Talk:Danuta Siedzikówna

Untitled
Successfully de-orphaned! Wikiproject Orphanage: You can help!

Quite apart from the fact that there is hardly any grammatical sentence in the whole article (do I smell a rat here?), its biggest problem is that it doesn't show why the girl is notable. If she received the Polonia Restituta, she must be, but the article just doesn't show this. Fighting and dying at such a young age was, unfortunately, not at all unusual at the time. OK, pl:Danuta Siedzikówna explains this, but as long as the key parts are missing from this translation and there are no sources at all, this is, strictly speaking, a candidate for deletion. --Thorsten1 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article was a mess and that tagging it performs a service to the Wiki community at large. But then taking that extra step and fixing some of the problems - copy editing it at least - is a much bigger service than just a drive-by tagging.radek (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, and I tend to remove ageing tags that aren't strictly necessary myself. But while copyediting/expanding is preferable, you just don't always have the time or motivation for it. Otherwise, we wouldn't need tags at all. The article was such a mess that I wouldn't even know where to start. Also, "expanding" isn't necessary because the article is too short overall, but because for all its chattiness, it omits the essential information that make this person notable in the first place, i.e., the circumstances of her execution. While I'm at it, Salesian has got nothing to do with Silesian, of course. (And by the way, it would be great if you could have a look at this some time.) --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Salesian has got nothing to do with Silesian" - see, that's exactly the kind of edit that you could've made right away so the issue doesn't arise later. Why not? It's not asking for a major rewrite.radek (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I sure could have. But as you are actively working inside this article (good job), I thought it would be better to let you know, instead of risking one of those annoying and time-consuming editing conflicts to change a single letter. I hope there's nothing wrong with that. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thorsten, no need to assume bad faith here. If it's a useful, productive edit, rather than some POV pushing or whatever, then it's not going to cause an edit conflict and in fact at least I would very much appreciate it.radek (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant, Radek. An editing conflict (as opposed to an edit war) occurs when two users are editing an article at the same time. Whoever saves their changes first, is "served first". Then, when the other user finishes editing, he will get to see a message that someone else has modified the article in the meantime. Then he needs to check what the other user has done and "reconcile" his own version with the faster user's version. Especially with complex edits, this can be time-consuming and very frustrating. In this case, if I had changed "Silesian" to "Salesian" while you were busy typing more things, this would have definitely resulted in such an edit conflict, costing you unnecessary extra work. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would apologise for grammar mistakes. About Polonia Restituta and reasons of execution I am going to write it during next few days, please be patient. She was executed because she didn't gave whole information about meeting points and contact names, especially Lupaszko and Lidia Orlow. reference added: http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=6042908&eventId=7027379 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.198.30 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok, of course. However, when you're creating new articles, it's usually a good idea to enter the most important things right at the beginning, instead of beginning with less important details and adding the really interesting stuff at the end. An article should make clear why a person or a topic is notable from the start. Also, the reason why something or somebody is notable should briefly be addressed in the lead. If a person's notability results from the circumstances of her death, as in this case, it's not a good idea to mention this only at the end of the biography proper. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is anybody who could helped me with translation of spanish and russian version? I would be really apreciated to receive some suggestion.

Images
I'm not sure if all the images are necessary here. They mess with the layout of the article and squish down the edit tabs. Perhaps some of the can be moved to the bottom of the article?radek (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If that will improve visability? I can locate gallery in te botton, but I think that is easier to read shorter lines and article looks more interesting.

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danuta Siedzikówna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612084424/http://www.elknet.pl/~annatertel/inka/Inka-broszura.pdf to http://www.elknet.pl/~annatertel/inka/Inka-broszura.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Prus III coat of arms"
This follows her mother's maiden name and makes no sense. --142.163.195.124 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"vel"
Does "vel" serve as "aka" in English? Is it Polish? Latin? --142.163.195.124 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)