I do not want to make it look like I do not care much for the hard work that went into splitting Poland into regions, but at that moment, this division seems superfluous to me, especially if we are to maintain the individual voivodship pages. I believe the latter should take precedence both because this is the official division, and because Poland does not really have homogenous cultural or geographic regions that would not straddle voivodship boundaries, and using those would further complicate things.

At present, WV seems to suffer a dire lack of active contributors and most articles are stubby, undermaintained and/or outdated. Given that the stubby articles are for the most part repeating the same basic information, I believe it would only help maintain them in serviceable condition if their number was lower.

I find the division of Poland into voivodships quite reasonable from a travel guide point of view, as they are compact and reasonably homogenous enough to give each a short description and characteristic, while setting it off from neighbouring voivodships more or less. I would propose linking from this article to voivodships direclty and skipping regions. If you find a smaller number of regions is helpful to navigation, I would group the voivodships into 3, 4 or 5 groups (I have no good idea how, except from following roughly the lines of the post-1815 partition of Poland) when listing them.

Anybody has a divergent view before I plunge in? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The previous, not discussed mass renaming of polish voivodeships in pseudo-historical "self-invented" regions a few months ago was IMO a entirely counterproductive change. 1999 created voivodeships and historical regions with centuries-old turbulent history and with the same/similar names are far from being the same.

And this image is also a far from the reality and unacceptable "regional self-invention". Currently the articles describe and encourage to visit pseudo-regions that IMO in this boundaries and in this form in practice don't exist, e.g. Warmia-Masuria or Podlachia describe nothing else like voivodeships with this names. "Podlachia" historically means -> w:Podlachia and "Warmia-Masuria" as a historical region in this form does not exist. Before the WWII it was simply part of w:East Prussia.

This far more detailed map for example was in PL-WP also delinked from all articles as not precise enough after this discussion -> . IMO it is impossible to push a 1000 years history of the region within different countries in a one static two-dimensional historic map. Inventing anything other than the current administrative division does not make IMO any sense, because so far no one has succeeded to create something reasonable in this case. --Alan ffm (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In short, do you agree with me to remove the regions and have voivodeships directly as the next division level with the Wikivoyage point of view in mind (i.e. with potential traveller in mind), not historical correctness or whatever? PrinceGloria (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree. --Alan ffm (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Poland has 16 voivodeships, far too many. Each country can only have a maximum of 9 regions, that's why the voivodeships were grouped this way. Also, the regions should be logical for travellers, not just bureaucratic lines without relevance. I think the current grouping makes sense, and while historically not totally accurate naming-wise, it is the best I could come up with. The current voivodeships are also not historically correct. "Silesia" is a much larger region than the voivodeship of Silesia, for example. Globe-trotter (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I really can't see how 16 voivodships (Polish language authorities recommend spelling this word without the "e") is too many, I guess there is a Wikivoyage rule for this, but I find it absurd. I have visited many other European countries with a similar number of NUTS at this level and had no problem handling that. I find no benefit in having Flevoland grouped with the Hollands and Utrecht and don't know how it does not belong with e.g. Gelderland and Overijssel more - but having this entirely irrelevant level only makes navigating Wikivoyage more irritating to me. Trying to group administrative divisions into artificial "regions" is futile, because they don't often work that way.

Coming back to Poland - all of the groupings currently presented are artificial. I could see Opolskie and Śląskie SOMEHOW being similar (EDIT: from the tourist's point of view, they actually aren't, on consideration), and Zachodniopomorskie and Pomorskie could benefit from being grouped in order to discuss the possibilities to explore the Baltic coast, but otherwise the dissimilarities far outweigh any similarities. Having an article dedicated to discussing how the supposed constituents of the region have nothing in common seems absurd to me. Just limiting the article to listing the constituent voivodships (which is what the articles basically are now) just underlines how superfluous they are.

The fact that Podlaskie and Warmińsko-Mazurskie were left out as separate "regions" signifies how impossible it is to divide Poland into reasonably coherent regions.

The voivodships, however artificial and administrative they might be, are very helpful for travellers to plan their journeys. They are usually centred along the capital, which is the largest city, which in turn tends to be the one with most tourist attractions, largest accommodation base and the local transportation hub. Speaking of which, "getting around" is also best described on a per-voivodship basis, as local train companies usually operate within one voivodship, and it tends to apply to local road transportation as well. They are also fairly compact and most allow for day trips to most destinations within the voivodship from any location therein, especially the capital.

Finally, voivodships are univerally recognized - you will find them on every map, they are referred to by every official source and will be easily indentified by locals without confusion, while discussions as to where Silesia ends or begins could be a good matter for teatime talk, but not for orientation for the tourists. We are trying to help tourists find their way and plan their travel, not invent some nonexisting regions to somehow splice Poland - the latter was already done for us by the Polish goverment and there is no point in trying to repeat that.

I firmly believe Poland, in its current state of description @WV, does not need regions between the country level and voivodships. If this would be against a WV policy, I am very much ready to dispute the policy - there are 500 active editors here, and the project is very much nascent, I see no point in seeing policies as set in stone. Please point me towards the policy if it is the only thing standing in the way.

Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS. Historical "correctness" of voivodships is entirely irrelevant for Wikivoyage purposes, so let us not refer to thin in further discussions.

That policy can be found here: Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy#Dividing geographical units. Starting with 16 subdivisions is just too many to grasp for someone who is interested in reading about Poland. The Netherlands has only 12 provinces, and even they are grouped together. Poland now has 7 regions, which is ideal. I think they make sense culturally, even while the borders are artificial to a certain extent. I just checked the Lonely Planet, and their regions are quite similar to ours. Maybe we should change the names of the regions? For example, we could Silesia to "Southern Poland", Mazovia to "Central Poland", etc., to avoid historical discussions and confusion with the voivodeships. I do think those directional names sound a bit bland though.Globe-trotter (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The page you linked to says: "Dividing geographical units is something of a dark art. Use caution, consensus, and collaboration when possible.", and the 7+/-2 thing is a guideline, not a policy. There is clearly no consensus here and if we can reach one to have 16 voivodships, I believe it fully satisfies the guidelines.

Lonely Planet is hardly an authoritative source to me - were it good, there would have been no need for Wikivoyage. I saw their guide to Poland once and it was disastrously incorrect in some places. But, then again, those guides are written by even less people than Wikivoyage, and I guess less passionate, and their process necessitates taking second-best decisions, because it is more about fixing stuff in time, than finding the best solution.

For a much better source, I'd see DK's Eyewitness, if we have to refer to print guides here. I'll try to locate their guide to Poland this weekend.

By the way, I just went to LonelyPlanet.com and their division is very different, cutting across voivodships and cutting out the most often-visited parts of the country while omitting many totally (tell me where to find Lubuskie or Opolskie, please). Their principle is not to provide a guide to every part of the planet, like ours (implicitly) is. We try to find something interesting about every region. Lonely Planet expressly omits the ones they find least interesting.

AT ANY RATE:

1. As a frequent traveller to the Netherlands, I find it bizarre how the provinces are grouped together (What does Zeeland have to do with Noord-Brabant and Limburg???, How is Flevoland more like Utrecht or Hollands than Friesland, Drenthe or Overijssel?)

2. If anybody believes that the current regions "make sense culturally", I can hardly believe they have ever been to Poland, or if they have, whether they understood the country. With all due respect, they don't at all. And certainly not geographically and as a means of planning one's travel around.

3. The division into regions is not meant to help somebody understand Poland. It is the rest of the article which it is for. And short descriptions next to links to every voivodship should do the trick just as well.

4. Names of the regions should allow for easy, unambigious navigation, not sound cool. It would be much cooler to call New York "the Big Apple", but we know people will be looking for an article on the former. The current names of the regions are the same or similar to voivodships, as well as geographic and historic regions, while not being colocated with either. Łódzkie is not by any means a part of Masovia, for one. "East of Poland" is fine to call an otherwise unrelated collection of regions/administrative divisions, as it does not appear to be anything more than it is. Apart from Silesia, there is no other region which can be used to describe and unanimous selection of voivodship, and whether Silesia as such is an easier region to describe to a tourist than each of the voivodships separately is disputable.

To make it constructive, I would suggest to revert to NUTS, which have been compiled by people far wiser than us, and taking into account regional differences and similarities, as they serve statistical purposes - if they made no sense, statistics would reflect nothing.

Then, describing statistical regions by their touristic features seems a convulted idea. There is little to be said of each region (two or three lines maybe) that does not refer to individual voivodships rather. This means that the articles for each of the "regions" would be totally unnecessary. To aid navigation and easy grasp of Poland, we could just break down the list of voivodship by their NUTS 1 / region and add a word or two on each of them to help people understand which is in the mountains, which has a coastline and how they are different from the other (e.g. PL4 is easily reachable from Eastern Germany / Berlin, while PL3 relatively less afluent, but gifted with splendid nature and landscapes).

We could that way avoid a long unbroken list of 16 positions, but still avoid articles that would remain perpetually half-empty or filled with convulted, repeated content. N'est pas? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ad. 2. 100% agree.

The current "historical/cultural"(?) division is harmful, because without any need it exposes only the travelers who believe in the existence of such regions in this boundaries in the best case, to present themselves as a perfect example of cultural ignorance. What the local people can receive in the best case as ridiculous, but sometimes also as offensive. The official administrative division allows to avoid such a cultural misunderstandings. --Alan ffm (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ad. 4. The NUTS division would not be IMO helpful for the travel purposes because even in Poland 99.9% of people never heard about it, and nobody knows what it means and what these regions in practice include. This is only an internal classification of statistical offices and isn't used anywhere else.

IMO the names of the described regions should be clear and understandable as possible. Finally, readers/travelers should know and be able to explain to others where he wants to go.

IMO we need to describe here the existing in practice travel reality and we shouldn't create here unjustified appearances that some strange internal and unknown to anyone names/regions/divisions are commonly used in the practice and absolutely not "invent" anything.--Alan ffm (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a lot of "can't do". Other travel guides can, so it's not that impossible. We can't have more than 5–9 regions, so the voivodships cannot function as the top-level regions. The Europe page also has arbitrary conventions like "Central Europe", with countries in it like Germany and Slovakia that basically have nothing in common. But such groupings are a way of making travel content easier to disgest. We could force 22 French régions on a first-time reader, but it's an information overload. The same goes for the 16 voivodships. I don't mind if the current regional divisions are changed, but they must make sense for a travel guide and not exceed 5–9 regions. Globe-trotter (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I don't know enough about Poland to know whether the regions should be redrawn. Probably so. But 16 is definitely too far a stretch for the 7+-2 rule. I think there may be some cases where we had consensus to stretch the rule to 10 when a place has exactly 10 of something, but I don't know of any case where we agreed to go higher than that. Another point is that cultural similarity is not the only thing that holds a region together - I think the greater point is that, culturally similar or not, they are grouped to be geographically close, since travellers in an area are most likely to visit nearby locations, and region articles give an overview of things grouped together so the travellers doesn't have to sift through a whole list of things to figure out what is nearby, what the regional hubs are, etc. Feel free to try to fight the 7+-2 rule if you want, but I wouldn't get my hopes up too much, as many of us are pretty firmly convinced of its usefulness. Texugo (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

(copied from User talk:PrinceGloria)

I'm a bit puzzled as to the use of the 12 hour clock format in Polish articles. It's a while since I was in Poland, but when I was there I saw constructions like 10.00-18.30 rather than 10AM-6.30PM. Have things changed very recently?

I have lots of Polish neighbours and there are some Polish food shops here in Glasgow and they all use the 24 hour format and put the day of the month before the month rather than afterwards.

Hoping you can shed some light on this mystery... --W. Frank^email_talk 01:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

We use the 24h clock here, but the readers and editors of the English Wikipedia are probably more accustomed to the AM/PM format, which might explain why some entries use that. I might have been using either, I am absolutely not paying attention to that as I find that of the very least importance here, most users will understand either. Feel free to correct the articles and any of my edits if you care about standardizing those. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's a trivial point, but if we are to get some of the Polish articles up to Star status we do need to standardise. Since tdf currently states "Use one of these formats: 09:30–17:00 or 9:30AM–5PM. Do not use both 24- and 12-hour formats within one article. Choose between formats by following predominant local usage."

Although the US has by far the most native English speakers there are another 70 countries that have English as either an official language or one that enjoys a special status. There are reputed to be another 2 billion people (like you and I) that are not native English speakers, but have some English fluency and now that we are a Wikimedia project I hope many more of them will be reading and writing here. (I'll copy this conversation to Talk:Poland - just revert my edit if you don't agree...) --W. Frank^email_talk 14:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to take part in the regions discussion, it's not really that important in my opinion. But I highly object to removal of WV style map with roads, most important cities and other destinations and replacing it with a map showing only administrative divisions in Polish. This starts to look like edit warring so I'll revert once more and please discuss. If the regions are wrong lets make a new map. Jjtkk (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do prefer the new banner, but I'd like to hear from people who know Poland well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

New one is too obviously Warsaw to me. Still, I'm not a great fan of the current one too. Jjtkk (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I made the current banner out of desperation, and I agree it's a bit incongrous. Still, Poland is about the countryside, tradition and rich history. It is not a very urban country, and the obviously fake Old Town of Warsaw is not really too representative. This is a good banner for the Old Town of Warsaw itself, but not for Poland. Would be good to try the same theme I tried (Sarmatian-style country manor), but with a picture that lends itself better to bannerization. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS. The Hebrew banner is not a very good crop of not a very high-quality picture. The more I look at it the less I like it, even if I like the particular view from St. Anne's. Definitely not a banner for Poland.

Not exactly what you asked for (church, village, fields and all that, no manor), but how about this one? Jjtkk (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's a pretty and pleasant banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's OK, I'd flip it horizontallu though. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Im' genrally against flipping pictures but in this case of an anonymous village I think there's no harm and composition is indeed better. Jjtkk (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Never been to Poland, but I think the banner Jjtkk proposed looks nice and I'd say it's better without flipping—the article name will show up on the left upper corner of the banner, which is a quite empty sky in this way, instead of some better-than-nothing trees (which I actually think are quite beautiful anyway). Vidimian (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Uh-oh... I guess my last comments on flipping was about an already flipped banner... Vidimian (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yup :) OK, no opposition, I'll change the banner. Jjtkk (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

While we're at it - we have successfully agreed on removing the useless supraregional region level in Germany and nothing in the way of harm happened. I guess this sets a good precedent for making stuff simple and easy for the travellers. Can we agree here on removing the supra-voivodship regions, even without a new map, the way it was done for Germany? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't really object. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I thought there was some historical context behind bigger regions. Different parts of the country belonged to Austria, Prussia, Russia, and I did see some tangible differences between Lesser Poland and Silesia, for example. But I don't think I have enough knowledge to discuss this in detail. --Alexander (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Support. Jjtkk (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

As a sidenote replying to Alexander - the influence of the former partitions is just one dimension and, to a large extent, has been blurred. The regional boundaries, either within the current split here at Wikivoyage or between voivodships, do not follow the partitions anymore. That would give us only three regions anyway, and would be quite lopsided, as most of what was the Austro-Hungarian partition is actually Western Ukraine now.

The supra-voivodship regions as they stand do not really make much sense, more detailed discussion is in the thread above. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS. No wonder you saw differences between Małopolska and Silesia, the one is heavily industrialized while the other much more agricultural, rural and came to prominence, influence and wealth a few centuries earlier. This has little to do with the partitions - you will probably be surprised to learn that the border between the Prussian and Russian partitions actually ran directly across the present-day Silesia, which still has some local repercussions with locals identifying as either from Śląsk or Zagłębie. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I alluded to the typical "city landscape", which is very German in Silesia and rather different (although hardly Austrian) to the east of it. But this does not really matter. As I said, I don't know enough, and on general grounds I support your proposal. --Alexander (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any objections to this change, provided that all the bits of text get merged appropriately. However, I definitely think we should come up with an new updated map before proceeding with the merging/redirecting/breadcrumb fixing. Texugo (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would do the other way around - let us make it clear what the target composition is and then ask a kind sould like User:Saqib to add making of an appropriate map somewhere to end of their queue. We can keep the colour coding to match the current map, this does not seem to be a major problem IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's already quite clear what we're after; it doesn't require any browsing through the hierarchy to know it's going to be a map of voivodeships. If anything, leaving the current system in place while the map is made will help the mapmaker to group the voivodeships into color groups. Just be patient. If we don't do the map first, we will inevitably have a undetermined gap period during which either we won't have a map at all or the map won't match the divisions. I don't see any convincing reason not to avoid that situation by getting a map first. Texugo (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do - it's the second time around we basically agree and getting a map done takes ages. We have seen that the period between agreement and getting stuff done in Germany lasted forever even without anybody insisting on a map. Let us not lose momentum of this rapid expression of consensus by waiting for God knows who to make a map. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure I'll update the map. Let me know when you guys finish deciding on new region list. --Saqib (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'll insist anyway, because I just don't accept leaving us mapless "forever" (as you put it). The map is already made; it just needs some adjustments, so it really shouldn't take long. Saqib has already said he'll do it. If for some reason he cannot, I'll do it myself. Texugo (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

<edit conflict - replying to Saqib here> Thanks so much for the quick reply and willingness to lend your superb skills to the cause! The decision is pretty much set, we will simply utilize the administrative division into voivodships (see File:Wojewodztwa.svg for reference - actually we may use that map for the time being). When making the new map, you may want to make sure the POI names do not overlap with other map elements in the nasty way they do now, and that Auschwitz is more easily discernible as being in Małopolskie. I would also de-emphasize or completely do away with railway lines (this information is of little value to travellers as it matters where the trains go not how the tracks run), but rather add motorways, as this actually DOES matter to tourists arriving/moving around by cars. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess I've not understood. You want me to completely redraw a new map using File:Wojewodztwa.svg as base map in which case there'll be 16 subregions. Right? --Saqib (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yup, would be great if you'd be able to do just that! PrinceGloria (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at the updated map and let me know of the further changes required. --Saqib (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Saqib. Thanks for jumping on this. It's almost there. I think the labels look pretty much ok, but instead of different colors for every voivodeship, they need to still be colored according to the old map, so we can do a region section the same way it's been done at Germany#Regions. Texugo (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mean I apply same colour to 3/4 voivodeships as they're applied on current map? Then what was the reason of updating the map? --Saqib (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

<indent reset> Yeah Texugo, what's the point of keeping the current colour scheme if we do away with the current regions? I don't think they are any good. If anything, we can go by NUTS 1 to limit outlier cases like Podlaskie and Warmińsko-Mazurskie (we don't need NUTS 1 names on the map, just the colouring will be enough)
At any rate Saqib, this is a brilliant map, thank you for getting this done so fast, hats off! Will you forgive me for being nitpicky though?

• We do not use the anglicized voivodship names here in Wikivoyage. Could you revert to Polish names as per the file we discussed as reference (you can drop the "woj." and have the names start with a cpital letter as our articles do)?
• Some of the darker colours seem to make the grey labels hard to read. I guess the colours used in the current map, or the ones in the reference map, do not provide for such problems, and we do not need that many colours in the map anyway (see reference map)
• If possible, could you highlight (make wider) the main motorways and label them as per this map: File:Stan budowy drog.svg. In particular, the upper East-West green motorway is A2, the lower is A4, and the North-South one is A1. Labels are here, but do note that only the map with green highlights presents the current state of completion, the one with labels has the plan to be achieved one day. I would only keep the A2, A4 and A1 highlighted on the map for their importance
• I am not sure how Koszalin, Łomża, Ostrava and Brest ended up on the map, but I am quite convinced we don't need them at all at this level
• I think the font sizes and colours are different for every attraction highlighted (blue boxes), and the ones used for national park are particularly large. Can we scale that down and uniformize to e.g. what is used for Auschwitz?
• There seem to be river labels, but no rivers, at least on my screen...

Thank you for enduring my nitpicking! PrinceGloria (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've made the said changes to the map, please have a look and let me know if anything further need to be fixed. --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me if what I said was not quite right, the old map didn't have the voivodeship names, for one thing, but I'd forgotten the borders of the old system don't quite follow the voivodeship borders. But I'll stand by what I meant: We still need to group them into about 5 groups or so on the map, as they have been done at Germany. If not, our region section actually has to have the long list of 16 colors/descriptions separately, and that is not acceptable. That was the compromise that allowed us to move forward with it at Germany; the same should apply here. We don't want a giant list. Texugo (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're right that 16 regions will be too much but what was the point of re-drawing the map if we had to keep the current 7 regions? Btw, don't you guys think the rivers makes the map look too complicated? --Saqib (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess the best approach here would be a map like the Chicago's one, in which the voivodships that belong to the same "region" get different shades of the same colour, which mark them as similar and related yet distinct. And don't know what causes this, but I can't currently see the country borders at the updated map. Vidimian (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bavaria's map is another take on that approach. Vidimian (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The map is brilliant as it is, I'd keep it that way. One thing I forgot is that Lublin and Bydgoszcz now have international airports as well and perhaps deserve the airport icon. If you really really really really really really want to recolour this very nice map, I'd go by NUTS 1. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Vidimian, it's an interesting idea, but those examples you gave don't have as many regions as this one, as that approach wouldn't solve the problem of having to list 16 different color blocks/descriptions. Saqib, the map has to be changed because the old one doesn't show all the voivodeship names and borders, and because the color regions don't exactly match up with the voivodeship borders. It looks like the best thing to do is to take what you have and change the color scheme to match PrinceGloria's suggestion at here (doesn't have to be the exact colors, just the same groups). If you get that done, I think the map will be good enough to put in the article and make the big changes with the breadcrumbs and all. The other visual details can still be improved afterward. Texugo (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Saqib (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. National parks - IMO all (23 parks) or nothing - better nothing, otherwise it would be IMO too much information

2. The same in the case of UNESCO sites - IMO all or nothing

3. In some cases of city names Polish diacritics are missing

4. IMO all the currently missing cities which are capitals of voivodeships should be added --Alan ffm (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Correct. No national park and World Heritage Sites at all. They better mentioned in region level maps. Second, how useful these rivers are? I'm sure the map will look more cleaner and clearer if we get rid of those blue lines all over. --Saqib (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the rivers could go, but I disagree about "all or nothing" with regard to national parks and cities. For national parks or "other destinations", the map should contain the same (9) other destinations as the Other destinations section, and for those that are not featured in that section, they don't need to be shown on the map. Same goes for the cities. It's fine as long as it has at least the cities featured in the Cities section. If there's room for the other voivodeship capitals or whatever, so much the better, but as long as we have at least the 9 from the corresponding section, the others don't have to be there. Texugo (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed rivers, added remaining capital cities, and added remaining other destinations. --Saqib (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just brilliant, let's go with this! Thank you so much Saqib! PrinceGloria (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

More or less done, I could just use some help merging content from Greater Poland to Wielkpolskie. Could somebody also please see if there are any orphaned breadcrumb trails left? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, anyone willing to revive the Wikivoyage:Poland Expedition to bring this article to guide status? :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

That would be quite a massive undertaking as it is my understaning that all "daughter" articles need to be at least usable if not guide as well. I believe the country article is quite OK, I am not quite sure what can or should be improved. What I would improve is lower-level articles - voivodships and cities. Perhaps we can start in Warsaw, which is in a state of disrepair after me and one other user couldn't agree on the district split. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the part about the atrocities of WW2 and then elaborate description of the communist era are both blown out of proportion. Being Polish, I lack the necessary perspective to trim them to what is relevant as a brief introduction for a tourist and can be linked to available tourist sites and experiences. Could somebody have a go at that, I can correct afterwards if you fear you don't know Poland well enough. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you lack the perspective. You're the one who feels these things are blown out of proportion, so why don't you post an edited version on your userspace for us to have a look at. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you don't feel so then it's just me. I just got the feeling that the 1000 years of Polish history are quite unimportant compared to five decades, the most of the description of which is depressing and hardly enables one to put a finger on the map (and when it does, you find that Katyn is not even in Poland). PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read the history section lately. Your point of view makes sense, but my point is, since you brought this up, please do feel free to offer your own solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just read through the section. I do get your point, as I did before when we discussed the section. The discussion of the 20th century probably is overly long for a WV article. However, I'm not sure I'll be able to edit it down effectively by myself. I will see what I can do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

One of the things I'm trying is to reduce the number of paragraphs without subtracting much information. Unfortunately, I think a summary of the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis in Poland is important for travelers to know about, and I feel like it's only fair to note Polish heroism under the worst form of occupation, though if your take on it is that travelers aren't likely to see evidence of the Home Army's work when they visit, we could excise that section. Maybe it isn't crucial to mention or could be summarized further, down to a sentence. I'll see if I can do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, I believe I'm done editing the History section for the night. I didn't delete that much, but I did decrease the number of paragraphs. See what you can do with the remainder. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Referring to your previous paragraph - this is where I wanted an external opinion. To me, it is important for THE PUBLIC to know precisely what happened in Poland 1939-1945 (or even 1956 actually), but I guess not necessairly THE TRAVELLERS. My assumption is that a traveller going to a particular country either has some knowledge (perhaps fragmented or all-out incorrect) of it, and either researches on it, or doesn't care. We don't need to play mother and educate them on what is not necessary to understand the sights and circumstances. If they go to museum and rememebrance places, they will get educated anyway. If they don't care, let it be so, it is up to other information sources and campaign to raise their awareness. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems important enough to me for it to be mentioned in a summary. Otherwise, you could certainly make the same points about Hiroshima - that most visitors would have heard of the bombing of Hiroshima - but wouldn't a Hiroshima article that doesn't summarize the nuclear bombing there be odd? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nuclear bombing in Hiroshima had a very permeable effect on the city. Katyń massacre's connection to how the country can now be experienced by the tourist is very distant. Tourists should know that Polan suffered at the hands of Stalin and oppression and vasalization from the Soviet Union, and that it did cost the lives of dozens of thousands, but dwelling on the details does not help convey a proper overall picture. We devote a brief section only to over 800 years of Polish history, the remnants of which constitute the majority of architectural monuments and artifacts that tourists come to Poland to see. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps that section should be longer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

But note that I don't oppose an effort from you or anyone else to shorten the sections about the 20th century. I think that the basic facts have to be covered, but which facts are the most basic and to what degree they are covered are up for discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about this and realized you're right: The section on World War II is too long. I deleted the paragraph on the Polish Home Army's heroism. While it was crucial for the survival of the Polish people, there probably isn't much physical evidence of it today (beyond some monuments), and this isn't an encyclopedia article. Do you think it was correct to delete that paragraph? And given your point about the Katyń massacre, how should we deal with it? It's historically very significant, but as you said, it took place in a forest that is now part of Belarus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I placed the 'Understand' section further down the article in order to be consistent with the Country Template.

It does mean however that the introduction is very empty looking compared to other countries. Can someone have a go? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I gave it an initial stab, but I've never been to Poland, so everyone: Please ruthlessly edit it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Being on the opposite end of spectrum, i.e. as Polish as can be, I have taken a stab at it too. Gosh, it proves tougher than figure skating as apparently you need to follow a number of rules:

1. Include geographic boundaries
2. Mention ALL neighbouring countries
3. Mention as many tourist destinations as possible
4. Provide a brief overview of history
5. Explain unique reasons to visit the country

I do not think I've done a good job and I believe I have overinflated the lead and made it difficult to digest. I am quite wary of editing articles on Poland, as I lack the necessary perspective I believe, so much like Ikan Kekek I kindly request you to still ruthlessly edit. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard this. Is this true of a significant number of people?

"It is wise not to talk about Czech Republic, as Poles may feel resentment towards Czechs for their atheism or agnosticism, and this conversation topic may lead to a fight."

Surely, Czechs are not the only people among whom there are many atheists and agnostics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rubbish I'd say, as a Pole. The only general view of Czechs held by the Polish is that they speak a funny language, apprently reciprocated (there are many false friends with hillariously divergent meanings). Somebody who wrote must have probably had a few drinks too many before getting into said argument. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, PrinceGloria. I noticed a similar remark on the Czech Republic article afterwards. Does anyone object to removing these remarks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rubbish and myth, seconding @PrinceGloria here. See Polish opinion of their Czech neighbors is the highest of any nationality, according to a recent poll conducted by the Polish Public Research Opinion Center and third-party opinion polls.

From what I could find by Ctrl+F these claims are gone now, but I have just toned down similar "scary" warnings about WW2 memories of the "Don't mention the war" trope and the similar "you will be forced to enter the churches or else" nonsense, see the article recent edit history.

Ping me for more RS refs if in doubt about these or see topical articles in enwiki with such statistics.

Zezen (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I trust you to plunge forward and change/update anything that's untrue or outdated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is a mess, frankly. I tried to fix some aspects of it, but it is still not a pleasant sight. It mixes stuff has likely outdated information, is not sure whether it should be organized by mode of transport (as is our usual approach) or by point of entry (as some other travel guides do). How much of the current can be used or should we just start with a blank slate and write it anew from scratch? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply