Talk:Jan Bażyński

message: With this edit, Radeksz removed the name "Johannes von Baysen" from the article. I disagree with the move anyway, as pointed out above, but the removal of the person's name that was the stable title of the article for more than four years and is used in English is likewise unacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because while there may be a source or two for "Hans" there's no sources for "Johannes". The fact that this article was under "Johannes" and had that name sprinkled through out has to do with 1) the fact that the article was started by Matthead and 2) it's not a high profile article. "Johannes" does not seem to be used in English language sources.radek (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "Johannes von Baysen" from the article

message: Removed stuff about the supposed Fleming background of the family as that is contradicted by some (though old) sources .radek (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Before moving the page again, please at least try to address the topic on this talk page. For example, by considering the usage of the name in English language sources - which appear to be using "Jan Bazynski" about five times as often as the Johannes von Baysen. At least discuss this first.radek (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please move back the page and start a RM. There you can state your reasoning, and I state mine. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the evidence of usage of "Jan Bazynski" in English language sources is pretty unequivocal. There's no "tyranny of status quo" in regard to article naming. If you'd like, you can start a RM and state your reasoning, and I'll state mine.radek (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleming background?

message: The above discussion has shown that the two moves to "Jan Bażyński" performed by Radeksz   are not backed by consensus , run contrary to BRD, and that the few English language returns of the books.google search are for the most part Communist era and pre-war Polish authors . As was further sorted out, there neither is a substantial return of books.google search results in English language books for any alternative name, suggesting that there is no established English usage. The names used are listed below with the overall total of books.google search results (nearly entirely non-English) in parentheses:
*Johannes von Baysen (17)
*Johannes de Baysen (16)
*Johannes von Baisen (2)
*Johannes de Baisen (3)
*Johannis von Baysen (2)
*Johannis de Baysen (7)
*Johannis de Baisen (2)
*Johann von Baysen (189)
*Johann von Baisen (99)
*Hans von Baysen (1,330)
*Hans de Baysen (1)
*Hans von Baisen (1,260)
*Hans de Baisen (1)
*Jan von Baysen (2)
*Jan de Baysen (4)
*Jan von Baisen (1)
*Jan de Baisen (4)
*Jan Bazynski/Bażyński (576)
*John von Baysen (2)
*John of Baysen (1)
"Johannes" has not the majority of returns, but it is the version the other used forms "Johann", "Hans", and Jan" are diminutives of. The Latinized "Johannis" and the Anglicized "John" do not turn out as being significantly used in the above searches. "von Baysen" and "von Baisen" are both the most used spellings of his surname, with "Baysen" getting most returns. 
The article should thus be moved back to its previous title "Johannes von Baysen", and all the diminutives of his given name, the "Baisen" spelling variant of his surname as well as the Anglicized, Latinized and Polonized forms should appear bolded in the lead. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All that shows is that German sources use Johann (and variation) and Hans (and variations). But this is the English Wikipedia. Not German. Google books hits which show that German sources use German names are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure what is the point of even showing this.radek (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

text: And one more time (this is like, what, fifth time in the past three weeks that this has to be pointed out?), per this RSN thread, pre-1989 Polish sources are RS as a general rule, unless of course it can be shown otherwise for individual sources.radek (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

text: well as the Anglicized, Latinized and Polonized forms should appear bolded in the leadSorry Skapperod but this is English Wikipedia not German one. The Germanised version of the name can be mentioned but can't be primary one. Also using 1945-1989 completely acceptable per Wiki rules  and per consensus as has been demonstrated numerous times.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to Johannes von Baysen 

message: Skapperod, can you explain how it makes the least bit of sense to move the article  to the one name that is NOT used in sources?radek (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Half a week later, still waiting for an answer as to why this article was moved to the one name which is NOT used by the sources.radek (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The one name that is NOT used in sources 

message: The word "familiaren" was tagged as "clarification needed". Familiaren were a kind of lay brothers. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking for full text from the source.radek (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm still waiting for the text from the source to be provided for clarification.radek (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification