Talk:Emerik Derenčin

title

 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Emeric+Derencsényi%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - 0 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Emerik+Derencsényi%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - 2 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mirko+Derenčin%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - about 109 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Emeric+Derenčin%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - 0 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Emerik+Derenčin%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - about 136 results

Norden1990, please use WP:RM for your next move attempt, because these results aren't really even close. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, but your results are Croatian works and publications translated into English. Of course there are more sources with his Croatian name form, because he was Ban of Croatia, so the Viceroy for the King of Hungary (We know, Croatia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary since 1102). But, he was a Hungarian noble of a Hungarian family, from the Balog clan of German origin. Anyway, your results use Croatian name version in the case of other Hungarian persons.

The Ban of Croatia was a Hungarian office (as one of the high dignitaries of the Kingdom of Hungary). Not all of Bans were of Croatian origin. Anyway, our PM Károly Khuen-Héderváry had an article with the title of Dragutin Khuen-Héderváry in this wiki for a long time. So, your sources prove that the Croatian historical writing is stronger international level.

I think Emeric Derencsényi (NOT Imre, Mirko or Emerik) is a more consensual solution. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see your point. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. If the sources display what appears to be a consensus on using the Croatian name, then that's the consensus that the encyclopedia should use. That's what the readers will best be able to compare with other sources. I somehow doubt that Croatian historical writing is stronger internationally than Hungarian historical writing; given that the source of the person's notability are places and events in Croatia, it looks more like he was comparably less relevant to Hungarian history. It should be noted that the person does not become less Hungarian if the article title uses a more Croatian variant of his name (yet not a fully Croatian one, mind you), they're just put in the more relevant context. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect pages could solve the readers' problems. Hungarian person - Hungarian name variant, Croatian person - Croatian name variant, I think it is pretty simple. Ivan III Drašković served as Palatine of Hungary (the second most prominent office after the King), Despite this, his Croatian name is used. Anyway, "Emerik Derencin", contrast to your claim, is a fully Croatian variant of his name, given that Emerik is a Croatian form of Hungarian Imre or English Emeric. The Croatian Wiki also uses "Emerik Derencin". --Norden1990 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I forget, we use Eastern name order in Hungary. I think, Emeric Derencsényi,still, is a consensual solution. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Derencsényi+Imre%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - about 155 results


 * That's a good data point. But I'm still perplexed about literally no indexed book using the anglicized name Emeric and the surname Derencsényi. It would seem as if we just arbitrarily made a term up, which is contrary to WP:OR. I know it's already been done in a few similar cases, but some support in policies should be found to address this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki is not a democracy and all that matters is prevalence of the most common name in reliable English-language sources (the rules do not say that those may not be translated from Croatian or Hungarian). No consensus can possibly trump this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What a surprise, you are from Croatia... --Norden1990 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you implying that he's being improper, when what he just said supports your proposal which has the highest number of hits? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he also said the importance of the number of English-language sources. This fact determines the balance towards Derencin, because, as already explained, the most of the English works based on Croatian publications. It's true, that Derencin/Derencsényi is a more important historical person in today's Croatia then Hungary. But still I think that it is unfortunate to using several name variants in the case of a Hungarian noble family.

Finally, I would like to apologize to Tomobe03, indeed, the latter sentence was unworthy and unnecessary from me. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the gbooks hits are a bit of a moving target. I clicked on the three most popular versions and now got 108, 138 and just 42. I then tried to click through each of those, and got to: So it seems like there's no single common name, at least based on this. Someone will have to go and cite some relevant English-language history books. I'm not terribly opposed to picking a different title in the interim. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mirko Derenčin" - page 7 of 65 results
 * "Emerik Derenčin" - page 6 of 55 results
 * "Derencsényi Imre" - page 6 of 56 results


 * Deadlock. Then, stay in the present name variant, as he is more known in Croatia, despite of his Hungarian origin. However, I will use the form of "Emeric or Imre Derencsényi" in the Hungary-related articles (for example at the article of his family). --Norden1990 (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)