Talk:Słupsk Voivodeship

Navbox[edit]

Since this article is about Pomeranian history, it should include the Pomeranian history navbox. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is article isn't about Pomeranian history but about a Voivodeship in Poland. Loosmark (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be mutually exclusive? Słupsk Voivodeship is a historical administrative unit in the Polish part of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The casual reader of an article about a Polish Voivodeship doesn't care to read about the Billung march, Lauenburg-Bütow, Ostsiedlung, Archdiocese of Berlin, Capitulation of Franzburg and what not. Loosmark (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody is forced to read any of these articles, but whoever is not interested in the history of this particular area would not have come here in the first place, and from your examples, Lauenburg-Bütow, Ostsiedlung, and Capitulation of Franzburg are directly relevant for the history of this area. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is interested in a Polish Voivodeship it simply means he's interested in a Polish Voivodeship. It doesn't mean he is interested to read about "Archdiocese of Berlin" and these evens from the German history. Loosmark (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when the Archdiocese of Berlin was created it also comprised this area for some decades, and is thus a relevant link. I do not see a reason to filter links to articles concerned with the history of this area by excluding everything not Polish. The Polish history is also linked from the navbox. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperod please lets avoid straw man, shall we? I have not said that everything not Polish should be excluded. Rather things which have little or no direct relevance should not be there. Or to put it differently a reader of the Słupsk Voivodeship article is interested in the administrative division of Poland. The stuff on the template is of no interest to him. Same as for example the article about Los Angeles has no template with events from Spanish/Mexican history even if the city was founded by Spaniards and was Mexican till 1847. Loosmark (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a 3rd oppinion on this. The navbox is at Template:Pomeranian history, and was removed with this edit. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

Hi, I found this on the third opinion page. Unfortunately, there's not much WP policy as far as Navboxes are concerned, so I can't point to policy to support my position as much as I'd like to. Since this article is (currently) primarily concerned with the geography and administration of the Vivodeship than the actual history of it, Template:Pomeranian history is not well-suited for this article. In my experience, the best use of Navboxes is generally if the article itself is mentioned in the Navbox. Creating Template:Former Vivodeships of Poland or possibly using Template:Pomeranian geography would be much more appropriate. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about doing an former administrative divisions template, it's a very good idea I think. Anyway thank you for 3rd opinion. Loosmark (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops User:Skäpperöd informed me that this article actually is included in Template:Pomeranian history. I did not initially realize this, because I overlooked the "show" link in the Navbox, so my WP:3O was based on the collapsed version only--my apologies! In light of this, the Pomeranian History box is definitely appropriate for this article, although it is currently very large, so I will maintain that Template:Former Vivodeships of Poland may be a useful creation (i.e. splitting the Pomeranian History box in to several different boxes, or making several collapsible sections that can be independently shown in the article) Mildly Mad^T_C 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok I think that spliting the Pomeranian History into smaller templates is a very good idea and if there is no opposition I will do that myself. Then only the parts which are really relevant can be used in the article. Loosmark (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that idea. I have made the template's groups collapsibele and defaulted only the administrative group to uncollapse in this article, that should do. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

The sentence beginning 'The Pomeranian province ...' needs a slight re-write, probably making use of the Polish equivalent-page. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]