Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 4 February 2006

Archives

• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)/Archive 01
• Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01

Proposals

Proposal 1

Use Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles) without any significant modifications, return to the naming scheme from early 2005.

List

Add a list of rulers as they would look under that proposal.

Discussion

Proposal 2

Polish first name, roman numeral if any, royal second name/nickname in English (if translatable at all, Poniatowski is not, being a normal surname). No 'of Poland' or 'King of Poland' needed unless there is a disambig issue.

List

Current version at List of Polish monarchs.

Discussion

See discussion that led to this proposal, and its recent criticism at Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01. Feel free to continue it here.

Short rationale and summary:

• Polish first names (without diactrics) are more often than not the most popular. To have consistency, we have decided to use Polish names for all, with the exception of Alexander (being so close to Aleksander). See talk pages linked at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01#Early_Piasta and below for specific proof.
• Roman numerals are useful.

Yes. I'm not sure I understand the system currently in place. Scholarly texts contradict each other in numbering, Wladyslaw II, is also Wladyslaw IV in one book,, and Wladyslaw V in another. I don't know why this is happening. - Calgacus 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not certain of it, I think it may be a result of a monarch reigning in two or more countries under the same name, when there were different rulers with that name in that country. I am not sure which Władysław you refer to atm, but it is likely there were more Władysław's in Poland than in Lithuania, thus he may be II of Lithuania, IV of Poland (yet one more reason to discard the 'of country' extension). An alternative explanation is that the numbering got distorted during the Fragmentation Period, when there were no (or few) kings but mostly 'high dukes of a province' and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Jogaila is the Wladyslaw I'm talking about. I invite you to post a list which is genuinely a compromise so that we can get on with this as soon as possible. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see other proposals first, because at this time I am aware only of my new proposal (the current version) and the go-back-to-the-old-version proposal (which can be viewed by going to an archived version of the list... page). With the exception of Jogaila, I am not entirely sure if 'the opposition' to my proposal is united on some key points, or if they have their own variants. If you have your own, please list it as Proposal 3. In a few days, when we see what the alternatives are (if any), we can discuss them and see if new compromises can be worked out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Translate nicknames into English, since it is English wiki. Don't translate surnames for obvious reasons.

Nicknames are not usually (as far as I am aware at least), not part of the titles. E.g. William the Conqueror is William I of England, Richard the Lionheart is Richard I of England, Philip Augustus is Philip II of France, Malcolm Canmore is Malcolm III of Scotland, Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of Russia, etc. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet they are popular. It is open for debate whether it was a good decision, but based on one of the NC guidelines (names should benefit the reader) we decided that nicknames are more 'memorable'/'interesting', will allow readers to differentiate between rulers more easily (Mieszko III the Old is easier to differentiate from Mieszko IV Tanglefoot than if you know them just as Mieszko III of Poland and Mieszko IV of Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No-one ever refers to William the Conqueror as William I of England, yet that is his wikipedia title. It's equally rare to call Ivan the Terrible Ivan IV, or Philip Augustus Philip II. Nicknames are more memorable for all rulers who have them; nicknaming isn't confined to Polish rulers; after all, we are only talking about the article titles, not the way they will be referred to in the article. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My analysis of usage of Polish rulers' names done a few months ago has shown that indeed some sources outside Wiki use such constructions, but they are few and more often than not it's a 'free-for-all' and dozens of variants of the names exist. I'd support revamping the entire naming conventions to something else (preferably based on my proposal 1), but perhaps it would be better to see if we can raeach a compromise on Polish rulers before trying to reform the entire royalty on Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• 'of Poland' forgets Lithuania, both as a Grand Duchy and later as part of the Commonwealth, therefore 'of Lithuania and Poland' may be better. Some rulers (Władysław II Jagiełło) have not been the rulers of both parts for the same part. Some kings (Wacław III/Wenceslaus III of Bohemia, Ludwik Węgierski/Louis I of Hungary, Henryk Walezy/Henry III of France, Zygmunt III Waza/Sigismund of Sweden) were actually kings/rulers of other entities, thus their full name would either be very long or should not contain Poland at all because their reign in Poland was short. It has been decided that whatever rules are worked out they should not be applicable for those who are mostly 'foreign' (Wacław, Ludwik, Henry, etc.) and that the best solution is to drop this extenstion.

This is a headache, I'll admit. I don't think there are any guidelines for ranking various kingdoms, but I am in favor of working out some system that does include the relevant kingdom name. - Calgacus 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds nice in theory, but I have given up on seeing a workable system that is not confusing (list all countries and years of reign?) and not too long (X of France (1555-1566), of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1566-1777)), but if anybody has a proposal, do suprise me :) In the end, I think that the 'of country' is better described in the text, just as other longish and confusing things (family, titles, coats of arms, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not years of reign, that wouldn't be in the title; and for earlier kings, more often than not, reign lengths are not even certain. For rulers pertaining to the Polish-Lithuania, maybe it'd be better to name them "of Poland-Lithuania" or something related; I don't know. You know these things better than I do, so I suggest you post a new list of article titles in accordance with your experience, and other editors will be in a better position to make suggestions. - Calgacus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My preference is not to have 'of country' at all, as I can't see any good solution here, but as there were others who liked them and are pretty familiar with the period (Halibutt??) perhaps they will be willing to do something about it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The naming conventions IIRC said : use the country with which the ruler is most associated to, and made redirects. in case of Poland-Lithuania, it's unfortunately polonocentric view, since Western historians tended to look at the commonwealth history view our eyes (just as they saw later polish history through German or Russian eyes). Szopen 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Malcolm Barber's High Medieval List

This is the list, as written, in Malcolm Barber's book The Two Cities: Medieval Europe, 1050-1320, a standard text for current undergraduate students in the English-speaking world studying the High Middle Ages of Europe:

• Casimir I the Restorer, 1034-58
• Boleslaw II the Bold, 1058-1082, crowned 1076, Deposed c. 1082
• Wladyslaw I Herman, c. 1082-1102
• Boleslaw III the Wrymouth, 1102-39
• Wladyslaw II the Exile, 1139-46. Died 1163
• Boleslaw IV the Curly, 1146-73
• Mieszko III the Old, 1173-77. Deposed 1201-2
• Casimir II the Just, 1177-94
• Leszek II the White, 1194-1227
• Mieszko III, 1201-2
• Wladyslaw III Spindleshanks, 1202-06. Deposed
• Boleslaw V the Chaste, 1227-79
• Leszek III the Black, 1279-88
• Boleslaw VI, 1288
• Henry, 1288-90
• Przemysl II, 1295-96, Crowned 1295
• Wladyslaw IV the Short, 1296-1300. Deposed. 1306-33. Crowned 1320
• Waclaw I of Bohemia, 1300-05. Crowned 1300
• Waclaw II of Bohemia, 1305-06

List (developing)

• Siemowit
• Siemomysl
• Leszek I
• Mieszko I
• Boleslaw I the Brave
• Mieszko II Lambert
• Bezprym
• Mieszko II Lambert
• Casimir I the Restorer
• Boleslaw II the Bold
• Wladyslaw I Herman
• Zbigniew (?)
• Boleslaw III the Wrymouth
• Wladyslaw II the Exile
• Boleslaw IV the Curly
• Mieszko III the Old
• Casimir II the Just
• Leszek II the White
• Mieszko III the Old (restored 1)
• Mieszko IV Tanglefoot
• Mieszko III the Old (restored 2)
• Wladyslaw III Spindleshanks
• Boleslaw V the Chaste
• Leszek III the Black
• Boleslaw VI
• Henry Probus
• Przemysl II
• Wladyslaw IV the Short
• Waclaw I (i.e. Wenceslaus II of Bohemia
• Waclaw II (i.e. Wenceslaus III of Bohemia)
• Wladyslaw V the Elbow-high
• Casimir III the Great
• Louis the Hungarian (i.e. Louis I of Hungary)
• Jadwiga Angevin
• Wladyslaw VI Jagiello (i.e. Jogaila)
• Wladyslaw VII of Varna
• Casimir IV Jagiello
• John I Albert
• Alexander Jagiellon
• Sigismund I the Old
• Sigismund II the August
• Henry Valois, (i.e. Henry III of France)
• Stephan Bathory
• Wladislaw IV Vasa
• John II Casimir
• Sigismund III Vasa
• Michael I
• John III Sobieski
• Augustus II the Strong
• Stanislaw I
• Augustus III the Saxon
• Stanislaw II Augustus

Discussion

I suggest we follow him. I.e. Casimir, and Henry, but not Ladislaus (etc). - Calgacus 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Barber's list is incomplete — e.g., no Mieszko IV Tanglefoot. logologist|Talk 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why he omitted him; he probably had a reason. But anyways, I'm suggesting we should follow him only in regards to the spellings. - Calgacus 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've drawn up a draft list. Please check for omissions or mistakes, and comment on the numbering. And don't ask me where Augustus I is. - Calgacus 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments/questions below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose to Michael I. As he was one of the few kings from the ranks of Polish nobility, his name should be Polish: Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, just as other members of his family are named Michał Wiśniowiecki (disambig).

   • IMHO irrelevant argument. Compare, for instance, Hirohito is from Japan, yet the page is not at The Shōwa Emperor: the issue is what people would generally call him in English, not what the page name should be according to nationalistic sentiments. Similarly, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, and not Friedrich I, Holy Roman Emperor. --Francis Schonken 08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
     • It has nothing to do with nationalistic sentiments only the fact that Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki was a normal man elected a king. Just like presidents or PMs are being elected today. Wiki has no article about George W. of America only George W. Bush.--SylwiaS | talk 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
       • Hi Sylwia, looks like you're missing quite a few points there:

         1. Misplaced Pages's naming conventions guidelines don't distinguish between "normal" and "abnormal" men; they do distinguish between people that have no royal or noble title (wikipedia:naming conventions (people), e.g. George W. Bush), and people thath have such title (wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles), e.g. George I of Great Britain, Herbrand Sackville, 9th Earl De La Warr,...) - This Michael had Rex Poloniae as "official title", in English: King of Poland, so "monarch", "royal", and further, "nobility", so it's the "names and titles" guideline that normally applies.
         2. Being a monarch or not has nothing to do with being elected or not: most Holy Roman Emperors were elected, does not make them less "monarchical".
         3. The first names of monarchs are usually translated in English, like Friedrich → Frederick (see, e.g. Frederick II of Prussia), Jean → John (e.g. John, Duke of Burgundy), etc...

         So, if you don't mind, I think the article on Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki should probably be at Michael of Poland or something like that (Michael I of Poland if there is a second) for the English wikipedia. - Francis Schonken

Totally agree with the "Of Poland part"; how this fits with Poland-Lithuania I can't say yet. "of Poland-Lithuania"?- Calgacus 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis, thanks for the rules, I read them. But I still think it’s a different case. Firstly, the elected Holy Roman Emperors were of some dynasties anyway (like our king Henry III of France who was elected too), not just normal noble men. Secondly, the rules say several times:

• Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.
• No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them.
• Exeptions: (4.) If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...".

Many Polish kings were just called Zygmunt, August etc even if they were elected, but with those who were normal people chosen kings it was different, they were called rather by their surnames than Christian names i.e. king Wiśniowiecki or king Sobieski, and this is how their names are known in English today. So here are some google hits (English only):

• Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki 381
• Michal Korybut Wisniowiecki 635
• Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki 762
• Michael of Poland 98
• Michal of Poland 4

-> Personally I'd favour Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki then, if that's the name that in English is normally used in reference to him --Francis Schonken 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• John III Sobieski 9,460
• Jan III Sobieski 19,400
• John III of Poland 1,150
• Jan III of Poland 54

-> Personally I'd favour Jan III Sobieski then, if that's the name that in English is normally used in reference to him --Francis Schonken 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We may call Michał Michael, I don’t see a problem with that, but he should go by his real name that is normally used in reference to him, not Michael of Poland.--SylwiaS | talk 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Actually I don't see problems even with having Sobieski as John III Sobieski, since it's easily translated into English. But with typically Polish names that don't have English counterparts only Latin, I would keep the Polish form. Like Władysław, Kazimierz, Stanisław, Zbigniew etc. There are usually several Latin counterparts and none is good. So why translate it into Latin at all? Esp. that some of the names are meaningful, like Władysław = the who praises power.--SylwiaS | talk 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Stanislaw I - where did we lose his surname, Leszczyński?
2. Stanislaw II - as above, but Poniatowski?
3. What about using Polish diactrics where appopriate (Stanisław vs. Stanislaw)?
4. The Vasas are ordered incorrectly (!) in the list; also, why has John II Casimir no 'Vasa' surname?
5. Sigismund vs Zygmunt: pros, cons.
6. Casimir vs Kazimierz: pros, cons.
7. John vs Jan: pros, cons.
8. Augustus vs August (one of those I really care little about...)

Vote

I would suggest a vote sooner or later, but perhaps now it is too early, especially as proposal 3 or others may be suggested?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Władysław II, IV, V, and kings' nicknames

The case with numbers seems quite simple, although I really wonder what scholar might have messed it up like that. Władysław V is evidently a result of including in the count the first three Władysławs from the Piast dynasty. The historian who made him Władysław IV must have excluded one of them. Maybe Władysław II the Exile?

And here we come to nicknames. If we avoid them in titles, how are we going to differentiate the first three Władysławs from the second three? Also, what about cases like Władysław III of Varna, who would be Władysław III of Poland but Władysław I of Hungary? I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't know if there are any rules that apply to such situations.--SylwiaS | talk 05:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wladislaw II of Poland

I started the Wladislaw II of Poland disambiguation page. Also made Władysław II a redirect to that new disambiguation page. - don't know whether this might be (small) steps towards the disentanglement of this complex issue. --Francis Schonken 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also did some rearrangements to the Ladislaus Jagiello disambiguation page, and the redirects to that page. --Francis Schonken 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's definetly a good step. There are probably dozens of redirects that should be done for every king - just see the examples I did when counting names popularity for early Polish rulers (see their talk pages).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila

I know I'm entering a minefield now. In fact it was the insolvable discussion about this person's page name that set off the re-opening of this guideline page. So, don't shoot me for having a go at this.

What would you think about:

Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania

as a page name?

Please try not to kick off a vote on this yet, this rather needs pro's and con's about the idea (so the same wikipedian can list several "pro's" and "con's"):

Pro's

• Unambiguous.
• Draws attention to the different name in Poland and Lithuania.
• Draws attention to the dual numbering system of Polish Ladisla(u)s/Wladyslaw/Vladislav/... non-Piast monarchs, where "V" is the least ambiguous, while "II" is the most used.
• ...

Con's

• Unusual page name format (though we have Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, but that one didn't change name when acquiring a second realm)
• Doesn't contain "Jagiello", which triggers far more hits at google than "Jogaila" (though not all of the "Jagiello"s refer to this monarch, Jogaila is less ambiguous)
• Not anything near to a "most common name" (but this is in line with wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles), that proposes a general exception to common names for all monarchs & nobility)
• ...

Contributors to this pros-and-cons list (inviting not to sign individual comments in the pros-and-cons list above - please start a new pros-and-cons list if you have a better proposal for the page name of that monarch):

• --Francis Schonken 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Table proposal

I'd propose to make a table in the following format, which (if we all agree) could replace the table presently at the project page:

Good idea. I'll also add the Monarchs tag below so that it would be easier for everyone to see all the monarchs in chronological order. Since the first two in the table are elected kings, maybe we'd focus on the elected kings in general for start?--SylwiaS | talk 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael after all?

I did some search (see his talk page) and it appears that Michael may be a better choice after all. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we made the google hits test also (see discussion below proposition 3). There still remains the question about Wiśniowiecki vs. Wisniowiecki, since the name without diacritics will always give more google hits, but then we give rather correct names on Wiki, since Wiki contrary to many other sites has the ability.--SylwiaS | talk 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Something I'd like to get rid of

Presently there is a redirect page named Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers. This is the list of main namespace pages that contain links to this page:

1. Piast dynasty
2. House of Vasa
3. Jagiellon dynasty
4. Dukes of Silesia
5. Dukes of Greater Poland

I don't know if there's an exact rule at WP:CSD, but I'd like Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers to be speedy deleted, and all links to such page removed from the 5 pages mentioned above.

Reason: Misplaced Pages is not normative, there should be no guideline that says that Henry III of France should be spelled Henryk III Walezy in the main namespace of English wikipedia.

Anyone having a problem with this proposed speedy deletion & removal of links (I think this is also a step in making the page naming of Polish rulers a bit less tense)? --Francis Schonken 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, but then I didn't know that such a redirect exist at all. Maybe Piotr knows why it was made in the first place?--SylwiaS | talk 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted an information about it on Polish board . If no one objects in let's say a week, you'll have a clear case.--SylwiaS | talk 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anna Jagiellon

Ok, I made google test for Anna Jagiellon. English only minus Misplaced Pages:

• Anna Jagiellon 46
• Anna Jagiellonka 386
• Anne Jagiellon 5
• Anna Jagiellońska 7
• Anna of Poland 234
• Anne of Poland 43
• Anna Jagiellonka of Poland 2

It seems that Anna Jagiellonka gets the biggest number of hits.--SylwiaS | talk 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you check for possible overlap with this person (which is a different Anna Jagiellonka): pl:Anna Jagiellonka (księżna pomorska)?

Good point! I didn't. Any idea how to differentiate them?--SylwiaS | talk 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

English, unlike Polish, doesn't differentiate surnames by sex. (In English-language countries, women of Polish origin typically are obliged to use surname forms, e.g. -ski, that in Poland apply only to men.) How do we handle that in a case like Jagiellonka's? "Jagiellon" (an Anglicization, missing the Polish gender ending) is sex-neutral. logologist|Talk 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know whether "Jagiellon" qualifies as a surname - In English, it is the name of a dynasty (see Jagiellon Dynasty), derived from Jogailas name, where Jogaila is not a surname, just the name of monarch from Lithuania (like his father's name was Algirdas, that was no "surname" either, Algirdas apparently even didn't have a surname). --Francis Schonken 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Women born in Poland who emigrate i.e. to US still have their names in female gender. Women born abroad to fathers named with -ski ending have their names in the male gender. But there are also cases when men are born to single women and then their names end with -ska. So I don't think English sticks to the male form, only simply English speakers have no idea that those are different forms of the same name. As to Jagiello, well, we should remember that the rules of giving names in Lithuania before Christianity must have been different than later. Also, the first rulers of Poland have no surnames or no Christian names. It's difficult to categorise their names as one or another. It was different with Jagiello who became renowned as a Polish king and changed his name through baptism.--SylwiaS | talk 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I used "surname" for sake of simplicity. Whether it's called that or "cognomen" or "epithet," the principle is the same (adjectival endings, which vary according to whether the object is male, female or neuter). In fact, Polish surnames — like those of other countries — generally developed essentially from epithets, commonly describing such things as a person's occupation, place of origin, name of parent.

And Sylvia is right: it sometimes happens that a male of Polish descent born abroad will have the female adjectival ending on his surname — which, if he visits the old country, can occasion no end of amusement among the natives. logologist|Talk 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I found 4 (possible) Anna Jagiellon: I try to give an overview:

• Anna Jagiellon (1476-1503), daughter of Kazimierz IV Jagiellon (this is the "księżna pomorska")
• (this person is not generally indicated with a "Jagiellon" name:) Anne de Foix (1484-1506), no Jagiellon by birth she was queen consort to Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, a Jagiellon.
• Anna the Jagiellonian (Czech-Hungarian) (1503-1547) aka Anne of Bohemia, a Jagiellon, as daughter of Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary. This Anna was an Empress consort as she married Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor. (PS: note that there is also another Anne of Bohemia, 1366-1394)
• The Queen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and heir to the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1523-1596), presently at Anna Jagiellon

...maybe about time we start thinking of a disambig page here too... --Francis Schonken 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a disambig page would be helpful. Still, I have no idea how to best google the Queen of the Polish Lithuanian-Commonwealth. Actually, any of them could have any of the names in English. Well, maybe the name Jagiellonka would indicate rather a daughter of a Jagiellon than a wife of one.--SylwiaS | talk 20:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't help much, then there are still three:

• Anna Jagiellonka the daughter of Kazimierz IV Jagiellon
• Anna Jagiellonka the daughter of the Jagiellon Ladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary
• Anna Jagiellonka the daughter of the Jagiellon Zygmunt I the Old

See also the boilerplate text of pl:Anna Jagiellonka, all three are called "Anna Jagiellonka" in Polish --Francis Schonken 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, it's almost weekend. We should all go for vodka and drink to all the Anna Jagiellonkas who gave us a headache even so many centuries after their death. Seriously though. How about waiting with that a bit. Maybe someone else will have a better idea how to best google test them. I'll ask Piotr who has a long experience with our kings and queens how he's doing that. Maybe in the meantime we might move to another crowned head. Thanks for your willingness to help us in that. As you see it's not so easy and we couldn't even agree among ourselves on the best forms in English. I wonder if it's a good time to invite other descendants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that is Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians, or we should wait until we have the final propositions?--SylwiaS | talk 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to get perfect results in such a case. Other then 'manualy' veryfind each reference, search with some keyword specific to our Anna would be best. Years (birth, death) are usually the best choice for getting a representative sample (assuming that the same percentage of each Anna's online have their birth-death date given).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the two most common. English only, plus 1523, minus Misplaced Pages, minus Stettin:

• Anna Jagiellonka 62 all except 3 refer to our queen
• Anna of Poland 25 but only 4 refer to our queen (majority of them are genealogy sites) --SylwiaS | talk 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So, thus far you showed that 59 out of 386 "Anna Jagiellonka"s are a reference to the Queen of Poland (if the birthdate of that queen is added in the query). This is about 15% - not really enough to convince me.

Re. the 4 out of 25 Anna's of Poland: it's either 4 out of 18, or 5 out of 25, so about 20%, not really convincing either. The "pomorska" is definitely most popular among the "Anna of Poland"s (about 50%) - but as a princess (in Poland), and a grand-duchess-consort (after marriage in Pomerania) she would not be at "Anna of Poland" in wikipedia, if we follow wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles).

In fact that guideline is made as a somewhat artificial system for royals and nobility, while in most cases it's very difficult to determine "most common name" for these people by google search. For Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki it *exceptionally* worked, for these Annas I think we have to admit it doesn't, and revert to the general rule. --Francis Schonken 11:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Batory

Ok, maybe it will be easier with this one (English only minus Misplaced Pages):

• Stefan Batory 63,400
• Stephen Batory 259
• István Báthory 795
• Istvan Bathory 599 in this and the one case above the hits most likely refer to his father
• Stephan Bathory 601
• Stephen Bathory 911
• Stephan Batory 379
• Stefan Bathory 1150
• Stefan Batory of Poland 55
• Stefan Bathory of Poland 1
• Stefan of Poland 39
• Stephan of Poland 53
• Stephen of Poland 128

--SylwiaS | talk 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a successful Google search! I tried to filter out the ocean liner, the university, and the foundation (but in fact all of these were named after the king), and even then the "Stefan Batory" spelling remains definitely most popular in English. I add to the tentative list above. --Francis Schonken 11:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Filling the table I came across István Báthory, Stefan Batory's father (and in fact his namesake). Would it be possible to establish whether "István Báthory" is indeed in English the most common spelling of this name of the father of the Polish king? I mean, it could as well be Stephen Báthory according to the wikipedia article, and I don't have the impression this has been thouroughly researched. There might even be other variants more popular in English? --Francis Schonken 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)