Talk:Casimir III the Great

isn't that strange that we called such a bastard, erotoman and cruel king the great? :))) I wonder if i shoudl put info about all this, because that would terrible damage his school-picture of all-good king [[szopen]]

Of course you should. Also about his double bigamy. We should give a full and true view on every topic. But this doesn't change the fact, that Casimir was indeed the great. It was him, wh brught Poland into power never seen before.

There exists a clear policy for article titles: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles). It leaves no room for "Kazimierz", which is not English, and it directs to use the numeral and the territorial designation. Moves to put an article to its NC-prescribed place can be executed by anyone. Shilkanni 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_convention#Polish_monarchs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Language Cleanup

I have cleaned up the language somewhat in this article --Twenex 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Kazimierz III the Great to Casimir III of Poland. The first name should be in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Kazimierz is precisely an original name, spelling was not so established at that time. Marrtel 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Wite Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.

• Support. As nominator. Use English. Marrtel 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose So far I have seen the user opposes names based on opinion that they were made by "Polish nationalist minority"[1]. Such rude comments should be outside of wiki and certainly not a basis for changes.--Molobo 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. john k 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. While the notion of a "Polish cabal" and the accusations of "Polish nationalism" are less than good faith, I would say, it is not a good reason for voting against a proposal that the proponent has expressed such views. Secondly, this is a prime example of a figure which, as far as I know, is indisputable better known by his English name (Casimir III of Poland or Casimir III the Great) than the current name. Srnec 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Srnec. This is the obvious name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditionally Support. Srnec's reasoning is sound, but it makes sense only if all 4 Kazimierzs are changed, along with the related disambig pages. Dpv 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As for the first name, the analysis I did year ago at Talk:Kazimierz I the Restorer indicates that there Casimir and Kazimierz seem to be similarly popular in English texts. And certainly 'the Great' for this truly extraordinary ruler is more fitting then the much less informative 'of Poland'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Charles 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you like to share your reasons for support?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I support the harmonization to name monarchs by the anglicized form of their given names when appropriate or reasonable. Charles 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Weak cause I'd rather move it to Kazimierz III of Poland. //Halibutt 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, why? No offence but I see this as the 'worst of both worlds' :> See below for why.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because I always supported the descriptive and easy to use XXX of YYY style. As to the first name - I prefer not to latinize Slavic names at all cost. Casimir seems fine, but then consistency leaves us also with Vladislaus (or Wladislas, Ladislas, and so on), Stanislaus (or Stanislaw, Stanislas) and so on. //Halibutt
• Support per WP:Use English. AjaxSmack 02:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Support anglicizing unconditionally in case the anglisized name has more common usage. --Irpen 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is English Wikipedia. See what is going on with Władysław II Jagiełło, the "most correct name", according to the Piotrus, to Jogaila of Lithuania. Juraune 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What — mere Casimir? KonradWallenrod 08:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• 2 books use "Kazimierz III the Great"
• 14 book use "Kazimierz III Wielki"
• 33 books use "Kazimierz the Great"
• 164 use "Kazimierz Wielki"
• 46 books use "Casimir III the Great"
• 242 use "Casimir the Great"

but

• Only 19 books use "Casimir III of Poland"

I can see the argument that Casimir is slightly more popular then Kazimierz (although 286:213 is not a major diff). I certainly see no reason to adopt a veriant prefered by 19 vs 500! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The usage "Casimir III of Poland" is not his "name". Casimir is his name, "the Great" his epithet, and III his ordinal. "Of Poland" is a descriptor we use on Wikipedia to prevent ambiguity and to inform. Casimir III tells the ignorant nothing, Casimir the Great something more, but Casimir III of Poland tells us that he was a ruler of Poland, which is tells us more about him than anything else. The statement above, "...certainly 'the Great' for this truly extraordinary ruler is more fitting then the much less informative 'of Poland'," is not really true. It doesn't matter whether an author never has reason to use the full phrase "Casimir III of Poland," he is writing in context, but the title of an encyclopedia article has no context. Srnec 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Lawrence of Arabia would be... a ruler of Arabia? KonradWallenrod 08:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)