This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
These facts appear contradictory without any clarification:
1035 - Bretislaus is friend of the Holy Roman Empire, as he wants to establish his state as subject of the Holy Roman Empire
1040 - Bretislaus is enemy of the Holy Roman Empire, as Henry III (Holy Roman Emperor) invades Bohemia.
1047 - Bretislaus is friend of the Holy Roman Empire, as Henry III mediates peace treaty between Bohemia and Poland, which the author mentions was beneficial to Bohemia
The author's note on this last event, however, is also contradictory in itself, as the peace treaty cannot be beneficial to Bohemia, as Bohemia was forced to pay tribute to Poland. Poland would be the beneficiary.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Bretislaus I, Duke of Bohemia →
Bretislav I – 21st-century Gbook hits has "Bretislav" Bohemian (20) and "Bretislav" Bohemia (19) versus "Bretislaus" Bohemian (6) and "Bretislaus" Bohemia (5); "Bretislav I" duke (12) versus "Bretislaus I" duke (2). Disambiguator (Duke of Bohemia) redundant.
Zoupan 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.— Music1201talk21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We have Boleslaus, Vratislaus, etc. If we move one, we should move them all. The sources should be taken in their totality. If he wants, the nominator should make the case for the more Slavic spellings all of the Bohemian dukes' names—not just the first Bretislav—and file a multi-move request.
Srnec (
talk)
04:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 20 June 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
"Bretislav I" + duke (ca. 70) versus "Bretislaus I" + duke (27)
"Bretislav II" + duke (30) versus "Bretislaus II" + duke (4)
"Bretislav III" (30) versus "Bretislaus III" (3)
Zoupan, I think you missed my point. Although our
list of Bohemian monarchs is not perfectly consistent, it shows that we overwhelmingly prefer the Latinised -aus to native Slavic -av: Vratislaus I Vratislaus II Wenceslaus I Wenceslaus II Wenceslaus I Wenceslaus II Wenceslaus III Wenceslaus IV Boleslaus I Boleslaus II Boleslaus III Vladislaus I Vladislaus II Vladislaus III Vladislaus IV Ladislaus the Posthumous The exceptions are
Soběslav I and
Soběslav II. Why should we move the Bretislavs and not these others? Since there is nothing wrong with the current titles, I'm in favour of leaving it as it is for consistency. For example, the Latin endings are preferred by Martin Wihoda, Vladislaus Henry: The Formation of Moravian Identity, translated by Katerina Millerova and published by Brill (2015). This convinces me that we cannot be that out of step with good practice in choosing the -aus forms. If other users voice support for a wholesale switch, I am not opposed to moving all of them to consistently Czech names (including diacritics), except for the Wenceslauses, which should stay as they are since that form is much more well-known than Václav.
Srnec (
talk)
01:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
No, you seem to have missed mine. The point is that the common name for these three are Bretislav and not Bretislaus, period, and that there is no policy or guideline saying that we must use the Latinized forms. This move request is for these three, I have yet to research the other names. In clear cases like this one, moves should be made. If you are suggesting a "all-or-none", open a discussion about it at a proper place.--
Zoupan06:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning Support. No opinion on the translation, Bretislaus -> Bretislav, but the removal of ", Duke of Bohemia", which is not simply a disambiguator, implies, per
WP:NCROY changing the designation from a non-sovereign to a sovereign. Were these people sovereigns of Bohemia? I think that is quite ambiguous, and that imposing modern conventions on the past creates anachronisms. The title used at the time is not necessarily a decisive points. Control of an army and taxes is important. These people appear to be referred to, sufficiently, as local sovereigns. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.