Talk:Ignacy Potocki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revision as of 01:55, 11 January 2025 by imported>Cewbot (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 7 March 2012 by Poeticbent in topic B-class review
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|Ignacy Potocki]] Template:WikiProject banner shell

Untitled

Was his first name in fact "Roman"? In all references that I've seen, he's simply "Ignacy Potocki." What does " Nobel Family" mean? Logologist 22:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His full name was "Roman Ignacy Franciszek Potocki" - "nobel family" was a mistake.--Emax 22:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The term "consort" is generally reserved for the spouse of a reigning monarch, which Potocki was not. Why the plural ("Consorts")? Consider "Spouse"?

Are we to understand that Potocki was, after all, a polygamist: that he had "Children" (plural!) with Elżbieta Lubomirska and with Krystyna Potocka? (Lubomirska already appears, above, as his spouse.)

Why not use the handier "Birthplace" and "Birth date"? One gets lost in all the "of"'s.

The closing information about when Potocki married (whom he married is already in the box) and received his White Eagle makes the piece read like a newspaper obituary rather than an encyclopedia article. Logologist 04:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Im using the same tables in all (szlachta) articles, see: List of szlachta - that he received the White Eagle Order is an important information. "Whom he married is already in the box" - yes, but not when and where ;)--Emax 04:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

B-class review

Further information: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-class criteria:

  1. suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary, Green tickY
  2. reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies, Green tickY
  3. has a defined structure, Green tickY
  4. reasonably well-written, Green tickY
  5. contains supporting materials where appropriate, Green tickY
  6. presents its content in an appropriately understandable way, Green tickY

Poeticbent talk 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Ignacy Potocki/GA1