Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization

message: I added my dwa grosze (literally :D) and made some minor modifications to the table. I like the basic concept, epsecially that the table could be also split onto several parts for use on respective pages. That is the full table could be used on main pages while a shortened version with a link to the main page of the project (that is History of Poland) could be placed on other (shorter) pages.
Also, I understand that this table is to replace the old Template:History of Poland. Am I right? Halibutt 14:39, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
:BTW, compare: Template:Polish Underground State sidebar with Template:Polish Secret State small. Halibutt 16:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we should keep this page from getting cluttered with discussion and use it to show projects only. Let's talk in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History_of_Poland/Periodization --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I suggest it is moved to the top of periodisation table. It is missing several important statehoods, I suggest we use this (updated with Free City of Kraków) list:
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Halibutt that articles like "Kingdom of Poland (Piasts)" or "Kingdom of Poland (Andegawen)" would look like "there was no Poland before 1989 and those were just different states that occupied roughly the same area", and obscure the continuity of Polish history. Besides, it would probably double the content in the history series. So I wouldn't expand this section. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish statehood 

message: I have no problems with the periodic division, but perhaps we can work on a bettle title? This will be a general history section and I think it will always have some referecnes to all the others. Perhaps it should be just 'General history' or 'History of Poland'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, this would be prehistory, not history, but I'm OK with it. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and military history 

message: Demography is part of economy (as are many things). Suggest changing it to just 'economic history'. Also, the distinction between Early Modern and 19th century is much too small. I think we should have  after Middle Ages: Commonwealth and Partitioned Ecomonies. Mind you, I dont think there is a single article about Polish economy before today's RP (Economy of Poland)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to renaming it to "economic history". As to periodization, I think the differnce between economic conditions before and after the partitions are ennormous. Besides, the 19th century means beginning of industrialization, a totally new process, at least in some parts of Poland. That there is not a single article on the subject yet is no argument to me; they will be written sooner or later. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic and economic history 

message: No objection here. This would include scientific achievements as well, right? Seems fine to me. Well, needs writing, obviously :) ATM there is no Culture of Poland at all, just a list at Poland#Culture --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It should include all that belongs to culture in the wide, anthropological sense, i.e.:
* ways of life,
* tradition,
* arts,
* science,
* philosophy,
* religion,
* entertainment,
* sports,
etc. It should also mention the cultures of ethnic minorities that used to live in Poland. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural history 

message: Let's decide on new name for Nobles' Democracy. This article should have a diffrent name. Noble's democracy is confusing, it may be used for discussion of PLC political system but not as a general description of the historical period - to my knowledge, this name was invented on Wikipedia. And besides, we have an article on szlachta, which is making term 'noble' even more confusing.
Setting aside proposed split and merges, which nobody seems to be interested in doing ATM, I suggest moving the article to History of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) - or do you have any (shorter) name suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with History of Poland (1569-1795).  Is it the fact that it doesn't include Lithuania?  If so, then History of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) works for me. Appleseed 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noble democracy name change 

message: Hi everyone, I've been thinking about the way the Polish history articles are divided.  The fact that the early history article (i.e. Polska Piastów) ends in 1385 (unia krewska) and not 1370 (death of Kazimierz Wielki) doesn't sit right with me.  If you think about it, the Andegawen dynasty isn't really the end of the Piast dynasty--it's more of a lead-in into the Jagiellonian.  The 1385 date is also inconvenient because it falls in the middle of Jadwiga's reign, but before her marriage to Jagiełło.
I believe Jasienica divides his books along the 1370 date.
If this has been discussed before, I apologize (maybe you could give me the link to that discussion).  Let me know what you think. Appleseed 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no perfect solution. I see no point in changing our current system, but I won't object if you do so - but properly, ensuring all ilinks/double redirects are corrected. I had already done it once and I know its quite a lot of work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodization issue