Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)/Archive 02


 * Archives
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)/Archive 01
 * Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01

Proposal 1
Use Naming conventions (names and titles) without any significant modifications, return to the naming scheme from early 2005.

List
Add a list of rulers as they would look under that proposal.

Proposal 2
Polish first name, roman numeral if any, royal second name/nickname in English (if translatable at all, Poniatowski is not, being a normal surname). No 'of Poland' or 'King of Poland' needed unless there is a disambig issue.

List
Current version at List of Polish monarchs.

Discussion
See discussion that led to this proposal, and its recent criticism at Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01. Feel free to continue it here.

Short rationale and summary:
 * Polish first names (without diactrics) are more often than not the most popular. To have consistency, we have decided to use Polish names for all, with the exception of Alexander (being so close to Aleksander). See talk pages linked at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01 and below for specific proof.
 * Roman numerals are useful.
 * Yes. I'm not sure I understand the system currently in place. Scholarly texts contradict each other in numbering, Wladyslaw II, is also Wladyslaw IV in one book,, and Wladyslaw V in another. I don't know why this is happening. - Calgacus 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I am not certain of it, I think it may be a result of a monarch reigning in two or more countries under the same name, when there were different rulers with that name in that country. I am not sure which Władysław you refer to atm, but it is likely there were more Władysław's in Poland than in Lithuania, thus he may be II of Lithuania, IV of Poland (yet one more reason to discard the 'of country' extension). An alternative explanation is that the numbering got distorted during the Fragmentation Period, when there were no (or few) kings but mostly 'high dukes of a province' and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Jogaila is the Wladyslaw I'm talking about. I invite you to post a list which is genuinely a compromise so that we can get on with this as soon as possible. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see other proposals first, because at this time I am aware only of my new proposal (the current version) and the go-back-to-the-old-version proposal (which can be viewed by going to an archived version of the list... page). With the exception of Jogaila, I am not entirely sure if 'the opposition' to my proposal is united on some key points, or if they have their own variants. If you have your own, please list it as Proposal 3. In a few days, when we see what the alternatives are (if any), we can discuss them and see if new compromises can be worked out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Translate nicknames into English, since it is English wiki. Don't translate surnames for obvious reasons.
 * Nicknames are not usually (as far as I am aware at least), not part of the titles. E.g. William the Conqueror is William I of England, Richard the Lionheart is Richard I of England, Philip Augustus is Philip II of France, Malcolm Canmore is Malcolm III of Scotland, Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of Russia, etc. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet they are popular. It is open for debate whether it was a good decision, but based on one of the NC guidelines (names should benefit the reader) we decided that nicknames are more 'memorable'/'interesting', will allow readers to differentiate between rulers more easily (Mieszko III the Old is easier to differentiate from Mieszko IV Tanglefoot than if you know them just as Mieszko III of Poland and Mieszko IV of Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No-one ever refers to William the Conqueror as William I of England, yet that is his wikipedia title. It's equally rare to call Ivan the Terrible Ivan IV, or Philip Augustus Philip II. Nicknames are more memorable for all rulers who have them; nicknaming isn't confined to Polish rulers; after all, we are only talking about the article titles, not the way they will be referred to in the article. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My analysis of usage of Polish rulers' names done a few months ago has shown that indeed some sources outside Wiki use such constructions, but they are few and more often than not it's a 'free-for-all' and dozens of variants of the names exist. I'd support revamping the entire naming conventions to something else (preferably based on my proposal 1), but perhaps it would be better to see if we can raeach a compromise on Polish rulers before trying to reform the entire royalty on Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 'of Poland' forgets Lithuania, both as a Grand Duchy and later as part of the Commonwealth, therefore 'of Lithuania and Poland' may be better. Some rulers (Władysław II Jagiełło) have not been the rulers of both parts for the same part. Some kings (Wacław III/Wenceslaus III of Bohemia, Ludwik Węgierski/Louis I of Hungary, Henryk Walezy/Henry III of France, Zygmunt III Waza/Sigismund of Sweden) were actually kings/rulers of other entities, thus their full name would either be very long or should not contain Poland at all because their reign in Poland was short. It has been decided that whatever rules are worked out they should not be applicable for those who are mostly 'foreign' (Wacław, Ludwik, Henry, etc.) and that the best solution is to drop this extenstion.
 * This is a headache, I'll admit. I don't think there are any guidelines for ranking various kingdoms, but I am in favor of working out some system that does include the relevant kingdom name. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds nice in theory, but I have given up on seeing a workable system that is not confusing (list all countries and years of reign?) and not too long (X of France (1555-1566), of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1566-1777)), but if anybody has a proposal, do suprise me :) In the end, I think that the 'of country' is better described in the text, just as other longish and confusing things (family, titles, coats of arms, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not years of reign, that wouldn't be in the title; and for earlier kings, more often than not, reign lengths are not even certain. For rulers pertaining to the Polish-Lithuania, maybe it'd be better to name them "of Poland-Lithuania" or something related; I don't know. You know these things better than I do, so I suggest you post a new list of article titles in accordance with your experience, and other editors will be in a better position to make suggestions. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My preference is not to have 'of country' at all, as I can't see any good solution here, but as there were others who liked them and are pretty familiar with the period (Halibutt??) perhaps they will be willing to do something about it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions IIRC said : use the country with which the ruler is most associated to, and made redirects. in case of Poland-Lithuania, it's unfortunately polonocentric view, since Western historians tended to look at the commonwealth history view our eyes (just as they saw later polish history through German or Russian eyes). Szopen 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Malcolm Barber's High Medieval List
This is the list, as written, in Malcolm Barber's book The Two Cities: Medieval Europe, 1050-1320, a standard text for current undergraduate students in the English-speaking world studying the High Middle Ages of Europe:


 * Casimir I the Restorer, 1034-58
 * Boleslaw II the Bold, 1058-1082, crowned 1076, Deposed c. 1082
 * Wladyslaw I Herman, c. 1082-1102
 * Boleslaw III the Wrymouth, 1102-39
 * Wladyslaw II the Exile, 1139-46. Died 1163
 * Boleslaw IV the Curly, 1146-73
 * Mieszko III the Old, 1173-77. Deposed 1201-2
 * Casimir II the Just, 1177-94
 * Leszek II the White, 1194-1227
 * Mieszko III, 1201-2
 * Wladyslaw III Spindleshanks, 1202-06. Deposed
 * Boleslaw V the Chaste, 1227-79
 * Leszek III the Black, 1279-88
 * Boleslaw VI, 1288
 * Henry, 1288-90
 * Przemysl II, 1295-96, Crowned 1295
 * Wladyslaw IV the Short, 1296-1300. Deposed. 1306-33. Crowned 1320
 * Waclaw I of Bohemia, 1300-05. Crowned 1300
 * Waclaw II of Bohemia, 1305-06

List (developing)

 * Siemowit
 * Siemomysl
 * Leszek I
 * Mieszko I
 * Boleslaw I the Brave
 * Mieszko II Lambert
 * Bezprym
 * Mieszko II Lambert
 * Casimir I the Restorer
 * Boleslaw II the Bold
 * Wladyslaw I Herman
 * Zbigniew (?)
 * Boleslaw III the Wrymouth
 * Wladyslaw II the Exile
 * Boleslaw IV the Curly
 * Mieszko III the Old
 * Casimir II the Just
 * Leszek II the White
 * Mieszko III the Old (restored 1)
 * Mieszko IV Tanglefoot
 * Mieszko III the Old (restored 2)
 * Wladyslaw III Spindleshanks
 * Boleslaw V the Chaste
 * Leszek III the Black
 * Boleslaw VI
 * Henry Probus
 * Przemysl II
 * Wladyslaw IV the Short
 * Waclaw I (i.e. Wenceslaus II of Bohemia
 * Waclaw II (i.e. Wenceslaus III of Bohemia)
 * Wladyslaw V the Elbow-high
 * Casimir III the Great
 * Louis the Hungarian (i.e. Louis I of Hungary)
 * Jadwiga Angevin
 * Wladyslaw VI Jagiello (i.e. Jogaila)
 * Wladyslaw VII of Varna
 * Casimir IV Jagiello
 * John I Albert
 * Alexander Jagiellon
 * Sigismund I the Old
 * Sigismund II the August
 * Henry Valois, (i.e. Henry III of France)
 * Stephan Bathory
 * Wladislaw IV Vasa
 * John II Casimir
 * Sigismund III Vasa
 * Michael I
 * John III Sobieski
 * Augustus II the Strong
 * Stanislaw I
 * Augustus III the Saxon
 * Stanislaw II Augustus

Discussion
I suggest we follow him. I.e. Casimir, and Henry, but not Ladislaus (etc). - Calgacus 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Barber's list is incomplete — e.g., no Mieszko IV Tanglefoot. logologist|Talk 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know why he omitted him; he probably had a reason. But anyways, I'm suggesting we should follow him only in regards to the spellings. - Calgacus 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've drawn up a draft list. Please check for omissions or mistakes, and comment on the numbering. And don't ask me where Augustus I is. - Calgacus 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments/questions below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose to Michael I. As he was one of the few kings from the ranks of Polish nobility, his name should be Polish: Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, just as other members of his family are named Michał Wiśniowiecki (disambig).
 * IMHO irrelevant argument. Compare, for instance, Hirohito is from Japan, yet the page is not at The Shōwa Emperor: the issue is what people would generally call him in English, not what the page name should be according to nationalistic sentiments. Similarly, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, and not Friedrich I, Holy Roman Emperor. --Francis Schonken 08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with nationalistic sentiments only the fact that Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki was a normal man elected a king. Just like presidents or PMs are being elected today. Wiki has no article about George W. of America only George W. Bush.--SylwiaS | talk 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sylwia, looks like you're missing quite a few points there:
 * Wikipedia's naming conventions guidelines don't distinguish between "normal" and "abnormal" men; they do distinguish between people that have no royal or noble title (naming conventions (people), e.g. George W. Bush), and people thath have such title (naming conventions (names and titles), e.g. George I of Great Britain, Herbrand Sackville, 9th Earl De La Warr,...) - This Michael had Rex Poloniae as "official title", in English: King of Poland, so "monarch", "royal", and further, "nobility", so it's the "names and titles" guideline that normally applies.
 * Being a monarch or not has nothing to do with being elected or not: most Holy Roman Emperors were elected, does not make them less "monarchical".
 * The first names of monarchs are usually translated in English, like Friedrich &rarr; Frederick (see, e.g. Frederick II of Prussia), Jean &rarr; John (e.g. John, Duke of Burgundy), etc...
 * So, if you don't mind, I think the article on Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki should probably be at Michael of Poland or something like that (Michael I of Poland if there is a second) for the English wikipedia. - Francis Schonken
 * Totally agree with the "Of Poland part"; how this fits with Poland-Lithuania I can't say yet. "of Poland-Lithuania"?- Calgacus 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis, thanks for the rules, I read them. But I still think it’s a different case. Firstly, the elected Holy Roman Emperors were of some dynasties anyway (like our king Henry III of France who was elected too), not just normal noble men. Secondly, the rules say several times: Many Polish kings were just called Zygmunt, August etc even if they were elected, but with those who were normal people chosen kings it was different, they were called rather by their surnames than Christian names i.e. king Wiśniowiecki or king Sobieski, and this is how their names are known in English today. So here are some google hits (English only):
 * Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.
 * No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them.
 * Exeptions: (4.) If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...".


 * Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki 381
 * Michal Korybut Wisniowiecki 635
 * Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki 762
 * Michael of Poland 98
 * Michal of Poland 4


 * -> Personally I'd favour Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki then, if that's the name that in English is normally used in reference to him --Francis Schonken 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * John III Sobieski 9,460
 * Jan III Sobieski 19,400
 * John III of Poland 1,150
 * Jan III of Poland 54


 * -> Personally I'd favour Jan III Sobieski then, if that's the name that in English is normally used in reference to him --Francis Schonken 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We may call Michał Michael, I don’t see a problem with that, but he should go by his real name that is normally used in reference to him, not Michael of Poland.--SylwiaS | talk 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Actually I don't see problems even with having Sobieski as John III Sobieski, since it's easily translated into English. But with typically Polish names that don't have English counterparts only Latin, I would keep the Polish form. Like Władysław, Kazimierz, Stanisław, Zbigniew etc. There are usually several Latin counterparts and none is good. So why translate it into Latin at all? Esp. that some of the names are meaningful, like Władysław = the who praises power.--SylwiaS | talk 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Stanislaw I - where did we lose his surname, Leszczyński?
 * 2) Stanislaw II - as above, but Poniatowski?
 * 3) What about using Polish diactrics where appopriate (Stanisław vs. Stanislaw)?
 * 4) The Vasas are ordered incorrectly (!) in the list; also, why has John II Casimir no 'Vasa' surname?
 * 5) Sigismund vs Zygmunt: pros, cons.
 * 6) Casimir vs Kazimierz: pros, cons.
 * 7) John vs Jan: pros, cons.
 * 8) Augustus vs August (one of those I really care little about...)

Vote
I would suggest a vote sooner or later, but perhaps now it is too early, especially as proposal 3 or others may be suggested?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Władysław II, IV, V, and kings' nicknames
The case with numbers seems quite simple, although I really wonder what scholar might have messed it up like that. Władysław V is evidently a result of including in the count the first three Władysławs from the Piast dynasty. The historian who made him Władysław IV must have excluded one of them. Maybe Władysław II the Exile?

And here we come to nicknames. If we avoid them in titles, how are we going to differentiate the first three Władysławs from the second three? Also, what about cases like Władysław III of Varna, who would be Władysław III of Poland but Władysław I of Hungary? I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't know if there are any rules that apply to such situations.--SylwiaS | talk 05:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ptolemies and Seleucids all have their nicknames as well as their numbers; this is how they actually were disambiguated. This is (perhaps fortunately) out of the reach of the Naming Convention on monarchs, but it may offer a useful parallel. Septentrionalis 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wladislaw II of Poland
I started the Wladislaw II of Poland disambiguation page. Also made Władysław II a redirect to that new disambiguation page. - don't know whether this might be (small) steps towards the disentanglement of this complex issue. --Francis Schonken 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also did some rearrangements to the Ladislaus Jagiello disambiguation page, and the redirects to that page. --Francis Schonken 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's definetly a good step. There are probably dozens of redirects that should be done for every king - just see the examples I did when counting names popularity for early Polish rulers (see their talk pages).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm entering a minefield now. In fact it was the insolvable discussion about this person's page name that set off the re-opening of this guideline page. So, don't shoot me for having a go at this.
 * Jogaila

What would you think about:"Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania"as a page name?

Please try not to kick off a vote on this yet, this rather needs pro's and con's about the idea (so the same wikipedian can list several "pro's" and "con's"):

Pro's
 * Unambiguous.
 * Draws attention to the different name in Poland and Lithuania.
 * Draws attention to the dual numbering system of Polish Ladisla(u)s/Wladyslaw/Vladislav/... non-Piast monarchs, where "V" is the least ambiguous, while "II" is the most used.

Con's
 * Unusual page name format (though we have Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, but that one didn't change name when acquiring a second realm)
 * Doesn't contain "Jagiello", which triggers far more hits at google than "Jogaila" (though not all of the "Jagiello"s refer to this monarch, Jogaila is less ambiguous)
 * Not anything near to a "most common name" (but this is in line with naming conventions (names and titles), that proposes a general exception to common names for all monarchs & nobility)
 * will never occur in running prose; will always be masked or redirect.

Contributors to this pros-and-cons list (inviting not to sign individual comments in the pros-and-cons list above - please start a new pros-and-cons list if you have a better proposal for the page name of that monarch):
 * --Francis Schonken 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jogaila (other stuff, for those who don't understand "working by arguments")


 * If we don't object long titles I would rather propose Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania. I agree that it would make more people happy. But we cannot leave Jagiełło out because it's the most popular name. Many people don't even know he was Jogaila or Władysław, but they know he was Jagiełło. Also, the name explains why the whole dynasty is Jagiellon. In a way all Jagiello hits refer to this monarch because all his descendants were named after him. Władysław II - yes, Władysław V - no. There is a valid reason why Władysław I the Elbow-high is counted as the first one. He united Poland and established its position as a kingdom. Also, there are two more Władysławs after Jagiełło. There's no reason to mess with their numbers now. Anyway, if we can have the longer title I think it should be fine.--SylwiaS | talk 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Władysław II Jagiełło

 * ''moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)

I think this name may actually be usual usage in English. I would propose making the article title Władysław II Jagiełło of Lithuania and Poland, both for historical order and to avoid any appearance of slighting Lithuania. [I would also accept the more common order 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)] I don't think there's any risk of confusion with Władysław II the Exile; if necessary there is always the option of using the English form (and yes, it is the English form, as well as the Latin) Ladislaus. Septentrionalis 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Poland was a kingdom, Lithuania merely a grand duchy, so Poland should come first. Is it slighting Spain to have Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor? But the Polish monarch articles are currently on their own bizarre plane of article naming, which needs to be cleared up. john k 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be addressed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), I believe. Olessi 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, @Pmanderson/Septentrionalis:)? I still prefer Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, as it is on this page above for more than a month. Your argumentation does not appear convincing to me. This monarch was never "Władysław" in Lithuania; the ordinal "II" only applies to Poland, and then still with ambiguity: "V" is equally used; he was never "Jagiełło of Lithuania" ("Jagiełło" is Polish, in Lithuania his name was "Jogaila", this is never transcribed as Jagiełło in English).
 * Your proposal sounds something like William I the Conqueror of Normandy and England to me: in Normandy he was William "II" (and that's then still without mixing in a frog-leaped translation like you did in the Jogaila/Jagiełło proposal).
 * Further, I'd suggest not to create on this talk page a third place for discussing the page name for this monarch, there is already:
 * Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło (several sections on that page)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish_rulers)
 * New impetus to the discussions in these places welcome!
 * Note also that it is possible to edit the table of proposals pictured below, just click the edit link... this changes the proposal on several pages simultaneously: the table is presently included in:
 * Naming conventions (Polish rulers)
 * Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)
 * Talk:List of Polish monarchs
 * feel free to contribute (don't forget to update the "rationale" explanation if you change/add proposals to the table).
 * Anyway, Olessi suggested the shifting of the discussion to another page in fewer words: I support! --Francis Schonken 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will move this conversation (as a whole) to NC(Polish rulers) as you both suggest. I see no reason for Francis to retype his answer. Septentrionalis 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Table proposal
I'd propose to make a table in the following format, which (if we all agree) could replace the table presently at the project page:
 * Good idea. I'll also add the Monarchs tag below so that it would be easier for everyone to see all the monarchs in chronological order. Since the first two in the table are elected kings, maybe we'd focus on the elected kings in general for start?--SylwiaS | talk 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, once we decide on a name, to link the relevant section(s) of our discussion from the table, and the article's talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The old list : moved from project page 09:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael after all?
I did some search (see his talk page) and it appears that Michael may be a better choice after all. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we made the google hits test also (see discussion below proposition 3). There still remains the question about Wiśniowiecki vs. Wisniowiecki, since the name without diacritics will always give more google hits, but then we give rather correct names on Wiki, since Wiki contrary to many other sites has the ability.--SylwiaS | talk 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Something I'd like to get rid of
Presently there is a redirect page named Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers. This is the list of main namespace pages that contain links to this page:
 * 1) Piast dynasty
 * 2) House of Vasa
 * 3) Jagiellon dynasty
 * 4) Dukes of Silesia
 * 5) Dukes of Greater Poland

I don't know if there's an exact rule at WP:CSD, but I'd like Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers to be speedy deleted, and all links to such page removed from the 5 pages mentioned above.

Reason: Wikipedia is not normative, there should be no guideline that says that Henry III of France should be spelled Henryk III Walezy in the main namespace of English wikipedia.

Anyone having a problem with this proposed speedy deletion & removal of links (I think this is also a step in making the page naming of Polish rulers a bit less tense)? --Francis Schonken 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, but then I didn't know that such a redirect exist at all. Maybe Piotr knows why it was made in the first place?--SylwiaS | talk 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted an information about it on Polish board . If no one objects in let's say a week, you'll have a clear case.--SylwiaS | talk 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anna Jagiellon
Ok, I made google test for Anna Jagiellon. English only minus Wikipedia:
 * Anna Jagiellon 46
 * Anna Jagiellonka 386
 * Anne Jagiellon 5
 * Anna Jagiellońska 7
 * Anna of Poland 234
 * Anne of Poland 43
 * Anna Jagiellonka of Poland 2

It seems that Anna Jagiellonka gets the biggest number of hits.--SylwiaS | talk 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you check for possible overlap with this person (which is a different Anna Jagiellonka): pl:Anna Jagiellonka (księżna pomorska)?
 * Good point! I didn't. Any idea how to differentiate them?--SylwiaS | talk 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

English, unlike Polish, doesn't differentiate surnames by sex. (In English-language countries, women of Polish origin typically are obliged to use surname forms, e.g. -ski, that in Poland apply only to men.) How do we handle that in a case like Jagiellonka's?  "Jagiellon" (an Anglicization, missing the Polish gender ending) is sex-neutral. logologist|Talk 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even know whether "Jagiellon" qualifies as a surname - In English, it is the name of a dynasty (see Jagiellon Dynasty), derived from Jogailas name, where Jogaila is not a surname, just the name of monarch from Lithuania (like his father's name was Algirdas, that was no "surname" either, Algirdas apparently even didn't have a surname). --Francis Schonken 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Women born in Poland who emigrate i.e. to US still have their names in female gender. Women born abroad to fathers named with -ski ending have their names in the male gender. But there are also cases when men are born to single women and then their names end with -ska. So I don't think English sticks to the male form, only simply English speakers have no idea that those are different forms of the same name. As to Jagiello, well, we should remember that the rules of giving names in Lithuania before Christianity must have been different than later. Also, the first rulers of Poland have no surnames or no Christian names. It's difficult to categorise their names as one or another. It was different with Jagiello who became renowned as a Polish king and changed his name through baptism.--SylwiaS | talk 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I used "surname" for sake of simplicity. Whether it's called that or "cognomen" or "epithet," the principle is the same (adjectival endings, which vary according to whether the object is male, female or neuter).  In fact, Polish surnames — like those of other countries — generally developed essentially from epithets, commonly describing such things as a person's occupation, place of origin, name of parent.
 * And Sylvia is right: it sometimes happens that a male of Polish descent born abroad will have the female adjectival ending on his surname — which, if he visits the old country, can occasion no end of amusement among the natives.  logologist|Talk 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I found 4 (possible) Anna Jagiellon: I try to give an overview:
 * Anna Jagiellon (1476-1503), daughter of Kazimierz IV Jagiellon (this is the "księżna pomorska")
 * (this person is not generally indicated with a "Jagiellon" name:) Anne de Foix (1484-1506), no Jagiellon by birth she was queen consort to Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, a Jagiellon.
 * Anna the Jagiellonian (Czech-Hungarian) (1503-1547) aka Anne of Bohemia, a Jagiellon, as daughter of Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary. This Anna was an Empress consort as she married Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor. (PS: note that there is also another Anne of Bohemia, 1366-1394)
 * The Queen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and heir to the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1523-1596), presently at Anna Jagiellon
 * ...maybe about time we start thinking of a disambig page here too... --Francis Schonken 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, a disambig page would be helpful. Still, I have no idea how to best google the Queen of the Polish Lithuanian-Commonwealth. Actually, any of them could have any of the names in English. Well, maybe the name Jagiellonka would indicate rather a daughter of a Jagiellon than a wife of one.--SylwiaS | talk 20:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help much, then there are still three:
 * Anna Jagiellonka the daughter of Kazimierz IV Jagiellon
 * Anna Jagiellonka the daughter of the Jagiellon Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary
 * Anna Jagiellonka the daughter of the Jagiellon Zygmunt I the Old
 * See also the boilerplate text of pl:Anna Jagiellonka, all three are called "Anna Jagiellonka" in Polish --Francis Schonken 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my, it's almost weekend. We should all go for vodka and drink to all the Anna Jagiellonkas who gave us a headache even so many centuries after their death. Seriously though. How about waiting with that a bit. Maybe someone else will have a better idea how to best google test them. I'll ask Piotr who has a long experience with our kings and queens how he's doing that. Maybe in the meantime we might move to another crowned head. Thanks for your willingness to help us in that. As you see it's not so easy and we couldn't even agree among ourselves on the best forms in English. I wonder if it's a good time to invite other descendants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that is Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians, or we should wait until we have the final propositions?--SylwiaS | talk 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to get perfect results in such a case. Other then 'manualy' veryfind each reference, search with some keyword specific to our Anna would be best. Years (birth, death) are usually the best choice for getting a representative sample (assuming that the same percentage of each Anna's online have their birth-death date given).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the two most common. English only, plus 1523, minus Wikipedia, minus Stettin:
 * Anna Jagiellonka 62 all except 3 refer to our queen
 * Anna of Poland 25 but only 4 refer to our queen (majority of them are genealogy sites) --SylwiaS | talk 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, thus far you showed that 59 out of 386 "Anna Jagiellonka"s are a reference to the Queen of Poland (if the birthdate of that queen is added in the query). This is about 15% - not really enough to convince me.
 * Re. the 4 out of 25 Anna's of Poland: it's either 4 out of 18, or 5 out of 25, so about 20%, not really convincing either. The "pomorska" is definitely most popular among the "Anna of Poland"s (about 50%) - but as a princess (in Poland), and a grand-duchess-consort (after marriage in Pomerania) she would not be at "Anna of Poland" in wikipedia, if we follow naming conventions (names and titles).
 * In fact that guideline is made as a somewhat artificial system for royals and nobility, while in most cases it's very difficult to determine "most common name" for these people by google search. For Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki it *exceptionally* worked, for these Annas I think we have to admit it doesn't, and revert to the general rule. --Francis Schonken 11:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that we have only to viable options: Anna Jagiellon and Anna Jagiellonka?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, if google searches don't give a clear, unambiguous result (which is apparently the case here), I recommended to go back to the general rule, which would be Anna of Poland for the queen regnant in this case (if the naming conventions haven't changed since the last time I looked, I'm not the big expert in that department). --Francis Schonken 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems that English speakers usually use the term Anna of Poland for the Pomeranian princess. I don't say it's correct, but it seems to be common. I made another google test using Stefan Batory (the queen's husband) to eliminate the other Annas.
 * Anna Jagiellonka + Batory/Bathory 88+55=143 hits
 * Anna of Poland + Batory/Bathory 3+7=10 --SylwiaS | talk 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, the google results for Anna are not by far clear enough to show that "Anna of Poland" is never used for the Polish queen regnant (for more than 50% of the "Anna of Poland"s at google we still have no indication at all), and that "Anna Jagiellonka" is as good as always used for the queen regnant (you're still not even proving 50% is).

So, that's typically a case when one stops the googleing (this Anna is simply not "googlable"), and stops trying to get an exception from the general rule. Even I'm not seeing why we should deviate from the general rule here, while I'm a notable advocate for applying the "exception" rule enclosed in naming conventions (names and titles) whenever reasonable. In this case it is IMHO not really reasonable to steer for exception. --Francis Schonken 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, following the idea mentioned above I created Anna of Poland (disambiguation) --Francis Schonken 11:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Untenable exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.186.14 (talk • contribs)

Stefan Batory
Ok, maybe it will be easier with this one (English only minus Wikipedia):

--SylwiaS | talk 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Stefan Batory 63,400
 * Stephen Batory 259
 * István Báthory 795
 * Istvan Bathory 599 in this and the one case above the hits most likely refer to his father
 * Stephan Bathory 601
 * Stephen Bathory 911
 * Stephan Batory 379
 * Stefan Bathory 1150
 * Stefan Batory of Poland 55
 * Stefan Bathory of Poland 1
 * Stefan of Poland 39
 * Stephan of Poland 53
 * Stephen of Poland 128


 * This seems like a successful Google search! I tried to filter out the ocean liner, the university, and the foundation (but in fact all of these were named after the king), and even then the "Stefan Batory" spelling remains definitely most popular in English. I add to the tentative list above. --Francis Schonken 11:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Filling the table I came across István Báthory, Stefan Batory's father (and in fact his namesake). Would it be possible to establish whether "István Báthory" is indeed in English the most common spelling of this name of the father of the Polish king? I mean, it could as well be Stephen Báthory according to the wikipedia article, and I don't have the impression this has been thouroughly researched. There might even be other variants more popular in English? --Francis Schonken 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some time ago I tried to differentiate between Batory and his father, both bearing the same name in Hungarian (Istvan Bathory). Halibutt 16:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting - is there anything you learned out of that, that you might want to share with those reading this page?
 * Note that name in Hungarian could be "István Báthory" or "Báthory István", but not Istvan Bathory (lacks the Hungarian accents). --Francis Schonken 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I only wanted to ask what's wrong with my disambiguation of Stephen Báthory onto István Báthory and Stefan Batory. Halibutt 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of Poland
I don't understand why the "of Poland" is not being applied. It doesn't matter if rulers are generally known by their nickname, it's just the standard practice on wikipedia. I haven't heard any reason why Polish rulers are any different, and so I don't see why they should be. - Calgacus 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, although the "of Poland" would obviously be flattering to us, there are two main reasons why we try to avoid it. First - the monarchs are hardly known by the "X of Poland" names. Second, we think that it might be misleading, because what is Poland today doesn't equal what was called "Poland" then. Very often the whole territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its fiefs were called "Poland" for short. Not necessarily in Poland, where people used, rather, terms like "Rzeczpospolita" ("the Republic"), but abroad. That's why names of some historic events often use only the name "Poland." Like the "Partitions of Poland," while in fact the first partitions referred to the PLC (in Polish they are often called the Partitions of the Rzeczpospolita). So what was called Poland then is today Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. All four are important, independent countries. Many of the kings are today listed as rulers of all the countries in respective lists. So we think that calling them "of Poland" would be unfair and inaccurate. I don't think it's the same case as with monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, because those names don't favour England over other countries. Of course, we might try to call them "of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" but it's likely to be opposed by native English speakers. See this attempted move for similar case .--SylwiaS | talk 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. logologist|Talk 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Many kings in many parts of Europe ruled territories the borders of which lie in several modern states. The fact that the Kings of the English after 1171 ruled Ireland doesn't stop them being called "of England", nor does the fact that Henry II of England, a Frenchman by birth, language (he needed a translator to speak to native English) and main residence, who ruled more of France than the King of France, and probably had more French speaking subjects than English ones, mean that he isn't called Henry II of England. The fact that the kings of Poland managed to take control of Rus'ian-speaking speaking lands - via Lithuania and by themselves - does not alter his status as "King of Poland"; Poland-Lithuania may be a separate point I'll grant you, but you guys are already dating these kings assuming that Poland and Poland-Lithuania are the same Władysław IV was not the fourth Wladyslaw to rule Poland-Lithuania; moreover, the kings of Poland-Lithuania are consistently called (wrongly or rightly) "of Poland" in the succession boxes. So I don't understand the significance of the point. It doesn't seem very relevant. Anyways, "of Poland" before the Poland-Lithuania union, and "of Poland-Lithuania" afterwards would seem reasonable. - Calgacus 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in theory the names kings of Poland are correct, and names kings of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are incorrect, because Poland was a kingdom and Lithuania was a duchy. So even Władysław IV who we call in the article a king of PLC had the official title:
 * Vladislaus IV by God's grace king of Poland, grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia, and also hereditary king of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals, elected tsar of Russia.
 * So if we want to look for the most correct title you are right, if we want to look for a title best describing what country they were kings of, I gave you my explanation above. We of course might argue about "The fact that the kings of Poland managed to take control of Rus'ian-speaking speaking lands - via Lithuania and by themselves" because majority of Polish kings didn't rule independently and their power was significantly reduced by laws in favour of szlachta, and szlachta decided who might be a king or not. So it's not about the nationality or ethnicity of the kings but the nationality/ethnicity of those who elected the kings. Anyhow, I think that we would have to organize a much wider discussion on the topic to have Wikipedians decide on what form should be used. That's why I prefer to focus now on finding the most common names, because they are easier to determine, while we will still have to go through the discussion on what is the most proper here (probably a vote) later.--SylwiaS | talk 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Common names isn't a big deal ... I'm suggesting nicknames oughtn't be part of the title. Highest ranking title is the only title that counts for the naming purposes. Although it's silly to say Grand Duke was lower ranking than King for the high middle ages, in the PLC time, it was meaningful. Let's say we were to take the multiple title problem seriously for other rulers, we'd have to rename Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Here are his titles, as he himself listed them:


 * Wir Carl der fünfft von Gottes Gnaden Römischer erwehlter Käyser zu allen Zeiten Merher des Reichs, &c.


 * '''König in Germanien, zu Castilien, zu Arrogon, zu Legion, beyder Sicilien, zu Jerusalem, zu Hungern, zu Dalmatien, zu Croatien, Navarra, zu Granaten, zu Tolleten, zu Valentz, zu Galitien, Majoricarum, zu Hispalis, Sardiniae, Cordubiae Corsicae, Murciae, Giennis, Algarbien, Algecire, zu Gibraltaris, und der Insulen Canariae, auch der Insulen Indiarum und Terrae Firmae, dess Meers Oceani &c.


 * Ertz-Hertzog zu Oesterreich,


 * Hertzog zu Burgund, zu Lottrik, zu Braband, zu Steyr, Kärndten, Crain, Limburg, Lüzemburg, Geldern, Calabrien, Athenarum, Neopatriae, &c.


 * Grafe zu Flandern, zu Habspurg, zu Tyrol, [zu Görtz], , zu Arthois und Burgund, Pfaltzgraf zu Hennegau, zu Holland, zu Seeland, zu Pfirdt, zu Kyburg, zu Namur, zu Rosilion, zu Territan, und zu Zutphen,


 * Landgraff in Elsass, Margraf zu Burggau, zu Oristani, zu Gotziani, und des heyligen Römischen Reichs, Fürst zu Schwaben, zu Cathalonia, Asturia &c.


 * Herr in Frießlandt, auff der Windischen Marcken, zu Portenau, zu Pisscaia, zu Molin, zu Salins, zu Tripoli und zu Mecheln &c.


 * Points? These guys have a lot of titles, yet number and name of main title usually occurs in the wiki title. - Calgacus 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it seems that Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor is in the same time his most common name in English. Anyhow, as I said. I don't think that we two may decide here on the final names. We'll have to wait for more voices in the discussion.--SylwiaS | talk 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This point keeps being made, but this isn't actually supposed to matter .. e.g. E.g. William the Conqueror is William I of England, Richard the Lionheart is Richard I of England, Philip Augustus is Philip II of France, Malcolm Canmore is Malcolm III of Scotland, Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of Russia, etc. There are some examples that don't use this form, Alexander the Great being one, but these are exceptional cases and shrinking. The "X N of Y" makes a lot of sense, I still haven't heard any applicable reason to avoid use of it. - Calgacus 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The "of X" is largely a disambiguation device. A search for Philip II will otherwise dredge up Philip II of Macedon, Philip II of France, Philip II of Savoy, Philip II of Taranto, Philip II, Duke of Burgundy, Philip II of Spain and I of Portugal, Philip II of Portugal and III of Spain and a host of others.  logologist|Talk 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That indeed may or may not be were it originates from, but I know of no other William the Conquerors, Ivan the Terribles or Philip Augustus'. - Calgacus 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Using rulers' authentic native names and epithets will greatly reduce the need for the clunky and rather uncommunicative "of X" disambiguations. logologist|Talk 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you would rename William I of England Guillaume le Conquérant? The whole process of finding "most common" nicknames in English is rather tiresome, unreliable and the results are more cumbersome than the X N of Y formula, which is simple and consistent. And you're also implying that we have to pour through chronicle records to find out what each ruler's first language was - because what language the natives of the country a man was king of now speak does not mean this was each ruler's first or primary language. - Calgacus 22:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would, in general, call a ruler as he is presently called by natives of the country that he rules or ruled. William the Conqueror ruled England, not France.  logologist|Talk 22:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The "..., Holy Roman Emperor" format is not such a good example: it is not really OK for the "names & titles" naming convention; it's not at all OK for naming conventions (people); it's not a common name; it's not needed for precision for most of these emperors. At this point I don't know what way wikipedia is going to go regarding the "..., Holy Roman Emperor" format: it might be that the "names & titles" naming convention gets ammended, or that that guideline stays as it is, and the "..., Holy Roman Emperor" format is removed from a lot of these articles, while some people might start to become stricter again. So I wouldn't draw that format in as an example here, it might change soon (maybe that's the next thing I throw myself in, to get that cleared out).

Anyway, I would apply the "... of " format with reasonable prudence: that format is the standard for royals, and you need a good amount of agreement that a name not according to that format is "more common" in the English language. UK people tend to be very fussy about this: it seems very unlikely that William I of England would change anywhere soon to William the Conqueror again (I tried that once, was nearly shot). Even for Frederick I of Prussia I was nearly shot when I tried to change that to Frederick the Great. Now for the dukes of Burgundy I'm not so bleak: the consensus was less pronounced, there was some disturbance of trolls at the time of the WP:RM votes for these (which somehow deformed the picture), so I suppose that at a certain point in time it might be possible to have Philip the Good again, instead of the really unusual Philip III, Duke of Burgundy.

So, for instance, regarding the Jagiellons it's basicly: what the community can agree upon. I really have a sense that for many of the Polish monarchs the "... of " format is very unusual in English literature, and that distinguishing monarchs by "added name"/"nickname" is much more common: but as said: the evidence needs to be very convincing, it musn't create more ambiguities than the standard format, and there's a very high treshold for some people before getting convinced that the alternate format is really the one that is more frequently used by historians. --Francis Schonken 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think you really grasped the point I was making with the quote of Charles V's titles. That was related only as a specific response to Silvia S's comment. Anyways, it's not common to refer to William the Conqueror as William I of England, that was never the point. It's just the title name. It's irrelevant how common these are used in English, it's just the standard formula for naming monarchs on wiki. But if everyone wants to make it relevant for Polish monarchs, then this whole process is a waste of time for me. Pouring through websites is a ridiculous method for determining commonest names in English, as many of these sites are trash, or are produced by natives in otherwise English translations. My primary concern was the oddity of the Polish name-list, removing things like diacritics on names like Jogaila. That seems to already have been agreed on. So, I for the moment I'll just watch out for when you guys are finished, and vote for the least absurd option. - Calgacus 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the time is approaching to propose a revision in Wikipedia conventions for naming rulers, to give priority to the names given to them by their subjects or the latters' descendants? logologist|Talk 22:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These people typically know the most about their own rulers, including the rationales in naming them. logologist|Talk 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re. revision of conventions, I'm probably the last one who attempted that recently, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 8 for the debris. So, no, I don't believe Naming conventions (names and titles) is going to change in that sense anywhere near soon. And I'm reasonably OK with that. The guideline still contains "If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc..." - so if the "overwhelmingly best known" can be demonstrated, that's OK to make exception to the general rule. For Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki it can be demonstrated; for Anna of Poland it can't, IMHO - see above. --Francis Schonken 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As logologist pointed above - and I agree with him - the 'of country' was added to avoid disabigs problem, especially when rulers had no single most popular adjective. This is not the case with most Polish kings, so I think that adding 'of country' to an otherwise unique name is simply pointless - it means we have to type in longer names to avoid redirects. And for the reasons stated above I definetly think that adjectives/surnames, where exist, should be used. Around December we have actually determined 'the most popular' for every Polish king, so that part of the job is done. Although if there is an overwhelming demand from Wikipedians to add 'of Poland', we can do this - but are there really those here who think it should be done (for reasons other then 'this is a general rule')? Remember: Ignore all rules.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, I'm for the "of Poland" formula - it's not as if every Polish ruler has a nickname; moreover, it's rather odd to have English nicknames next to Polish forename. However, I seem to be in a minority on this one, so there's no point me going on about it. Are you, Piotrus, going to be the one doing the moving BTW? - Calgacus 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out before, you're not alone here Calgacus. I would also support the wikipedia conventions with all they have there, of country included. Halibutt 20:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Olessi 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I added Anna to the tentative above. Anyone having a problem with that? See also: --Francis Schonken 10:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 
 * Anna of Poland (disambiguation)
 * I vote for Anna Jagiellonka (the authentic Polish name) or Anna Jagiellon (slightly modified, gender-neutral English version of the latter). No "of Poland" needed.  logologist|Talk 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, as if at this point in time anyone was waiting for this to degrade into a vote. --Francis Schonken 10:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm for Anna Jagiellonka or Anna Jagiellon as well. --Lysytalk 16:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Count me in.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of the "of Poland" description. The Polish monarchs were indeed rulers of not only the lands that constitute the present Polish state. However, Sylwia failed to mention that they held the title of kings of Poland. This was the highest of their titles, the most important and the one that was mentioned if all the other titles were omitted. Similarly, we have an article on George V of the United Kingdom and not on Georgius V of India, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Halibutt 18:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didn't fail to mention that. If you read up you'll see that there is a whole discussion about it. Fors and againsts for the particular options. It's really not that simple. There is also something like the most common name in English. I.e. Jan III Sobieski vs John III of Poland. Also the dilemma: of Poland or of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Why don't you give your proposition? It's really not fun to work on those names.--SylwiaS | talk 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the discussions at various places, you'd probably noticed that I already took part in them :) "of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is out of the question since there was no such royal title anytime in the past. I'm all in favour of the previous version of the naming scheme, the one from before the recent changes by Logologist and Francis Schonken, so I see no need to propose the same policy again. It served the community for roughly two years and I believe there's no need to meddle with that, neither by changing the names to their modern Polish equivalents nor by quasi-translation to "English". Halibutt 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the previous Anglo-Latin names for monarchs (when available) over the Polish versions. It's a lot easier for me to read Casimir or Sigismund than it is Kazimierz or Zygmunt. Olessi 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand two things that are going on here (on first glance). Why are some Polish monarchs kept in Polish language when there could be an English language translation? And why is the "of Poland" missing, when clearly the Kingdom of Poland existed? Or if you want to bring in the Lituania part just say "of Poland and Lithuania"? Double monarchs existed throughout, see Franz Joseph I of Austria who was King of Hungary etc etc etc at the same time, but Wikipedia goes with the most common name? Gryffindor  14:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article
As long as there is no rule in wikipedia preventing us from using the correct names, the diacritics should stay. Which, however, does not mean that I support using Polish names of monarchs who are called with their Latin or English names in English. Halibutt 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously. With Unicode, there is no more excuse for careless spelling on wikipedia. --Lysytalk 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving names back to English spelling
In order to reduce forking, I would direct interested parties' attention to the discussion at Talk:List of Polish monarchs. --Elonka 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was pointed earler that a proposed Naming Convention is a much better place to discuss the naming issue then a list page. Oh, and note that your proposed version is only one of many optional English spellings we can use, and the current ones are also used in English publications, so they qualify as English, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 04:52, 6 June 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). 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 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)