Talk:Darłowo/Archive 1

City population
source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, G&#322;ówny Urz&#261;d Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI 1960: 9.200 inhabitants 1970: 11.300 inhabitants 1975: 12.900 inhabitants 1980: 13.400 inhabitants

cc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius2ga (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 October 2003 (UTC)

history
was Bogislav V really a German Duke? House of Pommerania was a Slavic dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroman (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The House of Pomerania was a German dynasty with Slavic roots, see the resp. article. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't discuss such subject. Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on House of Pommerania is not mentioning that it was a German dynasty - they entered Holy Roman Empire and that's something totally different. Wroman (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to see the context: language, culture, ancestry etc pp. There were Germans already before 1871, just as there were Poles during the partitions. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * you are creating fictious world - you call them Germans in the meaning which was established first in XIX century!! In the context of medieval history you could have named them Bawarians if they came from Bawaria but not Germans. Wroman (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

as the article seemed to be totally based on only one German book, I added few lines presenting works of Polish histography with relevant sources provided. Wroman (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is almost completely unsourced, the "one German book" is not the source the article was written from, but only the respective sentences. And please do not construct German-Polish historiography conflicts where there are none. Not everything in a German book is disputed by (modern) Polish historians, nor is that the case the other way around. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not constructing any conflicts but just accept the fact that there are different versions of history written by different historians. Wroman (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "There were Germans already before 1871"

That's a bit POV statement and a bit nationalistic-Germany was only created in 1871. It thus can't be compared to Poland after Partitions since Poland existed before Partitions, while Germany didn't exist before 1871. Please do not push such POV in historic articles.--Molobo (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't really mean that. This your statement would shed a new light eg on the German Confederation, the Kingdom of Germany, and a whole bunch of other issues, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

history 2
currently the article reads " During World War II, the Red Army occupied the town." which is suggesting that it was occupied through the whole period of World War II and that is not true. Perhaps someone could establish the exact date when the Red Army concquerred the city? Wroman (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I don't know the exact date, it was during the East Pomeranian Offensive in early March 1945. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Added some history, added source confirmation request
I added some history and added source requests, census data should be presented for support of 'entirely German' as well as source that Germans were moved rather then fled before Red Army as was often the case.--Molobo (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed all info from the towns website. This is not a reliable source. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How so ? The city authorities are certainly a reliable and notable source and there is nothing suggesting otherwise. What makes you oppose them as not reliable, as opposed to personal diaries, nazi book or ostforschung which you use as sources in various other articles ?--Molobo (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * you must be more specific in your accusations of unreliability. Are they unreliable only because it's official town's website? Wroman (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The website is not a reviewed publication by a historian, but something written by an interested employee in the best case scenario. I have started a thread at the RS board. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all sources on Wikipedia are to be written by historians. Please read the proper section. Also it is obvious that town's official authorities are notable enough to have their information presented. The statements of the official communication of town and city are notable and have to be presented. It is not a statement of "employee" but it is the official statement of the city/town.The RS thread btw doesn't consider your opposition valid.--Molobo (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Until a better ref is found, city's website is acceptable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and we should take note that German historiography is not a objective in Polish-German matters enough source to take priority over Polish source to a degree that they should be deleted. If there are conflicting views then they should be noted.

--Molobo (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What German-Polish matters? We are talking about 1312, not 1945. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. The issues of Piast monarchy, the founding of cities, the ethnic background of settlers and cultural development are frequently at odds in Polish and German writings. Please reformulate your question so that is better understood.--Molobo (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There were no Piasts and no Piast-related or Poland-related issues concerning that area in 1312. There is was no Polish-German or whatever conflict, so I cannot understand why it should be turned into one here. There was/is also no conflict regarding the ethnic background of anyone or cultural habits or anything similar. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * you know, it is difficult to justify that ALL city websites are unreliabe as source of information. City clerks do not "invent" history - they only compile works of historians. It would be prudent to assess information from such sites "one by one" and do not generalise. Wroman (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is Manfred Vollack
Who is Manfred Vollack and what are his credentials. Does he name Darłowo by name ?--Molobo (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stub needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Auf Initiative des Heimatkreises Kolberg-Körlin veröffentlichte Manfred Vollack das Buch "Das Kolberger Land - Seine Städte und Dörfer - Ein pommersches Heimatbuch" - Heimat means emotions rather than facts.Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * M. Vollack ist the editor of the book consisting of two thick volumes. In the book many articles by different authors are compiled. Some of the articles had been written prior to World War II. -Ziegenspeck (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Names
(moved from my talk)

Why did you converted Latin names to German ones ? The text you brought as source is in Latin and has no German names ? Could you explain the reason behind it ? --Molobo (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not. I converted to English. The German equivalents are Johannes/Henning, Peter and Lorenz. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, Johannes is John.Lorenz is German version. Also we do not convert blindly-we have Karol Wojtyła not Charles Wojtyla-you need to check which version is the most suitable one first.--Molobo (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the article. The sentence is "by the noble brothers John, Peter, and Lawrence". There are naming conventions for nobility etc names, they should be English. Karol Wojtyla is OK, pope Jan is not, it would be pope John. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The pope's name is a official title. Not comperable. Please provide sources of usage of the names. Also who are the Swansons ? The original source makes no use of such wording.--Molobo (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia naming conventions require nobility names to be given in English. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

positive changes in history of Ruegenwalde/Darłowo
dear user Skäpperöd - the funny thing is that previous history version of that page indicated that city rights were given by Brandenburg Margraves and now by local noble people who were vassals of Brandenburg Margraves - this is moove in good direction! Wroman (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time the Brandenburg margraves had been the sovereign and sole rulers of the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp. They had employed the Swenzones as their administrators. If they had wanted to, they could also have chosen other administrators.-Ziegenspeck (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

The main issue is that Skäpperöd in previous version gave wrong information that city rights were given by Brandenburg Margraves. The same user claimed that city website is an unreliable source of information - is it fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroman (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I already said that this alleged conflict is really none. Maybe you are unaware of the nature of Lübeck law. Lübeck law is a charta exempting the people who live in a town from parts of the feudal law applying to everyone else, and granting the townspeople a self-government and different social standings following the obligations and freedoms of the Lübeck townspeople. The Swenzones granted the "Handfeste", which allowed a number of locators to supervise the construction, and also granted Lübeck law to the town that was to be (re-)build and populated. However the Swenzones, though acting in the duke's name, were not the dukes themselves. The duke was at that time the Brandenburgian margrave. So the charta exempted the townspeople from obligations they owned the duke, which was the Brandenburgian margrave and not the Swenzones - the Swenzones were the administrative level just below the duke - the margrave however had delegated the administration to the Swenzones, who were acting as a substitute on behalf of the margrave. I hope this clarified a bit why there is no conflict in whether the margraves or the Swenzones granted Lübeck law. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Rügenwalde versus Darłowo
The question arose, how accurate is the city website of a town, which was started by military take-over in 1945? By that time nearly none of the history was written in Polish.

Google Book Search Results:

Darłowo search 1930 = ResultZ: shows the first one with Darłowo ONE Polish book from 1927 (that's after the Treaty of Versailles created the Polish Corridor situation). Polish books with Darłowo only start after 1945 in 1946, 1947 etc.

Rügenwalde search 1930 = Result: Result by 1930 Rügenwalde 761 books

Looks a lot like the Poles upon Soviet Union conquest and Communist Polish take-over of Rügenwalde had ONLY ONE book from 1927 to write about "history of Darłowo", when Rügenwalde was captured.

One would think, normally, that several hundred books over the centuries about Ruegenwalde might contain a bit more history, than the books after 1945 written about Darłowo in Polish during Communist conquest era.

Then again at Wikipedia one comes across the claims, that ONE Communist era book should have priority over several hundred over centuries, for example Talk:Simon Grunau and the ongoing reverts to the One Polish book version

An Observer (71.137.196.30 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

all of German nationality
The quoted source doesn't say this. Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is correct to question my statement, since it would be incorrect if there would have lived one single person of other, non-Germn nationality before 1945, which I, of course, did not want to assert. What I wanted to say is that before 1945 the town had a population with German native language, whereas at Pomerania's border to Pomeralia (or to the Polish Corridor) there existed also villages and towns with a mixed population, including individuals the native language of which was Polish. Prior to World War II this had not been the case in Rügenwalde, however.-Ziegenspeck (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

NSDAP voters in the "county"
What ist meant here by "county"? If the Rügenwalder Amt is meant, then in addition the number of NSDAP voters in the town of Rügenwalde should be stated bcause the Rügenwalder Amt did not include the town of Rügenwalde itself. It would be of interest to know whether there has been any significant difference between the corresponding number of NSDAP voters.-Ziegenspeck (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

City origins once again
Dear Users from Germany. I found following information in Polish Large Encyclopaedia by Polish Scientific Publishing House, which are different from sources provided by you. Can we discuss the issue? My source says that first city rights were given in 1271 by the Prince of Rueggen (not in 1270 as is in WP now). Moreover, the city was totally destroyed in 1283 during fights between the Prince of Rueggen and the Prince of Gdańsk Mszczuj II - and not "decayed" as in WP. Besides, " to decay" is explained by wiktionary as "A deterioration of condition or plaque on ones teeth"

Further, my source claims that take over by Brandenburg took place in 1308 and not in 1295.

Can you please verify the above version against books available to you? Can we come to one agreed by everybody version? Wroman (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Afaik, 1270 is given as the first foundation's date because of a 1271 document when the town already was there. And to my knowlegde, nothing is known about te further fate except that it had to be rebuild in 1312. That's how the formulation "decayed" comes about (which is a term not only about teeth, but about any structure ). That it was destroyed by war is in my eyes speculative, but if an RS says so, include it.


 * The date (1295) was not introduced by me, my sources say 1308, too. I will fix that. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Wroman, the word "decay" has a more general meaning - think, e.g., of the decay of atomic nuclei about which your physics teacher probably will have told you at school. According to my sources, Wizlaw II of Rügen considered the Lands of Schlawe and Rügenwalde as his poperty, since his grandmother, a daughter of Swantopolk of Pomerelia, had legal rights on these lands since her merriage. Therefore, he occuppied the lands during 1270-1277. Apparently, he was forced out again. On 18 January 1277 he sold his rights for 3.600 Brandenburgian Marks in silver to the margraves of Brandenburg. After Mestwin II of Pomeralia, who previously had illegally occuppied the lands, had died in December 1194, the lands became in 1295 the property of the Margraves of Brandenburg. According to a source from the 17th century, Rügenwalde had been destroyed by Bogislaw, since Mestwin II could not be persueded to go out of the lands of Rügenwalde and Schlawe. Regards, --Ziegenspeck (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC).
 * The problem is that Mestwin II had not only given that land to Brandenburg, but a short time before his death also to Greater Poland. When Mestwin died, Brandenburg and Poland had to fight that out first. Brandenburg won in 1308, but then the Poles sent in the Teutonic Knights, who pushed Brandenburg out of eastern Pomerelia. Then the knights turned against Poland, too, kept most of Pomerelia and payed off Brandenburg, who only kept the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp. So Brandenburg held a claim since 1294 (Mestwin II's death) but durably seized the area only in the successful campaign of 1308 - before it was rather a disputed area than really a part of Brandenburg. That's why I would prefer 1308 to be mentioned in this article. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, Mestwin II had not only given all the lands, which he had kept in possession, to Brandenburg (including Pomeralia) and had obtained these lands back from Brandenburg at the same occasion as a fief, but in later years he also had confirmed this transfer once more in a document. The date 1308 refers to an unsuccessful campaign of Brandenburg against Gdansk, where the castle could not be conquered because the Teutonic Order had helped - against promises - to defend it. When the Teutonic Knights were not paid off for their service, they occuppied Pomeralia, with the exception of the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp to which the Brandenburgians had withdrawn. The Brandenburgians had been in the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp already before 1308. In a source I found yesterday the date of 1305. I shall check this date by looking at other sources. -- Ziegenspeck (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
 * M, Merian stated in 1632 that Rügenwalde had been destroyed by Bogislaw but did not say when. Could it be that this had happened in the year 1283, the date stated by Wroman?-Ziegenspeck (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
 * The Swenzones were inserted as administrators by the margraves of Brandenburg already in 1307, so that the margraves must have been under contol of the region already before 1307. The date 1308 can hardly be correct. --Ziegenspeck (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

(outdent) If different sources give different dates, we should give a range instead of trying to figure out the one and only true date. I reintroduced 1308, gave a full quote in rough translation in the footnote, but left the other date in place as an alternative finding. The Piskorski book is a source that has been edited by Jan Piskorski himself, Werner Buchholz, Jörg Hackmann, Alina Hutnikiewicz, Norbert Kersken, Hans-Werner Rautenberg, Wlodzimierz Stepinski, Zygmunt Szultka, Bogdan Wachowiak, and Edward Wlodarczyk - all of them Pomerania experts from Greifswald, Lübeck, Marburg, Posen, Stolp, and Stettin. Even such a compendium is not necessarily free of erronous statements, but it should at least be mentioned. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The many authors enumerated by you will be pleased to read their names here. Only few of them, however, will roughly remember what had happened exactly around the year of 1308 in the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp. They are all specialized in different fields of work and first would have to inform themthelves by resorting to other textbooks. They also do not re-invent history every year but write off from texts of earlier historians, and then misunderstandings are likely to occur. The question here is whether or not the Brandenburgians had already been in the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp prior to 1308. Obiously, they must have been there already before 1308, because the contract between Waldemar of Brandenburg and the Swenzones was signed on 17 January 1307 in Lindow, a castle in the vicinty of Stolp. How did Waldemar get there suddenly during winter time? He must have been there already in 1306. You should not trust in so-called "authorities", Skäpperöd, but rather in logic. Karl Rosenow, who has written a chronic on Rügenwalde, stated in 1925 that the Brandenburgians obtained the region in 1305. Among the sources he used is Bertold's Geschichte von Rügen und Pommern. Tonight I shall look once more at his sources.-- Ziegenspeck (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I am aware of the phenomenon that false statements are not fact-checked and copied. The "authorities" I mentioned were not to impress you, but to contradict your edit summary where you were talking of them being an unreliable source. Brandenburg of course held claims to that area much earlier than 1308, it is just the degree of enforcement that varied. Given that the sentence we need that date for is only to show they were in charge of the area in 1312, one could even let out that date, as no source is disputing that. It would be however an intersting and notable fact not as much for tis article, but for the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp article - there it really matters, here it does not matter that much when exactly before 1312 Brandenburg's souvereignity was undisputedly fixed. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We should talk here about the presence of the Brandenburgians in the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp, not about their claims. You are mixing up the presence of the Brandenburgians in the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp and in Pomerelia (Danzig) simultaneously with their presence solely in the Lands of Schlawe of Stolp. No sovereign can actually insert administrators somewhere, and no administrator would ever accept the job, if the sovereignty existed solely on paper and were based on claims. Strangely, in Vol. I of the 1904/1906 edition of his book on the history of Pomerania M. Wehrmann states that the contract with the Swenzones was signed in July 1307, not January 1307, as I wrote here. He then proceeds by stating that the Brandenburgians had already before firmly establihed themselves in the Lands of Rügenwalde and Stolp, i.e., they already had been under control of the region, when they made the contract with the Swenzones. The date of 1308, therefore, is in the present context incorrect (we are talking here about Rügenwalde and Stolp, not about Danzig, as the Piskorski book does).-- Ziegenspeck (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I know what area we are talking about, and Piskorski explicitly mentions Schlawe-Stolp, I even gave the full quote. And I do NOT dispute the 1307 contract. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from your verbal citation in the article, contrary to what you state here, Piskorski is not referring to Schlawe-Stolp alone, but to Schlawe-Stolp and Danzig, and this is an entirely different matter. The invasion of Danzig actually happened in 1308. It is also true that after the Brandenburgians had withdrawn from Danzig, they remained in full control of the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp, where they had been under control already before 1307, including, of course, the mouths of the rivers Wipper and Stolpe. So, Piskorski is right, but your interpretation is wrong. The Brandenburgians had been under full control of Schlawe-Stolp already before the year of 1307, whereas you make the readers to believe that this might as well have happened not before 1308 or even 1312 (!). If you think that Piskorski's book should be mentioned, then this could be done by adding it to the literature of other articles, such as Farther Pomerania or Gdansk. In the present context your citation is at the wrong place. -- Ziegenspeck (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Piskorski p.68: (Assuming you are a native German speaker:) "1308 eroberten die Brandenburger die Gebiete Stolp, Schlawe und Danzig. Zwar wurden sie aus Danzig von den Ordensrittern vertrieben, aber die Mündung der Wipper und der Stolpe blieben in brandenburgischer Hand." (rough translation:) "In 1308 the Brandenburgians subdued the areas of Stolp, Schlawe, and Danzig. Despite their eviction from Danzig by the Teutonic knights, they stayed in charge of the mouths of the Wipper and Stolpe rivers." As you can read Piskorski clearly states Schlawe was subdued in 1308. That is probably wrong, or it is right and Brandenburg had re-taken the area and was there in 1307 also. I do not know whether of these interpretations is right, but I did not cite anyone wrong. There is no room for interpretation of what Piskorski meant with the statement cited above. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know, why he writes this and what his sourcss are. Nor do I know why he stresses their presence at the mouths of the rivers Wipper and Stolpe (there had been fortified places, but the castles of Schlawe and Stolp are rather far away from the coast of the Baltic Sea). M. Wehrmann, who is perhaps more reliable, writes in Vol. I of his book (cited from memory): "Diese (the Brandenburgians) hatten sich bereits vorher dort festgesetzt" (prior to 1308). In Vol. I of his book Hans Branig states that Schlawe-Stolp had fallen in 1295 to the Brandenburgians. Referring to their real presence there, Ellinor v. Puttkamer states that they had been there since 1306. Karl Rosenow wrote they had been in Rügenwalde in 1305. According to Merian, from 1295 to about 1301 the region had been ruled by a son of Wizlaw II of Rügen and by count Adolph from Holstein (two sons in law of Mestwin II of Pomeralia, he states), before attempts were made by Poles and others to take over. I have not yet looked into the book by Oskar Eggert or into the book "Geschichte von Rügen und Pommern" by Barthold. --Ziegenspeck (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

besides the 'destroyed by purpose' quote
besides the "destroyed by purpose" entry by Wikipedia User:156.17.122.152, he deliberately re-added a lot more mistages, deleted link to Ascanians etc. An Observer (71.137.196.30 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I noticed this too. The user concerned had obviously not started from the latest version of the article.--Ziegenspeck (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Reconstituted
During the Napoleonic Wars some of its inhabitants, in particular ship owners and businessmen, profited from smuggling British goods to the continent. In 1871 the town, along with Prussia, became a part of the reconstituted second German Empire

Before 1807 Pommerania was part of the first German Empire (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) between 1815 and 1866 it was part of the German Bund (Federation of German States) and from 1871 till 1945 part of the second German Reich. The Nazis counted there peroid of rule since 1933 as third German Reich.--87.157.214.12 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

19th century sources
Can we please not use these on the article? Like Kratz. In some instances their usage may be ok and uncontroversial in other instances the same sources can be used for skewed POV pushing. Best to just cut through it and remove the outdated and very possibly biased sources all together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper Italicization
There is no grammatical or expository reason to italicize former German names of now-Polish localities in the areas given to postwar Poland under border changes promulgated at the Potsdam Conference. In English, italics usually denote foreign (non-English) words for things or concepts, but not place names. Prior to 1945, Darłowo was officially Rügenwalde, not Rügenwalde, and the German name should not be italicized.

The automatic italicization of former German names of now-Polish or -Russian places misleads casual English-speaking readers to think the former, historically actual German names are merely German exonyms for pre-existing Polish or Russian place-names, which often is not the case. Sca (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is standard practice on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darłowo. 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/20050307114653/http://forum.darlowo.info/ to http://www.forum.darlowo.info/

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) 04:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darłowo. 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/20160306143348/https://books.google.de/books?id=7ZmTZrs8dBEC&pg=PA336&dq=brandenburg%20schlawe&client=firefox-a to https://books.google.de/books?id=7ZmTZrs8dBEC&pg=PA336&dq=brandenburg+schlawe&client=firefox-a

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) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)