Talk:Podlaskie Voivodeship

Archives

Archive 1

Correct Vovoideship Name

Checking the following official Polish government english websites:

Federal Government - Poland Investment and Foreign Investment Agency - Podlaskie
Federal Government - Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Podlaskie

We should respect the Polish Government and use their translation to English - Podlaskie.

Plus, as mentioned above, the EU uses Podlaskie - European Commission - Rural Development

Ajh1492 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ajh1492[reply]

paiz.gov.pl uses ONLY Polish names (even at EN page), so it is not a relevant source. Regiony-Poland is no longer working. EU uses Podlaskie but also other Polish names. There is no clear reason on why to use "Masovian" (instead of Mazowieckie), but "Podlaskie". Podlachian is the proper translation, similar to "Masovian". Upior polnocy (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Problem is that Podlachian is a term invented on WP and not used outside. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear from some of the above discussions that this is not quite true - WP did not "invent" Podlachian, but revived it - it was certainly used in English in the past. There may still be justification for using it at least for the historical regions. Meanwhile, we must at least mention in the article that Podlachian is an alternative name, since WP's influence means it has now come into quite widespread use, and indeed hundreds of WP articles still use it (I don't know if you have any plans to tidy them all up, but for the moment readers are going to keep seeing the term frequently).--Kotniski (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are seeing it less and less frequently - By the time I am done that inaccurate name, "Podlachian" will no longer exist on the present day articles - historical articles are for another discussion. The good news is that when I fix an article I try to add accurate new information with referenced sources.

I have found one historical map, printed in London in the late 19th century, that uses "Podlachia", but I have found many other historical maps that refer to it as "Podlaskie" or in fewer cases "Podlasie". "Podlachia" appears to be a corruption of "Podlasia" by interpreting the "s" in "Podlasie" as the "ch" sound in English.

It's like the Peking vs. Bejing argument.

Ajh1492 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Podlachia simply reflects the etymology, like Lithuanian Palenkė. The Russian and Belorussian я shows clearly that the vowel of Podlachia is not the same as in Polesia, which has е in Russian and Belorussian, and instead descends from a Common Slavic *ę, showing that the les etymology is impossible and a simple old soundalike etymology. And the page on the region is titled Podlachia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were the splits really necessary?

I wonder if the splits, moving much of this article content to History of Podlasie, Subdivisions of Podlaskie Voivodeship, Metropolitan Białystok, Demographics of Podlaskie Voivodeship and Transport in Podlaskie Voivodeship were really necessary. While the subjects are notable, the main article has no content other than "Main article" links at History and Transportations sections, and Subdivisions and Demographics are quite short. Splits should be carried out only if the parent article is too large, or the sections have grown to an extent it is undue in the parent article, and is split into a new one and summarized in the parent. This article doesn't look like it would be too large with the content that was split out, and the split articles were in two cases not properly summarized. I'd recommend merging the articles back here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is still being worked, just like Bialystok is being worked. Ajh1492 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the split should occur after content has been created to fill the article, not before. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Review

Needs more work, is not B-Class. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]