Talk:Casimir I of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With regards to Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming, here are the results of Google test for Casimir vs Kazimierz:

  • Casimir - 1,250,000 hits
  • Casimirus - 826 hits
  • Kazimierz - 740,000
  • Casimir I - 807
  • Casimirus I - 28
  • Kazimierz I - 1379
  • Casimir Odnowiciel - 27
  • Kazimierz Odnowiciel - 1070
  • Casimir the Restorer - 1110
  • Casimirus the Restorer - 18
  • Kazmierz the Restorer - 12
  • Casimir I the Restorer - 670
  • Casimirus I the Restorer - none
  • Kazmierz I the Restorer - 3
  • Casimir I Odnowiciel - [1]
  • Casimirus I Odnowiciel - none
  • Kazimierz I Odnowiciel - 761

Tallies:

  • Casimir 2600 vs Kazimierz 3200; Kazimierz wins
  • roman numeral vs no roman numeral - 2200 vs 2200, close tie
  • Odnowiciel vs the Restorer - 1800 vs 1800, close tie

In accordance with my propoal at

With the proposed guideline Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming, I'd like to move this article to Kazimierz I the Restorer. Through this name seems not to be the most popular, it is made of the most popular components, and I'd like to standarise all Polish king names to Polish name/roman numeral/Nickname in English or second name in Polish.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Small update: I am not sure how google does his magic and why there are more hits for "Casimir I of Poland" (950) then "Casimir I" (860). The first one is mostly wiki and it's mirrors reflecting the old title before the move. If counted, it would give a slight win to Casimir (3450 vs 3200), but again shows how "of Poland" (with only 12 "Kazimierz I of Poland") is unused outside Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page renaming

This page needs to be moved back to an English title. Before we submit the "Requested move" paperwork, what is the consensus on what it should be called? --22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Casimir I or Casimir I of Poland. --Elonka 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Casimir I of Poland Charles 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We actually should not use time for votings. The poll at Casimir III clearly told how the majority sees the situation. All these Casimirs should now simply moved, in accordance with that result. There are no particular specific factors in any of them, as far as I know (and reading the naming convention). So, polling each one may only lead us to an inconsistent result, which should be avoided. Shilkanni 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that the article needs to be moved back to an English name, but the question is whether or not it should be "Casimir I", "Casimir I of Poland" or "Casimir I the Restorer". Personally, I'm up for any of them, as long as it gets the article off of "Kazimierz". But which one should we request? --Elonka 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. That means we use endlessly time for these and others already materially solved. And "the Restorer", or plain "Casimir I" were not those which won C III. I do not want inconsistency. This should be just moved to "Casimir I of Poland" and go to other issues - there are names of monarchs whose naming was not yet polled. Casimir I of Poland is the name given by naming convention. Besides, there have been others named Casimir I, such as some Silesian and Masovian dukes, and were there some German princelings too... That's one of the reasons behind naming convention: those named Casimir I are pre-emptively disambiguated by country name. Shilkanni 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We seem to all be in agreement, so I have made it so.  :) --Elonka 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Shilkanni 23:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name, revisited

Wouldn't 'Casmir I the Restorer of Poland' (or just 'Casimir I the Restorer') be a reasonable compromise?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what objective need there is for a "compromise". The current name is in accordance with naming conventions. This Casimir was not even a ruler of any other country than Poland, or was he? Shilkanni 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is, as was from the very begining, that the current naming conventions produces in case of Polish monarchs produces names used by a minority of scholars (if any). "Casimir I of Poland": 8 GP, 1 GS. ""Casimir I the Restorer": 29 GP, 1 GS. "Casimir the Restorer": 20 GP, 3 GS. I think it makes clear that we need to ad 'the Restorer' nickname (we can keep of Poland if you insist, this was before the times of PLC so this is not an issue for this monarch). The Polish "Odnowiciel" is also quite popular ([2], [3]), but from the begining I said that we should translate nicknames - nonetheless it adds further weight to the argument that nickname should be used. PS. Btw, is there anything in the guidelines that nicknames should not be used?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is. From WP:NC (names and titles):
If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionhearted is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Greats of Hungary and France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France).
This would appear to come under the clause about Richard the Lionhearted. Simple Casimir I is neither surprising, weird, nor unintelligible. Note that the proper test would be against Casimir I, without Restorer or Odnowiciel, which gets 109 GB and 8 GS. (The results for Odnowiciel show it is popular in Polish; it appears to be almost unused in English.) Septentrionalis 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
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 no move. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Casimir I of Poland → Casimir I the Restorer of Poland – reasons: see above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as a nominator.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. Septentrionalis 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cognomens are rarely, if ever, combined with territorial designations. Charles 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not common English usage. Also, Richard Lionheart redirects to Richard I, etc. Ashibaka tock 17:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though the name Casimir the Restorer is a valid by-name, I do not believe that it is in common enough usage to justify changing the title of the article. Britannica sticks with "Casimir I" [4], as does Columbia [5]. Even Encarta only uses "Kazimierz I" [6] --Elonka 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Please see discussion above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/s/Talk%7ECasimir_I_of_Poland_3a0d.html"