Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 1

message: The following piece was moved to talk by myself:
Term                                                            	Incumbent                                                       	Notes
Vistulan Country (1832–1917), region of the Russian Empire	Vistulan Country (1832–1917), region of the Russian Empire	Vistulan Country (1832–1917), region of the Russian Empire
1832 to 1855                                                    	Nicholas I of Russia                                            	Romanov dynasty
1855 to 1881                                                    	Alexander II of Russia                                          	Romanov dynasty
1881 to 1894                                                    	Alexander III of Russia                                         	Romanov dynasty
1894 to 1917                                                    	Nicholas II of Russia                                           	Romanov dynasty
Cautious 23:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to talk

message: The list contains (in this chronological order) Henry I the Bearded, Henry II the Pious, Henry IV Probus, and Henry III de Valois.  How's that again?  Is there a Henry III between the Pious and Probus?  Is Henry de Valois given a "III" because that's his French ordinal (by which he's no doubt much better known)?  Does he even have a Polish ordinal?  Ignorant but inquiring minds want to know! --Jfruh 28 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)
Henry "III" de Valois is french numbering. It is sometimes used in Poland but usualy he is called just "Henryk Walezy" without any number.
:Earlier "Henrys" and mess with numeration is effect of spliting Piast dynasty into many lines, so:
*Boleslaus III of Poland last duke of Poland before spliting dynasty into branches among sons has Henry of Sandomierz (without any number)
*in Masovian line (started by Siemowit I of Masovia, son of Conrad I of Masovia, son of Casimir II the Just, son of Boleslaus III of Poland) was one Henry, son of Siemowit III the Older, also without number.
*in Silesian line (started by Wladislaus II the Exile of Poland) were many of them:
**his son Boleslaus I the Long (sic! new numeration of Boleslauses ;)) had son Henry I the Bearded, who had a son Henry II the Pious who had a son Henry III the White, who had a son Henry IV Probus.
**Among sons of Henry II the Pious was Boleslaus II Rogatka who has the son Henry V the Fat, who had a son Henry VI the Good.
**Henry V had other son, named Boleslaus III, who had son Louis I, who had son... Henry VII "With Scar", who had son   Henry IX, who had son Louis III who had son Henry X. Henry X had brother John, who had son Frederic I, who had son.. to Frederic III, who had son Henry XI
**Henry V (who had many sons) had also brother named Bolko I the Severe who had son Henry I of Jawor. Henry I had brother named Bernard who had son named Henry II of Jawor
**Bolko I the Severe had also son named Bolko II, who had a son Henry I of Ziębice. Bolko II had also son named Bolko III who had son Henry II of Ziębice.
**Boleslaus III (son of Henry V) had also son named Vaclav I, who had son named... Henry VIII (bishop of Cuiavia)
*now let's go back to Henry II the Pious, who had a son Conrad I (or II, because there is double numeration), who had the son named Henry III (or I, this same reason like his father), who had son Henry IV the Loyal, who had the son Henry V the Iron, who had the son Henry VI of Żagań, who had the son Henry VII Rumpold (or the Middle), who had the son Henry VIII the Sparrow, who had two sons Henry IX Older and Henry X the Younger. Henry IX had son Henry XI. 
Well I' hope that I don't make any mistake in this "logical quest". Have fun in reading and understanding this ;) Radomil talk 28 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)
::The thing you should remember about those numberings, is that they were not used in their own time, but is a product of much later genealogists and historians, who needed a way to differentiate between a number of Hentries, all dukes of Silesia in this case. Shilkanni 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering the Henrys 

message: This old project is inactive and considered an archive. I think we should reactive it - if only to create a more detailed list of all variants of Polish and English names. Also, note that currently this page (List of...) contains many redirects - it would be useful to make the list of current articles names and see if we don't need to fix something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers]] 

message: I propose we remove all content pertaining to the rulers of Poland after the partitions since 1) Poland was no longer ruled by kings, and those in charge of the government (termporary councils or committees or presidents) aren't really rulers in the same way that monarchs are rulers, and 2) this content is covered more thoroughly in other articles, such as President of the Republic of Poland.  Once that is done, we can rename the article to List of Polish monarchs.  What are your thoughts on this? Appleseed 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Appleseed 17:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I would like to point out that there NEVER was a feudal dissolution in Poland. Whoever had written that apparently does not know the meaning of the term ”feudal system”…There are two kinds of feudal systems, the economic one – this one was in Poland but is irrelevant in this case. And the political one. The political feudal system was only in Western Europe and the idea of it was about the existence of a personal relation between the senior and the vassal, The vassal was given by the senior a feud. The feud was in three forms: money, agencies and land. It was the land that led to such a dissolution. Why? In Western continental Europe there was a feudal ladder that had even seven levels, seniors had vassals and vassals were seniors to other vassals. The highest senior was a monarch who theoretically had a control over his vassals and the vassals of his vassals (by his direct vassals) but the vassals who were suppose to listen to him only considered his person as their superior in a formal way – and the execution of the monarch’s will depended on their good will – of course the did not listen to their formal superior. Conclusion – the king or whoever he was had no control over the land of his country. The feud in the form of land plus different kinds of immunities made in fact such a feud an independent state in a form of princedom etc. So what did we have in Poland? It was the Political Dissolution. That was an aftermath of a dynastic law that allowed a monarch to share the land of the country between his sons. A situation of this kind was in Poland, Bohemia and Ruthenia. I would correct the mistake in the text myself but I am sure that the agents of this system would revert me soon. End of transmission.
: Perhaps you can suggest a better translation of rozbicie dzielnicowe?  "Feudal dissolution" and "regional division" are the two terms I've seen used on WP. Appleseed 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion you could use "Political disssolution" because "feudal dissolution" is simply not correct.
"Fragmentation"? without any adjectives?? "medieval partitioning", as distinct to those in late 18th century and so forth.. The obove writer is correct in saying that the partitioned principalities were not so feudal, ratjer that idea followed the Slavic and other tribal tradition of partible inheritance between sons. between males of the ruling dynasty. Shilkanni 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feudal dissolution 

message: This is the list of specific changes:
* Mieszko I of Poland to Mieszko I (I found no alternatives to Mieszko) done
* Boleslaus I of Poland to Bolesław I the Brave (see Talk:Boleslaus_I_of_Poland#Move for details) done
* Mieszko II of Poland to Mieszko II Lambert done
* Bezprym of Poland to Bezprym done
* Casimir I of Poland to Kazimierz I the Restorer (see Talk:Casimir I of Poland for details) done
* Boleslaus II of Poland to Bolesław II the Bold (also the Generous or the Cruel, see Talk:Boleslaus II of Poland for details) done
* Wladislaus I Herman of Poland to Władysław I Herman (see Talk:Wladislaus I Herman of Poland) done
* Zbigniew of Poland - remain, he never had a surname/second nickname, and Zbigniew should be a disambig
* Boleslaus III of Poland to Bolesław III the Wrymouth
more to come later done
Disambigs to create:
* Mieszko - done
* Bolesław of Poland/Boleslaw of Poland/Boleslav of Poland/Boleslaus of Poland
* Zbigniew
: Would it be better if we moved Zbigniew of Poland to Zbigniew, and used Zbigniew (disambiguation) for disambig? Appleseed 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, PSB is not up to 'Z' yet, so I cannot check if there are any other famous Zbigniews without a second name. I see no problem with this, especially as Zbigniew is not taken even for a redirect now. Let's go ahead with this and see what happens in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Are there any other procedural hurdles?  If not, then I'm ready. Appleseed (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I was waiting for any objections to appear and two, I was kind of lazy hoping sb will do it for me :) So if you read this and this is still not done, full speed ahead :)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a few, but I need help with Mieszko I.  Piotruś, can you do that one? Appleseed (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Piasta

message: * Henry I of Poland to Henryk I the Bearded done
* Henry II of Poland to Henryk II the Pious done
* Henry III of France - remain. What should we call him in Polish articles? Henryk Walezy, Henryk III Walezy, Henry Valois or Henry III Valois? I have to say I was rather shocked to see Henry used instead of the proper French Henri, though. But lets leave that to French - just lets decide which redirect we want to use in Polish contexts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Henryk III Walezy, as he figures in Encyklopedia Polski.  logologist 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Henryk IV Probus, as he appears in Encyklopedia Polski.  In future, in appropriate cases, we could follow that with ", Duke of ____________."  logologist 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Appleseed (Talk) 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In articles on Polish subjects Henry III of France should be called "Henry of Valois" while he is king of Poland.  Prior to his election, he should be called the "Duke of Anjou."  Once again, this is not confusing.  Don't know about the Dukes of Silesia, but I'd much prefer "Henry" to "Henryk". john k 16:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: H

message: * Konrad I of Masovia - sound good to me
::Konrad of Mazowsze.  Why Latinize Mazowsze (even if it is, for now, Latinized elsewhere)?  logologist 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually prefer the Latin version, for consistency with the rest of WP.  I also support the absence of the ordinal, but I noticed that the Polish WP uses it. Appleseed (Talk) 12:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Encyklopedia Polski also lists him as Konrad I of Mazowsze.  (I would change Masovia everywhere to Mazowsze, but that's another battle.)  logologist 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I take that to mean that you're ok with the current version (for now)? Appleseed (Talk) 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  logologist 03:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: K

message: * Leszek I of Poland to Leszek I the White done
* Leszek II of Poland to Leszek II the Black done
::Don't see what's wrong with Leszek I of Poland and Leszek II of Poland.  Perfectly good article titles.  john k 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludwik I the Hungarian.  He was a Hungarian who was king of Poland.  (And, yes, in his Hungarian incarnation he should be Lajos.)  logologist 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this will be a redirect only? Appleseed (Talk) 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is always called "Louis" in English.  Everyone here seems to be forgetting the basic Wikipedia:Use English rule.  Again, I am not saying all names should be anglicized.  But we anglicize based on whether the name is normally anglicized in English, not using some one size fits all rule.  As another example, for kings of Spain, we have Philip V of Spain and Ferdinand VII of Spain, but also Alfonso XII of Spain and Juan Carlos I of Spain.  No confusion there.  Similarly, Frederick William I of Prussia is succeeded by Wilhelm I of Germany. You're creating a problem where none exists. john k 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary.  If a Spanish king can be named Juan Carlos and a German emperor can be named Wilhelm, then why shouldn't a Polish king be named Bolesław, Henryk, Ludwik, Władysław, Zygmunt or anything else that he and his countrymen please?  logologist 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not the Spanish king named Juan Carlos and the German emperor named Wilhelm.  It is the Spanish kings named Philip and Ferdinand and the Prussian kings named Frederick William.  The point is, we do not use the name "that he and his countrymen please".  We use, whatever the fairness of it, the name that me and my fellow anglophones please.  And that name is not "Ludwik" or "Lajos" or "Zygmunt" or "Henryk" (Boleslaw and Wladyslaw are fine with me, since there's no clear English equivalent.)  BTW, King Louis of Hungary was from a French dynasty, so it's quite possible that he called himself "Louis," although I'm not certain what the court language in Hungary in the 14th century would have been. john k 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: L

message: * Michał Wiśniowiecki, King of Poland to Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki
::I'd prefer Michael Wiśniowiecki. john k 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremly wrong, especially considering how he was the first Polish elected king (as in from Poland, not a foreigner). Short Google English test: "Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki" 513,  "Michal Korybut Wisniowiecki" 815,  "Michael Wisniowiecki" 604,  "Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki" 814. Without Korybut he can easily be confused with Michał Wiśniowiecki or Michał Wiśniowiecki (1529-1584) (I actually fixed some wrong links in the past), so Korybut is a must. And again we see lack of consistency in English sources, with a close tie (or actually with Michał victory if we disregard possible articles refering to his ancestors).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mieszko IV Tanglefoot.  logologist 05:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good translation of Plątonogi.  Did you come up with it? Appleseed (Talk) 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I say "yes," will that disqualify it, as "original research"?  logologist 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just that I've never heard that nickname before, and Google returns nothing for mieszko tanglefoot. Appleseed (Talk) 01:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that was Google Books.  Regular Google gives 3 results, of which one appears relevant. Appleseed (Talk) 01:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: or Mieszko IV the Tanglefooted?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I like Logologist's version. If we use yours, then Władysław III Spindleshanks would have to be Władysław III the Spindle-shanked. Appleseed (Talk) 15:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  logologist 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, I see nothing wrong with Mieszko III of Poland and Mieszko IV of Poland. john k 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: M

message: * Przemysł II of Poland to Przemysł II
** Btw who was Przemysł I then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A Piast prince.  The numbering got really messed up during the period of fragmentation.  (See "Numbering the Henrys" above). Appleseed (Talk) 02:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, see nothing wrong with the current title. john k 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: P

message: Some rather uncontroversial changes:
* Stanislaus II Augustus Poniatowski, King of Poland to Stanisław August Poniatowski or Stanisław II August Poniatowski?
::No especial objection here.
* Stanislaus I Leszczyński, King of Poland to Stanisław Leszczyński or Stanisław I Leszczyński?
:The Polish WP doesn't give these fellows an ordinal, so let's take it out.  Their surnames are given, so that should suffice. Appleseed (Talk) 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  No ordinals.  Someone has pointed out that absence of ordinals to their names began as a professional courtesy extended by King Stanisław August Poniatowski (who would lose the throne) to King Stanisław Leszczyński, who had lost the throne and was still alive.  logologist 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference for this would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem on him, either. john k 16:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd like to take this opportunity to refer you all to one of the most wise quotes I have found recently at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Words_of_wisdom (from Lukowski's book about late PLC 'Liberty's Folly'. Short version: As regards personal names, I have followed my instincts and in most cases, unless there is an extremely close English equivalent, I have kept to the Polish form. I refuse to render Stanisław as anything other then Stanisław --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zygmunt III Waza, as he is called in Polish.  The Polish Wazas had spun off from the Swedish Vasas, but it was a different company (just as the American dollar spun off from the German Thaler — and altered its name to suit a different market).  logologist 05:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not for long.  The Swedes didn't care for him, and deposed him in 1599.  I doubt they'll object to his being Zygmunt III Waza.  logologist 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: au contraire, I for one would seriously oppose moving any of these, especially the last Sigismund, to any other article page right now. —Gabbe 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the everyday version of Sigismund that is used by a Swedish commoner?  Is it identical with the royal version?  logologist 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I just did a search on "Stefan Batory" (with quotation marks), English only, wikipedia.org excluded, and I got 43,200 results. Appleseed (Talk) 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I was doing "Stefan Bathory", so that's the issue...At any rate, I wouldn't have a serious problem with Stefan Batory, although I'm a bit dubious of the google results here. john k 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Stephen Bathory" 697, "Stefan Batory" 44,400, Wikipedia not excluded.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: S

message: Why is it that we don't have consistency in the spelling of names?
for example: Wladislaus II the Exile 
If you want to spell it in ENGLISH it should be VLADISLAV or VLADISLAUS not W... if in Polish, should be WLADISLAW... {I presonally prefer to spell them in the trad. Polish way, with accents etc.}
Khrystene - the consistency freak.
HI btw ;)
:Good point.  I think it highlights how much plain ignorance is mixed in with the traditionalism.  logologist 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling - Polish v English translit. 

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)
thread_title: Aftermath