Talk:Elizabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: Article not moved. There appears to be some agreement that the article could be moved, buth there is no consensus where ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330) → Elisabeth of Bohemia (Přemyslid) — Obviously, we need to disambiguate between the various Bohemian queens and princesses named Elisabeth but the years of birth and death should be the last option. Replacing those numbers with the name of the dynasty this Přemyslid belonged to would be much more useful. Of all the Elisabeths of Bohemia, only this one is a Přemyslid. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The years do a better job in this case at least... is there a guideline that says they should be the last option? If so it may need clarification. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you explain how the years do better job in this case, please? Is she better known as a Přemyslid (a member of a dynasty that reigned over Bohemia) or as a person who happened to live between 1292 and 1330? Yes, there is a guideline that discourages this kind of disambiguation: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. It says: "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)." Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • People seeking this person are more likely to know roughly when she lived than her dynasty, as those who know her dynasty (a relatively esoteric piece of information) will also know roughly when she lived. The guideline you quote is contrasting the use of years to disambiguators such as (writer), and is not all that relevant here. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • But "roughly" does not work here. They have to know exactly when she lived in order to find her. And I highly doubt the years of her birth and death are more esoteric than the name of her dynasty. Is the name of, for example, Elizabeth I of England's dynasty a more esoteric piece of information than her years of birth and death? The guideline I cite is quite clear: "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)." Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • No, roughly works fine here. They don't need to know the exact dates, they just need to have enough of an idea to choose the correct one of the several possibilities. Yes, many who could roughly place Elizabeth I on a timeline would have no idea of which Royal House she represents. Yes, the guideline is clear, and it clearly does not apply in this case. Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the years are fine. I wouldn't be oppose to maybe Elisabeth Přemyslovna.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• On this one I'm not convinced the alternative proposed is any better than the years. If there's another (unique) name by which she's equally well known as by "Elisabeth of Bohemia", then we could consider that; otherwise I think the best alternative to dates is to say what title she held and through which king: Queen Elisabeth of Bohemia (wife of John of Luxembourg) (which I personally think ought to be the kind of title we give to articles on consorts, in spite of its uncomfortable length).--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; in this case, I think years are the better option. john k (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with Andrewa. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

How about Elisabeth of Bohemia, Countess of Luxembourg? Though "Countess of Luxembourg" is a much lower title than "Queen of Bohemia", she seems to be the only Elisabeth of Bohemia who was Countess of Luxembourg. Or Elisabeth of Bohemia (wife of John the Blind) or Elisabeth of Bohemia (daughter of Wenceslaus II)? All of these would be better than Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330). Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps first we should sort out how her husband's article is to be titled. It seems to have been moved to its present title John of Bohemia without a great deal of support. Is he not better known as John of Luxembourg or John the Blind?--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts (after some googling), perhaps not.--Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea to brainstorm other possible disambiguators, but all of these suffer the same problems... They're all based on some specific piece of information that is less likely than the current one to be useful to someone who's looking for this particular person, and needs to choose between several people of the same name. That's why disambiguators like (actor) and (writer) are preferred over dates for biographical articles, see the guideline cited above.

So this raises two issues: (1) Can we come up with a disambiguator that's an improvement over the current one? and (2) Is it necessary to clarify the current guidelines?

I think the current guideline is quite clear enough, but it seems to be the whole basis of the objections to the current disambiguator used here. Andrewa (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how any of the proposed alternatives is less likely to be useful. Is she really better known as someone who lived between 1292 and 1330 than as a daughter/wife of a king? Is she defined as a person who lived between 1292 and 1330 or as the wife of John the Blind/daughter of Wenceslaus II? Could you propose something better? Is it possible that "1292–1330" is the best we can do? Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A similar problem appears with the other Elisabeths of Bohemia I believe that Elisabeth Přemyslovna of Bohemia would work and the other main Elisabeth could be known as Elisabeth Luxembourg and Bohemia--David (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth Přemyslovna of Bohemia would be great too. The article about Elisabeth of Luxembourg is where it is. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the exact dates are or need to be well known. She's not being defined as anything here, that's the function of the article lead, not the article title. We're all trying to propose something better, that's the whole purpose of this section. Yes, it's possible, and even looking quite likely. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about Elisabeth Přemyslovna of Bohemia, as David suggested? Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful... Google gets no hits at all for it. Where is this title used? Andrewa (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any English language sources that refer to her? She is called "Eliška Přemyslovna" in Czech. Surtsicna (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some hits on Google books for "Elisabeth of Bohemia" referring to her (restrict the search using a phrase like "John of Luxembourg"). --Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Infobox image

The picture attached to this article seems to be a picture of Kunigunda of Halych. I notice that the corresponding Czech article has the same problem. When I get a chance I will try to confirm who the image is actually depicting. Otherwise, does anyone have any evidence that is photo is actually of Elisabeth Premyslovna? --Imagineimogen (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've wondered myself about this image. A look at the uploader's talkpage seems to indicate a lot of potential sourcing/licensing problems. I'll try to look into it as well when I have a minute. I'm no expert, but that work does not look to me like it dates to the 14th century in any case. Eric ^talk 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)