Talk:Wikinews interviews the Wikimania 2010 Poland bid promoter

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Acagastya in topic Unclosed formatting

I hope this is going to be completely translated. It would be good to work on interviews for all the prospective candidate cities. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

And I hope for spell checking, me English ain't that good. :D Hołek ҉ 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry - spell checking is the easy part. Bawolff 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well then, I leave the rest to you. :) Hołek ҉ 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Review edit

Gdańsk vs Danzig edit

From what i gather, they both mean the same thing. Wikipedia sames to favour w:Gdańsk (which appears to be the polish version, where Danzig is german). Some (rather rude[1]) contributor tried to change it to Gdańsk. Which one should we use. Bawolff 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've not looked again, but I was sure I'd seen both in the article - a little confusing. I'd go with the Polish one, it goes with the WN:SG on using local spellings. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Gdańsk, I totally agree with Bawolff, Danzig will be more recognised by Germans, who might frown in puzzlement at "Gdańsk", but apart from that language, we ought to stick to "Gdańsk". Wpedzich (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd like to add (a mere 11 years late), should anybody happen to stumble upon this, that Gdańsk residents (Gdańskians?) with long memories might be uncomfortable with Danzig owing to the botching by the League of Nations' botching of the whole International Free City of Danzig debacle. The so-called Freistadt was a dark mark on Polish history, and is seen by many as providing context to Hitler's invasion. It was part of a global culture seen by Hitler types (and others, including many of his political opponents and modern historians) as 'soft' on matters of international dispute. (It is notable going forward that the Allies were very ineffective at supporting the uprisings against dictatorship and genocide that were mounted in occupied Poland during the 40s.) The Poles are a fiercely proud people who have sacrificed unimaginable amounts in defence of their nation. It is, of course, unfortunate that something as neutral as a foreign language word for the same thing has come to have such connotations. It is especially unfortunate given it was intended to be a very positive thing when it came about, at least by those responsible for the compromise. But, if I make the connection, one supposes many Poles would too. Let's not go there. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 03:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category more specified? edit

Should the caegory prehaps be Wikimania 2010 instead of the more general Wikimania? --Ainali (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It depends. If past Wikimania reporting had indicated a good chance of getting three or more Wikimania articles for one year, I'd say yes. That's not happened, so I would say category Wikimania 2010 should be created if we have this and another two Wikimania 2010 articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unclosed formatting edit

'''{{WNIQ}} The tagline of your proposal is ''Gdańsk - the city of freedom''. Could you tell us, why do you promote yourself with this line?

The bold formatting should be closed at the end of the line.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

•–• 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Wikinews interviews the Wikimania 2010 Poland bid promoter" page.