Talk:Cultural property protection in Poland

Poland High‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name

This article was originally created under the Polish name "zabytek", and moved uncontroversially, if without discussion, two years back. I support having this under and English name, per WP:Use English. Zabytek is meaningless to a foreign speaker, but the English name makes it more useful; this applies even more to the corresponding Category:Zabytki. With regards to English references:

Gregor Thum (8 August 2011). Uprooted: How Breslau Became Wroclaw during the Century of Expulsions. Princeton University Press. pp. 452–. ISBN 1-4008-3996-3. notes that while zabytek is sometiems translated as monument, this is not a good translation, as Polish zabytek can refer to a wider range of concepts (ex. books) which the English term monument would usually excuse;
Canadian Slavic Studies: Revue Canadienne D'études Slaves. Sir George Williams University. 1971. - I can only see a snippet of p.100 which states that the word relic may be better than monument;
Geoff Carver; European Association of Archaeologists Annual Meeting (2004). Digging in the Dirt: Excavation in a New Millennium : Session Proceedings. John and Erica Hedges. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-84171-369-4. states "A precise translation of the Polish term zabytek is difficult";
the Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa (National Heritage Board of Poland) has a rather poor English language page; it only summarizes it's mission at [1], and in the text it does not translate or discuss the term zabytek (but neither is it using it);
Christian Douglas Kozłowska (1 January 1998). Difficult Words in Polish-English Translation. Wydawn. Naukowe PWN. p. 163-164. ISBN 978-83-01-12439-7. seems to discuss the translation of the term most extensively, but her work is only visible in snippets, so I cannot provide a proper discussion of it (I'll see if I can obtain a scan of those pages and update this if I do).
my review of Google Books does not suggest that there's any widespread or even mariginal use of the word zabytek (zabytki) in English;
I found a few academic publications that seem to translate zabytek as a "historical monument" (Drela Monika (2008), DEFINITION OF THE IMMOBILE HISTORICAL MONUMENT IN POLISH AND FRENCH LAW (Definicja zabytku nieruchomego w prawie polskim i francuskim), Gawlicki Marcin (2008), THE REGISTER OF HISTORICAL MONUMENTS IN THE PRAXIS OF CONSERVATION PROTECTION (Rejestr zabytków w praktyce ochrony konserwatorskiej), see also [2] and [3]. The phrase "historical monument", however, is not very precise and IMHO is simply a tautology; on Wikipedia historical monument redirects to a monument. Given that the phrase is not used very widely neither, and it is difficult to determine any Wikipedia:Common usage applicable, I think that we are better off with the "object of cultural heritage", which is broadly correct. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27#Category:Zabytki. I suggest that the page might be renamed in parallel with the outcome there, whatever it will be. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polish article?

How come there is no Polish language version of this article? German would be very nice, too. :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish version of this subject (but not this article) is in the page pl:Zabytek, which is interwikilinked to en:National heritage site, and which subject is further evolved in Polish page pl:Ochrona zabytków w Polsce, which is interwikilinked to en:Historic preservation, etc. In other words, wikidata is pretty much screwed up everywhere, even in one-to-one database correspondence, the biggeste scerw-up being impossibility to interwiki redirects from underdeveloped/merged subtopics.

By the way, the same shit is with German page de:Baudenkmal, which is 99% about German concept and 0.3% content overlap with its i/w en:National heritage site instead of having the match in en:National heritage sites in Deutschland. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem and Horst-schlaemma: Well, the common screw ups arise because a Foo-wiki article will cover a general topic (ex. national heritage site) as well as Foo-specific version of it (national heritage site in Foo) in one article, whereas English (international) Wikipedia article will quickly grow large with sections of [xyz] in various countries and this will lead to the creation of articles like National heritage sites in Poland, Germany, etc. Which won't be created in Foo-wikis anytime soon. The best solution - I have done it many times on pl wiki - is to split the section about [xyz in Foo/Poland] to its own subarticle, and then link it properly through interwikis. PS. I have went and created pl:Zabytki w Polsce and fixed the interwikis here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work there Piotrus, and super-pragmatic approach! That's what I've done before, too. Works pretty well. Thanks and cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]