Talk:Boleslaw I of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Recount

Note: This section of discussion refers to a previous poll. To see the original votes, please review the archive page. --Elonka 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, several people want to recount the votes where sockpuppets may have influenced the outcome. I'll try to oblige - I hadn't noticed the puppets when closing this poll. Tallying experienced non-puppet contributors I get this:

[edit] Support

  • Cfvh
  • AjaxSmack
  • Ghirlandajo
  • Gryffindor
  • Robert A. West
  • Jay3218
  • Marrtel
  • Pmanderson, solicited
  • Juraune, solicited
  • Srnec, solicited
  • Jtdirl, solicited
  • Calcagus, solicited
  • Matthead, solicited
  • Aldux, solicited
  • Jonathunder, solicited

[edit] Oppose

  • Dpv
  • Jpbrenna
  • Piotrus
  • Appleseed
  • Logologist
  • Radomil
  • Elonka
  • Angusmclellan, solicited

(Please correct any mistakes.) Among all participants the vote is 15 to 8 in favor of moving but among users not selectively solicited to come to this poll the vote was 7 to 7. This indicates that the poll is tainted and I don't feel confident moving the article to Boleslaus I of Poland based on it. Haukur 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So their votes do not count? Nice. Charles 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Haukur is writing absolute rubbish, again. It might help if someone who knows about polling and the work on naming conventions, as opposed to someone who clearly doesn't, did the calculations.

  1. this "selectively solicited" stuff is garbage. The people "solicited" are the people who have been working on the issue of the naming conventions and manual of style for royalty for years. They are always informed when votes on the area are taking place, because as they wrote the friggin' Naming Conventions, after a long debate and based on a consensus, they tend to know what the naming conventions means and be able to give an insight into the issue of naming on WP. It seems as though Haukur has a problem with people who contribute to an area being informed that an area is being discussed. So obviously, following Haukur's logic (or lack of), Irish people cannot be informed about discussions on naming Irish articles, contributors on US politics cannot be informed that a US political topic is being debated for renaming. It follows then that Polish contributors should also not be informed when a Polish topic is the subject of a vote. What an absurd and ridiculous idea.
  2. Of the same minority opposed to renaming, which Haukur bizarrely contents amounts to 50% of the vote (lol), one created a set of supposed conventions on Polish royalty without a consensus, causing chaos all over the place, and another used multiple sockpuppets to try to rig the vote. It is in the circumstances particularly ridiculous in the extreme for Haukur to appear on the page and then blame those trying to clean up the mess as though they tainted a vote, and imply that their votes don't count, while suggesting that the small minority who are opposed amount to 50% of the mytical untainted poll. Plase, Haukur, withdraw from intervening in these debates and allow an admin who knows what they are doing to count the votes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is that we don't know what an untainted poll would like because this one sure wasn't. Thus you have not demonstrated consensus for a move to Boleslaus I of Poland and as a WP:RM maintainer I don't feel confident making that move. If you want to call attention to a vote then do so through a relevant noticeboard which anyone can watch (in this case that could be a noticeboard on e.g. medieval Europe, Poland, or European royalty). I still can see no system in Marrtel's soliciting except contacting people he (correctly) thought would agree with him. That's not kosher and since there seems to have been no equivalent effort on the "other side" to rally the troops I think it probably badly skewed the poll. Haukur 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I contacted people on two bases: those I knew having done work in royalty, and those Middle Ages. Both groups have no noticeboard I was aware of. I predicted that the Polish network will inform their people without me wasting time to that. Sorry if someone thinks that taints something. I specifically approached also persons with whom I had earlier disagreed upon something, as not to stack any purely support groups. I think that nothing is gained for analyzing the same reslts more and more. Everyone understands that if this matter is put to a new poll, there will be those 15 editors, now interested in the matter, taking care that the page will not go/remain in the Polish spelling. Why battle against that majority/ consensus? There will never be enough supporters for the Polish spelling, as their sockpuppets have now been decimated. Marrtel 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I contacted people on two bases: those I knew having done work in royalty, and those Middle Ages. This is transparently not true. You contacted User:Orionus who had done no work in either area because he had commented at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5 with a position you approved of. You did not contact people you thought would disagree with you. Even in that apologia above you say you figured that there was no need for you to "waste time" by contacting Polish editors. You made a nice exception for User:Halibutt, though, because you thought (correctly) that he would support your position. Haukur 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Orionus had in Wladyslaw II participated in royalty naming. Is Halibutt Polish? Marrtel 18:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "when in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind with Haukur's behaviour here. First he takes offence that people who have participated in discussions on royalty naming for months and in some cases years (in my case four years) were informed that a discussion on the same issue was going on and we might like to contribute. (He conveniently neglects to mention that those contacted did not all vote the same way on every page, because that ruins the myth of people being corralled into block voting.) Then when Marrtel points out that the people he contracted where people who had done work on royalty and/or the Middle Ages, Haukur scoffs at that and calls it "transparently not true", which is itself transparently not true when his "evidence", that Orionus had contributed at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5, given that that page is about a monarch, proves Haukur wrong and Marrtel right. Haukur's attacks on the motivation of people who participated in votes is frankly disgraceful. The fact that he focuses those attacks on Marrtel, who simply alerted users who work in a specific area, that something in their area of work and expertise is being discussed (something which happens all the time and has for years) and not on the users who used sockpuppets to try rig a vote, at the very least raises questions as to his objectivity and judgment on this matter. The debate is divisive enough without hamfisted interventions from an admin. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Commenting in a naming dispute is not "doing work" - but even if it were then why didn't Marrtel contact everyone who had commented in that naming dispute? Ask anyone not previously involved and not your personal friend whether Marrtel's selective soliciting of votes was an acceptable way to call attention to a poll. Your constant attacks on me are growing tiresome. Your latest line is that I am not attacking the "users who used sockpuppets" enough. That's completely absurd - it was I who called attention to those sockpuppets to begin with. And there weren't "users" with sockpuppets - there was "a user". No-one is defending the sockpuppet abuse so there is no need to "attack" it at this point. You, however, are still defending transparent attempts to rig polls. Haukur 03:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


No. You are the one who is consistently misrepresenting what happened. I am not a friend of Marrtel. I can't remember having had any contact with him prior to being informed of the votes on Polish monarchs. I was asked to contribute because I have been an editor dealing with royalty naming for FOUR years. I was asked because I was one of the contributors who wrote the original naming conventions to clear up the infamous mess that previously was the royalty pages on WP. Anyone who knows my editing record knows that I cannot be taken for granted. I judge each issue as it comes, which is why I have only recently been on the opposite side of an argument to another longtime contributor, Deb. Charles can confirm that I have not always agreed with him, yet even after disagreeing with him he still regularly alerts me to debates on royalty naming issues. I have agreed with, and disagreed with, Adam Carr on royalty issues on various pages, and have agreed with, and disagreed with, John Kenny. Indeed we have disagreed on Polish royalty names on some pages. So the idea that Marrtel tried to assemble a block vote to influence a decision is proposterous and ignorant and if you knew anything about the edit histories of the people he approached you would know that. He asked people who contribute on the issue of royalty naming to contribute. With so many pages we cannot possibly know of discussions and votes taking place otherwise. (I have 1000 articles on my watchlist and cannot be aware of every discussion taking place in my area of expertise otherise.) I have asked John Kenney to contribute in the full knowledge that he disagrees with me on occasions. (We have disagreed on the name to be used for the Ivory Coast, and on various Polish monarchs. That does not in the slightest impact on whether I tell him that a debate is taking place on something.) Deb and I disagree. (We have only a week ago). So does Charles, against whom I have voted on one page, and agreed with on another. So do many others.

You clearly know as little about the general topic as you know about the people Marrtel contacted. They all have a history of people totally independent thinkers who regularly disagree. In no way whatsoever could Marrtel or anyone else presume to know the way they would cast their vote. They were only asked to participate because many of us, certainly John, Deb and others, are longterm contributors to the topic with years of editing history on the topic behind them. (I have 2000+ edits on the topic. John Kenney the same.) Charles is a relative newcomer who since joining has done tremendous work. Only recently he strongly disagreed with Deb on an issue. That would not stop Marrtel, or I, informing both of them of an issue which, given their edit history, they might want to contribute. To besmirch the reputations of longterm contributors on the issue, people with longterm edit histories that show complete independence of thought, is outrageous. You owe every one of us a public apology and you owe a public apology to Marrtel for accusing him of trying to rig a vote when all he did was alert longterm contributors that a vote was taken place on an issue that they have years of history contributing to. He clearly got the names from past debates on royalty naming (John Kenney had already been participating on one of the Polish monarchs pages). Marrtel knew very well that our edit histories show that none of us could be taken for granted. He and John disagreed on this page about the name to apply to Władysław II Jagiełło. Maartel contacted John 4 hours after he registered a vote that Marrtel disagreed with on that page. John wanted Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland whereas Marrtel wanted Vladislaus II of Poland. Why would a user trying to rig a poll contact someone he had disagreed hours earlier on another page and ask him to contribute? The answer is patently obvious. He knew John to be a longtime contributor on the issue of royalty naming and wanted to give him a chance to contribute. He also knew John to be independent-minded and quite possibly likely to take a different stance to his one. So much for trying to rig polls.

Frankly, if you don't see the ludicrousness of your situation, then you should withdraw from this page. You have contributed nothing but smears, accusations and confusion and clearly know nothing about the topic. Your attacks on longterm contributors on this issue are ignorant and illinformed, and suggest you don't know what you are talking about. It is a disgrace to suggest or imply that longterm contributors to a topic, with a long history of independence behind them, are somehow party to rigging a vote. You owe everyone an apology for your wrongheaded, illinformed and ignorant presumptions and accusations. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're all fine upstanding people but the fact remains that Marrtel selectively contacted people and admits as much, saying that it would be a "waste of time" for him to contact Poles. The people he contacted broke in favor of his side in the vote 12-1. Other people not contacted were about evenly split. He tried to rig the poll and he was successful. I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this but I'd be fine with submitting to a review by my peers. I suggest we ask a few people who are not previously involved to analyse this. Maybe Aaron Brenneman, Tony Sidaway, Sjakkalle and Xoloz? If, for example, two of the above were to tell me that I owe someone an apology then I would issue one. Haukur 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason why they voted predominantly that way is quite simple. That is where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be. Your lack of concern for the fact that a small number of Polish contributors rode roughshod through the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions to create names that are not used and not recognisable widely outside Poland, is striking. It was the equivalent of Irish users putting Dublin at Baile Atha Cliath or President Sean T. O'Kelly at Seán Tomas Ó Ceallaigh, even though it is the English versions, not the Irish versions, which are used and recognised internationally. You are silent at the highjacking of pages by one group, something achieved through a noticeboard, but go ballistic about a free vote involving non-Poles, on the basis that they were contacted, as they had to be as there is not a noticeboard to inform them of votes on royalty topics. Your lack of consistency is stark, as is your desire to misrepresent the motivations of a user who openly contracted people, including someone who had taken a different stance to him on another Polish page. If he was trying to rig a vote then he wouldn't have contacted users who had taken different stances to his own on issues, and he wouldn't have contacted users who are notoriously independent-minded. His behaviour was a lot more open, and fair, and followed more Wikipedia rules, than yours has been. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree but don't have much to add. If the noticeboard you want doesn't exist then I suggest you just go ahead and set it up. I don't see how Boleslaus I of Poland is "where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be", considering that no evidence has been presented to show that Boleslaus is the most common form of the name and I see a lot of evidence against it. But, really, it doesn't look to me like the two of us are getting anywhere here so I'll go ahead and ask some previously uninvolved people to comment on Marrtel's actions. Haukur 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it would probably be best if we agreed beforehand on some people to arbitrate the issue. Alternatively we could post at WP:ANI again but if a long thread develops there again between us I fear no-one will comment. Have you got any ideas or neutral people you'd like to propose to arbitrate the issue? I suppose we could ask the Arbitration Committee but maybe that's overkill at this stage. Haukur 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have hitherto refrained from commenting on the material aspects of the issue since it is one I was not familiar with. I'm a rank amateur on the matter and I'd much prefer to defer to those who are knowledgeable about Polish history and naming conventions, especially with English works on the subject. But having participated in the procedural issues I can't resist trying to form an opinion on what the most suitable name might be.

Starting with the Use English naming convention I come upon this phrase: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." This is a somewhat controversial guideline but let's try to apply it in this case and see where it leads. Every Google search and Google books search I do comes out with Boleslaw/Bolesław on top (those tools are not good for working out diacritics use, to get some of the Bolesławs on Google Books you have to search for mis-OCR-ed forms like "Bolestaw"). When I check Encarta and Britannica I also get Bolesław/Boleslaw. Reading the above discussion I can see no argument presented as to why Boleslaus or Boleslav would be preferable - except the apparent feeling among some editors that Boleslaw/Bolesław is somehow too Polish.

As for the debate on whether it's better to disambiguate by nicknames, when they are widely used, or by "of country" it feels to me like it has been going on since the dawn of time on Wikipedia. So we have Ethelred the Unready at that location but his son is at Edmund II of England rather than at Edmund Ironside. I can see decent arguments for both options and I don't really care much which triumphs for a particular name. In this case the nickname is prominently featured both on Encarta and Britannica so I'd think it was a viable option but "of country" is always a popular choice too and some people insist on it.

Taking the above together the names I would think would be most in accordance with our naming conventions would be (in no particular order) Bolesław I the Brave, Bolesław I of Poland, Boleslaw I the Brave or Boleslaw I of Poland. Until a few days ago the article was at one of these locations and I don't understand why one editor is fighting tooth and nail to bring it to a Boleslav or Boleslaus version. So there, now I have an opinion :) Haukur 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Approval vote for article renaming

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 rename to Boleslaw I of Poland. This title got twice as many votes as any of the others and a couple of people who voted for the next most popular titles indicated that they were willing to accept it as a second choice. -- Kjkolb 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate your preference for how this article should be titled. You may vote for as many different options as you like, but please only vote for those names that you support. By not voting for a particular name, it will be assumed that you are opposing that particular option. 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Boleslas I of Poland

  1. Support. Shilkanni 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (tied for first choice of mine, whichever is more common) Charles 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaus I of Poland

  1. Support. Shilkanni 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (tied for first choice of mine, whichever is more common) Charles 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support (first choice) Aldux 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslav I of Poland

  1. I can accept this alternative too, but it is not my first choice. Shilkanni 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (second choice of mine) Charles 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Septentrionalis 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaw I

[edit] Bolesław I (diacritic)

  1. Support. --Lysytalk 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaw I the Brave

  1. Support. Elonka 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Septentrionalis 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolesław I the Brave (diacritic)

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support--SylwiaS | talk 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Bolesław I of Poland --SylwiaS | talk 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaw I of Poland

  1. Support. Elonka 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Shilkanni 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I voted for this? A mistake. Sorry.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support (second choice)--Aldux 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support as possible consensus. Septentrionalis 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per WP:NAME. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak support as acceptable but undesirable. Ardric47 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolesław I of Poland (diacritic)

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support --SylwiaS | talk 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This version seems to be most common, most resonable, and in accordance to the wiki naming convention. --SylwiaS | talk 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support (first choice) as "most accurate." Ardric47 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolesław I the Brave of Poland (diactric)

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

copy from above:

I have hitherto refrained from commenting on the material aspects of the issue since it is one I was not familiar with. I'm a rank amateur on the matter and I'd much prefer to defer to those who are knowledgeable about Polish history and naming conventions, especially with English works on the subject. But having participated in the procedural issues I can't resist trying to form an opinion on what the most suitable name might be.

Starting with the Use English naming convention I come upon this phrase: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." This is a somewhat controversial guideline but let's try to apply it in this case and see where it leads. Every Google search and Google books search I do comes out with Boleslaw/Bolesław on top (those tools are not good for working out diacritics use, to get some of the Bolesławs on Google Books you have to search for mis-OCR-ed forms like "Bolestaw"). When I check Encarta and Britannica I also get Bolesław/Boleslaw. Reading the above discussion I can see no argument presented as to why Boleslaus or Boleslav would be preferable - except the apparent feeling among some editors that Boleslaw/Bolesław is somehow too Polish.

As for the debate on whether it's better to disambiguate by nicknames, when they are widely used, or by "of country" it feels to me like it has been going on since the dawn of time on Wikipedia. So we have Ethelred the Unready at that location but his son is at Edmund II of England rather than at Edmund Ironside. I can see decent arguments for both options and I don't really care much which triumphs for a particular name. In this case the nickname is prominently featured both on Encarta and Britannica so I'd think it was a viable option but "of country" is always a popular choice too and some people insist on it.

Taking the above together the names I would think would be most in accordance with our naming conventions would be (in no particular order) Bolesław I the Brave, Bolesław I of Poland, Boleslaw I the Brave or Boleslaw I of Poland. Until a few days ago the article was at one of these locations and I don't understand why one editor is fighting tooth and nail to bring it to a Boleslav or Boleslaus version. So there, now I have an opinion :) Haukur 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the naming conventions: "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article. - Exceptions: 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)." These MOS guidelines are easily available at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Shilkanni 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we sometimes a nickname in article titles when it is well known. To your examples might be added Canute the Great, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor, Harold Harefoot, Gorm the Old, Haakon the Red and Blot-Sweyn, just from a cursory look at a few king lists. Polish kings are by no means the only ones to have nicknames in their article titles. I'll grant that the "of country" seems to win out much more often, though. Personally I think we could do with some more nickname use but I really don't care much one way or the other, I think the choice will make very little difference to our readers and disambiguation pages ensure that everyone can link to their preferred form. Haukur 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaw I (and other variants with only name+ordinal) are ambiguate, because there were Boleslaw I in Silesia too, and Boleslav I in Bohemia. Shilkanni 11:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The diacrtitic here is barely visible to me, so I am marking it. I will vote after research. Septentrionalis 23:44, 27 June 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.

[edit] Encyclopedias and dictionaries

Here is how this individual's name is spelled in English-language reference works. If you have access to other major English-language reference works, please add to this list. Thank you. --Elonka 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedias

  • Bolesław I the Brave (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)
  • Boleslaw I (online Britannica) [1]
  • Bolesław I (online Encarta) [2]
  • Boleslaus I (online Columbia) [3]

[edit] Dictionaries

  • Boleslaw I (The Brave) ( Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

[edit] Histories

  • Boleslav Cambridge Medieval History. Adds Chobry in index, but translates (there) the Mighty.

[edit] Consensus?

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 Boleslaw I of Poland, per above consensus poll

The WP:RM entry for this article mentions that consensus was reached. The above poll does not prove consensus in my eyes, as there are too many votes against "Boleslaw I of Poland". It is obvious that "Bolslav I of Poland", the current title, is not preferred, but I would rather a poll with just the two options. So here it is. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll to rename article to "Boleslaw I of Poland"

Support:

  1. I'm willing to support pretty much anything besides "Boleslav" at this point. --Elonka 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, again. Septentrionalis 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Use English Boleslaus I of Poland but if WP:UE is to be thrown aside, use Bolesław I of Poland with diacritic. -AjaxSmack 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Well, we did have consensus, with 5 out of 7 people willing to support "Boleslaw I of Poland". But then SylwiaS came and threw her support behind "Boleslaw I the Brave", which made the numbers 5 out of 8. SylwiaS, Lysy, or Charles, would you be willing to support "Boleslaw I of Poland", to prove consensus? Or do we have to re-vote this entire thing again? --Elonka 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And now Piotrus has withdrawn his vote (sigh). Alright, we move on to this new support/oppose vote. --Elonka 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to support any of the following: "Bolesław I of Poland", "Bolesław I", or "Bolesław I the Brave" but only with diacritics. Per 1979 Britannica, Encarta, and good sense.--SylwiaS | talk 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Diacritics are clearly not predominant English usage, and they are next to invisible on this IE computer. What is true for me is probably true for a lot of people. Septentrionalis 01:07, 23 July 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.

[edit] Name, revisited

What do you think of 'Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland' as a compromise? I really think that 'the Brave' (Chrobry) is more useful then 'of Poland', but why not have both in the title?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think most Poles recognizes "Chrobry" as anything else as Boleslaw's nickname. Most Poles don't know what "Chrobry" meant and I think they would connect that to other Boleslaw's. Szopen 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of beavers

I heard that Boleslaw introduced some protection of beavers but I cannot cite any sources. If anyone could, I think that the information is worth placing here as that would make him one of pioneers of environmental protection. Zbihniew 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:20zl r.jpg

Image:20zl r.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First "real" Christian

I removed the comment that he was the "first real Christian" ruler of Poland as this is a statement of faith rather than one of fact. A person who converts to Christianity is as much a Christian as someone born into the faith. Velkyal (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)