Talk:Piotrowski

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

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.

Why Duplicate Her Bio Like This?

Queen Catherine of Sweden (this one, of many) belonged to the Jagiellan (or Jagellon) Dynasty, as long as we are still defining dynasties by male descent as always has been done in European and American culture. She has never personally been called "Piotrowski" in any language or context. This article as headed can expound on either historical or fictional theories, or both, about an older Polish dynasty, but it is hard to understand why it basicallly is just a bio of one queen as it looks now. Of course it is understandable that Polish people might be proud of her, sources tell us she was a very good Queen of Sweden, but wouldn't the best tribute be to let her actual sourced article, now listed as Catherine Jagellon of Poland be sufficient without this kind of competition of sorts? EmilEikS (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from article. The contributor want this there, but it is not relevant to his heading (the queen already has her own article):

(Removed copy of Catherine Jagellon of Poland. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This claim about offspring from Catherine Jagellon of Poland seems to be total crap. If Catherine had any secret issue in Poland, they would also be members of the House of Vasa and descendants of Sigismund III Vasa. So far the article (or the crap version of it) has not offered any proof to the contrary. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT THE REAL STORY OF THE SURNAME PIOTROWSKI

WHO IS WRITING THIS TOTAL CRAP ABOUT THE TATARS AND THE LINK TO THE PIOTROWSKI surname of poland???? Piotrowski is a Polish Surname where perhaps there were some Lithuaninan offspring. But do not put that Piotrowski is a descendant of Mongols / Tatar's!! Are you crazy??? THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THA COAT OF ARMS IS NOT EVEN REAL, IT IS A MIXTURE OF A COUPLE COAT OF ARMS TAKEN FROM A COUPLE DIFFERENT ARMS. I AM A DESCENDANT OF A PIOTROWSKI AND AM NOT A TATAR!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.11.253 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PIOTROWSKI IS NOT A DESCENDANT OF TATAR / MONGOLS!

IS SOMEONE SMOKING SOMETHING??? THIS PETRI KOHN OR WHATEVER SWITCHED IT DESCENDANT OF TATARS LAST YEAR AND NOONE REVERTED IT. THIS SECTION HAS TO BE FIXED, BUT NOT INCORRECTLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.11.253 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to fix the page.

Piotrowski is a POLISH Surname descendant, not Lithuanian. They may have adapted it, but it is NOT of Lithuanian origin.

Please stop posting this TATAR crap!

It is very simply a Polish surname. Stop trying to doll it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.11.253 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TATAR Piotrowskis are fact not a crap

See: http://pl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Piotrowscy_herbu_Piotrowski and http://pl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Piotrowscy.

However they are only a tiny part of all Piotrowskis. (See the first entry at this page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.112.158 (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]