Talk:John I Albert/Archive 1

Archive 1

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.

The result of the debate was move. Philip Baird Shearer 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request Jan I Olbracht to John I of Poland

The first name should be in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Jan Olbracht is precisely his original name, spelling was not so established at that time. I have even seen a variant where he is Jan Wojciech, though that ois rarer. Marrtel 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Wite Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.

• Support. As nominator. Use English. Marrtel 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • gives 31 hits on google. No sensible reason stated.--Molobo 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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. --Molobo 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although I might prefer John I Albert of Poland. john k 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Your proposal gives 7 hits on google.In fact both proposals aren't used. The name should stay. --Molobo 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Google hits shouldn't determine article titles (cf. fart and flatulence) -- AjaxSmack 02:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jan Olbracht seems the conventional way to refer to this person in English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)}
• Oppose. Removing the Roman numeral might be acceptable, but I can't support anglicizing the name unless we're also going to move Ivan the Terrible into John IV of Russia and Juan Carlos of Spain into John Charles of Spain. Dpv 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't support polonizing it unless we're going to move Pope John Paul II to Papież Jan Paweł II --- AjaxSmack 02:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support with agreement to John K's proposal as well. Charles 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above reasons. The proposed 'English' names are almost completly unused in English literature, not to mention any other.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unused in English? Here is John I Albert in Britannica. And did you check books? --Irpen 05:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support this (per [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)|WP:Use English]) or John I Albert of Poland. 1911 Britannica, which the Wikipedia article is sourced from, uses "John Albert." -- AjaxSmack 02:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, best yet, move to John I Albert of Poland. --Irpen 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is English Wikipedia. See what is going on with Władysław II Jagiełło, the "most correct name", according to the Piotrus, to Jogaila of Lithuania. Juraune 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What is this — the Monday Night Massacre of Polish Monarchs? KonradWallenrod 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Piotrus and Co will never understand that this is no Polish wiki. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Orionus 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support It does say "use English" in the guidelines after all... Gryffindor 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appleseed (Talk) 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support John; I am tempted by Irpen's John I Albert. Septentrionalis 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support use English.--Matthead 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per other comments. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. logologist|Talk 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Anatopism 06:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Mattergy 07:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Radomil talk 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I looked around, but couldn't find a single reference work anywhere in my library that referred to this guy by the Polish spelling of "Jan". Even Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary has him as John I, Olbracht (Albert). In 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica he's John I Albert (and though they don't always agree, the online Britannica is the same, John I Albert[2]). I don't think the move request is perfect, as I'd rather see an article title of "John I Albert" than "John I of Poland", but I'll still support the move. --Elonka 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you prefer 'John I Albert', then why not oppose this move and vote for the second one?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because I still see the proposed name as an improvement over "Jan I Olbracht". --Elonka 05:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Use English - 167.7.39.139 00:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, prefer John I Albert of Poland. Olessi 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support for John I of Poland, but not to John I Albert of Poland. The latter properly explains his name, but the explanation is no longer visible to anyone here in Poland and Olbracht is used more like a nick-name than a proper name. //Halibutt 20:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • People in Poland tend to refer to Polish Wikipedia. It should be determined whether or not the Albert is included in English. Charles 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No idea, but you have a point here. A quick google search (I know, I know... :) ) shows that John I Olbracht of Poland is twice as popular as the "full" translation of Olbracht to Albert. Anyway, as Olbracht is more of a nick-name than a name itself, I'd say drop all nick-names, be it the Strong, the Feeble, the Tall or Olbracht. Simple John I would do, we didn't have other kings named John I here anyway. //Halibutt 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, we should use English--Aldux 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume VII (c. 1415 - c. 1500) [3], highly likely to be the most authoritative English language reference on the subject, uses Jan Olbracht. Balcer 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  Does this mean we can take for granted a move from Władysław II Jagiełło to Jogaila, or will this be selective use of sources? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because that reference uses the form Władysław II Jagiełło as well, at least when talking about him after he became a King of Poland, though it does call him Jogaila before 1384 which of course makes perfect sense (see [4]). Anyway, this reference demolishes the claim that Jan Olbracht is not used in authoritative English language sources, as some have stated above. Balcer 08:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support: use English. Jonathunder 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on poll

If anyone would like to list here any users who have expressed an opinion in the survey who in the opinion of another editor, should be discounted from the survey, please list them under here. Then person who considers moving the page can then decide to discount them or not. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the support vote by the anonymous IP cannot count. That gives 18 support to 11 oppose, i.e. no concensus. Balcer 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

According to findings of Haukurth, Users Logologist, Anatopism and Mattergy presumably are operated by the same person. Shilkanni 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) As is also KonradWallenrod. The sockpuppet check was just performed by official checker Mackensen, and the result confirmed these sockpuppet cases. See Mackensen's message in each sock's userpage. Shilkanni 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check must be done if you want to claim that. --Molobo 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As to my claim:Orionus, limited edits, appeared when the voting appeared. Too little edits to be considered right now.

--Molobo 00:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

All but Orionus, should not IMHO count. Given that, whether Orionus is or is not included in the poll does not make any significant change in the outcome. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

We need a rule for the nomenclature of Polish rulers. It seems clear that the Manual of Style guidelines will not work very well here. See Talk:List of Polish monarchs. Srnec 03:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not try the rules that have been used very successfully for several centuries by the Poles themselves? -- Anatopism 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with 'john' is that it is pronounced very differntly from Polish 'jan', which is more like 'ian'. 'J' is a very false friend between English and Polish languages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? For the same reason the Polish Wiki doesn't follow English usage for English rulers. The Poles, furthermore, used Latin like the rest of medieval Europe in most documents for many centuries and thus Boleslaus would be better than Boleslaw (w/ diacritics), but I doubt you agree. But John doesn't correspond to the French Jean, yet we have John II of France. The "j" in John is even more different from the "j" in Juan, yet we have John II of Aragon. The fact is, the name Jan is John in English and we translate it as such. What I want to know is: who the hell's Jan bez Ziemi? Srnec 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen, brother. And who is Jerzy III Hanowerski or Wilhelm Zdobywca or Elżbieta II Windsor or any of the other English/British monarchs who ALL have polonized names. That was my point on Talk:List of Polish monarchs -- it seems that all other Interwikis are allowed to use their native forms of names except English. AjaxSmack 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because only English Wikipedia is edited extensively by the international community.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

... and because few members of even fewer national communities edit the English Wikipedia intensively according to their POV, so that the international community has to clean up behind them. --Matthead 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please note, that in the poll above,

• Logologist (talk · contribs)
• KonradWallenrod (talk · contribs)
• Mattergy (talk · contribs)
• Anatopism (talk · contribs)

are confirmed sockpuppets [5]. The outcome of the vote may change based on this information -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KonradWallenrod above asked "What is this — the Monday Night Massacre of Polish Monarchs? KonradWallenrod 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)". I would answer that the monarchs ae as alive as before, and having better-named biographies here in Wikipedia. Whereas this seems to have been the Midsummer Night Massacre of wrongly-used sockpuppets, including KonradWallenrod. Marrtel 19:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing it is a massacre of is unprofessional naming and low standards. Konrad aka Logologist aka Mattergy aka Anatopism may think that Wikipedia rules don't matter, nor does the fact that this is English Wikipedia in English, not Polish Wikipedia in Polish. Actually professional standards of accuracy and usability, and such things as the Naming Conventions and the Manual of Style matter a lot. At last some professionalism is coming back in the Polish monarchy pages. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)}