Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

Elected or Electoral? User:JHK

Or elective? The kings were elected, the kingship was elective, but to be Electoral would, I fear, make the country truly subject to The Empire That Never Lost A Battle. DP

Helga, thanks for fixing links. --Ed Poor

Polish lands within the Russian Empire

After the November Uprising the Polish lands were directly incorporated into Russia and their autonomy was restrained. The gubernias of former Kingdom of Poland were informally called "Vistulan Country" (Привислинский Край) and were ruled by the tsars through their local Russian governors. Although Alexander I was the only Russian monarch to be crowned as the King of Poland, all Russian rulers until 1917 used the title.

Moved to talk

The following piece was moved to talk by myself:

Term	Incumbent	Notes
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)

I have a lot of problems with this text. It contains at least 2 errors. Alexander was not the only crowned Polish King (Do you recall coronation plot? Plotters were to assasinate the Tsar Nicholas during his coronation in Warsaw. It must have been in 1825. The second problem was the change of name of the Congress Kingdom. It happenned sometime after 1880! Obviously Congress Kingdom was not directly incorporated into Russia. Polish Civil Code was in place, Polish language was used untill 1870? and of course Russia was not a modern country, so there were nothing to incorporate to. Russia was set of differently ruled gubernias, each with separate law and traditions. It was about to change after 1905. Moreover, if we list Tsars, why we are not Austrian Emperors? Galicia was much more ruled by Poles under reign of Emperors then Congress Kingdom (in late 1800). If it is because of the title, why we shouldn't add the Tsars to the list of Polish Kings of Congress Kingdom with remark, that later they never were crowned and obviously after dismisall by the nation in 1830 they never had any mandate to be Polish Kings? Cautious 23:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Tsar Nikolas did not acknowledged that Polsih Diet was able to dispose him (and Romanov dynasty at all) - he found Diet's Act to be null and void. Pls note, that Nikolas acted as King of Poland - e.g. in aftermath of November Uprising he replaced former liberal Polish Constitution of 1815 with "organic Statute" - but still formally Kingdom of Poland was separate legal entity from Russian Empire. This legal fiction ceased to exist in - I believe - 1864, when Kingdom of Poland was incorporated into Russian Empire as "Vistulan county", although its former name could be [unofficially] used still in 1880s, as mentioned. Pls also note, that after 1864 Russian Emperors used the title of "kings of Poland" even if the legal existence of Polish kingdom was over (quite similiar Austrian Emperors used the title of "kings of Galicia and Lodomeria")13:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Numbering the Henrys

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)

Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers

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)

Changes

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)

Done. Appleseed 17:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Feudal dissolution

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)

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)

Naming

Proposal

As per Talk:Stanislaus II Augustus Poniatowski, King of Poland, if there are no objections, I'd like to move all articles to their Polish names. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) state that the article should be under the most commonly used English name. Any suggestions how to find the most common name? Wikipedia:Google test excluding wikipedia for pages in English language? Second: do we need the 'King of Poland' addition in the title? Note that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) advises to avoid qualifiers (like "King").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Google analysis I did for Boleslaw I the Brave (see Talk:Boleslaus_I_of_Poland#Move) seems to indicate that the best name would be based on the pattern: 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support enthusiastically! logologist 07:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the only way. Seems reasonable. khrystene 7:42pm 22 December, 2005 (CET)

I'd Oppose, but now that you already started... What I'm missing is the qualifier of Poland, which was somehow... I'm not sure, but I liked it. Especially that it was used for other monarchs of Europe as well.. Halibutt 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- The names should be kept at "most common English spelling". Elonka 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- As with Elonka. - Calgacus 00:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As has been shown again and again, the Polish names are actually the "most common English spelling". What is so hard to understand here? It was the monstrosities like 'Ladislaus' which hardly existed anywhere outside Wiki that were replaced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not personally agree that this has been shown. Monstrosities are something that happens when crossing a language barrier. Look at the Scottish king lists, where, for instance Máel Coluim is Malcolm, Domnall Donald, etc. For monarchs like names common in English, like Henry (Henryk), you simply have no case. Why should Henry be Henryk, (or John be Jan), yet Causantín be Constantine, Alasdair Alexander? Or, for that matter, Heinrich VI be Henry VI? - Calgacus 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because there were no editors interesting in changing their naming guidelines. I'd support all of such changes, if indeed English publications use those terms more often then the other variants. And why 'don't you agree that this has been shwon'? I have spend hours illustrating examples both on Google and Google Print, showing why this naming scheme is correct. Please quote some contrary data - your personal opinion is interesting, but it's not all that matters here, just as I didn't base the changes on my personal conviction neither.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal conviction seems to have played a large role. It seems to be you were using one argument when it suited you, another when it didn't. To quote you "or in other words, 64% of books indexed in Google Books use Casimir, 36% use Kazimierz. Close to 2:1, but not what I'd call 'the most common usage'. Note that Davies in his history of Europe uses Kazimierz, and I think Davies is an authority to respect here." Yet, elsewhere, when it suited you, google popularity was enough. Here, you use Davies to override this because it doesn't suit you. Davies, BTW, also uses French names for medieval English (and Scottish) kings (see The Isles:A History), and the same author in Europe used Jogaila for your Władysław II Jagiełło (Proof) The explanation is that Davies, like most culturally sensitive historians writing today, prefers native names, as in fact I do. But our preferences aren't wikipedia policy, and I'd prefer to keep it consistent. You avoided the "of Poland" (I see no reason for an agendum here) on the same basis that "of X" titles could be avoided for almost every other monarch. Moreover, nowhere did you prove that Władysław (etc) was more common in English than Wladyslaw (etc). I could go on. So you'll have to forgive me if, for the present, I am unconvinced. - Calgacus 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For Władysław, please see Talk:Wladislaus_I_Herman_of_Poland#Naming, the case for Władysław is pretty clear there. As for Kazimierz/Casimir, 64% is quite close, and in plain Google Kazimierz wins (see Talk:Kazimierz I the Restorer). As from my research this case looked like an exception to the rule, I decide to go with Kazimierz. Feel free to provide numbers that I was wrong.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Plain google doesn't count. Please do not think I wish to see names like Ladislaus, I do not. In cases like Aed of Scotland and Dub of Scotland, anglicizations are too absurb and uncommon (i.e. Hugh and Duff), and I'd probably put Lasdislaus in that category. But not common English names like Henry, and not names such as Casimir. - Calgacus 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Early Piasta

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)

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)

When are we finally going to Polonize Poland's kings? logologist 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other procedural hurdles? If not, then I'm ready. Appleseed (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Appleseed, congratulations on making the changes! Would you care to suggest the next specific changes in royal names, as Piotrus did (above)? Then, if there are no questions on those versions, perhaps we could proceed with them as well! logologist 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A and B

It might be easier to do this in order, a few letters at a time, so let's try to finish up A and B:

• Alexander of Poland to Alexander Jagiellon done
• Anna the Jagiellonian to Anna Jagiellon done
• Augustus II of Poland to August II the Strong done
• Augustus III of Poland to August III the Saxon done
• Boleslaus IV of Poland to Bolesław IV the Curly done
• Boleslaus V of Poland to Bolesław V the Shameful

I would appreciate your comments on the following:

1. Bolesław III (I noticed Davies uses "the Wry-mouthed", not "the Wrymouth")
2. Anna (Davies uses her Polish name, but I "derived" the English based on his usage of Alexander Jagiellon)

1. I admit I don't see much difference here. Why is Jagiellon vetter then the Jagiellonian? But I agree that we should be consistent - same name for her and for Alexander.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Augustus III (Davies doesn't give him a nickname)
2. Bolesław V (the article mentions "Shy" and "Chaste" but not "Shameful", which is what Davies uses)
3. Władysław I (we have "Elbow-high", Davies uses Elbow-High)

Appleseed (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose:

• Alexander Jagiellon
• Anna Jagiellon
• August II the Strong [though "the Promiscuous" might be more à propos]
• August III the Fat

• Veto to fat. Corpulent, perhhaps, but Saxon seems better to me - after all, he is better known as August III Sas in Polish. I see no problem with both him and his predecessor being called Saxons, after all, it was *the* Saxon dynasty, just as kings of the Vasa dynasty were called something somthing Vasa. Perhaps August III Saxon the Corpulent and August II Saxon the Strong? But was August II really called Saxon (Sas)? It's not mentioned in his article. Trivia: Who was August I?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bolesław IV the Curly
• Bolesław V the Chaste.

As you see, there are only a few changes from your proposals:

"August" instead of the Latinized "Augustus;

"Fat" instead of "Saxon": evidently he was called both, and both Saxon kings were Saxon;

"Chaste" instead of "Shameful" — per his Wikipedia entry's explanation.

"Wrymouth" (by analogy with "big-mouth") seems to me preferable.

I would be inclined to call Władysław I "the Cubit" — after the old measure of length (in Polish, łokieć) that was originally based on the length of the arm from the end of the middle finger to the elbow (łokieċ).

Please let me know what you think. logologist 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since we're using Polish names for the monarchs, then I agree that we might as well call the two Saxons August, not Augustus. So in that case we're in agreement (I've updated the links).

As for August III, perhaps I can sway you by pointing out that the Polish WP uses August III Sas, so it would be a good idea to align ourselves with what I believe to be the more common of the two Polish nicknames.

Bolesław V is tricky. In Davies, in the index he appears as "the Shameful", and gets two mentions in the text: once as "Shameful" and, as I just noticed, the second time as "Modest". Indeed, "modest", "chaste", and "shy" are all synonyms (according to m-w.com). At this point I would probably break with Davies and go for one of the three synonyms, but I'm not yet convinced that Chaste is the way to go. I'll try to do some Google/Google Books searches later to see if there is a clear winner.

As for Bolesław III, Google gives us this: boleslaw wry-mouthed (810), boleslaw wrymouth (689); boleslaus wry-mouthed (1470), boleslaus wrymouth (791). Regarding the first two searches, I believe Google catches search results with and without diacritics, so that covers all the bases. I double checked m-w.com to get the meaning of wrymouth, but the term only appears in the unabridged version, which requires a subscription. However, dictionary.com gives three definitions for wrymouth--two of them mean a type of fish, and the other is a medical term.

Google books paints a slightly different picture: boleslaw wry-mouthed (6), boleslaw wrymouth (32); boleslaus wry-mouthed (6), boleslaus wrymouth (3).

Finally, regarding Cubit: although that may be, strictly speaking, a more precise translation of Łokietek, we lose the secondary Polish meaning of "short of stature". I don't think "cubit" has that secondary meaning, putting aside the fact that most people haven't even heard of a cubit. Is there any literature that uses that nickname?

Appleseed (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote Saxon instead of Sas, as the goal for nicknames is to be understandable for an English speaker. In case of Boleslaw the V, I guess Google search for the most popular nickname is the best alternative (and mention the others in the text). Boleslaw III case seems to be rather trivial, I'd say let our resident English language expert, Logologist chose the one he thinks sounds the best, and that's it. Btw, I get a good lough of the dictionary.com definitions. Boleslaw III the Fish or a Medical Term - that's sounds like something out of Terry Pratchett, you know :) Łokietek is a tough one. Why, oh why, couldn't people just call him Krótki (Short)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course I meant Saxon and not Sas--I guess I wasn't being clear that I meant the English translation of the Polish article title. As for dictionaries, I'm not a big fan of dictionary.com either--I usually use m-w.com. One of these days I will buy myself the Oxford and American Heritage dictionaries. Too bad they don't have online versions. Appleseed (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

August III the Saxon, it is.

"Modest," "chaste" and "shy" are rather different. I may be modest about my accomplishments, sexually chaste, and shy when around people. In most cases, I wouldn't interchange the words in those contexts. If Bolesław's problem was that he wouldn't take a mistress despite his lawful wife's neglect of her spousal duties, then we may call him one of two things: "Chaste," or "Stupid." Take your choice.

Try "Wry-mouth." Nothing fishy about that.

I doubt that "elbow" meant "short person" before it was applied to Władysław I. It doesn't mean "short person" in English. So it could be "Elbow-high." But I think Piotrus is right: "the Short."

Any more kings for today? I propose we finish them all off!

logologist 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, "Modest" would probably be the least damaging to a king's reputation. logologist 05:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Google search results? What is the most popular in English usage?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Stefan Batory: he was a Polish, not a Hungarian, king. logologist 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bolesław V the Bashful? That would be so cute... logologist 02:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasas

Vasas proposal - should we keep Vasa or go with Waza?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sigismund III of Poland to Zygmunt III Waza or Zygmunt III Vasa
• Wladislaus IV of Poland to Władysław IV Waza or Władysław IV Vasa
• John II Casimir of Poland to Jan II Kazimierz Waza or Jan II Kazimierz Vasa
• Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Opole to Karol Ferdynand Waza or Karol Ferdynand Vasa
• Alexander Charles Vasa to Aleksander Karol Waza or Aleksander Karol Vasa
• John Albert Vasa to Jan Albert Waza or Jan Albert Vasa

My first reaction is to go with Vasa to keep it consistent with the rest of WP. I also noticed that you're using Aleksander and not Alexander. We already have Alexander Jagiellon, but since we're using Polish names for the other monarchs, I suppose we could move him to Aleksander Jagiellon. Using Polish given names is going to get complicated when we get to, for example, Henry Valois and Stefan Batory. How should we go about this? Appleseed (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to see whose country's history was this person more important to. Thus Polish name for Swedish born Sigismund, who spent most of his life in Poland - but a French name for French born Henri, who spend most of his life in France. I'd vote Polish name for Batory, but there is a consistency sake about naming conventions of many other 'Bathory's from his family. I'll ask a specialist in that area for his view.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So Alexander Jagiellon to Aleksander Jagiellon? Appleseed (Talk) 19:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am an outsider of sorts, but I'd suggest switching all the names to the closest English version for the first name. My oppinion is that the family names (where appliable) should have diacritics, with possible exceptions for "international" families such as Bathory and Vasa. I noticed you do not make much use of redirect (which I have just learned how to use myself), and you instead do "name withot diacritcs|name with diacritcs" in the link. Using redirect will save you a lot a trouble, but it will also consume time. I'll be glad to help in any way.Dahn 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'closest English version for the first name' sounds good and I'd agree with it - but unfortunately, quite often this is not the case (Alexander and John being two exceptions, I think). Stefan, for example, gives us a chocie between 'stephan' (18 million Google hits) and 'stephen' (211 million). Given this I prefer to go with Polish Stefan, which will at least give us much needed consistency (besides, consider this: "Stephen Bathory" - 800 google hits, "Stephan+Bathory" - 619 google hits, "Stephan+Batory" - 219 google hits, "Stephen+Batory" - 377 Google hits, "Stefan+Batory" English results only - 44,000 hits. Case solved, Polish name wins again. Feel free to see the dicussion pages for Bolesław and Władysław analysis I did earlier (links above, striken out) - it took me about 1h for each to preferorm a complete analysis, but in all cases the Polish name seemed to be the most popular and logical.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here? First place, why are we removing the standard "of Country" moniker from Polish kings? Secondly, why are we moving to names that are less used in English. Sigismund is definitely more used than Zygmunt (which I've never seen in an English rouce), John is probably used more often than Jan; Augustus definitely more often than August. We should strive to keep Polish names consistent with all our other articles. At any rate, this discussion should certainly not have taken place on this talk page, where it is unlikely to be seen, and which is supposed to deal, you know, with the article about the list. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) would have been the place to take up this issue. And Henry III of France should definitely remain there. I strongly oppose most of the moves that have been occurring. john k 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

John, please read the explanations I gave for the move on the first kings. 'of Country' seems not to be very popular and is rather uncessary anyway (especially when we change from English names to Polish and there is no problem with disambigs), but I'd not object very strongly to adding it to every king (if there is such a naming convention). I do wonder if we should use 'of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though :) The change from English first name to Polish is recommened because there is no consistency in English sources anyway (for example, there is Sigismund and Sigismundus). I have not done analysis for Sigismund, but those for Bolesław and Władysław indicated a preference for Polish name (instead of Boleslaus, Wladislauses, Ladislavs or several other variants (sic!)), thus even if this is not a case with Zygmunt, I think being consistend and partialy correct is better then just partialy correct. This discussion has been noted on Wikipedia:Naming_convention#Polish_monarchs several weeks ago. Thank you for posting a notice to the names and titles subdiscussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Wiki rules can actually cover this topic per se. You are using redirect (mea culpa - after all, I'd 've been able to see it just by looking at the top of the page, doh! me :) ), and you do mention all the names possible on the page itself, so it seems to me what you are spending so much time on is the name of the page itself. Don't get me wrong, but I cannot see much point in that (and I'm willing to bet that if you type X Waza and the name of the page - that has Waza as an alternative in the nomenclature - happens to be Vasa, you do not have much of a problem. Now, if you're concerned about the names on the page, and their order, might I suggest this:

1. all possible English versions (if there are any), no matter how much they are used in comparison with Polish etc., but ordered according to occurences within English alternatives (if one of those happens to be Polish, it goes in the next category)

2. all possible names in the country the monarch ruled most.

3. next in line as term.

If these happen to be problematic, then you have: 2, 3, 4, etc, if need be, according to the alphabetical order of the names of languages used. Having posted this, I accept the risk that I may be considered insane :).Dahn 20:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I definetly support creation of all possible redirects. But for consistency's sake I think we should agree on one convention and have only some exceptions (like with Henry III of France). And I also agree that the article should list all possible names (or at least common parts, because if we go into combinations we can have dozens).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I counted 18 redirects for August II the Strong, so no worries there. Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their participation and thoughtful comments! A few remarks on my part:

• I agree with Jagiellon over Jagiellonian. It is equally correct, and 1 syllable shorter.
• "Shameful" is probably the worst choice for our king, pace Professor Davies. It means: "1. bringing or causing shame or disgrace; disgraceful. 2. violating what is considered to be just, moral or decent; offensive." So far as I know, Bolesław was none of those.
• If Zbigniew had no epithet, is there a way that we could leave him without one — or perhaps call him "King Zbigniew"?
• For consistency's sake, I vote for using the authentic Polish spellings for Polish kings.

logologist 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So we have

• Zbigniew of Poland to Zbigniew
• Alexander Jagiellon to Aleksander Jagiellon done

I agree that Shameful is not the best way to translate Wstydliwy. That leaves us with Modest, Shy, and Chaste.

• Google
  • boleslaw shy - 576
  • boleslaw chaste - 438
  • boleslaw modest - 989
  • boleslaus shy - 2850
  • boleslaus chaste - 283
  • boleslaus modest - 157
• Google Books
  • boleslaw shy - 19
  • boleslaw chaste - 26
  • boleslaw modest - 22
  • boleslaus shy - 0
  • boleslaus chaste - 11
  • boleslaus modest - 3

Appleseed (Talk) 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Zbigniew," and "Aleksander Jagiellon," by all means.

Also: "Waza," "Stefan Batory," and no "of Poland"s.

We may concede Henri de Valois to the French, by any name they may wish to call him. He hardly warmed the Polish throne, and the Polish-Lithuanian-Rusyn Commonwealth was well rid of him. (Though a redirect from "Henryk Walezy" would be helpful.)

If Bolesław V was not an Avoidant Personality Disorder, we shouldn't use "Shy." If his Polish epithet was due to sexual abstention, "Chaste" would be correct. If it was due to an overall moderate ego, "Modest" would be appropriate.

logologist 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought you'd go for Vasa. I was going to concede this for consistencey with rest of the House of Vasa and since it's so similar. Can you explain why you prefer Waza? As for our Bolesław the Problematic, current article give us the following explanation: "According to medieval chronicles the marriage was never consummated. Kinga, being extremely pious, was averse to fulfilling her marital duties. At first Bolesław tried to convince her to change her mind, but she did not accept. Then he reluctantly accepted the situation. His religious convictions forbade him to take a mistress. That is why he obtained the nick name "the Chaste" or "the Shy"." Therefore, the Chaste would be preferable (if you are sure the shorter and more known 'Shy' is not as good)."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Polish WP gives a slightly different reason: "Zmarł bezpotomnie ze względu na śluby czystości złożone wraz z żoną Kingą." (He died childless because of the vows of chastity he took with his wife Kinga). Appleseed (Talk) 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Logologist, you seem to favor an epithet that accurately captures the character of the monarch, and indeed Shy is a less precise, more colorful way of describing chastity. However, I think Shy is a better translation of Wstydliwy, so that would mean the Polish epithet is similarly imprecise. Appleseed (Talk) 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How was Bolesław V seen by those who called him Wstydliwy? As shy? modest? chaste? or perhaps something else? And by the by, how does History see him? Let's bear in mind, too, that words change their meanings over time; Ivan "the Terrible" would today probably be called Ivan "the Dread."

If we use "Vasa," are we going to use "Báthory"?

logologist 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Let's do what is done with difficult school problems. Let's take care first of the easy cases, and give more thought to the difficult ones. logologist 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Appleseed (Talk) 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

C

• Casimir II of Poland to Kazimierz II the Just done
• Casimir III of Poland to Kazimierz III the Great done
• Casimir IV of Poland to Kazimierz IV Jagiellon done

Appleseed (Talk) 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be at Casimir II of Poland, etc.? This is how they are better known in English, is in line with our general naming conventions, and isn't confusing at all. john k 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Casimir" is not an English word, and it's certainly not Polish. It's a cacology invented by some non-English-speaking Pole for non-Polish-speaking English-speakers. logologist 01:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. "Casimir," whether or not it is a commonly given name in the English speaking world (it is not, although that is not to say that it is not a name which is sometimes used), is the name which is universally used in English for Polish kings named "Kazimierz" in Polish. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). john k 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If indeed Casimir was the one and only name used by English sources (or by vast majority of them) it would not be the problem. But John, you should read the links I asked you to, especially this: Talk:Kazimierz I the Restorer. It clearly shows that what you are saying is not true, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC

H

• 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)

Henryk III Walezy, as he figures in Encyklopedia Polski. logologist 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Henry IV of Silesia to Henryk IV Probus - or maybe Henryk IV Probus of Silesia? While 'of Poland' is fairly useless, perhaps for some of the lesser fragmentation dukes and wannabe-kings it would be useful to add 'of province'? See also Konrad I of Silesia. And if my User:Piotrus/List_of_Poles PSB list is any indicator, we will have lots of smaller fragmentation Bolesławs, Henryks and others unnicknamed small fries to deal with eventually, and using 'of province' now may be of some help later. For a good laugh see entries 630 to 651, still incomplete, but we even have a proudly numbered Henryk XI, prince of Dziura Mniejsz... oh, sorry, książę głogowsko-krośnieński :) Seriously, another alternative is to adopt Duke of that or that for them. Fragmentation period will need some special attention, one way or another.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. Appleseed (Talk) 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

J

• John's to Jan's?
  • I don't like John's, that sounds very foreign. And when I first saw John I of Poland I thought it was some mistake and they meant John I of England :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

All respect, but of course it sounds foreign to you. You're Polish. You calling a King of England "Henryk VIII Tudor" and referring to "Jan bez Ziemi" signing the Magna Carta is just as foreign to me. But that's the thing, English and Polish are different languages. Monarchical names are very frequently adapted in other languages. I don't see why Polish names should be an exception to the "use English" rule. Obviously, if they are best known by Polish names (I think Wladyslaw IV is, for instance, if only because there is no English version of that name), that is one thing, but that just isn't the case for most of these people. john k 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• John I of Poland to Jan I Olbracht

I'd support John I Albert of Poland. john k 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Not excluding Wiki: ****"John of Poland" 91, "John I of Poland" 753, "John I Albert" 629, "John I Olbracht" 407.
      • "Jan of Poland" 721, "Jan I of Poland" 12, "Jan I Albert 0 results, "Jan I Olbracht" 849.

discarding disambigs without a number and possible versions without a number, we get: John 1800 vs Jan 1600 - slight majority for John. 'of Poland' 750, Albert 630, Olbracht 1250. Olbracht is definetly better then Albert, and given such a small difference between John and Jan I'd go for the original Jan (again keeping consistency with Polish names for Polish people).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• John II Casimir to Jan II Kazmierz Waza or Jan II Kazimierz Vasa depending on whether we decide on Vasa or Waza surname (my vote is for Vasa now, as my proposal states to use English surnames and nicknames when possible)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jan II Kazimierz, as he usually appears; no Vasa/Waza needed. logologist 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

John II Casimir Vasa would be acceptable to me. Or else John II Casimir Vasa, King of Poland. john k 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• John III Sobieski to Jan III Sobieski

He is normally called "John Sobieski" in English. Why shouldn't we use that? john k 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"John Sobieski" 20,500, "John III Sobieski" 11,300, "John III of Poland" 1,430.

"Jan Sobieski"15,300, "Jan III Sobieski" 129,000, "Jan III of Poland" 51

If you can preform the search excluding Wiki and it's mirrors please do so, but I definetly don't see ATM that he is called "John Sobieski" in English... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Jadwiga of Poland - to Jadiwga, Queen of Poland, as Jadwiga is a disambig

I would prefer to have Jadwiga (to go along with Bezprym, Zbigniew, etc.). Is that disambig really necessary? Appleseed (Talk) 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jadwiga, plain and simple. logologist 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Poland seems fine to me. This is standard monarchical naming procedure. I don't see why we should have special procedures for Polish monarchs. john k 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we should change titles to "Alexander the Great of Macedon" and "Julius Caesar of Rome." Anyway, thanks for not insisting on "Hedwig." (For what it's worth, none of my paper English-language encyclopedias include country in a ruler's name.) logologist 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great need no disambiguation. And we have a separate convention for monarchs of modern European countries. And, obviously, paper encyclopedias don't need to use the country, because they can have multiple articles of the same name. We cannot. In the case of Jadwiga, it is obvious that disambiguation is needed. Why is there this desire for wholesale abandonment of our general naming conventions rules for monarchs solely in the case of Polish rulers? I know that for the later Polish rulers, normally referred to by surname, it can get awkward to include country name. But for most Polish rulers it works easily enough. john k 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

K

• 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)

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)

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)

Can I take that to mean that you're ok with the current version (for now)? Appleseed (Talk) 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. logologist 03:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

L

• 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)

• Louis I of Hungary - let him be, but allow the use of Ludwik Węgierski or Ludwik of Hungary in Polish articles. Hungarians users may want to rename him from French Louis to Hungarian Lajos, but let's leave it up to them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

I assume this will be a redirect only? Appleseed (Talk) 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

M

• Michał Wiśniowiecki, King of Poland to Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki

I'd prefer Michael Wiśniowiecki. john k 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Mieszko III of Poland to Mieszko III the Old
• Mieszko IV of Poland to Mieskzo IV of...what? Plątonogi? How to translate this? Unsurely footed? :D Even his current article omitts to translate his nickame :)

Mieszko IV Tanglefoot. logologist 05:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a good translation of Plątonogi. Did you come up with it? Appleseed (Talk) 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If I say "yes," will that disqualify it, as "original research"? logologist 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Oops, that was Google Books. Regular Google gives 3 results, of which one appears relevant. Appleseed (Talk) 01:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

or Mieszko IV the Tanglefooted?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Right. logologist 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

P

• 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)

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)

Once again, see nothing wrong with the current title. john k 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

S

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)

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)

A reference for this would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem on him, either. john k 16:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

The controversies concentrate conviniently with the end of the alphabet. S. Bat(h)ory and Sigismunds/Zygmunts? I will leave Batory for later, because the Sigismund case is more clear.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sigismund I of Poland to Zygmunt I the Old
• Sigismund II of Poland to Zygmunt II August
• Sigismund III of Poland to Zygmunt III Waza or Zygmunt III Vasa

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)

The Sigismund's ought to stay at their current location. This is how they are always called in English. And for Sigismund III, he was also king of Sweden. john k 16:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

On Bathory, I was unable to duplicate your supposed results in a google search. An English search, excluding wikipedia on "Stephen Bathory" (phrase in quotes) gave me 1,020 results. One on "Stefan Bathory" (phrase again in quotes), excluding wikipedia, gave me 726. I think Stephen Bathory makes the most sense. john k 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

W

• Wladislaus'es to Władysław's and let's forget about those 'Ladislauses' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Władysław I Herman is already moved and that's good :)
  • Wladislaus II the Exile of Poland to Władysław II the Exile
  • Wladislaus III Spindleshanks to Władysław III Spindleshanks unless we can think of some better nickname?

"Spindleshanks" is fine. logologist 05:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Wladislaus IV of Poland to Władysław IV Waza or Władysław IV Vasa

Władysław IV, no Vasa or Waza. That's how he appears in Encyklopedia Polski (which does give his father as Zymunt III Waza).

We left out "Wladislaus III of Poland," whom I would call Władysław III of Varna. logologist 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Waiiit, there were two Władysław IIIs?? I would definelty prefer 'Waza', for consistency and because if we can add a nickname - why not?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Relax. Spindleshanks was only a duke. And kings, e.g. Władysław IV, enjoy the prerogative of not using an epithet. Besides, if we start adding "Waza" to Waza kings besides Zygmunt III, then "for consistency" are we going to add "Piast" after all the Piasts, "Jagiellon" after all the Jagiellons, and "Wettin" after each Wettin? Would you insist on calling Elizabeth II "Elizabeth II Windsor"? The KISS principle applies no less to princes than to commoners. logologist 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Appleseed (Talk) 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wenceslaus remain were they are for Czech users to play with, but what should we use in Polish articleS? Wacław II Czeski or Wacław II of Bohemia or the current Wenceslaus II of Bohemia? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wacław II, as he appears in Encyklopedia Polski. logologist 05:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit OT: we can use an article on Encyklopedia Polski :) Seriously, at least a stub would be nice - I don't recall this publication (yes, shame on me, probably ;p).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Got no problem with Wladyslaw (with the hooks through the l's, of course), given the absence of any clear standard English usage on these guys. I still don't see what's wrong with "of Poland"? john k 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's superfluous. Would you say, "George W. Bush of the USA"? Moreover, some of these "Polish" kings ruled the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (granted, partly as Grand Duke of Lithuania), which subsumed Poland. logologist 02:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore the Jagiellons ruled not only Poland, but Lithuania before it was merged. Should we call them 'of Poland and Lithuania'? By the same token, Zygmunt (Sigismund) III Waza for a few years ruled Sweden (before being deposed), so shouldn't he be 'of Poland and Sweden' (note in the article's history when created, he was under 'of Sweden', then moved to 'of Poland'). With the exception of some 'of province'during fragmentation and for consistency reasons I am opposed to any 'of country'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To address your points in order, Logologist seriously needs to read our various naming conventions policy pages, especially Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). George W. Bush is not a monarch, the convention is not the same. As to the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, this is commonly called "Poland" in English, and, at any rate, the title of the King was "King of Poland" not "King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Similarly, the pre-merger kings were Kings of Poland, and only Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Just as we have Franz Joseph I of Austria, despite that fellow also being king of Hungary, we only give the highest title. In terms of Sigismund III, the problem is that he was Sigismund III only in Poland - in Sweden he was just King Sigismund. Because he was king of Poland for longer, it makes sense to have him at Sigismund III of Poland rather than Sigismund of Sweden. And Sigismund III of Poland and Sweden would be inaccurate - he was not King Sigismund III of Sweden. john k 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Think of the case of James I of England. He was also James VI of Scotland, a title which he held for a longer period of time than that of James I of England, but nevertheless the article is at "James I of England". When it comes to monarchs with several titles, or who were monarchs of different countries, etc., the convention is clearly to use the most common title. —Gabbe 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling - Polish v English translit.

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)

Issues

It seems to me that there are at least two separate issues here, and they should not be confused.

1. Anglicization. There is the issue of whether names of Polish kings should be anglicized. On this issue, I see no reason to divert from the general policy of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I'd like to try to once again state what this policy means. It does not mean that we anglicize all names. What it means is that we use the form of the name which is most commonly used in English. This may be an anglicized form (e.g. Milan for Milano), or it may not be (e.g. Juan Carlos I of Spain, whose name is never anglicized to "John Charles I"). Obviously, in some instances, the issue is unclear. Wilhelm I of Germany is sometimes called "William" and sometimes "Wilhelm" in English. In cases like some of the Polish kings (especially the Wladyslaw's), where there is no clear English equivalent, it becomes really confusing. But for many of the kings there is no confusion at all. Going backwards, Augustus, John, Michael, Sigismund, Henry, Alexander, Casimir, and Louis, are all preferred to August, Jan, Michal, Zygmunt, Henryk, Aleksander, Kazimierz, and Ludwik in English usage. There is absolutely no reason to repolonicize the titles of these articles.

   As I have shown again and again with Google searchers, there is no 'most commonly used' English name. Thus the Polish one (which often comes out as a tie or actually is more used) is better, especially as it allows us to drop the 'of Poland' additon which as I showed again in my analysis is pretty rarely used. Instead of adding it to the kings name and creating (or popularising) a rare variant, why not use the most correct, native language one, which will eliminate any possible confusion?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   Piotrus, whatever google may say, the idea that "Casimir" is not the "most commonly used English name" for the Polish kings Kazimierz, or "Sigismund" is not the "most commonly used English name" for the Polish kings Zygmunt, can only be based on some utterly bizarre definition of "commonly used English name." And the idea that either Sigismund or Casimir (or John, for good ness sake) is a "rare variant" is ridiculous. I agree with you about the utterly bizarre "Wladislaus", and to some extent with "Stanislaus," but that is not the case for all Polish kings. Please read again the list of names which I said were usually anglicized - I was being careful only to include the ones that are, well, usually anglicized in a consistent manner. john k 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   I think there's a disagreement here between Piotrus and johnk as to what constitutes "sources". Google-searching for a name is perhaps not as reliable as going through a couple of authorative English language books on Central European history in order to determine what the most common "variant" is in English, which is what I presume johnk refers to when talking about the "commonly used English name". —Gabbe 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   John: cite your sources. I have cited Google - granted, not perfect, but still better then no sources you use to back up what is so far your personal opinion which names are more common. Btw, I had a discussion with a (retired) US historician recently, where the issue of names came out briefly. She mentioned that as far as she knows, in her area of expertize (German history) there is no single common standard, there are several, but you can find dozens acceptable spelling of any ruler names and the most important thing is consistency withing a publication. I agree Google is not the most authorative, so I did a Google Books analysis on the king 'Kazimierz I the Restorer'.

   Results (note some books actually use different variants (sic!) but I didn't want to waste time adjusting for such poorly edited books here): "Kazimierz Odnowiciel" 5, "Kazimierz I the Restorer" - none, "Kazimierz I Odnowiciel" 1, "Casimir I Odnowiciel" 1, "Casimir Odnowiciel" none, "Casimir I the Restorer" 3, "Casimir the Restorer" 7, "Casimir I of Poland", "Kazimierz I of Poland" none. As you can see, the result is, once again, a 'free for all'. Yes, Casimir in books trums Kazimierz by 11:6, or in other words, 64% of books indexed in Google Books use Casimir, 36% use Kazimierz. Close to 2:1, but not what I'd call 'the most common usage'. Note that Davies in his history of Europe uses Kazimierz, and I think Davies is an authority to respect here.

   All things considered, it seems clear there is no 'single most popular English usage', so our goal should be to creat rules that are most user friendly. Using local names eliminates disambigs and is consistent with local sources (most common, usually). Using numerals gives chronological order. Using nicknames gives some flavour making it easier to remember the given king. I initially supported 'of country' until the issues 'of which country when there are several' plus lenght of article name made me drop it (remembering which country x was the king of is usually the easiest part).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   You are, of course, right that I have not quoted any sources. In terms of your google books search, I was wondering if that includes books in Polish. I can't imagine "Odnowiciel" comes up very often in English books. At any rate, let's try to find some sources. I'm currently limited to what I have available at my house, so the pickings may be slim, but let's go:

   1. Will and Ariel Durant, in the multi-volume The Story of Civilization, (pub. 1957, but still a standard non-academic reference work), use "Mieszko I," "Boleslav I", "Boleslav III", "Boleslav V", "Ladislas the Short", "Casimir III", "Louis the Great", "Jadwiga", "Ladislas II", "Ladislas III", "Casimir IV", "Sigismund I", "Sigismund II", "Henry of Valois" (in his context as King of Poland), "Stephen Báthory", "Sigismund III", "Ladislas (Wladyslaw) IV", "John II Casimir", "Michael Wisniowiecki" (including accent mark), "John III Sobieski" (although he's called "Jan" before his accession), "Augustus II", "Stanislas Leszczynski" (with accent), "Augustus III", "Stanislas Poniatowski".
   2. The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History (again quite old, from 1952, but a standard reference work), uses: "Mieszko I", "Boleslav I the Mighty", "Mieszko II", "Casimir I the Restorer", Boleslav II the Bold", "Vladyslav I", "Boleslav III Wrymouth", "Zbigniev", "Boleslav IV", "Casimir II the Just", "Leszek I the White", "Henry II the Pious", "Przemysl", "Wenceslas," ""Vladyslav the Short", "Casimir III", "Lewis", "Jadwiga", "Vladyslav II Jagiello", "Vladyslav III", "Casimir IV", "John Albert", "Alexander", "Sigismund I".
   3. John Stoye's Europe Unfolding 1648-1688 calls the kings of Poland in the period under question "Wladislaw IV," "John Casimir," "Michael Wisniowiecki" (accute accent on the "s" in the surname), and "John Sobieski".
   4. Paul Schroeder in The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 calls the last king of Poland "Stanislas Augustus" (our current form, "Stanislaus," I will admit, is completely unused in English).
   5. In The Rise of the Great Powers, 1648-1815, Derek McKay and H.M. Scott use "John Casimir," "Michael Wisniowiecki," "John Sobieski", "Augustus II", "Stanislas Leszcynski", "Augustus III", and "Stanislas Poniatowski"
   6. C.V. Wedgewood in her (again, quite old) The Thirty Years War, refers to "Sigismund III" and "Ladislas IV."

   Is this good enough? john k 02:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   Good enough to prove my point that it's a 'free-for-all' as far as royality naming is concerned - at least that's how it looks to me. As for your earlier question, yes, I limited my search to English pages (and books) and as you can see Polish terms are also used (also I'll grant you that it looks like there is a high correlation between author using a Polish name and his surname looking suspiciously Polish :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   A free-for-all? Really? Every source I found used "Stanislas," "Augustus", "John," "Michael," "Sigismund," and "Casimir". There was disagreement on other names (especially Wladyslaw/Ladislas/Vladislav). But on most of the names there seemed to be considerable consensus on the anglicized version. john k 03:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

2. "of Poland." There seems to be considerable objection to this. Obviously there are problematic periods. THe period after the collapse of a central Polish state in the 12th century until its re-establishment in the early 14th presents some serious problems. So does the post-1572 period, when many Polish kings are known by surnames. I would suggest use of "of Poland" for the early kings, up to the mid 12th century, and for the kings from Wladyslaw Herman through Sigismund II (1305-1572). I would then suggest that, post-1572, it be used for the Vasas and the Saxon kings, but not for Batory, Wisniowiecki, Sobieski, Leszczynszki, and Poniatowski. (Obviously, Henry of Valois stays at Henry III of France). I'm not sure what to propose for the 12th-14th century folks - I would suggest staying with "of Poland" for the principal rulers, but don't really know. I really think the Lithuania issue is a red herring - Lithuania was a lesser title. It no more prevents us from using "of Poland" than the title of Frederick VII of Denmark as Duke of Holstein prevents us from using "of Denmark". I am also not impressed with the PLC argument. In English, at least, we use "Poland" as the short form for "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Thus, we discuss the partitions of Poland, not the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This is not any more incorrect than it is incorrect to say "France" instead of "French Republic". john k 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a third issue--consistency. I think your proposal to selectively use "of Poland" is too complicated, but that is only because the history of Poland forces it to be complicated. That is why we would like to get rid of "of Poland" altogether. Appleseed (Talk) 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically, my proposal is "use 'of Poland' for kings without surnames; do not use it for kings with surnames." This is not incredibly complicated. And for some monarchs, "of Poland" is clearly needed for disambiguation. Jadwiga, for instance, has no other clear way to disambiguate. At any rate, the issue isn't terribly complicated, since where articles go is not something which has to be constantly decided - it has to be decided once. john k 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This I can agree with, as I wrote above I don't like the 'naked' names of just 'Zbigniew' or 'Jadwiga', those should be a disambig (on the other hand, see Oleg). In those cases I would prefer 'King of Poland' or 'Queen of Poland', so people would not think that their 'nickname' was 'of Poland' (Polski). I don't understand why for the royalty there should be an exception for the rule that biographies should NOT have their job description in the title unless there is a disambig issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the monarchical naming rule is a good one (and I agree with you that it is, at the very least, considerably less than ideal for various reasons), that is not a reason to change it in one context only. If you'd like to propose a different naming standard for monarchs, go ahead, and I'd be happy to contribute to working towards an amendment of the current policy (although I don't know that we'd agree on how it should be amended...). But as long as we have a particular standard, I don't see why we should ignore it solely for Polish monarchs. If the quarrel is with the naming conventions as a whole, we should take it to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 01:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

People interested in this naming convention have now been notified via the W:NC page that there is a discussion concerning Polish rulers. I don't see why we should not agree on an exception here. Then we may suggest applying it elsewhere, but my main goal for now is to fix the 'Polish mess'. Local first name, numeral, English surname, no 'of country' - that's my proposal for now. Any objections to it other then 'it doesn't fit our naming conventions'? Btw, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules :) Seriously it is my conviction now that current naming conventions as they are should not be applied to Polish ruler, for the reasons stated in this discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of "of Poland", I have no objections besides the naming convention issue. I do have serious objections to "Local first name," because the vast majority of the time in English language literature it is the anglicized name which is used. I do wonder, though...For most rulers, we could use the anglicized form, and still not really need the "of Poland" to disambiguate. Casimir I the Restorer, Casimir II the Just, Casimir III the Great, Casimir IV Jagiellon; Sigismund I the Old, Sigismund II Augustus, Sigismund III Vasa; John I Albert, John II Casimir Vasa, John III Sobieski, Michael Wisniowiecki, Augustus II the Strong, Augustus III the Saxon, Stanislas Leszczynski, Stanislas Augustus Poniatowski, Stephen Batory...all these work fairly well. Names which have no standard anglicization could remain in Polish form - Wladyslaw, Boleslaw, Mieszko, Leszek, Jadwiga, and so forth. john k

I am not sure if kings of the Jagiellon dynasty, especially the earlier one, would agree with you that Lithuanian title was less important then the Polish one. But those early times are not my area of specialization, and perhaps this should be answered by some Lithuanian editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Lithuanian title was less important. I'm am saying that it was a lower title. "King" is a higher title than "Grand Duke". I wonder whether Emperor Charles V would have said that his title of King of Castile was "less important" than his title of Holy Roman Emperor. I would guess that he would have been equally reluctant to say this. But "Emperor" is still a higher title than "King," even if Charles's rule over Spain was much more the basis of his power than his vague suzerainty over the German princes. That's my only point on this issue. john k 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, "Poland" and "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" are not synonymous. If they were, what are we to make of the Union of Lublin (1569), which united Poland (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?) with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? logologist 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

They are not synonymous, but just about every English language source in existence calls the PLC "Poland". Just how the state ruled by the Kings of Denmark and Norway from 1523-1814 is normally called "Denmark". Or how the state ruled by the Kings of Castile and Leon after 1230 is generally just called "Castile." It is an accepted short form. Obviously, "Poland" meaning PLC is different from "Poland" meaning "Kingdom of Poland before 1569". But "Poland" is still the standard term used in English. john k 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In everyday speech, yes. However a cursory glance at Google Books will show that many scholars use PLC and that this is the correct and preffered term to use.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in some contexts it is better to use Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But it is not always better. I have certainly never heard any Polish monarch from 1569-1795 referred to as "King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," and I have frequently seen them referred to as simply "King of Poland." As far as I am aware, whether or not the state was called the PLC, the title of its monarchs was "King of Poland". john k 01:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I have proposed this above, but I don't want it to get lost. As a compromise, I'm willing to withdraw my objection to removing all the "of Poland" business, if we agree that usually-anglicized Polish names should be anglicized in article titles. Thus Casimir I the Restorer instead of Kazimierz I the Restorer. Augustus II the Strong instead of August II the Strong, John III Sobieski instead of Jan III Sobieski. Sigismund I the Old instead of Zygmunt I Stary. And so forth. Would this help us out of the impasse? john k 03:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to agree on English name if you can prove that *for that particular king* a given English first name is used in 75% or more cases (Google Books?). I have already shown that it is NOT the case with Google, but if you can provide better, more academic sources, then more power to you. Until then I will stay with my proposal (local first name, numeral, English nickname if possible, local surname unless popularly translated, no 'of country'). For the record, I don't really mind the names which are similar, as is the case in Alexander vs Aleksander. Casimir vs Kazimierz and Sigismund (or shouldn't it be Sigmund?!) vs Zygmunt are somewhat similar, but there is the alphabet ordering change, among other things. I strongly object to John for Jan and Michael for Michał, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

John, seems workable. Whatever the decision, there has to be consistency. IMHO. khrystene 19:45 22 December 2005 (CET)

So if we change the policy regarding the naming of Polish monarchs, we should update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) in accordance to what we decide here, so that the naming convention of other monarchs can be changed as well. Is that whay you're suggesting? "Consistensy" is in my eyes exactly that which speaks most strongly in favour of johnk. —Gabbe 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The former sounds an excellent idea. But I'll settle for now for giving the Polish kings their authentic names. logologist 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If we can work out a *better* naming scheme for Polish kings, we should make a proposal to the community to apply it on a larger scale.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Logologist, given that the main point I am arguing is that Polish kings should not have their "authentic names" as article titles on the English wikipedia, it strikes me that what you should be saying here is "I strongly disagree with John's proposal." john k 04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Piotrus's distinctions. "Michael" seems more similar to "Michal" than the examples which he gives as more acceptable. At any rate, I can do a JSTOR search of history journals to try to help resolve the issue, although it's hard to see how that would work. I'd also suggest that we look at what other encyclopedias do. BTW, a google books search reveals 2570 hits for John Sobieski, and only 756 for Jan Sobieski. The same kind of ratio applied when I put the names in quotes. A similar ratio was found for "Casimir IV" as opposed to "Kazimierz IV" and "Sigismund III" as opposed to "Zygmunt III". Seems pretty solidly above 75% to me. john k 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the pronouciation more than the spelling. Alexander sounds in Polish as Aleksander. Sigismund would be Zygismund, Casimir is Kazimir, John becomes Dżon, and Michael is Majkel. Hits are I think less relevant than number of books using a given term. Besides, plain Google hits are in my proposal favour... or are we going to cite different search engine results supporting our proposals? :/ --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the google search, I was doing a search of google books, not plain google. At any rate, I really don't think that difference in pronunciation is even vaguely relevant. I understand that foreign versions of Polish names might be troubling to you, especially ones that are pronounced weird, but let's take a look at the pl articles on English kings. They are at: Wilhelm, Henryk, Stefan, Ryszard, Jan, Edward, Maria, Elżbieta, Jakub, Karol, Anna, Jerzy, and Wiktoria. Only the Edwards are at what Logologist would call their "proper form." I simply don't understand why Polish kings (and Polish kings only) are to be excepted from the general "use English" rules, and essentially on the basis that Polish users don't like the anglicizations. Let me tell you, "Jakub" and "Jerzy" are not pronounced even vaguely similar to "James" and "George." As to the demands for proof, this really seems excessive to me. I have never seen a single book that uses "Kazimierz" or "Zygmunt". Jan is sometimes used, but John is clearly more common, and the same can be said for Michael/Michal, Augustus/August, and so forth. But, for more examples (names starting in 1305)...

1. Columbia Encyclopedia: Ladislaus, Casimir, Louis, Jadwiga, John, Alexander, Sigismund, Henry, Stephen, Michael, Augustus, Stanislaus
2. Encyclopedia of World History (also to be found at Bartleby): Vladislav, Casimir, Louis, Jadwiga, John Albert, Alexander, Sigismund, Henry, Stephen, Wladyslaw (only for Wladyslaw IV!), John Casimir, Michael, John, Augustus, Stanislas
3. Britannica: Wladyslaw, Casimir, Louis, Jadwiga, John (although Sobieski is called "Jan" before his accession), Sigismund, Henry, Stephen, Michael, Augustus, Stanislaw

Notice that the only areas of disagreement among the lists are for the Wladyslaws and the Stanislaws. All the others are essentially entirely consistent for the entirety of the period. Casimir, Louis, Jadwiga, John, Alexander, Sigismund, Henry, Stephen, Michael, and Augustus, seem overwhelmingly to be the names used in English for the Polish monarchs of those names. I will oppose any solution which does not result in their articles being at pages so entitled. john k 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's see how the List of Polish monarchs might look in its authentic form. Some kings would actually gain in individuality. And even without User:Halibutt's invaluable pronunciation guides, the 99.995% of non-Polish humanity will not mangle the names worse than now.

Siemowit

Lestko

Siemomysł

Mieszko I

Bolesław I the Brave

Mieszko II Lambert

Bezprym

Kazimierz I the Restorer

Bolesław II the Bold

Władysław I Herman

Zbigniew

Bolesław III Wrymouth

Władysław II the Exile

Bolesław IV the Curly

Mieszko III the Old

Kazimierz II the Just

Leszek I the White

Władysław III Spindleshanks

Mieszko IV Tanglefoot

Konrad I of Masovia

Henryk I the Bearded

Henryk II the Pious

Bolesław V the Chaste

Leszek II the Black

Henryk IV Probus

Przemysł II

Václav II

Václav III

Władysław I the Elbow-high

Kazimierz III the Great

Ludwik the Hungarian

Jadwiga Angevin

Władysław II Jagiełło

Władysław III of Varna

Kazimierz IV Jagiellon

Jan I Olbracht

Aleksander Jagiellon

Zygmunt I the Old

Zygmunt II August

Henryk III Walezy

Anna Jagiellon

Stefan Batory

Zygmunt III Waza

Władysław IV

Jan II Kazimierz

Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki

Jan III Sobieski

August II the Strong

Stanisław Leszczyński

August III the Saxon

Stanisław August Poniatowski

The End (of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

logologist 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Santa Jadwiga?? Appleseed (Talk) 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We didn't miss her; see above: Queen Jadwiga. logologist 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems she got moved from Jadwiga of Poland to Santa Jadwiga by User:Mareczek9. I think "Queen Jadwiga" works best (no disambiguation problem that way). logologist 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How about Jadwiga Angevin? It avoids the whole queen/king problem and is consistent with the names of the other monarchs. And of course it lets us keep Jadwiga as DAB. Appleseed (Talk) 17:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe she was part of the Angevin Dynasty. If so, and if she is also called "Jadwiga andegaweńska" in Polish, then that seems an ideal solution. Thanks for the suggestion, and please feel free to make the correction!

By the way, the epithets "Wrymouth," "Spindleshanks" and "Tanglefoot" do not require "the" before them, and that is why I've omitted it. logologist|Talk 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath

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)

Double redirects ought have been eliminated as soon as the moves were done. At any rate, what agreed upon moves? I've objected to nearly all of them, and my criticisms have not really been addressed. john k 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

I am not the only voice of criticism - Gabbe also objected to at least some of the proposed changes, and Khrystene appears to have agreed with my proposed compromise. At any rate, there's only three of you (you, Logologist, Appleseedadvocating the change, and I don't see that 3-1 can be considered consensus. Had I chosen, there are people who I could have contacted who I suspect would have agreed with me. I'd also be interested to see what would have happened had you posted each proposed move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It is not fair to claim consensus when there's been so little input, over all. I would note, in addition, that I provided considerable evidence that anglicized names were used much more commonly than the Polish names, and nobody has really bothered to try to counter this by providing evidence of usage of names like "Zygmunt," "Kazimierz," and "August" in English for the Polish monarchs of those names. john k 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I support johnk, Halibut, Elonka, Calgacus and Szopen on this one. Question: who's going to perform all the work, of reverting moves/edits? Can I be of any help? Further remark: it is by now clear that this article talk page has been used to dodge consensus-building: consensus should've been established first on Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers (as that was the page linked from the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)) - instead a whole circumvention of guidelines operation took place: the guideline was declared inactive, in order to drive what looks like a cabal. --Francis Schonken 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

There are two steps:

1. determining which would be the best page names for Polish Rulers. I'm not an expert on that. For instance, I have no idea whether the list presently on Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers is any good. Could you have a look at the second column of the table on that page? Maybe best to re-activate that guideline, that is done by replacing the {{historical}} tag on top of that page by {{proposed}}, and (re-)listing in the usual places (wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for naming conventions guidelines). Also, for instance, people like johnk are the real experts on naming of royals, I'm not, so listing on wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) might be a good idea too.
2. Once that is completed, the moving of pages is not really my cup of tea (I'm no sysop), but I could always hemp with listing WP:RM requests, if that is the chosen path to mass-move Polish Rulers (another path may be chosen in the process of establishing consensus on Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers)

Anyway I sorta listed this issue on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Tutorial: how to circumvent guidelines & consensus-building already... (but better re-list on Village Pump too, when re-opening Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers) --Francis Schonken 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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)