Talk:Augustus II the Strong

Untitled

This article is affected by Polish POV, see [1], [2], [3]. While August is known elsewhere for the contributions to art made under his reign, this english wikipedia article is rather a prosecution by apparently Polishs users. --Matthead 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy enough fixing Wikipedia, as a few users try to force their POV into articles. --Matthead 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever "Mocny" means - this is the english Wikipedia, not the Polish one! --Matthead 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, "Mocny" means the same as "der Starke," which you haven't objected to. They mean, "the Strong." This might be the English Wikipedia, but it's unlikely he was commonly addressed in Englsh. He was Elector of Saxony AND King of Poland. So the Polish is here just as validly as the German. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

If Matthead wants to expand the section on August's interests in art rather then in his subject and country then he I won't oppose him, but deleting information and vandalising the page by making a mess of its structure isn't acceptable. --Molobo 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a simple case of naming, not a POV. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) for some details on the policy, which in the nutshell means that 'the Strong' is preferable to 'Mocny' (which should be used in the naming paragraph, and not much elsewhere).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear 24.23.39.36: Thank you for trying to correct me, but Augustus was NOT Kurfürst August II. von Sachsen, but king August II the Strong of Poland. In Saxony he ruled as Kurfürst Friedrich August I. von Sachsen (See rulers of Saxony). So please correct it. Thank you.Teodorico 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the block quote at the end of the introduction actually quoted from another source, or is it just formatted funny? If it's the first one, it needs a citation... Butteredparsnips 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Titles

Isn't the usual WP format for names of royalty in the title of the article "NAME (NUMBER) of COUNTRY"? I.e., shouldn't this article be called "Augustus II of Poland"? RandomCritic 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Regnal number in Poland

There was no Augustus I of Poland, so why did this guy become Augustus II? -- JackofOz (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this was because there was a Sigismund II Augustus.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

suggestions

'Expectated' is not a word in English. Maybe someone more familiar with the material could replace it - I'm guessing either 'expected' or 'required' might be appropriate. --Lopakhin (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

C class

At present date, this article does not classify for a B-class. First obvious fail: not enough inline citations. Review for WP:POLAND, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fox tossing

I removed the (rather clever) joke from the opening paras, which featured this evening on BBC Radio 4s "The News Quiz". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a joke, it's a well-attested historical fact - go read Fox tossing, which I wrote... Prioryman (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose there's room in WP for clever fact-based irony, too. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely! For more fact-based irony, see Icelandic Phallological Museum, which should be appearing on the Main Page pretty soon. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel a bit of a heel for doing so, but I've replaced the wording with something perhaps slightly clearer. I really hope the News Quiz mention brings traffic — as it did me — to the article on Fox tossing, which everybody should read. The reality is scarcely less bizarre than the unfortunate image which the original wording here conjured...! mooncow 23:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Lithuanian name not existed

In article is such claim: "and Grand Duke of Lithuania (as Augustas II)" - sorry, but Lithuanian name couldn't exist. Till 1699 in Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogithia (sic! - Ruthenia and Samogithia were not parts of Lithuania) Ruthenian language was used in state's chancery, thus Август was used. And after 1699 - Polish. So no Lithuanian name for Augustus II was officially ever used. In modern Lithuanian historiography all names of kings, princes and dukes are Lithuanised post factum thus falsifying history. Let's say if existed king John, pure English, his name in Lithuanian historiography would be used as Džonas. --212.52.41.237 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

• Augustus II the Strong → Augustus the Strong
• Casimir I the Restorer → Casimir the Restorer
• Bolesław II the Generous → Bolesław the Generous
• Bolesław III Wrymouth → Bolesław Wrymouth
• Władysław II the Exile → Władysław the Exile
• Bolesław IV the Curly → Bolesław the Curly
• Mieszko III the Old → Mieszko the Old
• Casimir II the Just → Casimir the Just
• Władysław III Spindleshanks → Władysław Spindleshanks
• Bolesław II the Horned → Bolesław the Horned
• Bolesław V the Chaste → Bolesław the Chaste
• Leszek II the Black → Leszek the Black
• Casimir III the Great → Casimir the Great
• Sigismund I the Old → Sigismund the Old
• Bolesław I the Brave → Bolesław the Brave
• Władysław I Herman → Władysław Herman

– There is no reason to have both the ordinals and the epithets in the article titles. Titles such as "Augustus the Second the Strong" or "Władysław the First the Elbow-high", which is how one would read them, are chunky and cumbersome. Unsurprisingly, they are also less common in historiography than the simple combinations of names and epithets (e.g. Google Books search for Augustus the Strong and Augustus II the Strong). Using epithets in titles is common; examples include Sigurd the Crusader, William the Conqueror, Magnus the Good, Alfonso the Battler, Mehmed the Conqueror, Louis the Pious, Stefan the First-Crowned, etc. The articles about these Polish rulers, however, appear to be the only ones with both ordinals and epithets in titles. The exception are Henry the Bearded and Władysław Odonic.

In some cases, the ordinals might only be confusing, as in two rulers of Poland being known as "the First" (Władysław Herman and Władysław the Elbow-high) or some rulers being counted differently in separate territories (Bolesław the Brave being Bolesław I in Polish lists but Bolesław IV in Czech lists, Augustus the Strong being the second of his name in Poland but the first in Saxony, etc). Bolesław the Forgotten also complicates the numbering of his namesakes. Such intricacies are best left out of article titles, especially when epithets alone are more common and precise. Surtsicna (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I fully accept the nominator's argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C882:3CC2:5036:D858 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. These entries appear in 37 other Wikipedias and their main title headers were all adapted from the main title headers appearing in Polish Wikipedia. Almost all of the other Wikipedias use Polish Wikipedia's stylizations of both the ordinals and the epithets. There is no compelling reason for English Wikipedia to adopt a naming form that differs from those used in French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia or Portuguese Wikipedia. A notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland might elicit further input. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • We should not strive to imitate Polish Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia. We should strive to imitate reliable English language sources and have titles that do not sound jarringly complex. That should be a compelling reason give that it is a policy of this Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The English Wikipedia's article naming policy is to use the name most commonly used in English, not to follow the lead of other language Wikipedias. And in English, ordinals and the epithets are not used together. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - Per Roman Spinner; moreover, the numerations are for the benefit of the users who might have an issue differentiating Augustus II from Augustus III, both of whom had numerous nicknames, such as the "Saxon". I do not see why Polish monarchs are to be styled per articles concerning English monarchs. Second of all, Encyclopedia stresses the point of numerations particularly for Polish rulers as nearly each one possesses a nickname given by historians during the course of the centuries, which may not be entirely accepted by others e.g. Bolesław II the Generous is also commonly known as the Bold or the Cruel. If there is to be a change, I'd recommend changing "Sigismund I the Old" to Sigismund I of Poland or simply Sigismund I, and any Bolesław should be anglicized to Boleslaus. However, this is entirely my personal point of view and my personal opinion.Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Nobody said that Polish monarchs should be styled as English monarchs. They should be styled as all other European monarchs are, as is the convention in English language sources. Only one of the seven random monarchs I listed had anything to do with England. If Boleslaus II is not best known as "the Generous", then surely the epithet should not be in the title at all, right? But if he is, as the inclusion of the epithet in the title suggests, then the epithet alone should suffice because no other Boleslaus is called "the Generous". Your idea to move to titles such as Sigismund I of Poland also seems very good, as both Sigismund I of Poland and Sigismund the Old are more natural than Sigismund the First the Old (the only worse option than that being Sigismund the First the Old of Poland, an even bigger overkill). Surtsicna (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Move to ordinals (+Poland when needed) as 1st choice, Support as 2nd choice. There is no reason to have both ordinals and epithets, as one is sufficient. The epithets are less neutral as usage implies Wikipedia agrees with them. The Italian, French, German, and Spanish Wikipedias all use the ordinal (+Poland except for French).--Bob not snob (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the nicknames/epithets, by which Polish monarchs are historically known, are centuries old, there can be no more implication of Wikipedia agreement with those than its agreement with the other monarch nicknames/epithets, such as Louis the Pious, Magnus the Good, Philip the Good or Suleiman the Magnificent.
In a large number of the main title headers that are part of this nomination, such as Bolesław III Wrymouth, many other Wikipedias use the ordinal as well as their own translated version of that same nickname/epithet —Croatian, Czech, French, German, Hungarian Latvian, Lithuanian and Serbo-Croatian. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What other Wikipedias do is irrelevant to the bone. The policy of this Wikipedia is to use names most common in reliable English-language sources. And as you noted yourself, the convention in English-language historiography is to use either epithets or ordinals, not both at the same time. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

My primary goal in the previous posting was to dispel the implication that Wikipedia's use of the epithets connotes agreement with their content. As for the rest, hopefully, there will be additional comments as a result of the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarification: Hungarian WP does not use the ordinal and the nickname together, it only uses the ordinal in the title and it separately mentions the nickname. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to raise awareness concerning the names of Polish monarchs. I believe that for the benefit of the reader it would be appropriate to Anglicize (or Latinize) their names from Stanisław to Stanislaus, from Bolesław to Boleslaus etc. Latin was used then among the nobles and official documents so these versions of names were known. Other language Wikipedias have done so. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as Polish Wikipedia editors have given this much thought and we should respect that.Nyx86 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Could you explain why do you think Polish usage should inluence English names? In my native Hungarian our common king, Louis the Great/the Hungarian is often mentioned as I. (Nagy) Lajos. Should I force the English-speaking world to accept a "I. (Great) Louis" form? If we want to force our own usage to the English WP, should we prefer the Polish, the Hungarian, the Slovakian or the Croatian form in the case of our common monarchs? Borsoka (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well, obviously we should simply look to Polish Wikipedia because its editors must have given much thought to that too :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose -- This seems to be a wikipedia-wide policy of "numbering" the monarchs and other nobility, and no reason of singling out Polish ones. I am posting in a "Naming conventions" talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#"Numbering"_of_monarchs. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Staszek Lem:, the Polish monarchs are singled out: they are "numbered", but their nickname is also mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Staszek Lem:, Polish monarchs are singled out because their biographies include both numbers and epithets in titles. See William the Lion, Philip the Good, Charles the Bald, Catherine the Great, Henry the Fowler, Matthias Corvinus, etc, in addition to those named in the opening comment. They are not called "William I the Lion", "Philip II the Good", "Catherine II the Great", etc. The way to bring them in line would to choose either ordinals or epithets. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Taking the example used above, Google Ngram Viewer shows that "Augustus the Strong" is overwhelmingly more common in the sources than "Augustus II the Strong". However, in other cases neither title is more common. For example, neither Władysław II the Exile nor Władysław the Exile score any hits at all in English sources; Vladislaus II does occur, but the most common by far is Vladislav II. So this needs to be properly researched based on WP:COMMONNAME. Bermicourt (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And no hits again on either Bolesław I the Brave or Bolesław the Brave, but lots of hits on Boleslav the Brave and Boleslaus the Brave. So we really have totally the wrong titles in some cases. Are we importing native names instead of using English common names I wonder? That's a common mistake. Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

But if we do them one by one according to their common name, don't we possibly ruin the consistency of the set?--Bob not snob (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Usually the same monarch can rule several kingdoms (or other kind of territories) with different numerals. Or several people of this nature with the same name can coexist simultaneously in the same area of influence. This is the meaning of renown: Differentiate them. If they are documented in the sources and have some historiographical diffusion I think it is preferable to remove the numeral (if it is not associated at his territory). Numerals do not offer too much information, beyond order with the homonymous monarchs who may be separated for decades or centuries. Citing other Wikipedias as a source of information knowing that many articles are uncritically translated from the English version is not too encouraging either. Please follow the KISS principle in the line appointed today by Bermicourt. Verify it! Thanks. --Bestiasonica (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:CONCISE. Using the ordinals and the epithets together is redundant and is not something that is done in English. It that's what is done in Polish, then that's what the Polish Wikipedia should do, but not the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a bigger issue than this. It is found all throughout Wikipedia (for example, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and all other Macedonian kings). However, since this is not what is actually spoken or, normally, written in English, I think there's very much room for a larger debate about this stylistic choice on Wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose There are many reasons, and the issue has been solved long ago by genealogists, I am wondering why we have to proove every moment the same things. Anyway: 1.There are (usually) many epithets to the same person, which one to choose? each source is favorite to different one. 2.Medieval epitheths are in most cases in Latin, and the translation is difficult to be accurate, eg. fair? just? right? good? handsome? are all similar but there is a slight difference. In some languages this creates problems. 3.There are persons with the same name, have the same dignity, and they differ only in numeral since they have no epithet. Will you create now a new epithet? 4.There are epithets to flatter (eg victorius) by friends, but usuually are offensive epithets (eg lame, blind, etc) by opponents which is not political correct now, because it's a discrimination. 4.You think that the epithet is unique, but it's not, eg the Great: how many persions have it? it's confusing. 5.The author of a chronicle writes about his time and had no knowledge of previous monarchs or later ones. The common people in his era, in everyday life, use (derogatory) epithets because it was easy to him. But nowadays a genealogist, a scientist, can decide what numeral to give to the ruler. He has the overall history, persons and dignities, in front of him and he can say firmly what is right. So Mary I in place of Bloody Mary. Nota Bene: Many, confusing, contradictory epithets by friends and opponents; it's quite confusing. Numerals is a clear, net way to refer to somebody, eg Elisabeth II of U.K. what is the epithet? nor Elisabeth I had one. You think there is a problem with numerals, because if the dignity changes, eg from duke of Prussia to king of Pussia, the numeral starts from the begining. Also in the same House/family, when the main branch is count of Palatinate and the cadet branch is count of Zweibrucken, then the numeral starts from the begining: Karl I count of Palatinate is different from Karl I count of Zweibrucken (of course). Here the country changes. These are the two rules; thats all. Genealogy science is accurate, even if you don't know the details. It's not simple, but not confusing. Once you become familiar, it's easy. Well, ordinals, ordinals, ordinals! You may use both: Alexander III the Great. History is a science, diminutive epithets are unfair. Aris de Methymna (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input. You misunderstood the proposal, however. This is not a suggestion that ordinals be banned altogether but to follow usage in English language sources, which is a policy. Firstly, we should bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. 1) We are not choosing an epithet. We use the one already used. If the epithet is wrong, then the present title is already wrong. 2) See 1. The epithets are already in the titles. 3) There are no such cases listed in this move request. 4) There are no politically incorrect epithets in the titles listed here. The argument, even if it had merit, would not apply to any of these articles. There is only one Casimir the Great, and there is nothing confusing about it. 5) Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. We use the names used by historians, not genealogists. It may be epithets or ordinals but it is rarely both. No Mary, Elisabeth, or Karl is mentioned in this move request. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I personally shudder at Latinizations of Polish names ending in "-sław", such as "Bolesław" ("Boleslaus") and "Władysław" ("Vladislaus", "Ladislaus"), which encourage Polonophobes to associate them with corresponding "louses" (-lauses). "Casimir", for the Polish name Kazimierz, was bad enough. Nihil novi (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nihil novi: Is thinking of Coleslaw any better? GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of "coleslaw" (I have previously told Polish friends that it was named for someone called "Kolesław"). Still, I'd rather associate certain Polish kings with a salubrious salad than with a deadly insect.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ephitets are very useful (make peopel easy to memorize), while ordinals help a tiny bit with chronology. If we had to chose, yes, ordinals could go, but why can't we have both? They are pretty short. I recall we had discussions on this ~15 years ago and the current naming system is the result (although I agree with NN that Casimir is an odd one here). I can't find a centralized discusion but see for example Talk:Casimir_I_the_Restorer#Requested_move_2006; Talk:Casimir_II_the_Just#Requested_move; Talk:Bolesław_I_the_Brave#Approval_vote_for_article_renaming (proposal to remove the ordinal rejected in 2015 Talk:Bolesław_I_the_Brave#Requested_move_7_August_2015); Anyway, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Poland-related articles has nothing to offer here, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) specifically states Philippe II, Duke of Orléans as a good example. So if a French Duke can have both numeral and an epithet, why can't Polish monarchs have both as well? Those names have been stable for the ~15 years on English Wikipedia, I see no reason to revisit this outside the Casimir->Kazimierz issue perhaps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We cannot have both because constructions such as "Augustus the Second the Strong" sound terribly cumbersome in English, which is why the vast majority of English-language sources use either ordinals or epithets but not both. The most comprehensive English language biography of Augustus the Strong is therefore titled Pleasure and Ambition: The Life, Loves and Wars of Augustus the Strong. We really should bear in mind English language usage, not least because it is a policy. The article title Philippe II, Duke of Orléans consists of his name, ordinal, and ducal title; none of that is an epithet. These titles may have been in place for 15 years but that does not make them good, nor is it too late to harmonize them with actual usage in historiography. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with P, but his last bit is all wrong - combining a title with a numeral is completely different. Philippe II, Duke of Orléans does not include an "epithet". Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

But the title of the article is not "Augustus the Second the Strong" (and anyway shouldn't it read "Augustus Second the Strong"?) but "Augustus II the Strong". I agree the former sounds akward, but I really don't see much problem with the latter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed pronounced "Augustus the Second the Strong"; ordinal numbers require the definite article. And that is indeed the title of the article, only spelled in Roman numerals. "Augustus II the Strong" sounds awkward because it is pronounced "Augustus the Second the Strong", but the problem is that it is much less common in English-language historiography than "Augustus the Strong" (and the reason, of course, is that awkward pronunciation). There is no reason for us to disregard a sound Wikipedia policy by playing smarter than academic historians. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Piotrus and others. Most of the these figures are highly obscure to English readers, & in the spirit of IAR they need all the help they can get. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnbod:, why do you think an average English reader will understand that King Augustus II the Strong of Poland was actually the first king of Poland who was named Augustus, because King Sigismund II Augustus of Poland was "King Augustus I"? Do you really think that the present titles help an average English reader to understand that Augustus II the Strong was identical with Elector Frederick Augustus I the Strong of Saxony? Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad example - Augustus is actually the only one of all these an average English reader is at all likely to have heard of. Yes, the Saxon aspect is confusing, but I don't see what argument you are making from that (no need to tell me). The searches above show that in many cases the epithet and number are about equally likely to be used in English sources, so combining them, against our usual practice, makes sense. I would be more sympathetic to the nom if the kingdoms were included, but they aren't. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Augustus II the Strong" is no more recognizable than "Augustus the Strong". If anything, it can be less recognizable. Augustus II the Strong gets 23 hits while Augustus the Strong gets 102, including a comprehensive biography. Someone who has never heard of Bolesław the Curly will neither recognize nor memorize him as Bolesław the Fourth the Curly. Combining ordinals and country (e.g. Sigismund I of Poland) helps recognizability; combining ordinals and epithets achieves only tongue-twisting verbosity. We even have two men called Casimir I. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, on your own search "Augustus the Strong" gets "about 22,500 results", and :"Augustus II the Strong" "About 2,910 results"? We already know these are not the common names. Actually, I'd be prepared to supportthe nom for Augustus only. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For Frederick Augustus I of Saxony? :) Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, "Augustus II the Strong → Augustus the Strong" - first line of the nom. Frederick Augustus I of Saxony is not in the nom - what has he to do with it? Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry now I understand. Why is Augustus the Strong is more acceptable than Casimir the Great? Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Just better known to English speakers, imo. Of course he is actually German, thus nearer to Britain - probably he was an ally at some point - you will know. Mind you, I see "Casimir the Great" gets about 21,600 gbooks hits, more than I would have expected, & almost as many as Augustus above - but I couldn't guess at his dates at all. Augustus is I think much more recent than any of the others, which makes himm different (and better known). Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. In my native Hungarian, I would never refer to "Hungarian speakers" against academic books published in Hungarian when proper terminology is being discussed. Do academics who publish in English regularly ignore "English speakers"? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment The problem with the proposed bare names and epithets, is that having the ordinals tells you that its a monarch (or at least an high office-holder) that is indicated. Otherwise the kings of widely divergent eras mediaeval and modern are given names worthy of the warriors of remote bardic past. A lot of these Polish examples would read more like fictitious saga characters than serious rulers of genuine history. We're quite used to treating the later Byzantine emperors this way. I don't oppose the removal of ordinals per se but I feel they should go with something. "King Augustus the Strong" or "Augustus the Strong of Poland" or something could work. GPinkerton (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not treate the late Byzantine emperors this way: epithets and family names are not identical. If we wanted to follow the Byzantine emperors' pattern, we should write of Augustus I Wettin and Casimir III Piast. However, these forms are not used in reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I mean that the name is combined with a numeral to indicate that the individual was a monarch, not that the family names are the same as epithets. GPinkerton (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So we agree that we cannot compare the two cases (that is the names of Polish and Byzantine monarchs). Why do not we want to compare Władysław Spindleshanks with Harald Bluetooth, Mieszko the Old with Gorm the Old or Casimir the Great with Catherine the Great or Frederick the Great? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Anything can be compared with any other thing, they share the same universe. Harald Bluetooth and Gorm the Old, as I indicated in my comment, lived in early mediaeval Europe when surnames were not used, titles were not hereditary, and epithets were fluid. "Name + bardic epithet" is fine for the age of the Vikings, less so for the high middle ages and after. We have William I of Sicily not William the Bad, despite these perhaps being the only king with these epithets anywhere. We also have John, King of England and not "John Lackland", and Edward III of England not "Edward Longshanks", Richard I of England and not the (even better known) Richard the Lionheart, even though these epithets are contemporary and known in other languages. As I say, having a numeral or an "of Kingdomname" is good practice for monarchs. I have no objection to Casimir the Great or to Casimir Augustus (which I assumed was the standard English name). I have never understood why there is Constantine the Great but Theodosius I and Justinian I are just numbers, while Constantine Chlorus has a completely anachronistic epithet and not an ordinal. Frederick the Great is particularly problematic, because there are two quite different Fredericks the Great, several centuries apart, and they were both Frederick II. GPinkerton (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, anything can be compared with anything, but after comparing the names of Byzantine emperors and Polish monarchs we can conclude that we should not have compared them in this discussion, because family names and epithets are different. Casimir Augustus has never been used in reference to Casimir the Great in English literature. Constantine the Great and Constantine Chlorus are well known names, but Theodosius I and Justinian I had no epithets - so the latter two rulers can hardly be mentioned in this discussion. Epithets have always been elements of human culture and they are still in use (I refer to the Iron Lady). I think the solution is simple: we should accept what reliable sources do, so we do not have to deal with the problem of the alleged "fluidity" of epithets. The present highly artificial names (name +ordinals + epithets) can rarely be verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: They most certainly do have epithets! The point is that the first Theodosius and Justinian are both called "the Great" (though not on Wikipedia's titles), not to mention them both being saints. I refer to the equivocation of epithets. Epithets may still be in use, but it is an open question whether "Iron Lady" is more common than "Milk-Snatcher" and instead of either we have Margaret Thatcher as the article title. Family names are not really very different from epithets, and the historiographical use of either is always anachronistic and retrospective, just like the use of ordinals. Meanwhile we have also merely Pompey notwithstanding that "the Great" was actually the man's surname. GPinkerton (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: they have epithets, I forgot them. What I still emphasize, the present titles are arteficial, so they contradict WP:Name. Personally, I prefer epithets, because their knowledge represents a certain level of historical culture and they can easily be memorized and linked to historical events. Furthermore, reliable sources writing of Polish monarchs also use them. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I repeat that the ordinals alone or some qualification like "of Poland" would be appropriate. "The Great" is an unusual case. GPinkerton (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We agree that we do not agree: you prefer numerals for practical reasons, I prefer epithets for practical and cultural reasons. I think there is no point in continuing this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I somehow agree with both of you, since I would prefer both Leszek the Black (a common name and a common way to use an epithet) and Leszek II of Poland (a name that clearly identifies him as a Polish ruler) to the current Leszek II the Black (which is an odd mish-mash that's neither here nor there). Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Ordinals should not be used in cases of "the Great" or similar out-standing epithet that exists specifically to distinguish them from other kings of the same name and in cases of their being the only kings of that name. Otherwise I'd prefer "Name + Ordinal + of Poland". Cases of different ordinals for different titles of the same person are another issue: we have James VI and I but later only James II of England and not James VII and II. Mary II of England looks as though it should move to Mary II (Mary II of England and Mary II of Scotland) and I don't know why Charles I of England is not "of England, Scotland, and Ireland" or just Charles I, which is surely primary for English. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. The ordinals don't provide any useful information (which, for example, a king's reign dates might), while sometimes introducing confusion.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Connections to Rosicrucianism

He is included in the Rosicrucians category, but that doesn't appear anywhere the article. Are there good sources on his involvement, and which of the many Rosicrucian Orders he may have belonged to? AnandaBliss (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)