Talk:Janik (archbishop of Gniezno)

Poland Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Images

About this [1] tagging: Seriously, now. "there is no evidence this is 'imaginary'"? There is no need to cite evidence for things that are self-evident and obvious. What kind of authentic portrait could this possibly be modelled after? 12th-century art didn't do portraits. Nobody who has ever looked at actual 12th-century art could seriously think that a contemporary of Janik might have produced something that could even conceivably come close to serving as a model for this 19th-century scribble. 12th-century artists simply didn't draw faces like this. Unless Mr Matuszkiewicz had a time machine, he couldn't possibly have anything other than his own (or somebody else's) imagination to work from. Heck, he didn't even bother to give the guy a plausible-looking 12th-century appearance – this Janik is wearing 19th-century clerical garb, for crying out loud.

There is of course no reason to include this image in the first place. It's by a non-notable artist, taken from a non-notable 19th-century book which happens to have a whole series of similar vignettes of the whole catalog of bishops of Gniezno [2]. Like all such galleries (galleries of kings, galleries of popes and so on), they are a-dime-a-dozen, cheap fabrications by utterly untalented illustrators, and uniformly worthless from every conceivable angle: aesthetically, historically, and in terms of encyclopedic information value. Using "illustrations" like this is making Wikipedia look childish, amateurish and anti-educational. But if you must include this trash, then the burden of providing "evidence" would be clearly on whoever might want to suggest that this is somehow, magically, not imaginary.

Anyway, you could of course also go for an alternative image, like the corresponding entry of the 15th-century illuminated manuscript [3] people have been using for other articles in this series. Those are, of course, equally unauthentic and equally devoid of actual information value, but at least they are artistically more significant. Or you go for an authentic coin image (doesn't of course show his appearance either, but at least it's something authentic and contemporary). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fundator

Could someone please rephrase this sentence so that it makes sense. --Khajidha (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]