [[province#Polities translated "province"|other "provinces]]" in the world?
 
:We have seen that the single [[Slavic languages|Slavic]] term "[[oblast]]" is rendered on the English Wikipedia variously as "[[Provinces of Bulgaria|province]]," "[[Regions of Belarus|region]]" and "[[Oblasts of Russia|oblast]]." What is the advantage, to anyone, of such splitting?
 
:If the concern is to disambiguate [[idiosyncratic]] [[Partitions of Poland|pre-Partition]] applications of the Polish word "''[[prowincja|prowincyja]]''" (the archaic 18th-century spelling for "''prowincja''"), this can be accomplished by using "''prowincyja''" or an appropriate English [[Translation#Equivalence|equivalent]] to the archaic Polish usage, e.g., "[[Prowincja|Region]]".
 
:What rational justification can there be for using "[[voivodships of Poland|voi(e)vod(e)ship]]" rather than "province" on Wikipedia, when we do not use native or [[hybrid word|hybrid]] expressions for the [[province]]s of other countries that do not use close [[cognate]]s of the English "province", including [[Afghanistan]] (''[[wilaya]]''), [[Armenia]] (''[[marz (Armenia)|marz]]''), [[Cambodia]] (''khaet''), [[China]] (省, [[Province (China)|''sheng'']]), [[Finland]] (''[[läänit]]''), [[Greece]] (επαρχία, ''[[eparchia]]''), [[Iran]] (''[[Ostan (Geography)|ostan]]''), [[Ireland]] (''cúige''), [[Kazakhstan]] (''oblasy''), [[Kyrgyzstan]] (''oblasty''), [[Laos]] (''[[khoueng]]''), [[Madagascar]] (''faritany''), [[Mongolia]] (''aimag''), [[North Korea]] (도, ''to''), [[Pakistan]] (''suba''), [[Philippines]] (''lalawigan''), [[Rwanda]] (''intara''), [[Saudi Arabia]] (''[[mintaqah]]''), [[South Korea]] (도, 道, ''to''), [[Tajikistan]] (''veloyati''), [[Thailand]] ([[จังหวัด]], ''[[changwat]]''), [[Turkey]] (''[[Provinces of Turkey|il]]''), [[Administrative divisions of Ukraine#Naming|Ukraine]] (''oblast''), [[Vietnam]] (''[[tỉnh]]'')?
 
:[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::Let this poor dead horse rest in peace already. There's bigger fish to fry. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 06:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::You have answered none of the objections to "voi(e)vod(e)ship." You have merely said, in effect, "[[Wikipedia:I just don't like it|I just like it.]]" [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: Absolute [[WP:BOLLOCKS|BOLLOCKS]]. I've given PLENTY of reasons why "voivoideship" is better.[[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 09:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::[[Profanity]] is [[Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility|no argument]]. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 10:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 
== Please stop the madness and deal with mass renaming of articles against [[Wikipedia:NC/GN]] now ==
 
{| # !! width="70%" align="center" class="wikitable"
|+ '''Mass renaming (samples only)'''
!Link
!Name of Voivodeship
!
!Number of search results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Warmian-Masurian+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" -wiki
|
|align="right"|About '''1,840,000''' results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Warmińsko-mazurskie Voivodeship" -wiki
|{{N&}}
|align="right"|About {{color|red|15,900}} results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Kuyavian-Pomeranian+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship" -wiki
|
|align="right"|About '''1,140,000''' results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Kujawsko-pomorskie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Kujawsko-pomorskie Voivodeship" -wiki
|{{N&}}
|align="right"|About {{color|red|66,500}} results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Greater+Poland+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Greater Poland Voivodeship" -wiki
|
|align="right"|About '''3,130,000''' results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Wielkopolskie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Wielkopolskie Voivodeship" -wiki
|{{N&}}
|align="right"|About {{color|red|11,500}} results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22%C5%81%C3%B3d%C5%BA+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Łódź Voivodeship" -wiki
|
|align="right"|About '''745,000''' results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22%C5%81%C3%B3dzkie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22%C5%81%C3%B3dzkie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Łódzkie Voivodeship" -wiki
|{{N&}}
|align="right"|About {{color|red|11,700}} results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Lubusz+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Lubusz+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Lubusz Voivodeship" -wiki
|
|align="right"|About '''297,000''' results
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22Lubuskie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Lubuskie+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bf904649da877f2d&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Lubuskie Voivodeship" -wiki
|{{N&}}
|align="right"|About {{color|red|8,350}} results
|-
|colspan=4|<center>''([[Special:Contributions/Spacejam2|and more]])
|}
::— [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 06:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
The [[English language]] forms [[province]] (''województwo'') names differently than the [[Polish language]]. Polish uses the [[adjective]] form (e.g., "''Warmińsko-mazurskie''", which some render in English as "Warmian-Masurian"). English uses the [[noun]] form ("[[Warmia]]–[[Mazury]]").
 
For "''Warmińsko-mazurskie''", Google gives "Warmian-Masurian", 1,070,000; "Warmia–Mazury", 2,400,000.
 
Nevertheless, without checking all 16 Polish provinces on Google, I doubt that Google is going to give us a coherent set of English equivalents.
 
Two consistent approaches do come to mind, for rendering the Polish province names in English:
 
1. Use the original Polish adjectival versions, as just introduced by [[User:Spacejam2|Spacejam2]] ("''Warmińsko-mazurskie''");
 
2. Use the Polish-noun forms ("Warmia–Mazury").
 
Either approach seems preferable to the present arbitrary, inconsistent set of names on Wikipedia. Of the two approaches, the second is more consistent with normal English-language practice. Thus, in [[Canada]] there is no "[[Quebec]]ian", "[[Nova Scotia]]n", "[[British Columbia]]n" or "[[Prince Edward Island]]ian" Province.
 
[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
:There may be something to be said for changing these names, but it needs to do through a proper discussion and decision process, not just one editor deciding to change them all unilaterally. I've reverted the moves back to the names they were all at before; if anyone has a proposal to change them, please make it through the normal channels.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:The main problem with the above given searches is that just putting "-wiki" doesn't do crap to screen out Wikipedia mirrors, LLC books and the like. It doesn't even screen out hits that have the word "wikipedia" in them. Looking at google books is much more illustrative. Just as an example, take "Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" -wiki" vs. "Warmińsko-mazurskie Voivodeship" -wiki. "Warmińsko-mazurskie Voivodeship" gets only 9 hits, '''but all of them are legit outside sources'''. "Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" appears to get 312 hits, '''but every single one is a Wikipedia reprint''' [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Warmian-Masurian+Voivodeship%22+-wiki&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&ei=QExCTtm2MOqxsAKlu_jWCQ&start=0&sa=N]. As with other cases, these "hits" are too an (erroneous) Wikipedia invention, '''not''' to anything that can be called "English naming".
:Additionally the European Union and other English speaking organizations use the "Warmińsko-mazurskie Voivodeship" format for all these. Hence, the moves are in fact '''applying''' [[Wikipedia:NC/GN]].
:And frankly, I disagree with Kotniski. Naming conventions are a god awful mess that do nothing but cause trouble and nobody that isn't paying attention to them 24/7 knows exactly what the hell is going on with them, and even then they're ridiculously confusing and often self-contradictory. Moving all of them in this way is just applying "be bold" in a constructive manner.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 09:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
:Also agree with NN that the "Warmian-Masurian" format is about the worst possible. Why not "Wyomingian state"? "Suffolkian county"? [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 09:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
::It's not constructive to make lots of moves which you know are controversial and are likely to be reverted. We have a system for proposing and deciding this sort of thing without creating drama - let's use it.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 
== Google Books advanced search, not a eureka moment ==
 
{| # !! width="100%" align="center" class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;"
|+ '''Google Books advanced search (without PoD publishing)'''
!Link
!Name of Voivodeship
!Search
!Description of individual items in Books
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Warmian-Masurian+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&pdl=3000&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5201440e5a714deb&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|2 results
|1. Debbie Jenkins (2008) ''Buying Property in Poland'' <br>2. MobileReference (2007), ''European History for Smartphones''
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-Mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&num=10]
|"Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|8 results<br>(1 from UK)
|{{color|red|1. <s>{{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}}</s> UNDP Polska (Agenda ONZ), ''Social Exclusion and Interration in Poland''}}<br>{{color|red|2.}} (repetition) {{color|red|Magdalena Muras (2006), ''Social exclusion and integration in Poland''}} <br>{{color|red|3. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne (2008), ''Polish sociological review''}} <br>{{color|red|4. {{flagicon|Italy|size=15px}} Università commerciale Luigi Bocconi (2001), ''Rivista internazionale di scienze''}} <br>{{color|red|5. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Edyta Banaszkiewicz-Zygmunt (2000), ''Poland: an encyclopedic guide''}} <br>{{color|red|6. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Muzeum Archeologiczne (1999), ''Światowit'' Volume 42}} <br>7. Johanna Möhring (2005), ''Business clusters: promoting enterprise'' <br>{{color|red|8. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Instytut Geografii (2005), ''Europa XXI'' Volumes 12-14}} <br>{{color|red|9. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Instytut Historii (2006), ''Archeologia Polski'' Volume 51}}
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmian-Masurian+Province%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-Surhone&num=100]
|"Warmian-Masurian Province" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|1 result
|Krystian Heffner, Marek Koter {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} (2007), ''Regions in the process of European integration''
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmia%E2%80%93Mazury+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-Surhone&num=10]
|"Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|2 results
|1. Sylvain Giguère (2007), ''Baltic partnerships: integration, growth and local governance'' <br>2. Julian Auleytner (2006), ''Polish social policy: the forging of a social order''
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmia%E2%80%93Mazury+Province%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-Surhone&num=10]
|"Warmia–Mazury Province" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|2 results
|1. Bicentennial Pub. Corp (2000), ''New horizon'' Volume 25 <br>2. Mike Bent (2005), ''Cantabrian Summer, Baltic Winter''
|}
:— [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 
*Response <small>(as of 22:04, 10 August 2011 by [[User:Volunteer Marek]])</small>
*Commented {{color|green|'''in green'''}} by [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 
{| # !! width="100%" align="center" class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;"
|+ '''Google Books advanced search (without PoD publishing)''' <<-- NOT TRUE
!Link
!Name of Voivodeship
!Search
!Description of individual items in Books
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Warmian-Masurian+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&pdl=3000&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5201440e5a714deb&biw=1120&bih=736]
|"Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|2 results
|1. Debbie Jenkins (2008) ''Buying Property in Poland'' <-- '''looks like vanity press, and actually it says "Warminsko-Mazurkskie (Warmian-Mazurian). It's also at least partly based on Wikipedia [http://books.google.com/books?id=_HsNDltUuUUC&pg=PA147&dq=%22Warmian-Masurian+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&hl=en&ei=E_9CTrmmOYqpsQLZu9nUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Wikipedia&f=false]'''<br>2. MobileReference (2007), ''European History for Smartphones''<<-- '''based on Wikipedia [http://books.google.com/books?id=EKmWw72M8PkC&pg=PT1341&dq=%22Warmian-Masurian+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&hl=en&ei=E_9CTrmmOYqpsQLZu9nUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=wikipedia&f=false]
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-Mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&num=10]
|"Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|8 results<br>(1 from UK)
|{{color|red|1. Polska (Agenda ONZ), ''Social Exclusion and Interration in Poland''}} '''{{color|green|Author is listed as "UNDP Polska" team; page 18 and thereafter: all units defined as <u>regions</u>, not as voivodeships, i.e. "''Wielkopolskie, Mazowieckie, Małopolskie'', and ''Pomorskie'' regions"... "''Lubuskie, Wielkopolskie'' and ''Świętokrzyskie'' regions"... "''Opolskie, Śląskie'' and ''Lubelskie'' regions"... and so on. Please compare, pages 18-20.}}[http://books.google.ca/books?id=bXkvf9JAhj8C&pg=PA11&dq=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-Mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&hl=en&ei=DlpDTv6rNOOysALm-8TtCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CC0QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Lubelskie'%20regions&f=false]'''<br>{{color|red|2.}} (repetition) {{color|red|Magdalena Muras (2006), ''Social exclusion and integration in Poland''}} '''<-- Actually this is United Nations, not "Polish" - "Polska" here refers to the subject not the publisher. [http://www.beta.undp.org/undp/en/home.html] {{color|green|This is a reprint of the above, with identical layout, but more color added in plates.}}'''<br>{{color|red|3. Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne (2008), ''Polish sociological review''}} '''<-- Published in Poland, but nonetheless an ENGLISH language publication, with works by many non-Polish authors: [http://books.google.com/books?ei=9gBDTuH1M67gsQL-t93JCQ&ct=result&id=5LUpAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-Mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&q=Poland#search_anchor] {{color|green|Please click on "From inside the book" and search further. Inspite of making changes in spelling the phrase "search - ''Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship'' - did not match any documents."}}'''<br>{{color|red|4. Università commerciale Luigi Bocconi (2001), ''Rivista internazionale di scienze''}} '''<-- No, this is an English language journal which is published at University of Michigan. Author happens to be Italian, that's all. Text is in English. {{color|green|The author is not only from Italy, he writes his dissertations in Italian, see: inauthor:"Tullio Bagiotti". Who's the translator?}}'''<br>{{color|red|5. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Edyta Banaszkiewicz-Zygmunt (2000), ''Poland: an encyclopedic guide''}} <br>{{color|red|6. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Muzeum Archeologiczne (1999), ''Światowit'' Volume 42}} <br>7. Johanna Möhring (2005), ''Business clusters: promoting enterprise'' <br>{{color|red|8. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Instytut Geografii (2005), ''Europa XXI'' Volumes 12-14}} '''<-- Academic journal published in Poland but in English [http://books.google.com/books?id=kybxAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-Mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&dq=%22Warmi%C5%84sko-Mazurskie+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-VDM&hl=en&ei=9gBDTuH1M67gsQL-t93JCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ]''' <br>{{color|red|9. {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} Instytut Historii (2006), ''Archeologia Polski'' Volume 51}}
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmian-Masurian+Province%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-Surhone&num=100]
|"Warmian-Masurian Province" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|1 result
|Krystian Heffner, Marek Koter {{flagicon|Poland|size=15px}} (2007), ''Regions in the process of European integration''
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmia%E2%80%93Mazury+Voivodeship%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-Surhone&num=10]
|"Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|2 results
|1. Sylvain Giguère (2007), ''Baltic partnerships: integration, growth and local governance'' <br>2. Julian Auleytner (2006), ''Polish social policy: the forging of a social order''
|-
|[http://www.google.ca/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Warmia%E2%80%93Mazury+Province%22+-Wikipedia+-LLC+-Surhone&num=10]
|"Warmia–Mazury Province" -Wikipedia -LLC -VDM
|align="center"|2 results
|1. Bicentennial Pub. Corp (2000), ''New horizon'' Volume 25 <br>2. Mike Bent (2005), ''Cantabrian Summer, Baltic Winter''
|}
:{{color|green|Let's not split hairs.}} — [[User:LMK3|LMK3]] ([[User talk:LMK3|talk]]) 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 
== Google Scholar hits ==
Line 576 ⟶ 94:
:::4. A reason to use the few English names noted above, apart from their familiarity, is that they are more readily pronounceable to English-speakers than the Polish originals. For the same reason, might we consider "Holy Cross" for "Świętokrzyskie" (which means "Holy Cross")?
:::[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::And Łódź means "boat", Pomorze means "by the sea", Śląskie means "from the wet place" or something. But we don't translate place names in this way. The only point I can see of translating these names is if the translated versions are likely to be more familiar to English-speaking readers than the original versions. Which I think is certainly the case with some of them (Lower Silesian, Silesian, Pomeranian, etc.) and certainly not the case with something like "Holy Cross". I think I would agree with the compiler of the above list on most of the examples (at least in terms of whether to translate or not) - for example, I don't think readers are more likely to recognize Greater Poland (as we currently have) than Wielkopolska. I agree that there should be no "the", but I also think the adjectival forms ought to be used where they exist (Silesia'''n''', Pomerania'''n'''), as this is an accurate translation of the Polish names (and Pomorze and Śląsk are definitely not the same as Pomorskie and Śląskie - not even close in fact).--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 06:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::''All'' the Polish province names, without exception, are [[adjective]]s. It's simply a feature of the Polish language, nothing more. As [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] says, rendering these Polish adjectival forms literally into English is like calling the American [[State of Wyoming]] "Wyomingian State", or [[New York State]]'s [[Suffolk County, New York|Suffolk County]]—"Suffolkian County". One does not translate idiomatic usages uncritically between languages. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It's not like that at all - obviously the names of Wyoming and Suffolk are not adjectives, so there would be no reason to make them into adjectives. But the Polish names are adjectives, so if we want to translate those names accurately, we translate them using adjectives (where such exist - obviously for such words as Łódź and Wielkopolska there are no English adjectival forms other than just the noun used attributively).--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 06:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::The mere ''existence'' of an adjectival form in a foreign language does not mean one must use a corresponding adjective in English. There is an adjective, "Californian," but Americans call that entity "[[California State]]", "the State of California", or simply "California", but not "California'''''n''''' State." What's the earthly point of using an adjectival form, in English, for a province of ''any'' country, when in English the noun is the usage? [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::The problem is that there is no conclusive usage in English for these entities, so we're having to decide for ourselves what the most encyclopedic names would be. The difference with California is that California ''is'' the state, while [[Silesia]] is most definitely ''not'' the province.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 13:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Indeed, there is no consistency to be found, and no authoritative sources we can turn to. In fact, the most authoritative guide for Polish naming conventions is WP itself. As you said, the decision is ours to make. I'm glad you mentioned Silesia, because that is a primary concern of mine. When the voivodeships were formed in 1999, tehy were (arbitrarily) given the names of historical and cultural regions, which unfortunately can create confusion between the two. Silesia is a case in point. Another is Mazowieckie, which excludes significant parts of Mazovian core territory like Łowicz, and includes areas that never have been considered as part of Mazovia. Podlaskie likewise includes the Suwalszczyzna.[[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 13:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The same may be said of [[Wielkopolska]]—and much, much more so of [[Małopolska]]. It can, indeed, be said of all [[Poland]], whose boundaries have shifted mightily over the country's thousand-year history: first moving mostly eastward, eventually to return to the country's approximate starting position. And yet we still call it, throughout all these peregrinations, "Polska"—"Poland".
 
:::::::::::::I dare say the same may also be said of any other country or province of a country. For example, what is now the American state of [[Massachusetts]] was once the [[Province of Massachusetts Bay]], which included, among other things, the [[Province of Maine]] (now the state of [[Maine]]) and the present [[Canada|Canadian]] provinces of [[Nova Scotia]] and [[New Brunswick]]. Similarly, the British [[Colony of Virginia|Province of Virginia]] subsequently became the Commonwealth of Virginia, which eventually gave rise to the present states of [[Virginia]], [[West Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], [[Indiana]], [[Illinois]] and parts of [[Ohio]]. And the [[Province of New York]] originally included all the present [[U.S. states]] of [[New York]], [[New Jersey]], [[Delaware]] and [[Vermont]], along with inland portions of [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]] and [[Maine]], as well as eastern [[Pennsylvania]]. More such examples could be cited from the history of the United States and other countries.
 
:::::::::::::We should not succumb to a false sense of Polish [[exceptionalism]] and needlessly use geographic names and terms that are ''neither'' Polish ''nor'' English. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 05:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 
Not quite. Łowicz is not in Mazowieckie, but it is certainly still in Mazovia. A more quinetessentially Mazovian town you will not find. Częstochowa, on the other hand, is in Śląskie, but is certainly not in Silesia. When I hear "province" in a Polish context, I think of Mazovia and Silesia, not Mazowieckie and Śląskie. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 06:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::When I hear "''[[Mazowsze]]''" ("Mazovia") and "''Śląsk''" (Polish Silesia), I think of Polish regions (described in "[[Polish historical regions]]"), not provinces (''[[Voivodeships of Poland|województwa]]''). There is a crucial difference between ''[[Mazowsze]]'' (the region) and ''[[Mazovian Voivodeship|województwo mazowieckie]]'' (Mazowsze Province). [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, I think that's what we're all saying. Hence we should make the same distinction in English, where English provides words for making that distinction: Silesia for Śląsk, Silesian (Province/Voivodeship) for Śląskie. This is certainly not a term that is "not English" - Silesian is very English.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 08:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm open to considering "[[Silesian Voivodeship|Silesia Province]]", by analogy with the English-language "[[California State]]". "Silesian Province" prompts the question, "Which, or exactly what kind of, 'Silesian province' do you have in mind?" [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::You cannot compare the English adopted name for a location in an English language nation with an English adopted name for a location in another country. Too much of what I see here is an excuse to anglify Polish, just because you can. I live in Lublin, in Lubelskie, and I am aware of why these places appear on the map in these forms. You may not agree with Poland's decisions to name their wojewodztwo, but then who are you to question it? What right do you have to question it? This is not a primarily English speaking nation, not a primarily German speaking nation, sadly not particularly well known in terms of its places, so why do attempt to steal the language - because if you ever arrive here and have to make your own travel decisions, then your wikipedia decisions are not going to help you. If you have a business here, you do not need any confusion on your address. [[User:Lublin Trev|Lublin Trev]] ([[User talk:Lublin Trev|talk]]) 09:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 
== Polish provinces in Anglophone sources ==
 
*"Poland", ''[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]]'', 15th edition, 2010, ''[[Macropaedia]]'', volume 25, p. 937:
{{blockquote|"Local government in Poland is organized on three levels. The largest units, at the regional level, are the ''województwa'' ('''provinces'''), which were consolidated and reduced in number from 49 to 16 in 1999. At the next level are some 300 ''powiaty'' (counties or districts), followed by about 2,500 ''gminy'' (towns and rural communes)."}}
::::Page 931 features a map of Poland with the province locations indicated, and below it an alphabetical listing of the 16 provinces by their Polish names, complete with [[diacritic]]s, without any attempt to Anglicize.
 
 
*"Poland", ''[[The Columbia Encyclopedia]]'', sixth edition, edited by Paul Lagassé, [[Columbia University Press]], 2000, p. 2256: {{blockquote|"Poland is divided into 49 '''provinces'''."}}
 
 
*"Poland", ''[[The Encyclopedia Americana]]'', 1986, volume 22, p. 312:
{{blockquote|"Following the reform of the administrative structure in 1973-1975, the number of '''provinces''' (''województwa'') was increased from 22 to 49, of which three are the metropolitan cities of Warsaw, Łódź, and Kraków.... [I]ncreasing the number of '''provinces''' meant the reduction of each in size. In this way Warsaw was able to dilute the political importance of the '''provincial''' party chiefs."}}
::::Page 302 alphabetically lists the former 49 Polish provinces, named for principal city, explicitly as "'''provinces'''".
 
[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 05:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
*"Poland," in [[Central Intelligence Agency]], ''[[The CIA World Factbook]] 2010'', New York, Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2009, ISBN 978-60239-727-9, p. 546:
{{blockquote|'''GOVERNMENT'''... '''Administrative divisions''': 16 '''provinces''' (wojewodztwa, singular–wojewodztwo): Dolnoslaskie (Lower Silesia), Kujawsko-Pomorskie (Kuyavia-Pomerania), Lodzkie, Lubelskie (Lublin), Lubuskie (Lubusz), Malopolskie (Lesser Poland), Mazowieckie (Masovia), Opolskie, Podkarpackie (Subcarpathia), Podlaskie, Pomorskie (Pomerania), Slaskie (Silesia), Swietokrzyskie, Warminsko-Mazurskie (Warmia-Masuria), Wielkopolskie (Greater Poland), Zachodniopomorskie (West Pomerania).}}
::::The same information appears in the online [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html ''CIA World Factbook'' ("Government" --> "Administrative divisions")]
::::Please note: Above, where "English translations" of province names are given, they are in the [[noun]] ("Silesia"), not the [[adjective]] ("Silesia'''''n'''''"), form.
[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 01:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 
== Basic question ==
 
When foreigners coming to Poland hear for the first time "Greater Poland Voivideship", what do they usually associate it with? I guess that they think "something greater and Polish, but I have no idea what it is". When they hear "Wielkopolska Province", they simply think "a large administrative unit named Wielkopolska". Some Wikimedians say that we're not responsible for what happens outside Wikipedia. But we want Wikipedia to be a source of reliable and understandable information, used by everybody. Don't we? [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]] ([[User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska|talk]]) 22:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:Very well said.
:Which is why ''[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]]'', ''[[The Encyclopedia Americana]]'', ''[[The Columbia Encyclopedia]]'', and [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html ''The CIA World Factbook'' ("Government" --> "Administrative divisions")] render "''województwo''" as "[[province]]".
:I agree about keeping "''[[Wielkopolska]]''" in the original [[Polish language|Polish]] rather than rendering it as "Greater Poland", if only to prevent confusion with "Greaters" such as [[Greater London]], [[Greater Khorasan]], or the [[Nazi Germany|Greater German Reich]]. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 
== Brussels presentation of Polish regions ==
 
Polish regions have presented their recent projects. Both "region" and "voivodeship" were used. An official list http://www.brukselaeu.polemb.net/?document=78, but compare "Wielkopolska Voivodship" and http://www.wielkopolska.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=19&Itemid=79 [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for this!
:The official list of "''województwo''" representations in [[Brussels]] demonstrates the inconsistency in Poland's English-language rendering of "''województwo''". We have "X Region", "X Voivodship [no '''''e''''']", "Regional Office of X Voivodship [no '''''e''''']", and "X Voivodship [no '''''e'''''] Regional Office".
:I personally would reserve "[[Region#Historical regions|Region]]" for historic [[Wielkopolska]] and [[Małopolska]].
:I see no advantage to "Voivodship" (with or without an "e"), for the excellent reason given by [[User:Sylwia Ufnalska|Sylwia Ufnalska]], and agree with her advocacy of the most widely used term for such principal national subdivisions, "[[province]]".
:[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 05:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::Im my opinion only 'Voivodeship' is a proper way of translating Polish 'województwo'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.252.10.2|188.252.10.2]] ([[User talk:188.252.10.2|talk]]) 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
== Have you ever considered asking actual translators? ==
 
- I've heard so much about this Lubusz Province of yours! So, where's this Lubusz town that the whole province gets its name from?<br>
- In Germany.<br>
- Oh.
 
- I've heard so much about this Podlaskie Province of yours! So, where's this Podlaskie town that the whole province gets its name from, as apparently provinces named after regions are translated, while those named after cities are not?<br>
- I'm sorry, our inferiority complex makes us translate shit no one else cares about in fear of sounding too exotic.<br>
- Oh.
 
etc.
 
The voivodships are names after historical regions or cities, but '''do not''' correspond strictly to those. The Małopolskie Voivodship may cover most of historical Lesser Poland, but the city of Częstochowa remains outside of it. The Opolskie Voivodship was actually based on the quite distinct Opolian Silesia, and not just the fact that this one moderately-sized city is there, so hey, let's give it a whole new entity. And last but not least, the Lubuskie is in fact named after the region of Ziemia Lubuska, otherwise (and erstwhile) known as ''Terra Lubus''. Yes, it's '''Latin'''. Why then stick to some confusing, literal renditions such as "Greater" or "Lesser Poland" (that not even Poles consider greater or lesser in any way), if we're not going to observe that rule in the one case that actually requires historical accuracy?
 
This is why they're adjectives by the way. And as such, they should uniformly keep their original spelling, just like all newly-coined designations do. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.22.118.23|195.22.118.23]] ([[User talk:195.22.118.23#top|talk]]) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
 
== Lazy historians versus modern Poland ==
 
Let us start with 'świętokrzyskie - the Świętokrzyskie Province'. This is how the name is spelled on the map at the top of the actual page, complete with a Polish letter.
Next we should consider Gdansk/Gdańsk and the battle that took place on that page between Polish and German editors, the latter who wanted it to be Danzig.
I have seen the arguments about which encyclopedias use outdated names, presumably still using data from the 19th century when Poland as a country did not exist. However, Poland does exist and has certainly existed since the very early 1920s, and if they have been too lazy to update their records then that is their problem - not ours.
I have lived in Lublin, which is a city according to the maps and road signs, in Lubelskie voivodeships. Yes, in Polish they could both be written as Lublin and Lubleskie etc. but Polish grammar does not work in the same way as English grammar.
Now if we examine the Polish language wikipedia then we can see how many times the voivodeship map (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojew%C3%B3dztwo) has been redrawn over the past 120 years, and yet still we hang onto a set of Germanic names and insufficient consideration of Polish grammar and of the needs of Polish people living in Poland today. [[User:Lublin Trev|Lublin Trev]] ([[User talk:Lublin Trev|talk]]) 06:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voivodeships_of_Poland"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy