Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)/Archive 02

message: Polish first name, roman numeral if any, royal second name/nickname in English (if translatable at all, Poniatowski is not, being a normal surname). No 'of Poland' or 'King of Poland' needed unless there is a disambig issue.
==== List ====
Current version at List of Polish monarchs.
==== Discussion ====
See discussion that led to this proposal, and its recent criticism at Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01. Feel free to continue it here.
Short rationale and summary:
* Polish first names (without diactrics) are more often than not the most popular. To have consistency, we have decided to use Polish names for all, with the exception of Alexander (being so close to Aleksander). See talk pages linked at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01#Early_Piasta and below for specific proof.
* Roman numerals are useful.
: Yes. I'm not sure I understand the system currently in place. Scholarly texts contradict each other in numbering, Wladyslaw II, is also Wladyslaw IV in one book,, and Wladyslaw V in another. I don't know why this is happening. - Calgacus 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I am not certain of it, I think it may be a result of a monarch reigning in two or more countries under the same name, when there were different rulers with that name in that country. I am not sure which Władysław you refer to atm, but it is likely there were more Władysław's in Poland than in Lithuania, thus he may be II of Lithuania, IV of Poland (yet one more reason to discard the 'of country' extension). An alternative explanation is that the numbering got distorted during the Fragmentation Period, when there were no (or few) kings but mostly 'high dukes of a province' and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, Jogaila is the Wladyslaw I'm talking about. I invite you to post a list which is genuinely a compromise so that we can get on with this as soon as possible. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to see other proposals first, because at this time I am aware only of my new proposal (the current version) and the go-back-to-the-old-version proposal (which can be viewed by going to an archived version of the list... page). With the exception of Jogaila, I am not entirely sure if 'the opposition' to my proposal is united on some key points, or if they have their own variants. If you have your own, please list it as Proposal 3. In a few days, when we see what the alternatives are (if any), we can discuss them and see if new compromises can be worked out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nicknames are not usually (as far as I am aware at least), not part of the titles. E.g. William the Conqueror is William I of England, Richard the Lionheart is Richard I of England, Philip Augustus is Philip II of France, Malcolm Canmore is Malcolm III of Scotland, Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of Russia, etc. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet they are popular. It is open for debate whether it was a good decision, but based on one of the NC guidelines (names should benefit the reader) we decided that nicknames are more 'memorable'/'interesting', will allow readers to differentiate between rulers more easily (Mieszko III the Old is easier to differentiate from Mieszko IV Tanglefoot than if you know them just as Mieszko III of Poland and Mieszko IV of Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  No-one ever refers to William the Conqueror as William I of England, yet that is his wikipedia title. It's equally rare to call Ivan the Terrible Ivan IV, or Philip Augustus Philip II. Nicknames are more memorable for all rulers who have them; nicknaming isn't confined to Polish rulers; after all, we are only talking about the article titles, not the way they will be referred to in the article. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My analysis of usage of Polish rulers' names done a few months ago has shown that indeed some sources outside Wiki use such constructions, but they are few and more often than not it's a 'free-for-all' and dozens of variants of the names exist. I'd support revamping the entire naming conventions to something else (preferably based on my proposal 1), but perhaps it would be better to see if we can raeach a compromise on Polish rulers before trying to reform the entire royalty on Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a headache, I'll admit. I don't think there are any guidelines for ranking various kingdoms, but I am in favor of working out some system that does include the relevant kingdom name. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds nice in theory, but I have given up on seeing a workable system that is not confusing (list all countries and years of reign?) and not too long (X of France (1555-1566), of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1566-1777)), but if anybody has a proposal, do suprise me :) In the end, I think that the 'of country' is better described in the text, just as other longish and confusing things (family, titles, coats of arms, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Not years of reign, that wouldn't be in the title; and for earlier kings, more often than not, reign lengths are not even certain. For rulers pertaining to the Polish-Lithuania, maybe it'd be better to name them "of Poland-Lithuania" or something related; I don't know. You know these things better than I do, so I suggest you post a new list of article titles in accordance with your experience, and other editors will be in a better position to make suggestions. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is not to have 'of country' at all, as I can't see any good solution here, but as there were others who liked them and are pretty familiar with the period (Halibutt??) perhaps they will be willing to do something about it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The naming conventions IIRC said : use the country with which the ruler is most associated to, and made redirects.  in case of Poland-Lithuania, it's unfortunately polonocentric view, since Western historians tended to look at the commonwealth history view our eyes (just as they saw later polish history through German or Russian eyes). Szopen 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: See discussion that led to this proposal, and its recent criticism at Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01. Feel free to continue it here.
Short rationale and summary:
* Polish first names (without diactrics) are more often than not the most popular. To have consistency, we have decided to use Polish names for all, with the exception of Alexander (being so close to Aleksander). See talk pages linked at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01#Early_Piasta and below for specific proof.
* Roman numerals are useful.
: Yes. I'm not sure I understand the system currently in place. Scholarly texts contradict each other in numbering, Wladyslaw II, is also Wladyslaw IV in one book,, and Wladyslaw V in another. I don't know why this is happening. - Calgacus 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I am not certain of it, I think it may be a result of a monarch reigning in two or more countries under the same name, when there were different rulers with that name in that country. I am not sure which Władysław you refer to atm, but it is likely there were more Władysław's in Poland than in Lithuania, thus he may be II of Lithuania, IV of Poland (yet one more reason to discard the 'of country' extension). An alternative explanation is that the numbering got distorted during the Fragmentation Period, when there were no (or few) kings but mostly 'high dukes of a province' and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, Jogaila is the Wladyslaw I'm talking about. I invite you to post a list which is genuinely a compromise so that we can get on with this as soon as possible. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to see other proposals first, because at this time I am aware only of my new proposal (the current version) and the go-back-to-the-old-version proposal (which can be viewed by going to an archived version of the list... page). With the exception of Jogaila, I am not entirely sure if 'the opposition' to my proposal is united on some key points, or if they have their own variants. If you have your own, please list it as Proposal 3. In a few days, when we see what the alternatives are (if any), we can discuss them and see if new compromises can be worked out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nicknames are not usually (as far as I am aware at least), not part of the titles. E.g. William the Conqueror is William I of England, Richard the Lionheart is Richard I of England, Philip Augustus is Philip II of France, Malcolm Canmore is Malcolm III of Scotland, Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of Russia, etc. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet they are popular. It is open for debate whether it was a good decision, but based on one of the NC guidelines (names should benefit the reader) we decided that nicknames are more 'memorable'/'interesting', will allow readers to differentiate between rulers more easily (Mieszko III the Old is easier to differentiate from Mieszko IV Tanglefoot than if you know them just as Mieszko III of Poland and Mieszko IV of Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  No-one ever refers to William the Conqueror as William I of England, yet that is his wikipedia title. It's equally rare to call Ivan the Terrible Ivan IV, or Philip Augustus Philip II. Nicknames are more memorable for all rulers who have them; nicknaming isn't confined to Polish rulers; after all, we are only talking about the article titles, not the way they will be referred to in the article. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My analysis of usage of Polish rulers' names done a few months ago has shown that indeed some sources outside Wiki use such constructions, but they are few and more often than not it's a 'free-for-all' and dozens of variants of the names exist. I'd support revamping the entire naming conventions to something else (preferably based on my proposal 1), but perhaps it would be better to see if we can raeach a compromise on Polish rulers before trying to reform the entire royalty on Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a headache, I'll admit. I don't think there are any guidelines for ranking various kingdoms, but I am in favor of working out some system that does include the relevant kingdom name. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds nice in theory, but I have given up on seeing a workable system that is not confusing (list all countries and years of reign?) and not too long (X of France (1555-1566), of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1566-1777)), but if anybody has a proposal, do suprise me :) In the end, I think that the 'of country' is better described in the text, just as other longish and confusing things (family, titles, coats of arms, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Not years of reign, that wouldn't be in the title; and for earlier kings, more often than not, reign lengths are not even certain. For rulers pertaining to the Polish-Lithuania, maybe it'd be better to name them "of Poland-Lithuania" or something related; I don't know. You know these things better than I do, so I suggest you post a new list of article titles in accordance with your experience, and other editors will be in a better position to make suggestions. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is not to have 'of country' at all, as I can't see any good solution here, but as there were others who liked them and are pretty familiar with the period (Halibutt??) perhaps they will be willing to do something about it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The naming conventions IIRC said : use the country with which the ruler is most associated to, and made redirects.  in case of Poland-Lithuania, it's unfortunately polonocentric view, since Western historians tended to look at the commonwealth history view our eyes (just as they saw later polish history through German or Russian eyes). Szopen 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I would suggest a vote sooner or later, but perhaps now it is too early, especially as proposal 3 or others may be suggested?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: I'd propose to make a table in the following format, which (if we all agree) could replace the table presently at the project page:
:Good idea. I'll also add the Monarchs tag below so that it would be easier for everyone to see all the monarchs in chronological order. Since the first two in the table are elected kings, maybe we'd focus on the elected kings in general for start?--SylwiaS | talk 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table proposal 

message: I did some search (see his talk page) and it appears that Michael may be a better choice after all. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we made the google hits test also (see discussion below proposition 3). There still remains the question about Wiśniowiecki vs. Wisniowiecki, since the name without diacritics will always give more google hits, but then we give rather correct names on Wiki, since Wiki contrary to many other sites has the ability.--SylwiaS | talk 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael after all?

message: Presently there is a redirect page named Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers. This is the list of main namespace pages that contain links to this page:
# Piast dynasty
# House of Vasa
# Jagiellon dynasty
# Dukes of Silesia
# Dukes of Greater Poland
I don't know if there's an exact rule at WP:CSD, but I'd like Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers to be speedy deleted, and all links to such page removed from the 5 pages mentioned above.
Reason: Wikipedia is not normative, there should be no guideline that says that Henry III of France should be spelled Henryk III Walezy in the main namespace of English wikipedia.
Anyone having a problem with this proposed speedy deletion & removal of links (I think this is also a step in making the page naming of Polish rulers a bit less tense)? --Francis Schonken 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind, but then I didn't know that such a redirect exist at all. Maybe Piotr knows why it was made in the first place?--SylwiaS | talk 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted an information about it on Polish board . If no one objects in let's say a week, you'll have a clear case.--SylwiaS | talk 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I'd like to get rid of 

message: As long as there is no rule in wikipedia preventing us from using the correct names, the diacritics should stay. Which, however, does not mean that I support using Polish names of monarchs who are called with their Latin or English names in English. Halibutt 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously. With Unicode, there is no more excuse for careless spelling on wikipedia. --Lysytalk 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article 

message: In order to reduce forking, I would direct interested parties' attention to the discussion at Talk:List of Polish monarchs. --Elonka 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was pointed earler that a proposed Naming Convention is a much better place to discuss the naming issue then a list page. Oh, and note that your proposed version is only one of many optional English spellings we can use, and the current ones are also used in English publications, so they qualify as English, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving names back to English spelling