Talk:Czesław Piątas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A quick voting: Biobox or no Biobox
end date: October 6th, 19:30 CET

  • Yes
  1. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:27, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  2. --Emax 21:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No
  • I don't care

This vote has already been had on Talk:Charles Darwin. Obviously the specific person makes no difference here, the question is should we have "infoboxes" that contain no information that is not already in the text of the article. Gzornenplatz 04:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Was that voting on Charles Darwin about Czesław Piątas? How are the two related? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:23, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't Gzornenplatz banned from reverting any Polish-related articles? Halibutt
What's the point of an info box if it doesn't contain any info? (Sorry, that's all I can say.) <KF> 11:05, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Will Halibutt, Witkacy, or Piotrus explain what the purpose of this infobox here could possibly be, other than creating an ugly overhang at the right due to being longer than the article text in order to give the reader such essential information as "Died: -", "Major wars and battles: -", and "Medals: ?". NoPuzzleStranger 12:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an infobox we plan to add to all articles on Polish militarymen (take a look at [1]). It gives much more info than the original Infobox Biography and the purpose of it is to standarize the bio articles and to give the reader a brief overview of the person. It's sort of an extended image caption. If you dispute the usefulness of the template or the Image captions in general, feel free to start a RfC process or simply state your objections at the relevant talk page of the project. Also, feel free to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Army, whose purpose is the standarization and reorganization of all Polish Army-related articles.
Starting a revert war over this particular article makes no sense to me at all. Halibutt 12:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
This infobox does not give any information that is not in the text. And it is hardly needed to give a "brief overview" when it is more voluminous than the text. Infoboxes are only justified when they either provide tabular data which is not suitable to be included in the article text, or when they summarize data from the text of a very long article (such as the U.S. presidents, where usually all the information is also in the text, but widely distributed over many pages, so that the infobox makes sense in allowing the reader to look up immediately what the name of the first lady was, for example). Neither justification applies here, and it applies even less at stubs like Slawomir Petelicki, but for certain major Polish military figures it may make sense, so I'm not taking issue with the existence of the template, only with its being used where it's useless. So the relevant talk page is this one, not the template talk. NoPuzzleStranger 12:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't understand you at all. If the commander in chief and the chief of staff of the entire Polish Army are not important military figures, then who is? Also, why do you waste your time for a revert war you're unlikely to win? Why not expand the article instead? Halibutt 00:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
He is of no historical importance, as indicated by the shortness of the article (and there's probably not much that could usefully be added to it). Important figures would be those who fought in wars and maybe have a certain name recognition beyond Poland. And do you think you are likely to win this revert war? NoPuzzleStranger 01:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a historical encyclopedia, but a general one. So, the fact that the guy is still alive is irrelevant here. He is the most important figure in the Polish Army currently and as such is almost as notable as the president of Poland. Whether people outside of Poland know the guy or not is also quite irrelevant here, the guy is notable enough to have a note on him in WP. So, all in all, it seems that you're waging this revert war just for fun.
As a sidenote, I was hoping that it is clear to both of us that nobody can win a revert war, since it's the wiki who looses. But apparently it is not that clear to you. Anyway, what is the point you're trying to prove with your blanking of the template? Halibutt 04:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
You don't understand. I could also have said he is of relatively little encyclopedic importance. Of course by Wikipedia's standards he's clearly notable enough to have an article - I'm not disputing that - but you wouldn't find him in an encyclopedia like the Britannica although you could probably find some Polish military figures there, which indicates that he is relatively unimportant. Still, I see you managed to expand the article so that the infobox doesn't appear as ridiculous as before, so I'll leave it in place.
As to revert wars in general, if it is apparent to you that nobody can win them, why do you wage them? We both know the answer - it may be hard to win a revert war, but it's very easy to lose one. One rather keeps it going than to lose it - this is ultimately a fault of the system rather than of the particular participants in any revert war. NoPuzzleStranger 11:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Czesław Piątas. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]