This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Although Boleslaus seems to be more popular then Bolesław (4200:2800), the difference is not that large, and for standarization I want to use Boleslaw (besides, it would be stupid to have Bolesław I the Brave and Boleslaus II the Bold, if they had the same first name, right?). The Bold beats the Cruel and the Generous easily (3000:300:700). Therefore if there are no objections, I'd like to move this to
Bolesław II the Bold.--
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Bolesław II the Bold to
Boleslaus II of Poland. We do not use nicknames without extraordinary reasons. I propose the systematic name for this king. (He was one of the rarer monarchs of early period who was a recognized King). First name should be written in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Boleslaw is precisely his original name spelling, spelling was not so established at that time.
Marrtel18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Poll
Write Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.
Oppose So far I have seen the user opposes names based on opinion that they were made by "Polish nationalist minority"
[1]. Such rude comments should be outside of wiki and certainly not a basis for changes.--
Molobo19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The current title is bad, but I don't like the latinization/pseudo-anglicization "Boleslaus", which is not commonly used.
john k20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
A supposedly anglicized form which is actually a name not any more familiar to English speakers than the original name. Anglicizing "Jan" to "John" makes sense; anglicizing "Boleslaw" to "Boleslaus" doesn't so much. I've never met anyone named "Boleslaus".
john k10:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There's no need to change, but I'd prefer Bolesław II of Poland (or even Boleslaw II of Poland) to the proposal.
Dpv20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support/Comment I haven't been heavily involved on the use of cognomens in Wikipedia, especially with Polish monarchs, but I've seem very few instances of early monarchs with first names in one language and cognomens in the other. I support a move to the appropriate anglicization of the first name, seemingly
Boselaw II of Poland.
Charles21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A tough one indeed. There is more than one "Boleslaus II" in history and there's no reason the Polish one reigns supreme. Therefore, a qualifier is needed on his name and ordinal. If a nickname, why not move
Boleslav II of Bohemia to
Bolselaus II the Pious? Or any other king to his nickname instead of "of Kingdom"? For consistency across Wikipedia, Boleslaus II of Poland is better than the current title and while there may be a better title than that, it has not really been propsed. Just because ordinals can be confusing does not mean we can always avoid them: see
Guaimar III of Salerno and
Guaimar IV of Salerno. Also, as to
Molobo's comments, while the notion of a "Polish cabal" and the accusations of "Polish nationalism" are less than good faith, I would say, it is not a good reason for voting against a proposal that the proponent has expressed such views. And finally, I hope to have proded a discussion on the larger issue of Polish monarchic nomenclature in general at
Talk:List of Polish monarchs.
Srnec02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The name as it is currently spelled is acceptable to me, as it is reflective of usage in major English-language reference works. In 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica he's Bolesław II the Generous (with an "also known as" Bołeslaw II the Bold). Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary has him as Bolesław II (The Bold). Online Britannica has him as Boleslaw II, with bynames as Boleslaw the Bold and Boleslaw the Generous.
[2] --
Elonka18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Remember, please, that he has three viable nicknames, not just "the Bold." Perhaps someday one of the other nicknames will surpass "the Bold" in usage, but he will still be "of Poland".
Srnec02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Renamed
This has been too long in a location which clearly contravenes the naming convention. So, this needed a more NPOV place. In recent other polls, the general editorship has shown a clear support for "non-Polish" name versions. For starters, the recent name was not arrived by any consensus, but by a unilateral move, so its proponents are not entitled to claim their version the original or "lawful" one. The original was "Boleslaus II of Poland". I am not entirely happy with the location here, because I personally think the English form could be "Boleslaus". Because so many (Polish?) editors have expressed they are most unhappy with -laus endings, I swallowed my own preferences and chose a more Slavic-looking -lav here. Hope it satisfies at least some. If this is not a satisfactory place, be welcome to open a poll where this should be moved to. Then, I will vote for Boleslaus.
Shilkanni23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Sometimes boldness is a good thing. That said, the vote was 15-8 (including "weak" supports and excluding sockpuppets), if that's enough to legitimise a move, then the article ought to be moved to
Boleslaus II of Poland.
Srnec21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Just for the record - I'm not going to comment further here or recount the vote, it didn't seem to help at BoleXXXX I. I still recommend
User:Nightstallion for an uninvolved admin with a lot of experience in handling move requests, if you feel you need someone like that.
Haukur21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Considering that the article was moved even after RM (with some sockpuppetry...) determined no consensus, I wonder if we could not agree on 'Boleslaw II the Bold of Poland'? Please note that this is the only Boleslav, currently all three other kings of Poland with that name are Bolesaws (with the 'w').-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |
talk 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)reply
How about "Bountiful". Like it or not, in English "Brave" and "Bold" are almost identical in meaning and Bountiful (largus) is what he is called by the anonymous Frenchman.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
03:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)reply