Talk:Bolesław I the Brave/Archive 1

message: For almost a year, I've been looking for someone who would tone down the following slur: "he used the internal war of Vladimir the Great sons for throne and the weakness of Kyivan Rus to launch a plundering attack on Kyiv in 1018, annexing the Red Strongholds (Grody Czerwienskie) later called Red Ruthenia and making prince  Sviatopolk his vassal there for short time." As there is noone concerned, I'll have to fix it myself. --Ghirlandajo 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Made Sviatopolk his vassal" 

message: I'd like to move this page to Bolesław I the Brave. See my proposal at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming. Google test results of English language pages, including Wikipedia:
* Boleslaw / Bolesław 152k
* Boleslav - 178k
* Boleslaw I / Bolesław I - 847
* Boleslav I - 543
** approx. 1400 but those names should be a disambig, see note below
* Boleslaw the Brave - 461
* Boleslav the Brave - 573
** approx. 1000
* Bolesław Chobry / Boleslaw Chrobry - 13
* Boleslav Chrobry - 1390
** approx 1400
* Boleslaw of Poland / Bolesław of Poland  - 129
* Boleslav of Poland - 74
** approx 200, this should also be a disambig, see below
* Boleslaw I the Brave / Bolesław I the Brave - 539
* Boleslav I the Brave - 43
** approx 600
* Boleslaw I Chrobry / Bolesław I Chrobry - 103
* Boleslav I Chrobry - 43
** aprox 150
* Boleslaw I of Poland / Bolesław I of Poland - 268
* Boleslav I of Poland - 47
** approx 300
* Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland / Bolesław I the Brave of Poland - 143
* Boleslav I the Brave of Poland - 7
** approx 150
* Boleslaw the Brave of Poland / Bolesław the Brave of Poland - 19
* Boleslav the Brave of Poland - 14
** aprox 40
* Boleslaus - 27k
* Boleslaus I - 879
** should be a disambig
* Boleslaus the Brave - 1530
* Boleslaus Chrobry - 20
* Boleslaus of Poland - 85, should be a disambig
* Boleslaus I Chrobry - 43
* Boleslaus I of Poland - 3k but down to 639 excluding wiki
* Boleslaus I the Brave - 678
* Boleslaus I the Brave of Poland - 2
Note that the above results are not totaly exclusive (larger names contain some of the shorter) and that Boleslaw I/Boleslaus I may also refer to Boleslaus I of Bohemia (which is actualy at 'Boleslav', also known as Boleslav I of Bohemia, Boleslaus I the Cruel, Boleslav I. Ukrutný), and Boleslaw of Poland may refer to several Polish kings. 
There are 2 possible choices for first name (I will skip the disambigs in the count):
* Bolesław (combined with Boleslaw and Boleslav, as we already have a custom of using local name if very similar). This seems to be used around 3200 times
* Boleslaus (latinized) - 5000 if counting Wiki and its mirrors, 2800 otherwise (although I admit I didn't discount Wiki in other searches, I am assuming that the wiki-bias is for current name Boleslaus).
Even in English usage, Boleslaw seems much more common then latinized Boleslaus. In our context there seem to be a parity with roughly 3000 hits for each variant. Even counting current Wiki-name bias, we get about 62,5% for Boleslaus - meaning that there is no single, clear, well-estabilished English usage, therefore I think that we should use Bolesław, which, being the Polish name, has the advantage of being consistent with all Polish sources.
There and 3 choices for the second name:
* I vs. not using numeral - 4k for not using it, 2,5k using it without Wiki-bias, 5k using it with Wiki bias. Again, a rough parity.
* Chrobry vs. the Brave - approx 1750 for Chrobry, 3500 for Brave - seems like the English translation of his nickname wins, which is actually a good idea (at least it means something for the overage user, other then Slavic blah blah)
* Chrobry/the Brave vs. of Poland - close to 5k vs 1k not counting Wiki, 2,5k counting Wiki. Seems like 'of Poland' is rather unecessary.
All things considered, I think that Bolesław I the Brave is the best name, and everything else should be made into a redirect (or disambig in the few cases I listed above). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support!  I think the only conceivable question is whether to keep the Roman numeral.  I think we should, because at least it puts the various Bolesławs in order — a boon to the Polish-history-handicapped.  logologist 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Support this and all other instances of Bolesław and most other Polish names.  I have reservations only about about the given names Ladislaus (Władysław) and Stanislaus (Stanisław); the Latinizations seem more common in English, possibly because they were borne by saints whose cult is popular even outside Poland; I have no statistics to back this up, it's just an impression.    The biggest issue for me is when the editors of an English-language text try to be "authentic" and use the native Polish orthography without diacrtics.  If you don't have an "ł" available, Boleslaus is much better than Boleslaw which reads like "coleslaw" in English!  Anyway, if we can support Polish orthography now, we should use it, except the cases mentioned above. --Jpbrenna 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: "In 999 Bolesław annexed present-day Moravia, and in 1000 or 1001, Slovakia."
This is a huge mistake. Bolesław annexed only a small part of today Northern Slovakia.
see:
http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/terkep/magyar11/magyar11.jpg
Bye, Laszlo
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. Haukur 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annaxation of Slovakia? 

message: :Write Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.
* Support. As nominator. Marrtel 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, opposing diacritics on WP as a whole for technical reasons is a whole different can of worms.  I believe there was voting a while back about this issue.  If I remember correctly, it resulted in no concensus, which is why they are still used.  If you intend to "vote away" diacritics on an article-by-article basis, then you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Appleseed (Talk) 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: This has been too long in a location which clearly contravenes the naming convention. So, this needed a more NPOV place. In recent other polls, the general editorship has shown a clear support for "non-Polish" name versions. For starters, the recent name was not arrived by any consensus, but by a unilateral move, so its proponents are not entitled to claim their version the original or "lawful" one. The original was "Boleslaus I of Poland". I am not entirely happy with the location here, because I personally think the English form could be "Boleslaus". Because so many (Polish?) editirs have expressed they are most unhappy with -laus endings, I swallowed my own preferences and chose a more Slavic-looking -lav here. Hope it satisfies at least some. If this is not a satisfactory place, be welcome to open a poll where this should be moved to. Then, I will vote for Boleslaus. Shilkanni 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The voting was 16:12 (no consensus?), and the proposal to move wasn't even to "Boleslav". Appleseed (Talk) 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was 16:9 in favor of the move, because of course Polish-camp's sockpuppets do not count. Shilkanni 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am very suprised about the move. Move of an article in the face of a clear lack of consensus in WP:RM by an editor who is well aware that there is no consensus and has been asked not to do so before is IMHO shows a considerable lack of judgement and that some stronger warnings may be needed. PS. As usual with Shilkanni moves, we have a series of unfixed double redirects (just see what links to this page). Deja vu, again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, you seem so surprised. And, when you speak of consensus, do you feel that 9 editors for keeping that Polish name, against 16, is a reason enough to keep it in the Polish name. There is certain surprising element in such reasoning. Shilkanni 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you are unhappy with such smaller details, feel free to open a move request. Then you have an ongoing discussion open, not now. I predict that you, Molobo, are going to get expelled from English Wikipedia if you continue trying to keep the article in a location where only a minority of 9 against 16 has accepted it to be kept. I believe you cannot afford to fight against both the majority and the naming convention that is in effect. Shilkanni 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed 

message: The previous move was done disregardign the ongoing discussion regarding the proper naming. We all should wait till the discussion is over before making drastic, unsupported moves, especially using weak and ahistoric argumentation like  "it sounds slavic".
--Molobo 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no ongoing discussion regarding this naming. You are sadly mistaken. The last discussion ended, in reality, 16:9 in favor of move. Shilkanni 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said that I do not particularly like -lav. -laus would be better. Feel free to open a move request. However, regarding the so-called rough consensus, you should be aware that 16:9 is a sufficient consensus. If English is used in en-wiki, the page is not going to go to the Polish name - you have your warning. Shilkanni 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Evidently, Shorter Cambridge Medieval History uses Boleslav I. That's a sufficient ground to accept it, even if not liking it. I have repeatedly said that I do not particularly like that -lav ending, preferring -laus. We can move this to Boleslaus I of Poland if you also prefer -laus over -lav. What is certain, against the shown community majority this is not going to be kept in the Polish spelling. Shilkanni 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I restored the previous version-here is the reasoning 

message: It has now been shown that using checkuser that  has been running three sockpuppets who "voted" here, namely 
*
*
*
If we leave one vote for the real user, and take away the three phonies, that means that oppose was 6, not 9, showing that the page had a consensus behind it for the move. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please note that the RM was to Boleslaus I of Poland and not to Boleslav I of Poland. Second, please get your math staight: discounting sockpuppets I have 9, not 6 oppose votes. Third, it is good rule of thumb to ask the RM-specialist admin to recount the votes instead of moving it yourself to a name that you think is best.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets used by Logologist

message: : Note: This section of discussion refers to a previous poll.  To see the original votes, please review the  archive page. --Elonka 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So their votes do not count? Nice. Charles 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that we don't know what an untainted poll would like because this one sure wasn't. Thus you have not demonstrated consensus for a move to Boleslaus I of Poland and as a WP:RM maintainer I don't feel confident making that move. If you want to call attention to a vote then do so through a relevant noticeboard which anyone can watch (in this case that could be a noticeboard on e.g. medieval Europe, Poland, or European royalty). I still can see no system in Marrtel's soliciting except contacting people he (correctly) thought would agree with him. That's not kosher and since there seems to have been no equivalent effort on the "other side" to rally the troops I think it probably badly skewed the poll. Haukur 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I contacted people on two bases: those I knew having done work in royalty, and those Middle Ages. This is transparently not true. You contacted User:Orionus who had done no work in either area because he had commented at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5 with a position you approved of. You did not contact people you thought would disagree with you. Even in that apologia above you say you figured that there was no need for you to "waste time" by contacting Polish editors. You made a nice exception for User:Halibutt, though, because you thought (correctly) that he would support your position. Haukur 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orionus had in Wladyslaw II participated in royalty naming. Is Halibutt Polish? Marrtel 18:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Commenting in a naming dispute is not "doing work" - but even if it were then why didn't Marrtel contact everyone who had commented in that naming dispute? Ask anyone not previously involved and not your personal friend whether Marrtel's selective soliciting of votes was an acceptable way to call attention to a poll. Your constant attacks on me are growing tiresome. Your latest line is that I am not attacking the "users who used sockpuppets" enough. That's completely absurd - it was I who called attention to those sockpuppets to begin with. And there weren't "users" with sockpuppets - there was "a user". No-one is defending the sockpuppet abuse so there is no need to "attack" it at this point. You, however, are still defending transparent attempts to rig polls. Haukur 03:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you're all fine upstanding people but the fact remains that Marrtel selectively contacted people and admits as much, saying that it would be a "waste of time" for him to contact Poles. The people he contacted broke in favor of his side in the vote 12-1. Other people not contacted were about evenly split. He tried to rig the poll and he was successful. I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this but I'd be fine with submitting to a review by my peers. I suggest we ask a few people who are not previously involved to analyse this. Maybe Aaron Brenneman, Tony Sidaway, Sjakkalle and Xoloz? If, for example, two of the above were to tell me that I owe someone an apology then I would issue one. Haukur 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why they voted predominantly that way is quite simple. That is where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be. Your lack of concern for the fact that a small number of Polish contributors rode roughshod through the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions to create names that are not used and not recognisable widely outside Poland, is striking. It was the equivalent of Irish users putting Dublin at Baile Atha Cliath or President Sean T. O'Kelly at Seán Tomas Ó Ceallaigh, even though it is the English versions, not the Irish versions, which are used and recognised internationally. You are silent at the highjacking of pages by one group, something achieved through a noticeboard, but go ballistic about a free vote involving non-Poles, on the basis that they were contacted, as they had to be as there is not a noticeboard to inform them of votes on royalty topics. Your lack of consistency is stark, as is your desire to misrepresent the motivations of a user who openly contracted people, including someone who had taken a different stance to him on another Polish page. If he was trying to rig a vote then he wouldn't have contacted users who had taken different stances to his own on issues, and he wouldn't have contacted users who are notoriously independent-minded. His behaviour was a lot more open, and fair, and followed more Wikipedia rules, than yours has been. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree but don't have much to add. If the noticeboard you want doesn't exist then I suggest you just go ahead and set it up. I don't see how Boleslaus I of Poland is "where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be", considering that no evidence has been presented to show that Boleslaus is the most common form of the name and I see a lot of evidence against it. But, really, it doesn't look to me like the two of us are getting anywhere here so I'll go ahead and ask some previously uninvolved people to comment on Marrtel's actions. Haukur 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it would probably be best if we agreed beforehand on some people to arbitrate the issue. Alternatively we could post at WP:ANI again but if a long thread develops there again between us I fear no-one will comment. Have you got any ideas or neutral people you'd like to propose to arbitrate the issue? I suppose we could ask the Arbitration Committee but maybe that's overkill at this stage. Haukur 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recount 

message: * Dpv
* Jpbrenna
* Piotrus
* Appleseed
* Logologist
* Radomil
* Elonka
* Angusmclellan, solicited
(Please correct any mistakes.) Among all participants the vote is 15 to 8 in favor of moving but among users not selectively solicited to come to this poll the vote was 7 to 7. This indicates that the poll is tainted and I don't feel confident moving the article to Boleslaus I of Poland based on it. Haukur 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So their votes do not count? Nice. Charles 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that we don't know what an untainted poll would like because this one sure wasn't. Thus you have not demonstrated consensus for a move to Boleslaus I of Poland and as a WP:RM maintainer I don't feel confident making that move. If you want to call attention to a vote then do so through a relevant noticeboard which anyone can watch (in this case that could be a noticeboard on e.g. medieval Europe, Poland, or European royalty). I still can see no system in Marrtel's soliciting except contacting people he (correctly) thought would agree with him. That's not kosher and since there seems to have been no equivalent effort on the "other side" to rally the troops I think it probably badly skewed the poll. Haukur 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I contacted people on two bases: those I knew having done work in royalty, and those Middle Ages. This is transparently not true. You contacted User:Orionus who had done no work in either area because he had commented at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5 with a position you approved of. You did not contact people you thought would disagree with you. Even in that apologia above you say you figured that there was no need for you to "waste time" by contacting Polish editors. You made a nice exception for User:Halibutt, though, because you thought (correctly) that he would support your position. Haukur 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orionus had in Wladyslaw II participated in royalty naming. Is Halibutt Polish? Marrtel 18:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Commenting in a naming dispute is not "doing work" - but even if it were then why didn't Marrtel contact everyone who had commented in that naming dispute? Ask anyone not previously involved and not your personal friend whether Marrtel's selective soliciting of votes was an acceptable way to call attention to a poll. Your constant attacks on me are growing tiresome. Your latest line is that I am not attacking the "users who used sockpuppets" enough. That's completely absurd - it was I who called attention to those sockpuppets to begin with. And there weren't "users" with sockpuppets - there was "a user". No-one is defending the sockpuppet abuse so there is no need to "attack" it at this point. You, however, are still defending transparent attempts to rig polls. Haukur 03:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you're all fine upstanding people but the fact remains that Marrtel selectively contacted people and admits as much, saying that it would be a "waste of time" for him to contact Poles. The people he contacted broke in favor of his side in the vote 12-1. Other people not contacted were about evenly split. He tried to rig the poll and he was successful. I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this but I'd be fine with submitting to a review by my peers. I suggest we ask a few people who are not previously involved to analyse this. Maybe Aaron Brenneman, Tony Sidaway, Sjakkalle and Xoloz? If, for example, two of the above were to tell me that I owe someone an apology then I would issue one. Haukur 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why they voted predominantly that way is quite simple. That is where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be. Your lack of concern for the fact that a small number of Polish contributors rode roughshod through the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions to create names that are not used and not recognisable widely outside Poland, is striking. It was the equivalent of Irish users putting Dublin at Baile Atha Cliath or President Sean T. O'Kelly at Seán Tomas Ó Ceallaigh, even though it is the English versions, not the Irish versions, which are used and recognised internationally. You are silent at the highjacking of pages by one group, something achieved through a noticeboard, but go ballistic about a free vote involving non-Poles, on the basis that they were contacted, as they had to be as there is not a noticeboard to inform them of votes on royalty topics. Your lack of consistency is stark, as is your desire to misrepresent the motivations of a user who openly contracted people, including someone who had taken a different stance to him on another Polish page. If he was trying to rig a vote then he wouldn't have contacted users who had taken different stances to his own on issues, and he wouldn't have contacted users who are notoriously independent-minded. His behaviour was a lot more open, and fair, and followed more Wikipedia rules, than yours has been. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree but don't have much to add. If the noticeboard you want doesn't exist then I suggest you just go ahead and set it up. I don't see how Boleslaus I of Poland is "where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be", considering that no evidence has been presented to show that Boleslaus is the most common form of the name and I see a lot of evidence against it. But, really, it doesn't look to me like the two of us are getting anywhere here so I'll go ahead and ask some previously uninvolved people to comment on Marrtel's actions. Haukur 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it would probably be best if we agreed beforehand on some people to arbitrate the issue. Alternatively we could post at WP:ANI again but if a long thread develops there again between us I fear no-one will comment. Have you got any ideas or neutral people you'd like to propose to arbitrate the issue? I suppose we could ask the Arbitration Committee but maybe that's overkill at this stage. Haukur 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # Support. Shilkanni 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boleslas I of Poland

message: # Support. Shilkanni 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boleslaus I of Poland

message: # I can accept this alternative too, but it is not my first choice. Shilkanni 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boleslav I of Poland

message: # Support. --Lysytalk 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolesław I (diacritic)

message: # Support. Elonka 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boleslaw I the Brave

message: # Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolesław I the Brave (diacritic) 

message: # Support. Elonka 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boleslaw I of Poland

message: # Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolesław I of Poland (diacritic)

message: # Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland

message: # Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolesław I the Brave of Poland (diactric)