Poland Template‑class

This template 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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I think this should include the History of the Jews in Poland and, when we finally finish it, the History of Polish economy, History of Polish culture and similar projects. Also, we may want to consider a kind of see also to Template:Polish statehood. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add culture to the topical section of the template. There is no History of Polish culture yet, but Polish culture might work.

I came across this template at the top of History of Poland (1945-1989) when I saw its nomination at featured article candidates. I reformatted it; it is now similar to the American history timeline template. Phoenix2 01:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, I would also have liked to have the Piast Dynasty in the template, but the article also talks about the period of the Andegawens, which is why I simply called it "Early History". Perhaps we can change it back.

Are you the person who redesigned the template few minutes ago? Welcome to Wiki, and please consider registering so it is easy to identify who is talking (and doing the edits). I like the new colors, but as I wrote below - I am not sure if increase in size is good. It was slim, now it is bigger - nor that it is worse, perhaps I need to get used to it. Hopefully we will hear input from some others soon. Once again, welcome to Wiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. I'll try to register when I get the chance. What do you say about changing the Piast entry back to "Early History"? Also, I had considered naming one of the entries "Partitions" (the way it is now), but I think "Loss of Statehood" sounds a little more formal, and therefore perhaps more appropriate?

Registering is very easy - just click in the link top right corner. The Andagewans are a real wrench in the works of properly naming this period, I know. I guess you could revert it back to Early history. I think Partitions are ok - let's wait and hear from more ppl on this, though. I won't object much to either version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder--does Pawel Jasienica include the Andegawens in his "Polska Piastow" or in "Polska Jagiellonow"? If it's the latter (I think I remember seeing Queen Jadwiga on its cover), then we would be slightly out of sync with him (this is less of an issue for this template than for the way the articles divide up Polish history). Does anyone have an opinion on this?

I am not sure whether we want to keep it. Colors are nicer (red-white), but it's bigger and partially redundant with Template:Polish statehood. Below is the pre-anon template. If you decide to revert to it, copy the anon template here for further discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't realize there was another template. I think they're different enough to warrant keeping this one. I don't think the size detracts at all. I got the idea for it from Template:French_Revolution, which is pretty nice. I'd also like to make it so that the entry in the template turns bold when you click on the article, but I'm not yet familiar enough with wiki syntax.

I must say that the current pink one doesn't look too good to me. Perhaps it is eye-catching, but why pink? And why so big? Halibutt 17:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I assume the pink was a compromise since red makes text on it rather hard to read. I like the idea, but the current version does live much room for improvement. Perhaps you could work on it - you have created several nice templates yourself... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right--I made it pink (as opposed to red) to make it more readable. The more I look at the template, though, the more I agree that the color scheme is a little weak. I wanted to work in some Polish "symbolism" in the form of colors, but maybe it would be a better idea to simply use a picture at the top, like some of the other templates. Other Polish templates use pictures of the eagle (Polish Statehood) and of the flag, so we can't use those. I thought that a picture of a husarz would work beautifully for this template, but I don't know where to get a nice-looking, legal copy of such a picture.

Although the aesthetic of the template in its current form is not ideal, I think the more meaningful addition from these recent changes is the naming of each of the date ranges. Even at the cost of widening the template, I think it's useful because we no longer have to look at a bunch of numbers.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization for older versions of this template, as well as for discussion regarding periodisation and several suggested variants. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I've updated the template. I've removed the painful color scheme, added a picture, and tried to improve the overall appearance. I chose the painting Stańczyk for the image because I believe him to be the best symbol of Polish history (other than the Polish flag, and the Eagle, which are used by other templates). Please let me know what you think. Appleseed 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WIth all due respect to Matejko, the thumb pic of Grundwald is rather illegible - it is impossible to make out what is in the pic in the thumb size. I think we need to change it to something simpler. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the thumb is a little blurry, but I don't think it's too bad. I like it because, as we all know, it is the essential image in Polish history. Plus, because it's much wider than it is high, it works well at a width of 200px without making the template seem massive (as is the case with Stańczyk). I really would like to get rid of Stańczyk; his pessimism has been grating on my nerves ever since I added him to the template. If you're really opposed to Bitwa pod Grunwaldem, I'll try to find a third image. Appleseed 02:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do find Grundwald very unclear, it remiands me of nothing Polish - well, except bigos, maybe :> Let's hear from others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no one has joined the discussion. Piotruś, maybe you can help me find an image that we both like. Any ideas? Appleseed 17:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated Pre/Proto History sidebar into the main History sidebar (this page). Also cleaned out the cultural topics. There should be a separate sidebar for Religion in Poland, Cultures in Poland, Polish Leaders and any other topics. Please keep this sidebar as the way to tie the History carticles together. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]