Talk:John I Albert of Poland

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. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

John I of Poland → John I Albert of Poland - 'John I of Poland' is a name virtually unknown to the world of printed publications (1 page) or academia (no hits). While I would prefer 'Jan I Olbracht', the most popular name (without the 'I' but it's useful), the last RM shown that the communicity strongly prefers the less used by professionals but more friendly to an average reader 'John'. I don't want to dispute that, nor the (IMHO unecessary) addition 'of Poland', but I think that since this king is almost always reffered to in various publications with both his first and second name (Jan Olbracht/John Albert), we should include his second name in our name. Consider: "Jan Olbracht", 333 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jan+I+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "Jan I Olbracht" (9 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22John+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "John Olbracht" (2 pages), "John I Albert" (5 pages), "John Albert" king Poland (204 pages). Among those books we can find virtually all important publications on Polish history, like Davies or Lukowski. Last but not least, note that Britannica also uses his second name Albert (and a numeral):[1]. Therefore I think that the move to "John I Albert of Poland" should not be controversial: we are retaining all that was won by the last RM, and adding an important part of his name used virtually by all major reference works. PS. Albert vs Olbrycht: Olbrycht is more unique and I think even more popular then Albert, but let's cosnider the less controversial (Polish...) Albert first, and then we can discuss whether we need to talk more about Olbrycht or is Albert enough of a compromise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as the nominator.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really care about the "of Poland" part, but it definitely looks like including "Albert" is the way to go, since that's how the name tends to appear in outside reference works. --Elonka 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral would support this if it were just John I Albert. Atm, John I Albert of Poland is cumbersome and implies there is more than one John I of Poland. --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • One step at a time. I would support loosing 'of Poland', too, but for now let's see if we can change this 'original research' ('John I pf Poland') into something that a person familiar with some academic (or general) references can recognize more easily... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Since it's a survey, I'll just give my preferences: Jan I Olbracht first choice, John I Albert second (per popularity in English references). No "of Poland".--SylwiaS | talk 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Could support the move to John I Olbracht of Poland though the current title is perfectly fine for me. //Halibutt 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Use an acceptable encyclopaedic name, as used in other encyclopaedias. – Axman (☏) 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. john k 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -  AjaxSmack  00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Can we just dump this poll (before it's too late), and suggest a move to John I Albert? --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What will be 'too late'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess now might be too late, as there has already been a vote against. --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:02, 1 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.