Jump to content

Talk:List of Polish monarchs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution

[edit]

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

Aftermath

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) (I re-activated) --Francis Schonken 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and don't worry too much about the name-calling... If the work is good, wikipedians will appreciate. Really try people like john k to get re-involved (he's a sysop too if I'm recalling correctly). --Francis Schonken 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Polish monarchs, hope that attracts some people too! --Francis Schonken 17:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see that this page is getting more attention. If only you guys came here few months ago (and this name change was advertised in many places, from RfC to W:NC) we could have avoided the 'bad blood' (also some people should keep in mind that talk first, move second is a good thumb rule...). But it is never to late to fix/improve things on Wiki. Although I - obviously - like the naming scheme we (me, Logologist and Appleseed) came up with, I am not claiming we are perfect. Since it appears that more people are getting into the issue now and the number of people opposed to our naming scheme is growing, perhaps we can improve it and work out a real consensus at the reactivated (tnx, Francis) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish rulers). I suggest we move further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), as it is more suited then this page (which was used only because few months ago nobody was watching the outdated other page).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anyway, the guideline table was put by me on a separate page, that can be used in a template fashion, as shown below. Note that if clicking the "edit" link of that table, the separate page opens, and all changes will be visible in the three places where the table is presently displayed (that is on this talk page; on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) proposal page, and on the talk page of the same)

Piotr's suggestion to provide links to the talk page discussions where decisions on the naming of individual monarchs were made, still has to be implemented (feel free to proceed!) --Francis Schonken 09:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Polish monarchs all kept in the Polish language? I thought we are on the English language Wikipedia? Gryffindor 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beacouse there are several English variants and there is no good way to chose one of them. Thus by using Polish names (and there is only one in most cases) we are at least consistent with the primary source. Please read the discussion above for the long version of this answer.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason is that there is a small group of Polish nationals on Wikipedia who have been pushing their own agenda: Renaming articles from English names to what they regard as the "correct" Polish-language names. Some of these Wikipedians (including at least one admin) seem to think that if they can push through the changes in the face of opposition, that they'll have a claim for making the changes stick during future discussions. Since the Polish nationals have remained organized via their own noticeboard, and have an admin in their number who often generates "calls to action" to get them all posting on a particular page, they are often able to all chime in to a particular discussion, and make it look as though there's a community consensus to keep the Polish name, when in reality it's just the same group of Poles posting over and over, moving from page to page, and in general ignoring or belittling [1] any opposition. --Elonka 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And one day we will take over the world...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]
In office
as ruler
of Poland
(for some
approx.)		 Polish name
(from pl:wikipedia)		 Page name at en:Wikipedia Remarks
Monarchs
... ... ... ...
1386-1434 Władysław II Jagiełło Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania Compromise, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) has no special provisions when a ruler changes name when acquiring a second realm (this ruler was in office in Lithuania since 1377, he didn't receive his Christian name Wladyslaw until conversion to catholicism when acquiring the Polish throne);
Double numbering ("II" and "V") while both are used when referring to this Polish ruler: "II" is more common (but overlaps with another Polish ruler, see Wladislaw II of Poland dab page); "V" is less ambiguous, and is also often used.
"Jagiello" (the Polish version of Jogaila) is not used in the wikipedia page name while overlapping with another Wladyslaw II Jagiello, see Ladislaus Jagiello dab page.
... ... ... ...
1573-1574 Henryk III Walezy Henry III of France per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), better known as ruler of France
1575-1587
(most of the
reign together
with her husband
Stefan Batory)		 Anna Jagiellonka Anna of Poland per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), "Anne/Anna Jagiellon(ka)" overlaps with at least two other women (that, btw, also both can be called "Anna of Poland", see Anna of Poland) - because of the unavoidable confusion whatever way it is turned, the "names and titles" guideline is applied very strict in this case, while considered least confusing in Wikipedia context
1576-1586 Stefan Batory Stefan Batory per most used in English; note that there is some ambiguity with his father, a namesake in common English spelling, but presently at the Hungarian spelling of the name, István Báthory
1587-1632 Zygmunt III Waza Sigismund III of Poland per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), best known as ruler of Poland, although (for some years) also ruler of Sweden. Compare Henry III of France above: it's not because this ruler is better known in France than in Poland, that his name would suddenly be written in French (not "Henri III de France", and even less "Henri III (de) Valois"). So also for this Sigismund the spelling most common in English is used, applying the names & titles guideline:
  • First name: "Zygmunt" (Polish) or "Sigismund" (Swedish, but also most common in English, compare Sigismund of Burgundy, in French this name would be "Sigismond")? → Sigismund
  • "Waza" or "Wasa" or "Vasa" (as in: House of Vasa) or "of Poland"? → only of Poland is free of Polish/Swedish ethnic tension, and is not all that unusual in English.

Note that the ordinal "III" also only applies to of Poland (in Swedish there is usually no ordinal)

... ... ... ...
1669-1673 Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki per most used in English
1674-1696 Jan III Sobieski Jan III Sobieski per most used in English
... ... ... ...
Presidents
... ... ... ...
2005-... Lech Kaczyński Lech Kaczynski English spelling of name according to the English pages on The official website of the City of Warsaw (PS, the same website spells Lech Kaczyński on its pages in Polish [2])
... ... ... ...

Move the names back to English

[edit]

To those who have been moving articles to Polish names without consensus: It is time to stop. The best way to handle things would be to voluntarily admit that this was inappropriate, and help with fixing things. If necessary though, we will just go article by article and prove that there is consensus to move the articles back to their English-language names. To start, interested parties are invited to check the following pages and cast their vote:

--Elonka 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post refactored per mediation discussion. Original version can be seen here. --02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been this attempt to create a naming system specifically for Polish monarchs (but it is just a proposal and never received consensus), against the system used for other European monarchs. There is also the fact that most Polish monarchs now are located in places which contravene to general naming convention. There is no consensus for permission to use an exception for Polish monarchs, and such permission should be sought from consensus atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) where there is the thread Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs. At that spot there are editors who are more or less experienced in overall picture of monarch naming and not only one country. It is deception to advertise any system for naming before a consensus there is convinced of the need for such exception. I hope all of you continue the naming scheme discussion for Polish monarchs there, before continuing or creating policy forks. Shilkanni 13:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This I recently posted at the appropriate discussion and I am reposting it here:

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

Srnec 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ordinals

[edit]

The truthful use of regnal numbers is not a simple matter. It is not something done just by counting (beware of WP:OR). These rulers, as usually all others, did not usually use ordinals in Middle Ags (only a few monarchs then did that). Most of medieval ordinals are retrospective. When early modern age came, they started often use those, but made themselves all sorts of counting mistakes - or wanted to emphasize something that is POV to us. At first, regnal numbers were used for disambiguation by the monarchs themselves - to distinguis from father or grandfather, rulers easily in memories of subjects and others. Only much later, regnal numbers grew to also be used as pointers of legitimacy. Either that of the holder or of the predecessor he wanted to advertise as legitimate or condemn as usurper.

Use of regnal numbers should, avoiding OR, happen with following guidelines:

1. Do not use any regnal number that either has not been used by established works of reference or not been in contemporaneous official use. Do not invent regnal numbers.

2. If a ruler's regnal number regarding his "highest title" or "most important realm" is controversial (at least two alternatives), do not use it in the article name. Use other disambiguation instead. We do not want our artice names reflect something that can reasonably cause confusion or editwarring. In article names, use only truly used or authoritatively assigned regnal numbers, provided its value does not contravene with the first sentence.

3. Explain the use and assignations of regnal numbers of the subject in the article. Use refers to contemporaneous use, assignation refers to retrospective use in works of reference and official king lists of that country. Of course if a regnal number is only an invention of royalist fringes or writers of not respected publications, it does not need to be explained. Sometimes non-use could be explained.

Information of regnal numbers actually used contemporaneously is available at [3]. Marrtel 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the first to use ordinal in Poland was Premislas II sometime in c 1295. The Bohemian Venceslases as Polish rulers did not - their numbers II and III are presumably attacvhed by later literature. Neither, contrary to common belief, apparently did Ladislas the Short - and, literature assigns him varying ones: IV and I, the latter because he was the first crowned head although there had been three earlier ksiaze-overlords of same name. Not Casimir III - his is assognation by literature, but it does not vary there. The first Ladislas Jagello apparently did not use - and literature assigns varyingly V and II, and additionally he was I in Lithuania. But his son, that of Varna fame, did use "Vladislas III" in some Polish letters/proclamations. Surprisingly enough, his brother Casimir (referred to as IV of literature) used Casimir III those rare times he used any numbering. Sigismund II apparently did not himself used the regnal number, he used consistently "Sigismund August". Sigismund III used that Tertius. Ladislas IV used that Quartus. John II used "John Casimir" without ordinal. Wisniowiecki used "Michael I" (Michael primus). Sobieski used John III (and not the surname). August II used that ordinal. August III used that ordinal. Marrtel 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts here - Regarding your guidelines, Marrtel...
  1. I fully agree. However, when contemporary use conflicts with the modern designation (as established by respected reference works, textbooks, etc.), we go with the modern designation, rather than the contemporary one.
  2. How do we determine this? Is it controversial that England is more important than Scotland? Is it controversial that we should have Charles III of Spain and not Charles VII of Naples? What about Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor rather than Charles I of Spain? This could become problematic.
  3. I think explanations only need to be given when the ordinal was not in use in the monarchs own time, or when it has some special significance - the first monarch to use an ordinal, or whatever. For instance, I think it's useful to mention that Francis I of France was, apparently, the first monarch to use the ordinal "the first". It's not terribly important to mention that his grandson Francis II used the ordinal "the second" because his grandfather was "Francis the First". john k 11:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With that point 2 I mean the case if the monarch's regnal number is not clear with the one and same kingdom. Here, Poland. I do not mean the case where he has rights to several monarchies and therefore differing numerals. An example which I mean is Vladislaus the Short, who was the first of his own branch (and of the restored monarchy) but the fourth in succession to his ancestors and predecessors, earlier monarchs of Poland (of whom some used kingly title and some were ksiaze). He would not, in all credible scenarios, have become king of Poland if he were not a successor of those earlier ones. He clearly recognized them as his predecessors. And he himself did not use the ordinal, as far as I have researched the matter. However, certain later monarchs (culprits apparently are the one of Varna and the Vasa one) sort of created him as the first Vladislaus, by taking an ordinal leaving no room for predecessors of the Short one. Literature has varied in its treatment, and the two ordinals are variably shown in various sources. Marrtel 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also, shouldn't this discussion go at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)? john k 11:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tables

[edit]

I don't see the point of uglifying the list by adding those unsightly tables along with detailed information that is best obtained from the monarch articles. Appleseed (Talk) 11:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are tidy. We practically need table to have two variants of the name tidily beside each other. Without tabulation, they may look ugly. And when table is in use, also dates of reigns, and title, and additinal notes are tidily in their own columns.

If only one variant of the name is left here, that means it must be the English one. Not a Polish spelling. Sorry it such ruffles your feathers. But English variants shall be displayed in this Wikipedia. For Polish language, there is another Wikipedia, you know, the Polish one. So, the two names beside each other is a goodwill towards those who desire the Polish name is shown. Otherwise it will not. Hope you do not fight this any more. Shilkanni 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tables are generally better, I think. The particular table for this page wasn't terribly attractive, but it can be removed - it's certainly better than the bulleted list format. Also: Anyone support having full dates, rather than just years? john k 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Appleseed. The list was better. KonradWallenrod 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the overlord

[edit]

I have trued to make sense of how English world calls these overlords of the fragmentary period. In Polish it is something like wielky ksiaze (do not ask me to put any diacriticals to these words). There may exist some established translations, and/but there certainly are several possibilities how to translate - as accurately as possible it would probably be "High Prince", wouldn't it?

I am somewhat against using the pure "Duke", because the ksiazes under this overlord seem to be expressed by term duke in English. And the precisely same term does not express the relation/ subjugation between them. What are the prefixes to the duke the English literature uses for these overlords? (I would hate if it were Grand Duke)?. Is "High Duke" any sort of established usage, or just some original research?

Would it be too bad to use "Overlord of Poland" or "Overlord of the Polanes" as title?

Is it totally wrong to use any of the titles Great Prince, Grand Prince and High Prince??

This would be needed so biography articles of these would be consistent. Please write your knoewledge upon the subject. Maed 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish it's "książę zwierzchni", overlord. All of the Polish monarchs during the fragmentation were dukes, but not all were overlords. Some were just dukes of Kraków. Appleseed (Talk) 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not High Prince (not according to our current defintion :>). That said, this is a very good question. First issue to consider is whether to call them prince or duke, second - whether we need any 'high/grand' or other adjective. To the first I would suggest prince, especially as Polish sources are pretty consistent with 'książę' (Polish for prince). Second gets tricky, and I will admit that I have not dealt much with Polish history before 16th centuries. Currently the en-wiki misses articles like pl:Polska w okresie rozbicia dzielnicowego (Fragmentation of Poland, just a redirect) or more to the point, pl:Książęta dzielnicowi Polski. This article uses an interesting title: "książe dzielnicowy". It is somewhat hard to translate. During the time of fragmentation (and is *this* the right translation? I haven't checked...) the Poland was divided into several princedoms, called 'dzielnice' (quarters). The rulers of those 'dzielnice' where called 'prince of quarters' ('książe dzielnicowy'). I am however not sure if this is the dominant term used in Polish literature, and I have no idea how it is properly translated. Until we do more research, I'd suggest calling them prince of Poland and adding links to fragmentation article where possible for clarification. And the best way to avoid any (re)naming confusion is to avoid inclusion of any 'king of, prince of, and of what' in titles of Polish monarchs (or princes, or whatver :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most common formulation in books seems to be "Duke of Poland" [4] (provide other counts if you think I missed something). But this seems so unacceptable to me, there should be a way to express by short title that these were not same-level rulers as dukes, their vassals. We should not go to OR, but surely some English sources have used some added thing, great/grand/high? This is now a question to make a convention, as the situation needs it. How about "Overlord Duke of Poland" which is a direct translation of that polish term Appleseed wrote above. Maed 12:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nomenclature

[edit]

The nomenclature for Polish monarchs must be discussed and systematised now. Issues about titling are coming up on various talk pages for various monarchs, threatening to cause greater inconsistency than we currently have. I reproduce my comments from Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło below:

Now, I doubt the effectiveness of all this polling on specific names: there are just too many possible permutations for this poor fellow. It may be best to work by deciding whether or not the page should have diacritics in the title. I think there will be a supermajority saying "no" and the page could be moved preliminarily to "Wladyslaw II Jagiello." Then further voting could determine whether or not both the Polish and Lithuanian names are needed in some form or other. Then it could be determined what forms of the names are wanted: Jagiello or Jogaila, Wladyslaw or Ladislaus, etc. Next, it could be determined whether or not an ordinal number is necessary and whether or not a qualifier such as "of Poland" or "Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland" is necessary. The end result would be a name that satisifes majority opinion on all aspects of this complicated name. I, personally, could live with that. Srnec 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systematization of Polish monarchs has taken place in other places than Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) (which would be the logical place for systematic rules), and all those attempts, when executed (against opposition) have met criticism that "it was in some nook or cranny of Wikipedia" and accusation of cabal making an agreement between themselves secreted from others. Would we be any more trusting to any systematics made now here in this discussion?

That said, I open a clearly-defined discussion (poll) below, about diacriticals vs no diacriticals in article names of Polish monarchs, and I put an announcement about it to RM. Marrtel 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: article names of Polish monarchs, diacritics accepted or not

[edit]

This is to survey the community sum of opinion about whether diacriticals are to be used in article names of Polish monarchs (provided the article name even has any Polish names, an issue not to be polled here but sorted out later). Limit your opinions to the question of whether you support diacritics in these article names or oppose it. Marrtel 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]

Write Support if you want diacritics present in these article names always when the monarch's name is in Polish, and Oppose if you oppose diacritics in the case the name of the monarch is in its Polish rendition. This means the question between Bolesław vs Boleslaw, Jagiełło vs Jagiello, Władysław vs Wladyslaw. An optional one-line reason can be written here, but all longer opinions should go to the Discussion below.

  • Oppose use of diacritics in those cases. These medieval (or 16th-17th c) persons should not be rendered in today usage of Polish, acceptable only perhaps to Polish commoners of most recent centuries. The drive to put diacritics to all sorts of names is going unhealthy when these cases are diacriticalized, as the language their time did not yet use such and these names went to English literature in routes other than through modern Polish. Marrtel 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Diacritics, especially Polish diacritics, make articles much more difficult to link to (it takes me about a minute to track down the proper letter and then copy/paste it), they interfere with proper alphabetization in category listings, are visually very intimidating to many English-speakers, cause confusion for pronounciation, and do not always display correctly on all web browsers. Many English-language reference works routinely make it policy to omit all diacritics of any kind, as a way to maintain consistency. --Elonka 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Polish diacritics don't provide any extra information for the vast majority of English-speakers, and, indeed, can not show up on web some browsers. We should give the form with diacritics in the first line. john k 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. This means in major English-language works, such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, or articles in major English-language newspapers.
If the word is routinely listed without diacritics, then the Wikipedia article should follow that method for the article title, though the diacritics are still allowable within the body of the article itself.
If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Wikipedia guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles. Masterhatch 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very clear what common usage is: it is either the translation of the name or the Polish name with diacritics (as "Polish name" ought to imply). Even in the usages provided (where, btw, the diacritic-marked and translated form each by far outnumber the "Polish-without-diacritics" version), the form without diacritics is only provided by those who do not use diacritics at all. For obvious reasons, not using diacritics at all should be discarded as a possibility on wikipedia. Dahn 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose I am opposed to the use of diacritical forms when forms without the diacritics are common in English or there are English forms available. Charles 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most users cannot read, write, type, or pronunciate these characters -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's no excuse for incorrect spelling since we have unicode available. --Lysytalk 18:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It doesn't seem right to provide false information for the ease of users who don't care to learn the real pronunciation. Hyenaste (tell) 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is encyclopeadia, and as such shouldn't provide misspellings.--SylwiaS | talk 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doremítzwr 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose I support the usage as noted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). -- JamesTeterenko 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an issue of respect for foreign cultures.Rosa 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

To the claim that diacritics reflect "a modern invention": let me point out that the widespread use of Polish or another language with diacritics is itself "modern", but that does not mean we should give the names in Medieval Latin (and let me note that Pinyin is certainly a modern construct, yet Chinese-name pages usually bear Pinyin it their title, and not the 17th century Jesuit renditions of Chinese names).

To the claim that "they are harder to link", I suggest copy-paste the name, not the letters (copy it from another article; or go on your browser and type the letters without diacritics, and copy paste from the results a version with diacritics), or simply use those funky letters which feature at the bottom of the screen every time you edit a page. If that is still too difficult, then just write them down without diacritics: redirects have been made ad nauseam, so whatever version you type will likely get blue - in time, someone will come and replace them with diacritic versions.

I find it puzzling that this issue arises with Polish names, but not with French ones, or Italian ones, or Romanian ones, although popular renditions also tend to discard diacritics in English - the sources not bothering to find the proper typeset is no proof. Also note that most French names respect the modern spelling, although the writing of French has varied considerably; the same goes for Italian, which was standardized in the 19th century; the same goes for Romanian, which had never used the Latin alphabet until the 1850s. A Romanian example (since I am Romanian): I can understand that certain names of rulers of Wallachia, Moldavia and Romania have an Englishified version (such as Alexander John Cuza, but usually not for Carol I of Romania/Charles); I cannot however understand why, when Britannica, for example, gives the name as it appears in modern Romanian, it fails to use proper diacritics. Dahn 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And let me also note that no one is proposing deleting the English-version or diacritic-free redirects, so the "concern" is actually pointless. Dahn 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Srnec: are c and ç the same letter? Are a and ă the same letter? Are t and ţ the same letter? S and ş? About "facilitating" I will repeat myself: write them whichever way you want on the pages you create, if it is too much trouble to copy-paste or click letters at the bottom of the page: all posible versions of the names redirect to pages in question. This is about the title the articles should have, not about deleting other versions which lead to the same article... Władysław II Jagiełło, Wladyslaw II Jagiello, and both Ladislaus Jagiello and Wladislaw II of Poland - which lead to disambig. (as well they should); I don't see why there is not yet one for Jogaila Algirdaitis, but nothing prevents you from creating a redirect. Dahn 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point. In French, c and ç are the same letter: one just has a cedilla on it. Different languages treat diacritics differently. Romance languages generally regard them as add-ons to letters, while Slavic ones consider tham as creating new letters. What do you mean about whichever way you want? Are you saying that titles do not matter, we may use whatever form we want within the article? How confusing could that get! Nobody is talking about deleting or creating redirects, so I fail to see your point. This is about titles which cause confusion for those not intimately aware of Polish history and the problem with these Polish monarchs' articles runs deeper than that. Srnec 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the diacritics: The difference is minor, especially if you consider that, in French, c actually covers more sounds, while ç covers a single one. In Romanian (a Romance language), t and ţ are different letters, and so are s and ş etc. (as compared to some obsolete letters which were not different sounds - except for â -never written as Â-, which has stuck). But, actually, even according to your criteria, diacritics in renditions of, say, French should be discarded immediately, since they do not even represent different sounds... And if Ł is not to L the same as Ţ is to T, then you should not render Władysław as Wladyslaw, but something like Vwadyswav. Moreover, Ś is just a S with an accent, and Ę is just an E with a cedilla...
About "writing whatever": read my full point. I have said that, if wikipedians don't apply themselves to finding the "unusually hard to find at the bottom of your screen diacritics", they could just write them down in one of the forms redirecting to the article (i.e.: no diacritics, or even in the English version), because it is very likely that someone would come along and replace them with the article-title form (God only knows how much of this type of cleanup I have done after careless Romanians, and even after Britannica).
And just why would the titles cause confusion if redirects are available and all versions are given in the first lines of an article? Dahn 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My actual position on this is that diacritics which have been accepted in English should be used. This is some (but not all) French diacritics (François yes; naïve no). As to whether the diacritics on Polish monarchs have been adopted, that is a question of fact. The outbursts above suggest that facts are irrelevant to much of this debate, which is deplorable. Septentrionalis 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you claim it would not be acceptable to render the English word naive as naïve - but, if you reference the title of a book in French containing the word naïve, it would not be acceptable not to (do not mix neologisms in English into the issue of writing French words). If by "outbursts" you mean the fact that I have been puzzled by the supposed complication of finding diacritics, consider that this has actually been argued: "Diacritics, especially Polish diacritics, make articles much more difficult to link to (it takes me about a minute to track down the proper letter and then copy/paste it". I had not passed judgment on this attitude, I have merely suggested that, if this is true, those experiencing it could find the solution in writing them down as they feel they should, simply because other wikipedians review articles, and they might not be having this problem. Dahn 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis makes a good point about "acceptance." Dahn, the issue is not ease of linking, though some have pointed that out, it is inappropriate and inconsistent titles. The fact is, however, that accents which just add to letters are one thing, but whole other letters another. Most Anglophones haven't a clue what ł is or represents. Polish is an unfamiliar language, far more unfamiliar than French, to most Anglophones. A problem with the articles as they stand is that they do not have all alternative names at the top of the article. Being redirected from Boleslaus I of Poland to Bolesław I the Brave could confuse someone who doesn't know how to pronounce the new title and when its not apparent that he is the ruler of Poland. Srnec 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the only consistent usage, since it has been pointed out that supposedly English names (the "very English" Ladislaus etc.) vary considerably. On the other matter, you have just pointed out that you are unfamiliar with the hole concept of ă, since you describe it as "an accent" - go to Romanian alphabet or the page about schwa, and you will see why it is not an accent. Words like Bacău, Rădăuţi should however not be changed to non-diacritical versions, since this would be both whimsical and highly irregular. And, if a person is redirected to a Bolesław page from a Boleslaus page, he is obviously:
  • aware of the fact that the name could be rendered as Boleslaus (since it was his original query)
  • able to read the versions of the name listed in the very first lines of the article
  • perhaps informed on what IPA is and how it is to be used, if he indeed gets stuck on the notion that he should learn how to pronounce the name in Polish
  • not required to pronounce the name in Polish, but to visualise it, and read just below what its forms are in English
  • in no way different from a reader of the article Beijing (which is not pronounced as it is written), of the article Angoulême (he may not be aware of why the diacritic is there for), of the aritcle Piteşti, of the article Xhosa language (you try reading it as it is written), or, hell, even of words in English that he has not heard about, and thus cannot yet pronounce. Dahn 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that, if that person is redirected from an article which does not make it clear that Bolesław was a king of Poland (and what article is that?), all he would have to do is also read the first line of the article he is being redirected to (if he is not willing to do that, and sits around wandering about the funny letters, then he is not going to be helped by any conceivable article on wikipedia). And how does that address the issue of rulers over multiple countries? Do they become "of Poland" because "Poland should take the lead" (and we know there are plenty examples of this in Poland itself)? The ruler Michael the Brave is not referred to as Michael the Brave of..., because it would be very problematic to stress what he was "of" (read the article for that), and because Anglo-Saxon sources have no problem dropping the "of" when they refer to the entirety of his rule. Dahn 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By declaring that ă does not have an accent you make my point, so what's yours? It is a foreign letter which should be avoided on Wikipedia when there is a standard way of representing it otherwise. You also say "able to read the versions of the name listed in the very first lines of the article": but most articles do not list such variants! Do not tell people to learn Polish pronunciations, that is not the job of an encyclopedia. All that I was saying about confusion was that sometimes redirects are misdirects and a person unfamiliar with the topic could be easily confused. Finally, Dahn, you miss the point as usual. It is not that he is more often called by his nickname. Of course he is, so is William the Conqueror, but he is still found at William I of England. Consistency plays a role. Srnec 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The letter ă is, in informal terms, "a" with something. However, it represents a sound - the schwa, which English does nt feature. All articles for Romania where an English alternative is not present, or is secondary, feature and should feature the marked schwa. Otherwise, wikipedia will start creating its own words. About Michael the Brave, Srnec, you have missed the point entirely ("as usual", if I may quote those smarter than I). This was not about the nickname, but about the fact he couldn't be counted as "of Wallachia", "of Transylvania", "of Moldavia", and certinly not "of Romania", but rather as "of something". Do me the favor of reading the article to see why that is. This also applies to Phanariote rules, where the same Princes have been switched around between Moldavia and Wallachia to the point where it would be idiotic to designate them as "of something". The very same concern was one of the starting points of this debate (given that many "Polish kings" have not ruled just in Poland, but have held equal titulature and throne in Hungary and Bohemia). Polish contributors have shown themselves concerned with mediating all possible visions, and the format they attributed to Polish titles reflects research, work, and finding the best possible solutions. Dahn 21:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't most Polish monarchs be "of Poland"? Most can, some cannot. Those are called exceptions. Every nation has them. Why are they only a problem here. Louis I of Hungary should be moved to Louis the Great, Władysław II Jagiełło to Jagiello. It doesn't matter that William the Conqueror was also duke of Normandy, Normandy is clearly inferior to a crown and the English title takes precedence. Michael the Brave is an exception to a rule, so what? I merely pointed out that Michael the Brave is found at that title not because it is what he is called, but because he has no other place. If the Conqueror had been king of France to boot, he'd be at William the Conqueror and not William I of England. The problem is that these "Polish contributors" failed include others in their decision-making process. I too am concerned with "mediating all possible visions." Srnec 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you tell me that people reading an article mentioning Bolesław I the Brave would have trouble understanding that he was king of Poland unless the reference is turned into Boleslaus of Poland (and, pray tell, what article mentions him without mentioning that he was king of Poland?), then I have to point out that the person involved could never possibly have it clarified what, say, Michael the Brave was in a similar article! If it is not necessary to indicate "king of" in the titles of the articles on the person (which are clickable links), then all the point about it "not being clear enough that x was king" falls apart altogether. I mean, if an article does in fact exist where x is not referenced to as "king of something" (and if God Almighty prevents any wikipedian from adding some words in an editable article that would clarify it), and if the person is not physically impared from clicking the link, but is not able to read the first sentence of the article, then, if the article is anyway one of the exceptions (Michael the Brave, Louis the Great etc.), just looking at the title is not going to clarify his/her dilemma! So, your point about persons "unfamiliar with the topic" (who presumably search wikipedia with a manifest need to remain unfamiliar with any topic) is ineffectual. And if "unfamiliar with the topic" is the concern in naming articles, then, by all means, let's go ahead and rename, say, the article for Narcolepsy, because persons unfamiliar with the topic might not know what it is about unless they actually read the article (which is too much to ask from a person who wants to know what the article is about) or are familiar with Greek ethymologies!
If the names of Polish kings are translatable into English, and if that use is widespread and does not have several versions in English, then they remain in English. However, if Polish was given as the variant (because its predominat use on English-language sources has been shown to keep it, or if the tversions of translation in English fluctuate to the point where they are dismissable), discarding diacritics would be inventing a language. We would not be "forcing people to learn Polish" (I cannot see what that point was prompted by, since the names discussed are themselves in Polish) but respecting the rigours of the Polish language. Of course sources may be indicated that discard the diacritics (I know some Romanian sources that discard diacritics), but that is just because of the prevalence of Internet culture and of generic indiffernce of Anglo-Saxon sources, and not because the text would be more legible that way. As for "wikipedia problems" (of persons who have trouble understanding that the in-brackets part of Categorizing is not to feature diacritics, and of persons who have trouble finding diacritics altogether), they are not only puerile, they are easily correctable. Translate the name into an English version, if the case should arise (Włodzisław to Ladislaus, if Ladislaus is indeed less foreign to Anglo ears), but do not discard diacritics if you pick the Polish version!
All your argument about the modified character in Polish being "different" from diacritics in French or Romanian is absurd: they are diacritics nonetheless, and may or may not stand for different sounds. If we are to say that Ł is unfamiliar to Western eyes (although, by Jello, I fail to see how that is relevant), then you would have no problem with a word that has both Ł and Ś being having Ł turned into L (because it is a modified letter), but Ś remain as Ś because it is a diacritic (like the French cedilla), and thus "more familiar". You would thus not render Łódź as Lodz, but as Lódź!! Unless you are proposing switching to discarding diacritics altogether, which would not only be irrational and improper, it would also lead to absurd situations such as those where diacritics used to represent several sounds in a row would actually be rendered as several sounds in a row (ţ to ts or tz; ş to sh etc.), which would give you words that have never been used in proper English (Piteshti instead of Piteşti etc.).
The Polish contributors have certainly called on others to join them in their attempt to find the best solutions, and the result was achieved through collaboration. It is beyond reproach. Dahn 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Louis the Great" is ambiguous. That name (Louis le Grand) is occasionally used for Louis XIV. I'd add that Louis of Anjou ruled over Hungary for 40 years, and over Poland for just 12 - I think Louis I of Hungary is acceptable. But on the general point I mostly agree with Srnec. I do agree with Dahn that we shouldn't use hybrid forms which include some diacritics but not others. On the other hand, I'm going to suggest that forms like "Piteshti" have actually been used in proper English. On the other hand, sometimes "Pitesti" would be used - it's kind of like the mess with umlauts in German, where, say "Zurich" when written without the umlaut doesn't add the "e," but, say, "Goering" does...there's been no lack of inconsistency in English transcriptions of foreign names. john k 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the poll is "article names of Polish monarchs, diacritics accepted or not", and not "article names of Polish monarchs, translations accepted or not". This is connected to what should be done if the Polish version has the lead. Otherwise, I see no problems with translations where appliable: I can't see any problem with Michael the Brave instead of Mihai Viteazul as the lead; I see no problem with Stephen III of Moldavia etc,. but I would see a problem with an invented translation such as Constantine the Brancovan instead of Constantin Brâncoveanu. I would also have a major problem with Constantin Brancoveanu or Constantine Brancoveanu being the lead, since that could only be reflected in ignorant or indifferent sources. References to "Piteshti" tended to be produced by indifference and total carelessness, but the earliest ones originate with the fact that Romania did not adopt a Latin transliteration until the 1860s, to which the immense majority of Anglo sources has since complied. If we are to title articles without diacritics on one of the grounds cited, being that they hadn't always existed (which is certanly true for Romania, where they came with Latin letters), then all the cities in Romania would switch to an artificial and irrelevant form. Dahn 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dahn. Translate names that can be meaningfully translated (why Henryk I the Brave instead of Henry I the Brave?) but don't drop diacritics to make things "more English". The ł seems to be closer in sound to a w than to an l, so why render it as an l? However, all of these articles should have a {{foreignchar}} explaining the ł for those of our readers who don't have the right fonts installed or would like to know what the ł is. Kusma (討論) 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea. Olessi 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I misunderstood. If we must use Polish names, keep the diacritics. But I would avoid Polish names. Note also, that it is often acceptable to simply remove diacritics to Anglicise. Jagiello is common English usage and the only difference between it and the Polish is the ommission of diacritics. Srnec 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from above "poll" section)

  • In fact I support using internationalized names where possible (Stanislaus rather than Stanisław), but I see no reason not to use diacritics if that's what people want. In short, if the choice is between the original name of Władysław and a name of Wladyslaw invented by those who simply have no clue how to use the proper diacritics - I'm all for Władysław. //Halibutt 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia chooses not to use diacritics. Also, the All American New Desk Encyclopedia does not use diacritics. Other major examples are also available. It's a valid style choice, not just something for people with "no clue". --Elonka 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, if you start a discussion section, then confine your comments to that section. Otherwise, I would have made my perfectly valid objections here, and not there. I also note that a lot of people voting in favor of your point do not actually have a clue about what this is, and you profit from nonsensical comments such as "we use English here" and "Polish nationalism" and "we don't use Cyrillic", who count as opposed but have had no understanding of the detailed implications, as well as from the fact that people who have since nuanced their opinion did not change their "opposed" vote. I urge people to read the discussion section, were we (surprise, surprise) discuss the issue. Dahn 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show respect for the opinions of other editors, let them speak for themselves, do not accuse them of "not having a clue", and do not refer to their comments as "nonsensical". I recommend re-reading WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Elonka 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me rephrase. They do not address the issue. Read me the question of this poll, and tell me where it is indicated that names should not be translated into English wherever possible. This is about using diacritics in names we agree for various reasons should be rendered in Polish - if you do that, then you render those names in Polish, and not in Elonka language. Many people taking this pole have not taken this into account, and I feel they are replying out of instinct or general view on the world, and not because they are aware of the complications involved. Again, I urge people to drop their preconceptions (about this being equatable to the use of Cyrillic, about this being about nationalism, about the fact that the alternative proposal would even be feasable or desireable) and consider the implications. Dahn 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Elonka language"?  :) --Elonka 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from above "poll" section)

  • Polish spelling must be given at least once, in the beginning of an article (or first occurrence of a name in an article). Same goes to Russian, Ukrainian, and other languages. As for the article titles only, the main article could be entitled with the 'traditional' form of a name in question, with redirects for spelling variations (see, for example, Tadeusz Zieliński →Faddei Zielinski). Barbatus 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be a misunderstanding of the proposal. Of course the Polish spelling should be given at the beginning of the article; in fact, I could support the Polish spelling being the only bolded rext (provided the diacritics show up). This, however, deals only with the article title. Septentrionalis 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do agree that Barbatus has misunderstood this, but so have you. I'll post this again: Read me the question of this poll, and tell me where it is indicated that names should not be translated into English wherever possible. This is about using diacritics in names we agree for various reasons should be rendered in Polish - if you do that, then you render those names in Polish. For my full point, please see the discussion just below. Dahn 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dahn, few users "agree for various reasons [that these names] should be rendered in Polish." Many respectable sources simply use the Polish names with diacritics omitted. The title of the article should be rendered in English, but that is another matter. I don't, as an Anglophone, see a probelm with Wladyslaw because it has no diacritics and neither would most people. Srnec 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Srnec, this is a complicated issue to handle, as proven by the fact that you still did not get my point. If you want to quote me properly, do not imply that I would have said "[that these names] should be rendered in Polish" - the part in brackets ought to be rendered as "[those names where an English translation is incosistent and does not have a single version, where the use of Polish is sanctioned by a considerable number of English-speaking sources, as well as those who are seldomly refered to in English-speaking sources, and thus rendering another version would be artificial and language-inventing; those cases and only those cases]". If few people would agree to that, then few people understand the implications. The example you provided is perfect proof of the complication: translate Władysław as Ladislaus in those cases where that is sanctioned by Anglo sources and in notable use; if you stick with Władysław (for another article, where Anglo sources do not agree on Ladislaus), then do not render it as Wladyslaw, since the name you have provided would be in Polish (and not in English). I believe that two topics have been abusively merged into one - since there are no diacritics in "Ladislaus" and "Stanislas", you would have to agree with me that this indicates Polish use is not acceptable in some instances. Note that this is not just connected with "Polish monarchs": if we digest and let it pass that people should oppose diacritics on principle, then the precedent would apply to pages where that criteria would be even more bewildering. What's next? Polish towns and cities? Romanian towns and cities? Moldavian rulers? (In the latter case, I challenge anyone to come up with a relevant "template" other than diacritics and/or English translations). How far will this allergy to diacritics expand? Will wikipedians begin removing all diacritics on sight? And, if they come up telling me that "no, some diacritics are acceptable", even if English has no diacritics, then "this is an English-language wikipedia" makes no sense in hell as a point to raise on this page, and neither is "diacritics make my eyes sore". Let us actually try and understand what the issue is. Dahn 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • [T]hose names where an English translation is incosistent [sic] and does not have a single version. What cases are those? By inconsistent do you mean having more than one acceptable English translation (which renders your second statement, "does not have a single version," redunant)? I don't care which English translation is used and few other do either. As long as all common variants are included in the article somewhere, it is insignificant whether it is "Boleslas" or "Boleslaus," for example.
[W]here the use of Polish is sanctioned by a considerable number of English-speaking sources. Do you want inconsistency? Casimir is predominant over Kazimierz in English works, as is John over Jan, but Władysław is more common than Ladislaus. Since Ladislaus is definitely an acceptable and used translation, why not apply it for consistency on an English encyclopedia?
[A]s well as those who are seldomly refered to in English-speaking sources, and thus rendering another version would be artificial and language-inventing. Not language-inventing, nobody needs to invent any words here, just apply them. They may be rarer in books, but this isn't a book by a single author and it isn't a scholarly publication, it's an encyclopedia and for that, Anglicisations should be preferred even when their use in scholarship is uncommon. I am not suggesting Anglicising Zbigniew, it's its own English form.
All I'm saying is that the simple omission of diacritics in proper names is not a scholarly taboo and is done. References have already been given on too many discussion pages to name. Apply the Manual of Style to Polish monarchs like all others and things will work out fine. I suspect you think that the merging of these two topics is "abusive" because you know it will end in many changes to Polish nomenclature which you oppose. Other than this, most of your statements are strawmen: nobody suggested removing all diacritics on sight. Srnec 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What cases are those? One quick example (because you haven't been able to bump into the countless cases where this has been addressed): Władysław III Spindleshanks, Władysław III Laskonogi, Wladislaus III Spindleshanks, Ladislaus Spindleshanks, Ladislaus Laskonogi, Vladislaus III Laskonogi, and, with your kind permission Wladyslaw Spindleshanks, Wladyslaw III Laskonogi... Which is more acceptable, pray tell? Do we call you as official censor to tell us?
By inconsistent do you mean having more than one acceptable English translation (which renders your second statement, "does not have a single version," redunant [sic])? While I was a bit unclear with my answer, I meant even more than "several versions out there" - I meant "even several versions in the same text" (I don't know if it applies to Polish rulers, but I have seen oldish Anglo sources switch whimsically from Stephen to Ştefan to Stefan for Moldavian rulers).
Since Ladislaus is definitely an acceptable and used translation, why not apply it for consistency on an English encyclopedia? How the hell does this address the issue of diacritics? Do you see any diacritics in "Ladislaus"? If, for whatever reasons, an article title has kept its version in Polish, then render it in Polish (and not "Polish without diacritics". Plus, if you imply that rulers who have never been referred to as "Ladislaus" in Anglo sources (but rather as "Vladislaus", "Wladyslaw", "Władysław" or whatever), then you would be Solomon cutting the baby inhalf - applying some rule where no one ever has or should (virtually or foreign given names in European countries have a translation version - if you imply that wikipedia should be the first or one of the first to use an unattested translated version of a name, we should up and do that for contemporary politicians, such as a John Elison instead of Ion Iliescu)
All I'm saying is that the simple omission of diacritics in proper names is not a scholarly taboo and is done. I think it is obvious that the Manula of Style has its limits tested with Polish monarchs. I have challenged you and anyone to tell me how that Manual could work for List of rulers of Moldavia and for List of rulers of Wallachia. It is the very same: translate the name where the translation makes sense, but do not omit the diacritics when virtually no one before you ever has, or when those sources that had where simply lacking in the diacritic fonts field or unwilling to look into the matter (an Anglo source referring to Alexandru Lăpuşneanu as Lapusneanu (or even Lapushneanu, which is grotesque) would also refer to the city of Botoşani as Botosani or Botoshani.
I suspect you think that the merging of these two topics is "abusive" because you know it will end in many changes to Polish nomenclature which you oppose. Don't suspect things that I have made clear. People taking this poll have understood that there is opposition to translating names on principle, and their position reflects a resentment of diacritics in general (and it should be clear by now that an opposition to diacritics in general is unacceptable)
Other than this, most of your statements are strawmen: nobody suggested removing all diacritics on sight. Again: removal on sight from article titles. If it is acceptable for me to say that "this is an English-language wikipedia", and thus imply that all diacritics should be discarded in all article titles (without even proposing what they should be replaced with), then two issues ave indeed been merged into one, with very different reasons and results. Add to this that "Wladyslaw" would be neither in English nor Polish, so opening an article with the line "Wladyslaw etc. (Polish: Władysław etc.)" would be completely idiotic. Dahn 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is obvious that the Manula of Style has its limits tested with Polish monarchs. I have addressed this elsewhere: only for monarchs of the fragmentation period.
I have challenged you and anyone to tell me how that Manual could work for List of rulers of Moldavia and for List of rulers of Wallachia. I have not even looked at those articles because the use of "rulers" in the title tells me that we are not dealing with something clear-cut, but also because they are not independent states. Whether or not the MoS applies in all cases is moot here. It applies in this case.
[W]ithout even proposing what they should be replaced with. I've proposed they be replaced by English-language titles, which do exist in all cases. Vladislaus is fine, Zbignew is fine. You should remember that most English people don't speak or read Polish and vice versa: that's why the Polish Wiki translates English monarch's names.
My response is short because I do not wish to continue this conversation forever. I will instead provide a list of titles for each and every Polish monarch which I think are acceptable. It will be consistent and systematic. It should be forthcoming within a day or two and will be posted on this talk page for discussion and perhaps voting. Srnec 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have addressed this elsewhere: only for monarchs of the fragmentation period. Let me stress this agai: you have a problem with Władysław, right? Then, which is the "English" version? Ladislaus, Vladislaus, Wladislaus, or the (incorrect more than actually "English") Wladislaw?
No, it is because they had several titles to refer to the very same position, and because the list was aimed at covering those who ruled the countries de facto, but not de iure (such as Tudor Vladimirescu); some of them were independent, some where not - but their regime was usually comparable to that of the kings of Bavaria to the Holy Emperors. I'm sorry I did not ask for your exceptional expertise at an earlier stage, and have instead relied on what I know and not on what you presume.
I've proposed they be replaced by English-language titles, which do exist in all cases. What are you answering to? Are you actually proposing we do the same for cities and rivers? Gee-wow... If you didn't bother reading all my reply, and are just answering to the same lines you think I use, then note that, where an "English" (I wish to know just how English either Ladislaus or Vladislaus or Wladislaus are) version exist in all cases, it is not a single version. You react with the usual allergy against Władysław, and "protect the English language" by supporting an English version, yet you have no clue as to what that English version ought to be (never mind that you have switched to supporting both Ladislaus and Vladislaus now, while initially you were calling me to order for not supporting Wladyslaw!) And, pray tell where in hell I would have opposed translating the names (you keep coming up with "You should remember that most English people don't speak or read Polish and vice versa: that's why the Polish Wiki translates English monarch's names", as if I would have ever questioned translating as a rule, and as if this poll itself would be about translating!). Dahn 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you actually proposing we do the same for cities and rivers? Where the hell do you get this from!? I never said or implied that.
[N]ever mind that you have switched to supporting both Ladislaus and Vladislaus now, while initially you were calling me to order for not supporting Wladyslaw! Again, what the hell does this mean? I never switched. I have a preference for Ladislaus, but there are other used versions which are equally acceptable and more acceptable than Władysław. Wladyslaw is more acceptable than Władysław, diacritics are not useful here and as I've said before, they are regularly removed in scholarly and reference works.
allergy against Władysław. I only have an allergy to Polonisations on an English Wiki.
I do not respond to the whole of your rants because most of your statements are either nonsensical or false. You say, "the same lines you think I use," but it is not I who think, you think so: I am quoting you! "[Y]ou have no clue as to what that English version ought to be": but I have stated what it ought to be on numerous occassions! Please, do justice to yourself and formulate a more thoughtful (and better worded) response next time. Srnec 18:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about answering to all that was asked, and not points selected by you? Władysław: not an English word; Ladislaus, Vladislaus, Wladislaus: English versions; Wladislaw: a both non-English and non-Polish word; do you understand this, or should I take out a napkin and draw it out for you? "Władysław" is not a Polonisation of "Wladyslaw", my friend - it is the goddamn word! I have presented you with a question dealing with common sense: if you "have a preference for Ladislaus" as an alternative for "Władysław", but "Vladislaus" and "Wladislaus" are both acceptable and English versions, then: 1. all the debate about diacritics was of shit relevance; 2, pray tell us, o mighty one, which version of the one considered "English" would take the lead and why? Dahn 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because most of what you ask is pointless. I don't know if Wladislaw is ever used in English, but I know I've never claimed it is. I've claimed that Wladyslaw is used in English and here are some sources: Online Britannica[5], Webster's Desk Encyclopedia, and Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary. You can put your napkin away. Now to answer your questions:
[A]ll the debate about diacritics was of shit relevance. Basically, yes. But it does show that most people don't even like the Polonisations. These are Polonisations. There were no diacritics in the Middle Ages, nor were most documents written in Polish: they were written in Latin. Modern Polish has no better claim than modern English to be the correct medium for these monarchs names.
[W]hich version of the one considered "English" would take the lead and why. I said I have a preference for Ladislaus, as do the Online Columbia[6] and the Oxford Dictionaries of English (2nd revised edition) and of World History. Any version sans diacritics is better than Władysław and is used in English (as is Władysław), but the versions that approximate the Latin have a greater history in English. Mighty One 19:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've claimed that Wladyslaw is used in English and here are some sources: Online Britannica[7], Webster's Desk Encyclopedia, and Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary. You can put your napkin away. Where the hell did I add "Wladislav"? Let me say this again: Władysław is a Polish word which may be rendered as Wladislaw by the ignorant (people who do not know how to use diacritics) and the indifferent (sources where Polish words in general are given without diacritics).
If "most people here dislike Polonisations" (and, again Władysław is not "the Polonisation" of Wladyslaw, because Wladyslaw would not exist at all in the absence of Władysław), then it makes perfect sense for me to ask them what they think about diacritics in Polish town and rivers, diacritics in Romanian rulers' names, etc. (hell, even in goddamn French names, since they prolly wouldn't all share Srnec's para-logical interpretation of diacritics as accents). Are we going to listen to them and their ludicrously un-orthodox suggestion?
I said I have a preference for Ladislaus And how is it of any relevance what you prefer? If English versions fluctuate, why should we listen to Srnec? Because Srnec is not yet aware that the very implication of this poll is that some people, who do not reject the notion that Polish may have prevalence over the shaky and un-regulated use of English in some cases, have simply begun by questioning the way a language they neither speak nor regulate spells its own words? Dahn 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your English is getting worse. You now say "Wladislav." You are correct in that you've never said that before, but I never claimed you did. You definitely said "Wladislaw", which I never claimed was proper English. Wladyslaw would not exist at all in the absence of Władysław, but that doesn't prove that Władysław is not a Polonisation. It is not contemporary and good old Jogaila would never have recognised it, it is a modern Polish form with as much basis on historical usages as the Anglicisations.
It is a fact that letters with diacritics are different from otherwise identical letters without diacritics in most Slavic languages: that is, they are treated as different letters. In French, they are the same letter and are treated as such in dictionaries. English can import accents, but not foreign letters: how is this para-logic? Furthermore, I never suggested avoiding all diacritics and you seem to think that's an implication of my logic, but it is not. Things should be rendered in their most common English name, in some instances they are not Anglicised: thus Taranto and Palermo, but Rome and Venice.
I never claimed my preference was better than any other. I have never come close to questioning Polish spellings: it is you who question English usage! Srnec 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, crap. Let us note again that this poll is about opposition to diacritics. Let me repeat that: opposition to diacritics. Which means: not opposition to Ladislaus, but opposition to Władysław. Let me repeat that: not opposition to Ladislaus, but opposition to Władysław. The solution proposed by most people here who have voted "opposed" is to discard diacritics from spellings (all spellings! perhaps all discritics wherever!), not to translate the translatable. The translation itself, Srnec (the translation, Srnec, i.e.: Ladislaus=translation, Wladyslaw=/=translation) has several variants, in many cases for the same ruler - it is problematic which one to pick, and any further debate on that issue would require a case-by-case analysis and much, much more implication and awareness of the issues involved than people such as little Timmy who answered "this is an English-language wikipedia, therefore drop all diacritics" have been shown to have.
To clarify something, Srnec: I have never suggested that you would yourself recommend dropping diacritics wherever. I have suggested that a lot of answers on this page seem to point towards that solution, that you have fraudulently used this without-relevance attitude to back your point ("many people here seem to dislike etc."), and that your system itself is whimsical (without general applicability, without seemingly being enforcable as a single rule, and without any relation with the question of this very poll).
If you are concerned about what Jogaila would have called himself in Polish, let me clarify something for you: the use of Polish today should be considered the main reference for the use of Polish yesterday, just as Pinyin is the official Latin rendition of Chinese, and just as the Romanian Latin alphabet is to be the proper rendition of Romanian words in the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet (I would like to stress this one last example, because, much like the letter Ñ in Spanish and other languages, the existence of Â, Ă, Ş etc. as different letters renders your belief that Ł is "a special case" completely BOGUS). Dahn 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, crap. Let us note again that this poll is about opposition to diacritics. Let me repeat that: opposition to diacritics. Which means: not opposition to Ladislaus, but opposition to Władysław. Let me repeat that: not opposition to Ladislaus, but opposition to Władysław. The solution proposed by most people here who have voted "opposed" is to discard diacritics from spellings (all spellings! perhaps all discritics wherever!), not to translate the translatable.
Absolutely it is about diacritics, but about diacritics in Polish monarchs' titles, not diacritics everywhere. As best I can tell, Boleslaw and Wladyslaw (to use just two prime examples) are not uncommon in English literature and they only differ from the Polish spellings by the absence of diacritics. You assume that most people have voted to remove perhaps all diacritics wherever, but as you yourself say, that is not what the poll is about. I prefer Wladyslaw over Władysław, hence my vote, though I prefer Ladislaus to both.
  • The translation itself, Srnec (the translation, Srnec, i.e.: Ladislaus=translation, Wladyslaw=/=translation) has several variants, in many cases for the same ruler - it is problematic which one to pick, and any further debate on that issue would require a case-by-case analysis and much, much more implication and awareness of the issues involved than people such as little Timmy who answered "this is an English-language wikipedia, therefore drop all diacritics" have been shown to have.
You are wrong in that Wladyslaw is acceptable English, even if it is not exactly a "translation." Ladislaus is in fact a contemporary Latinisation and predates the use of diacritics, as I've said many times before. I think most people could arrive at a consensus or other agreement over which Latin/English variant to use if they all agree to discard the Polish. It would not require a case-by-case analysis, just a debate on a set of rules: or whether the MoS guidelines should have been discarded at all in the first place. Until "little Timmy" actually says "no diacritics allowed ever," I'm going to ignore that comment, I just wish "little Mikołaj" would stop saying "all Poland-related articles need Polish titles."
  • To clarify something, Srnec: I have never suggested that you would yourself recommend dropping diacritics wherever. I have suggested that a lot of answers on this page seem to point towards that solution, that you have fraudulently used this without-relevance attitude to back your point ("many people here seem to dislike etc."), and that your system itself is whimsical (without general applicability, without seemingly being enforcable as a single rule, and without any relation with the question of this very poll).
So you admit that your arguments directed towards me were not in fact directed towards what I had said? No, you admit that most people here are misinformed as to what the poll is about, but nevertheless they are opposed Władysław. This just shows that most are in fact opposed to the current nomenclature and my claims, far from being "fraudulent," were absolutely true and even admitted by you when you rant against people's ignorance. I have given no system yet, so how can you describe it as "whimsical" and "without general applicability"? You have once again created a strawman and successfully beat it down, now let me set it aflame so we can move on to what I actually said.
  • If you are concerned about what Jogaila would have called himself in Polish, let me clarify something for you: the use of Polish today should be considered the main reference for the use of Polish yesterday, just as Pinyin is the official Latin rendition of Chinese, and just as the Romanian Latin alphabet is to be the proper rendition of Romanian words in the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet.
The use of Polish today is not the main reference for medieval Polish, just as modern English is not the primary reference for Old and Middle English. Pinyin as a system of Latinisation has no bearing on this because Chinese uses characters, but Polish is written in a form of the Latin alphabet. English translates Romanian words. If you are refering to Romanian proper nouns, well some will be untranslated, but some are translated: see Bucharest. Again, the bearing of all this on the issue at hand is not clear. Jogaila would certainly never have spelled his name with diacritics, and what's more, he probably would have used Latin in most cases, rarely if ever Polish. So that question was answered.
  • I would like to stress this one last example, because, much like the letter Ñ in Spanish and other languages, the existence of Â, Ă, Ş etc. as different letters renders your belief that Ł is "a special case" completely BOGUS.
I have never called Ł "a special case" and by putting that in quotation marks as if I did is dishonest. I have merely claimed that most Romance languages work differently from most Slavic ones when it comes to diacritics (accents etc.). Ç is not a different letter from C to the French, but Ł is not L to the Polish. Get it? Ñ is a special case, actually. The Spanish regard it as a different letter (like rr, but not always ch and ll), but nevertheless do not list it as separate in dictionaries anymore. I merely argue that adding foreign letters is different from keeping foreign accents. Nota bene: that, in and of itself, does not disqualify Władysław. Srnec 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it is about diacritics, but about diacritics in Polish monarchs' titles, not diacritics everywhere. But Timmy did not understand this, and Timmy told us that it is not English and that it made his eyes sore. Get it?
As best I can tell, Boleslaw and Wladyslaw (to use just two prime examples) are not uncommon in English literature and they only differ from the Polish spellings by the absence of diacritics. Srnec, focus a moment and read where I had told you that those sources never use Polish or any diacritics - hence, they are unquotable (for two disitinct rasons: 1. the names not translated but without diacritics are mutations of Polish, not English and not Polish per se; so, if a name is given in its Polish form - not Ladislaus, not Wladislaus - that form should feature diacritics; 2. discarding diacritics on the basis of that would encourage Timmy to assume that Polish does not have diacritics at all, and even to start this inanity wrking for articles not connected with this topic.)
You assume that most people have voted to remove perhaps all diacritics wherever, but as you yourself say, that is not what the poll is about. They have not "voted to remove diacritics wherever", they have indicated that they believe that to be the solution, and even that they understand this to be connected to that (look through the poll and check out some of the answers, Srnec: "we don't use Cyrillic", "Oppose Polish consonant diacritics in general", "Diacritics in article titles provide many inconveniences and basically uselss for English readers who mostly see and easily recognize these names in plain letters", etc.).
I prefer Wladyslaw over Władysław, hence my vote, though I prefer Ladislaus to both. Well, good for you. Perhaps what you like could pass into official English every damn time, and we'll pretend that we have not noticed the lack of language regulators in English.
You are wrong in that Wladyslaw is acceptable English, even if it is not exactly a "translation." Ladislaus is in fact a contemporary Latinisation and predates the use of diacritics, as I've said many times before. Where on Earth do you see me denying that Ladislaus would be acceptable, Srnec? This is the fraudulence I am talking about: you take my comments about Wladyslaw being only a careless and Victorian-legacy transcription of a Polish word and turn it into a comment I would have about Ladislaus. If Jogaila spelled the name like that, use it like that: but if you were to pick Władysław for whatever reasons, you keep the diacritics. Can you see how this works?
It would not require a case-by-case analysis, just a debate on a set of rules: or whether the MoS guidelines should have been discarded at all in the first place. That debate has taken place to the point (and not to the vague and half-witted question raised by this poll). Also: no matter what alternative list you come up with, the reasonable use of Polish rests with the fact taht, as was proven to you by now, aside from some examples, the versions in English and Latin vary and vary and vary, whereas the Polish version is one. I am appaled that you have not yet made note of that: is it that you were to busy yesterday giving birth to that absurdity about people not being able to read full articles, or because you know that you simply have no point in hell?
The use of Polish today is not the main reference for medieval Polish, just as modern English is not the primary reference for Old and Middle English. Pinyin as a system of Latinisation has no bearing on this because Chinese uses characters, but Polish is written in a form of the Latin alphabet. English translates Romanian words. If you are refering to Romanian proper nouns, well some will be untranslated, but some are translated: see Bucharest. And I need to explain even this to you... Look: Bucharest is to Bucureşti what Ladislaus is to Władysław (ie: acceptable and traditional), whereas Bucuresti would be to Bucureşti what Wladyslaw is to Władysław (ie: abhorrent). I had asked you to inform yourself on the existence of the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet, for which (obvious reasons why that is), modern Romanian should be the first transcription (like Pinyin); see also the "Constintine the Brancovan" issue that was raised. This is to be extended to Polish words in relation to English: IF (note this word, read it: it's two letters long) the Polish word makes obvious sense as the article title (for reasons given above and throughout), then today's spelling should take precedence for two reasons: 1. the Poles ought to have a monoploy on their language (and that word would be in their language); 2. the old spellings will vary and vary and vary, while the old version is destined to remain one.
I have never called Ł "a special case" and by putting that in quotation marks as if I did is dishonest. I have merely claimed that most Romance languages work differently from most Slavic ones when it comes to diacritics (accents etc.). Ç is not a different letter from C to the French, but Ł is not L to the Polish. Get it? Ñ is a special case, actually. The Spanish regard it as a different letter (like rr, but not always ch and ll), but nevertheless do not list it as separate in dictionaries anymore. I merely argue that adding foreign letters is different from keeping foreign accents. Why the hell would it matter what they are refernced as in Polish etc. dictionaries? To an onlooker with no knowledge of Polish etc., and that is what we were talking about, they either they all are or are not different from the letters without diacritics. If you meant to indicate that an accent does not mark a different sound and is not counted as a different letter, you are wrong (check out the Polish alphabet and review the issue of Lodz/Łódź/Lódź); if you imply that diacritic marks in general do not mark different sounds (which would make Ł an exception, together with, according to your theory, only other Slavic languages), you're wrong (with the exception of French, Italian, and perhaps other languages, that is the goddamn purpose of diacritics! if you want Romance languages, check out Romanian). If anyone is advising dropping diacritics on the basis of such drives, that person should return to coloring books.
that, in and of itself, does not disqualify Władysław. So then why mention it in the first place?

Your condescension is beginning to disgust me. You call Wladyslaw "abhorrent" and insult for making my preference for Ladislaus known. Well your belief that Wladyslaw is abhorrent is not shared by a majority of Wikipedians or English speakers. You say you're appalled that I haven't noticed that Polish is superior ("more reasonable") because English and Latin versions vary but the Polish does not. Why? Why on earth should I accept that argument? You attack my arguments as based on "whims," but how are yours different? Why can't we just pick an English variant and not the Polish one. The reason the English is preferable (though it varies) is that nobody knows how to pronounce those crazy diacritics and they shouldn't be forced to, at least not when viable translations exist. Your user page claims that you know English at a professional level. I will address every point you make when you start to make them more cogently. Srnec 04:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a comment to mine immediately above. This argument is becoming less civil and I don't wish to be a part of it. I will note that my only claim is that there is no reason to title Polish monarchs of the eras before and after the fragmentation other than as the Manual of Style (and WP:UE) indicate. This means using a form "English Name + Ordinal + of Poland". There may be a few exceptions to this rule, as there are with many monarchies. My opposition to diacritics stems from the fact that they are not known to or comprehended by most Anglophones and are omitted by many respectable reference works which I have listed above. These works keep forms like Boleslaw and Wladyslaw which you find aborrhent. I believe these forms are superior to the Polish names in an English encyclopaedia, but inferior to Anglicisations. I do not wish to participate in any further digressions. If you have any argument to make with my boldened comments above, then make it. Otherwise, let previous quarrels die: I do not care to continue to talk about what diacritics mean in different languages to their respective speakers. Srnec 04:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could not see this anywhere else, see it here: Wladyslaw would perhaps not be abhorrent as much as it would be whimsical in a source that does not use diacritics at all (and I myself am appalled at the sheer number of sources which fail to do that, as I have mentioned); it can and it is abhorrent if, when understood as "the English version" and not the Władysław-with-diacritics-taken out version that it is, referenced as such, it is carried around in the name of articles on a wikipedia which can and does use diacritics, and all for the sake of Timmy.
Why? Why on earth should I accept that argument? Well, it is quite simple: because picking a title would imply picking a single version. One. Multiple versions=multiple titles. Single versions=single title. I had never said that this should become general rule (hence my belief in case-by-case, which you rejected), I had indicated to you why the use of Polish in articles is an issue, and why the Polish form may still be considered acceptable over the many English ones.
The reason the English is preferable (though it varies) is that nobody knows how to pronounce those crazy diacritics and they shouldn't be forced to, at least not when viable translations exist. Not only have I answered some time ago about why that is, according to case, of no consequence or simply untrue, you don't seem to understand that even a guide on pronounciation (if that were indeed necessary for a written text) is available on wikipedia - it has even been suggested that the character itself be given a for those utterly lost in trying to answer such questions on their own (namely: Timmy).
Other than that, I personally don't care if you do reply anymore. All you did up to now was to advocate the problem as a solution to itself. Dahn 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrages at Intewikis

[edit]

Hey to all the Polish nationalist crowd who want to change English Wikipedia article titles to Polish in violtion of WP:UE. Could you take it easy on English Wikipedia for a while and cruise over to the Italian, French, German, Hungarian, or Czech Wikipedias. There are plenty of outrageous pages using their native language names for "Polish" rulers there. (E.g. it:Ladislao II di Polonia, fr:Ladislas II Jagellon, de:Wladyslaw II. Jagiello, hu:II. Ulászló lengyel király, cs:Vladislav II. Jagello ) Why should they be allowed to flaunt their opposition to the dictates of Polish nationalism while English Wikipedia is the sole target. Go over and harass them for a change. AjaxSmack 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point entirely. Nobody is discarding the use in English for those pages where such a use is justified. Plus, this was not about "translating names", but about discarding diacritics and modified characters in those pages where people agree the Polish name should not be translated for various reasons. The implication that this is done "because of nationalism" shows that you have not been paying attention to anything on relevant pages. Dahn 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if there is no English name. But what is "where such a use is justified"? If it's English, it's inherently justified over a second language per WP:UE. My point was that it seems that interested parties only object to English Wikipedia using native English forms but not other language InterWikis. AjaxSmack 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let us say that picking a Polish name is never justified. Then why are we having a debate about whether we should keep diacritics or not? The automatic implication is that people here agree that maintaining a Polish form is the thing to do in a number of cases - because an English translation does not have diacritics.
To the "why that should be". Well, you see, in many cases an English translation would lead to creating an artificial, nowhere-before ever used name (or very rarely used) - such as Constantine the Brancovan (which, in theory, may exist, but I have just though of it right now: most Anglo sources have no problem with Constantin Brâncoveanu); it is also problematic that Anglo sources may not translate the name at all, even if it is translatable (such as Carol I of Romania, who may easilly be turned into Charles I of Romania); it is also problematic that, in certain cases, the Anglo sources simply don't agree on what the translation should be (either by combining translated and non-translated parts of a title, or by providing several versions for a name). Perhaps irrelevant to this context, but the situation may also arise where the name of a ruler is not translatable at all even inside European cultures: Romanian names like Radu, Şerban, Rāzvan have no other version in English. Dahn 14:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you of WP:CIVIL?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure can, after all, he reminded you of WP:UE. Srnec 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight difference. There are exceptions to WP:UE. I am not aware there are any to WP:CIVIL :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what WP:UE said? Well... "There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus." Szopen 07:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General English usage omits the diacritics. Regardless of polls of Wikipedians, WP:UE makes it clear what general English usage is. But I don't even think that Wladyslaw is general English usage. This is an encyclopedia, a book can use whatever forms its author wants, but an encyclopedia should stick to English forms. If I were writing about medieval Spain, I might well refer to Fernando I of Castilla and not Ferdinand I of Castile, but at Wikipedia, it is Ferdinand. Srnec 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody said that Wladyslaw is general English usage? I think the argument made is that for that name, at least, there isn't any form in general English usage. In such cases, it makes sense to stick with the native version, rather than arbitrarily choosing one of a number of different latinizations/anglicizations. john k 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody (as far as I'm aware) has claimed that any name is general English usage. There doesn't seem to be a consensus in scholarly or popular literature in English. I was merely quoting WP:UE, which does implicitly claim that Wladyslaw is more general at least than Władysław. There is a problem with the "native version" because the Latinisations are at least as native! They even have the benefit of being contemporaneous. Most writings come down to us in Latin from the epoch of most of these rulers. Diacritics postdate most of them too. Thes modern Polish versions have no better claim to be "correct" than any Latin form or Anglicisation. Srnec 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...yes. It's all rather a complete mess, huh? john k 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I will not dare suggest the existence of a "Polish cabal," because no such thing actually exists, it is interesting to note that the Polish Wiki titles English monarchs with their name, in Polish, their ordinal, and their nickname: the same form that certain editors who happen to be of Polish extraction have used for Polish monarchs here. I assume that it is common Polish form. However, it is not best-suited for an English encyclopedia and some people just need to realise that. The problem with Polish monarchs is that though those after and before the fragmentation can be named according to the MoS (and should be), but those during the Seniorate are more difficult to manage. We need to establish rules for such "monarchs." Finally, note that while John Sobieski may predominate over John III of Poland, William the Conqueror is far more common than William I of England, yet he is found at the latter title. Srnec 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts here. My view, as I've said over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) is that for some monarchs it seems weird not to give a surname or a nickname, while for other monarchs, even if they are quite usually referred to by their nickname, it does not appear odd to leave it out. I'm not trying to claim that the artificial wiki form "William I of England" is more common than "William the Conqueror." What I am saying is that referring to William the Conqueror as "William I of England" does not seem that weird, while referring to John Sobieski as just "John III of Poland" does seem weird. This is a completely subjective argument, I guess, but I still think there's something to it. YMMV. john k 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and the argument, though subjective, would apply well to authoring a book or to the body text of an article, but the title should follow a consistently-applied standard. Srnec 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are several different forked discussions about this subject, going on around Wikipedia. As an attempt to try and clarify things a bit, here's a list:

Other policy discussions related to this topic can be found at:

--Elonka 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on usage of diacritics in Polish monarchic titles in other reference works

[edit]

Encyclopediae

[edit]
  • Grand Duke Jagiello (New American Desk Encyclopedia, under "Lithuania")
  • Jagielło (Władysław II) (New Catholic Encyclopedia)
  • Ladislaus II, king of Poland (Online Columbia) [8]
  • Ladislas Jagiello (Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages )
  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Online Britannica)[9]
  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Webster's Desk Encyclopedia)
  • Władysław II (Encarta) [10]
  • Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland (1979 Brittanica, under "Jagiellon dynasty")
  • Władysław II Jagiełło and Jadwiga (1979 Brittanica, combined article title)
  • Władysław II Jagielło (Poland) (Lithuanian: Jogaila; c. 1351–1434) (Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World)[11]
  • Władysław II Jagiełło, King of Poland (1975 Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia under "Lithuania")

Dictionaries

[edit]
  • Vladislav II (The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
  • Ladislaus II (The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised))
  • Ladislaus II (Oxford Dictionary of World History)
  • Jagiello (Wladyslaw II) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)


Generally on anglicized names

[edit]

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" (form "Stanislaus" is apparently 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."

7. Norman Davies God's Playground - ?

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Please note, that in the poll above,

are confirmed sockpuppets [12] -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish consorts

[edit]

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

Was Anna a monarch of Poland?

[edit]

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

Naming conventions

[edit]

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

As nobody has objected over the past day or so I have now proposed a block move at Alexander Jagiellon. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Merge from List of kings of Poland

[edit]

Is there a reason for two lists? There is this one and List of kings of Poland. Would not one list be better? --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two lists are essentially the same, so I agree with you. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 13:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The list of monarchs is the more complete (and standard) article. Harsimaja (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed claimants

[edit]

The guys who claimed to be king but never actually ruled (like the Maximillians, etc.) should be either separated out, as is done over at List of English monarchs or just removed.

Also, I do think it's better to have images which show the likeliness of the actual people rather than their tombstones, which can be hard to make out even with high quality images.VolunteerMarek 16:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Tsars

[edit]

From 1815 to the Revolution in 1830, the Russian Tsars also ruled above Poland as Kings of Poland. They have to stand in the list, please.
--TheHeroWolf (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work, but weren't they titular kings of Poland and rulers of Finland? --User:Oliszydlowski (Talk) 8:41pm, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This list is about monarchs of independent Poland, with native rulers. Foreign (Partition-era) rulers - Russian Tsars, Austrian Emperors and Prussian Kings - are already listed at List of rulers of Partitioned Poland, and that solution is very good IMHO. We should keep monarchs of independent Poland and rulers of partitioned Poland in separate lists. --User:Sundostund (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were "titular kings" only after the revolution of 1830, but until 1830 they were kings. And yes, they also were Grand Princes of Finland. And because the Grand Duke of Warsaw is listed, the Russian Tsars can be too. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd to separate so-called "Independent" rulers that werent even such, for example isn't the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth not "independent poland"? Tsars ruled as Kings of Poland, Austrian Emperor and Prussian Kings were never "king of Poland". Henry III of France is listed. To exclude Tsars is just bigotry, they were legally recognized and there was no other polish government at the time. Also, Poland was de jure independent. To say otherwise it to not include the Queen of Britain as the Queen of Canada and to say Canada isn't independent because it has the same monarch so "It doesn't count". Simply put the exclusion is mere sentimentality and doesn't have place in an objective presentation of facts. --181.26.9.58 (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jesus the King of Poland now?

[edit]

A few sources (including CBN, VICE, and Breitbart) are reporting that Poland has declared Jesus as its King. I am assuming this is like having Mary as the Queen of Poland and not worth listing, but since zhwp is going crazy with this I think I need some clarification. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 17:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sejm declared Jesus king, so yes, this is true. He was officially declared king in ceremony with Polish president: [13].--Volodya's song (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That belongs in Catholic Church in Poland, not here. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be this ridiculous. A carpenter who died 2000 years ago on another continent is not the monarch of Poland. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is should be closed indefinitely. Especially coming in from a vandal like User:Volodya. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it come from "a vandal" like the government of Poland? --181.26.9.58 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it's official law. No reason it shouldn't be listed here. 2601:C3:100:49B0:80DA:BA40:1CE5:9053 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not official law by any means. Moreover, no source of this claim. Merangs (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boleslaw picture is too big

[edit]

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

Polish monarchs of 1815-1863

[edit]

the congress kingdom of poland was a kingdom in personal union with the russian empire UnsungHistory (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs&oldid=1246080043"