Talk:List of Polish monarchs

message: I'm removing the bits about evolution because it was proven false by the great pharmacist of Maryland, Robert Shane Maxey.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution

message: Now that all (?) of the agreed upon moves have been carried out, it's time to clean up the usage and especially any remaining double redirects. Definetly we should start by eliminating all redirects from this list and then from the :Template:Monarchs of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a sample articles I have checked have dr fixed, so it was more of a general reminder. I am not sure which of your criticisms have not been addressed, but I cannot fail to note that you were the only voice of criticisms here. We both have advertised this discussion, and the few people who joined it seem to support my proposal. I'd have wished for more votes, alas, we have to act on what we got, and it has been over a month since I first made the proposal - how long can we wait? This page was left in poor shape for years... at least now we have a consistent naming system, without the terrible latinized versions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Piotrus, but in fact I opposed too. I did not want to interfere after the move was already done, but I am still not sure the Polish-Polish names are the best option here, especially that it's quite common to translate the names of virtually all European rulers to English. Halibutt 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just found this discussion, and have to agree that I too am opposed and horrified at how some of these changes were pushed through in the face of opposition, and without clear consensus.  The correct naming convention is that the articles should have the most commonly-used English name.  Anything that was moved to a Polish spelling, should be moved back.  If there is any disagreement, I recommend increasing visibility of this discussion by posting it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All#Language and linguistics. Elonka 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By all means, post it there, but I think that most of the moves were done to the name corresponding with the most common name (google hits). Of course there is the diactrics issue, but this has been settled by Polish editors long time ago with the agreement to use diactrics, and this has never been seriously opposed anywhere (to the best of my knowledge). All things considered, if you or john or sb else want to move any name back (or to sth new), please suggest doing so: while there has been some discussion about general naming rules, I don't recall any alternative names being suggested, and research we did clearly proved that old names were the 'worst of both worlds' - but not widely used in English and not close to Polish original versions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  The moves were horrid. I'm not too fussed, but diactrics should not be there. I support these pages being moved back to English versions of their names. Polonizing the names of monarchs at least makes it difficult to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), although it's probably worthless and unbeneficial to try to keep more obscure Polish names English. - Calgacus 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmm Piotrus, I hasn't idea there is any discussion about this naming scheme. I was kind a wondering why the pages have been moved from previous naming scheme (name cardinal of X) to other. I am strongly opposing this idea. Native spelling is of course the way to go, but INSIDE the article. The name of the article is what names and titles convention was about (though it advices making redirects too). In other words, no Władysław Jagiełło, but Wladislaw II of Poland AND in the article Władysław II Jagiełło, Jahajla, Jogaila in prominent place. This was always the way to go when I was more active. Szopen 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you do it? We have to work out which ones will get reverted. And, will we be adopting the form "X II of Y"?- Calgacus 15:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I'd be the one to do it. For my efforts, Piotrus, despite being an admin, is going around calling me names on the talk pages of fellow Polish users, such as Troll and POV Pusher. So if that's how an the only admin seriously concerned with this project is prepared to portrray me, I'm probably a bad choice to carry out the work. One think I would like to know is dating numerals. Jogaila is called on wiki Wladyslaw II, but most of my scholarly books when they call him Wladyslaw call him Wladyslaw IV, so I'm guessing a rather sensitive form of dating is going on, perhaps having something to do with the transition from Duchy to Kingdom. So, we do have to work out if we're doing X of Poland, or "X, Duke of Poland", or work around this when it has already taken place. - Calgacus 16:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, I am not accusing you of acting in bad faith. In fact, I know that you had perfectly good intentions. Indeed I missed the proposals somehow, don't know really why, so I am not accusing you of not advertising enough. However, now when I know it, I think one should stick with the good all rules established in names and titles. It is only about article names (to make disambiguation and linking easier), not about the content inside if I am not mistaken. Szopen 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your scheme for the most part, but I don't agree with changing Casimir to Kazimierz, while terms like Ladislaus were clearly ridiculous.  Every English source I have ever read is pretty consistent with using Casimir.--Milicz 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are the Polish monarchs all kept in the Polish language? I thought we are on the English language Wikipedia? Gryffindor 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beacouse there are several English variants and there is no good way to chose one of them. Thus by using Polish names (and there is only one in most cases) we are at least consistent with the primary source. Please read the discussion above for the long version of this answer.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another reason is that there is a small group of Polish nationals on Wikipedia who have been pushing their own agenda: Renaming articles from English names to what they regard as the "correct" Polish-language names.  Some of these Wikipedians (including at least one admin) seem to think that if they can push through the changes in the face of opposition, that they'll have a claim for making the changes stick during future discussions.  Since the Polish nationals have remained organized via their own noticeboard, and have an admin in their number who often generates "calls to action" to get them all posting on a particular page, they are often able to all chime in to a particular discussion, and make it look as though there's a community consensus to keep the Polish name, when in reality it's just the same group of Poles posting over and over, moving from page to page, and in general ignoring or belittling  any opposition.  --Elonka 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one day we will take over the world...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: To those who have been moving articles to Polish names without consensus:  It is time to stop.  The best way to handle things would be to voluntarily admit that this was inappropriate, and help with fixing things.  If necessary though, we will just go article by article and prove that there is consensus to move the articles back to their English-language names.  To start, interested parties are invited to check the following pages and cast their vote:
* Talk:Zygmunt I the Old (should probably be Sigismund I) (move complete)
* Talk:Zygmunt II August (should probably be Sigismund II or Sigismund Augustus) (move complete)
* Talk:Zygmunt III Vasa  (should be Sigismund III Vasa) (move complete)
--Elonka 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post refactored per mediation discussion.  Original version can be seen here. --02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I support moving all people to their appropriate English names. The English name of the current king of Spain is Juan Carlos and the English name of a certain famous Greek ruler of antiquity who lived before there was an English language or even widespread use of the Latin alphabet is Alexander the Great. Go figure. The Polish monarchs are best known by Anglicisations and should be titled in articles as such. These are convenient for two reasons: they are pronounceable to those unfamiliar with Polish (there are some of us) and they are more common in English literature, especially of the nonspecialist variety. Wikipedia, though it should be scholarly and factual, is nonspecialist.
Srnec 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the names back to English 

message: The truthful use of regnal numbers is not a simple matter. It is not something done just by counting (beware of WP:OR). These rulers, as usually all others, did not usually use ordinals in Middle Ags (only a few monarchs then did that). Most of medieval ordinals are retrospective. When early modern age came, they started often use those, but made themselves all sorts of counting mistakes - or wanted to emphasize something that is POV to us. At first, regnal numbers were used for disambiguation by the monarchs themselves - to distinguis from father or grandfather, rulers easily in memories of subjects and others. Only much later, regnal numbers grew to also be used as pointers of legitimacy. Either that of the holder or of the predecessor he wanted to advertise as legitimate or condemn as usurper.
Use of regnal numbers should, avoiding OR, happen with following guidelines:
1. Do not use any regnal number that either has not been used by established works of reference or not been in contemporaneous official use. Do not invent regnal numbers.
2. If a ruler's regnal number regarding his "highest title" or "most important realm" is controversial (at least two alternatives), do not use it in the article name. Use other disambiguation instead. We do not want our artice names reflect something that can reasonably cause confusion or editwarring. In article names, use only truly used or authoritatively assigned regnal numbers, provided its value does not contravene with the first sentence.
3. Explain the use and assignations of regnal numbers of the subject in the article. Use refers to contemporaneous use, assignation refers to retrospective use in works of reference and official king lists of that country. Of course if a regnal number is only an invention of royalist fringes or writers of not respected publications, it does not need to be explained. Sometimes non-use could be explained.
Information of regnal numbers actually used contemporaneously is available at . Marrtel 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of thoughts here - Regarding your guidelines, Marrtel...
#I fully agree.  However, when contemporary use conflicts with the modern designation (as established by respected reference works, textbooks, etc.), we go with the modern designation, rather than the contemporary one.
#How do we determine this?  Is it controversial that England is more important than Scotland?  Is it controversial that we should have Charles III of Spain and not Charles VII of Naples?  What about Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor rather than Charles I of Spain?  This could become problematic.
#I think explanations only need to be given when the ordinal was not in use in the monarchs own time, or when it has some special significance - the first monarch to use an ordinal, or whatever.  For instance, I think it's useful to mention that Francis I of France was, apparently, the first monarch to use the ordinal "the first".  It's not terribly important to mention that his grandson Francis II used the ordinal "the second" because his grandfather was "Francis the First".  john k 11:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, got it.  It seems fair, then, to not use the ordinal for Wladyslaw the Short or for Wladyslaw Jagiello, but to have Wladyslaw III of Poland and Wladyslaw IV of Poland go to the Varna and Vasa monarchs?  The other Wladyslaw III should be at Wladyslaw III, Duke of Poland, I think, and there should be disambiguation notices at the tops of both Wladyslaw III of Poland and Wladyslaw IV of Poland to point people to the proper place.  Wladyslaw I of Poland and Wladyslaw II of Poland should be disambiguation pages.  That seem sensible? john k 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very much. Although Wladyslaw III of Varna is also monarch of Hungary and it is a battle what his realm(s) are in naming and what is the variant of the first name. Personally I cannot see why a king of Hungary should have a Polish spelling in en-Wiki, when there are more neutral alternatives such as "Vladislas" available, neither Polish nor Hungarian. Perhaps the solution to that problem helps yet more us with disambiguation these Wladyslaw III guys from each other. But that battle belongs to the talkpage of the Varna one. X, Duke of N is a good format for earlier ruers, but real sources should be checked whether any individual one of them was Duke of Cracow orr Duke of Poland or High Duke of some variant. These were used, and not consistently. Marrtel 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not worry. I think now that if something good is processed from this discvussion, I'll take them to that geberal guideline discussion. At this stage, perhaps you can help to get the ideas above verbally formulated so not very much confusion or misunderstandings are caused. For example, that point 2 should be formulted in a way that also others get it. Marrtel 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ordinals 

message: I don't see the point of uglifying the list by adding those unsightly tables along with detailed information that is best obtained from the monarch articles. Appleseed (Talk) 11:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables are tidy. We practically need table to have two variants of the name tidily beside each other. Without tabulation, they may look ugly. And when table is in use, also dates of reigns, and title, and additinal notes are tidily in their own columns.
If only one variant of the name is left here, that means it must be the English one. Not a Polish spelling. Sorry it such ruffles your feathers. But English variants shall be displayed in this Wikipedia. For Polish language, there is another Wikipedia, you know, the Polish one. So, the two names beside each other is a goodwill towards those who desire the Polish name is shown. Otherwise it will not. Hope you do not fight this any more. Shilkanni 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Those tables weren't tidy.  They were of various width, the borders were ugly, and many of the cells were empty.  As for the names, they weren't supposed to be "English" or "Polish"; they simply linked to the corresponding article (which may have been a redirect if the pages were moved since the last edit).  My concern is about putting so much information into a simple list that it requires a table.  The only really relevant information for this article is the name of the monarch and the years he ruled. Appleseed (Talk) 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you explain why you think a table is certainly better than a list?  I favor the list format because it is elegant and simple.  The purpose of this list is to organize the monarchs chronologically and to link to their articles.  I think adding more data that requires a table is overkill. Appleseed (Talk) 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current list is hardly elegant.  It's quite unattractive in my opinion. And I don't see why the purpose of the list should simply be to list them chronologically and link to their articles.  Having a table which provides more information seems useful. john k 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: I have trued to make sense of how English world calls these overlords of the fragmentary period. In Polish it is something like wielky ksiaze (do not ask me to put any diacriticals to these words). There may exist some established translations, and/but there certainly are several possibilities how to translate - as accurately as possible it would probably be "High Prince", wouldn't it?
I am somewhat against using the pure "Duke", because the ksiazes under this overlord seem to be expressed by term duke in English. And the precisely same term does not express the relation/ subjugation between them. What are the prefixes to the duke the English literature uses for these overlords?  (I would hate if it were Grand Duke)?. Is "High Duke" any sort of established usage, or just some original research?
Would it be too bad to use "Overlord of Poland" or "Overlord of the Polanes" as title?
Is it totally wrong to use any of the titles Great Prince, Grand Prince and High Prince??
This would be needed so biography articles of these would be consistent. Please write your knoewledge upon the subject. Maed 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Polish it's "książę zwierzchni", overlord.  All of the Polish monarchs during the fragmentation were dukes, but not all were overlords.  Some were just dukes of Kraków. Appleseed (Talk) 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly not High Prince (not according to our current defintion :>). That said, this is a very good question. First issue to consider is whether to call them prince or duke, second - whether we need any 'high/grand' or other adjective. To the first I would suggest prince, especially as Polish sources are pretty consistent with 'książę' (Polish for prince). Second gets tricky, and I will admit that I have not dealt much with Polish history before 16th centuries. Currently the en-wiki misses articles like :pl:Polska w okresie rozbicia dzielnicowego (Fragmentation of Poland, just a redirect) or more to the point, :pl:Książęta dzielnicowi Polski. This article uses an interesting title: "książe dzielnicowy". It is somewhat hard to translate. During the time of fragmentation (and is *this* the right translation? I haven't checked...) the Poland was divided into several princedoms, called 'dzielnice' (quarters). The rulers of those 'dzielnice' where called 'prince of quarters' ('książe dzielnicowy'). I am however not sure if this is the dominant term used in Polish literature, and I have no idea how it is properly translated. Until we do more research, I'd suggest calling them prince of Poland and adding links to fragmentation article where possible for clarification. And the best way to avoid any (re)naming confusion is to avoid inclusion of any 'king of, prince of, and of what' in titles of Polish monarchs (or princes, or whatver :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems to be towards OR, I think.  If most English sources use "Duke of Poland," that is what we should use.  We can mention the Polish term in the articles and explain that it means something somewhat different from just "Duke", but we shouldn't make up our own terms.  I'd add that the use of "of Poland" ought to make clear that we are speaking of the overlord - lesser rulers would be "Of Mazovia" or "of Silesia" or whatever. john k 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the overlord 

message: The nomenclature for Polish monarchs must be discussed and systematised now. Issues about titling are coming up on various talk pages for various monarchs, threatening to cause greater inconsistency than we currently have. I reproduce my comments from Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw II Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o below:
:Now, I doubt the effectiveness of all this polling on specific names: there are just too many possible permutations for this poor fellow. It may be best to work by deciding whether or not the page should have diacritics in the title. I think there will be a supermajority saying "no" and the page could be moved preliminarily to "Wladyslaw II Jagiello." Then further voting could determine whether or not both the Polish and Lithuanian names are needed in some form or other. Then it could be determined what forms of the names are wanted: Jagiello or Jogaila, Wladyslaw or Ladislaus, etc. Next, it could be determined whether or not an ordinal number is necessary and whether or not a qualifier such as "of Poland" or "Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland" is necessary. The end result would be a name that satisifes majority opinion on all aspects of this complicated name. I, personally, could live with that. Srnec 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: There are several different forked discussions about this subject, going on around Wikipedia.  As an attempt to try and clarify things a bit, here's a list:
Other policy discussions related to this topic can be found at:
* Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions - General policy discussion about guidelines for Wikipedia article titles
* Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) - specific discussion about article titles related to royalty
* Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) - discussion about whether or not to make a new proposed guideline specifically for article titles of Polish monarchs (proposal status: rejected)
* Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board - multiple Poland-related topics
* Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) - Discussion about what language and alphabets to use in article titles
* Wikipedia talk:Proper names - February 2006 discussion (copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)) about the use of diacritics in proper names  
: --Elonka 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussions 

message: Please note, that in the poll above, 
*
*
*
*
are confirmed sockpuppets  -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: Hello! Can someone please take a look at List of Polish consorts article? User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy and I did the best we could, but we are not sure about the dates of birth and death of the duchesses and early queens, so we need help from Polish history experts! :) Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Polish consorts]] 

message: Was Anna Jagiellon a monarch of Poland or a consort to the Polish monarch? It seems that this question was raised at Talk:Anna Jagiellon but it never attracted much attention. Polish language Wikipedia treats her as a consort and does not include her among the Polish monarchs. However, English language Wikipedia treats her as a monarch. Several English language sources claim that she was a monarch. For example, The Polish-Lithuanian state, 1386-1795 states that "Anna was elected king three days later on another field together with her fiancee, Stefan Batory, as co-ruler". That seems very unambigious. Are there sources that claim otherwise? I find it suspicious that she did not use the title of king or the title of queen, instead using the title Infanta of Poland, and that she was no longer king/queen after her husband's death. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Anna a monarch of Poland? 

message: The names of Polish monarchs should follow WP:NCROY and should be of the form "Name X of Poland" unless there is some good reason to the contrary.  I intend to propose a block move soon unless somebody convinces me otherwise. PatGallacher (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: Is there a reason for two lists?  There is this one and List of kings of Poland. Would not one list be better? --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The two lists are essentially the same, so I agree with you. - Presidentman  (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 13:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from List of kings of Poland

message: The guys who claimed to be king but never actually ruled (like the Maximillians, etc.) should be either separated out, as is done over at List of English monarchs or just removed.
Also, I do think it's better to have images which show the likeliness of the actual people rather than their tombstones, which can be hard to make out even with high quality images.VolunteerMarek 16:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed claimants 

message: From 1815 to the Revolution in 1830, the Russian Tsars also ruled above Poland as Kings of Poland. They have to stand in the list, please.  --TheHeroWolf (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is about monarchs of independent Poland, with native rulers. Foreign (Partition-era) rulers - Russian Tsars, Austrian Emperors and Prussian Kings - are already listed at List of rulers of Partitioned Poland, and that solution is very good IMHO. We should keep monarchs of independent Poland and rulers of partitioned Poland in separate lists. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they were "titular kings" only after the revolution of 1830, but until 1830 they were kings. And yes, they also were Grand Princes of Finland. And because the Grand Duke of Warsaw is listed, the Russian Tsars can be too. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  It is absurd to separate so-called "Independent" rulers that werent even such, for example isn't the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth not "independent poland"? Tsars ruled as Kings of Poland, Austrian Emperor and Prussian Kings were never "king of Poland". Henry III of France is listed. To exclude Tsars is just bigotry, they were legally recognized and there was no other polish government at the time. Also, Poland was de jure independent. To say otherwise it to not include the Queen of Britain as the Queen of Canada and to say Canada isn't independent because it has the same monarch so "It doesn't count". Simply put the exclusion is mere sentimentality and doesn't have place in an objective presentation of facts.  --181.26.9.58 (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Tsars 

message: A few sources (including CBN, VICE, and Breitbart) are reporting that Poland has declared Jesus as its King.  I am assuming this is like having Mary as the Queen of Poland and not worth listing, but since zhwp is going crazy with this I think I need some clarification. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 17:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is should be closed indefinitely. Especially coming in from a vandal like User:Volodya. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't it come from "a vandal" like the government of Poland? --181.26.9.58 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

text: But it's official law. No reason it shouldn't be listed here. 2601:C3:100:49B0:80DA:BA40:1CE5:9053 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not official law by any means. Moreover, no source of this claim. Merangs (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Jesus the King of Poland now? 

message: The table picture of Bolesław II of Masovia is twice as high as each of the other kings. Can someone, please, cut it in half (upper half) and re-upload it? Thanks in advance. Mdob (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boleslaw picture is too big