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
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
15 books call him Ulrich, while
5 call him Oldrich. If you need a more detailed analysis of the sources, I'll gladly provide one but, as it stands now, it seems fairly clear that his name is usually anglicised - much like
Frederick of Bohemia is not called Bedrich.
Surtsicna (
talk)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. 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.
Support per discussion above. Looking at the sources strongly suggests Oldrich is the usage of Czechs writing English as a second language; furthermore, most of them were written when contact with English-speaking countries and Czechoslovakia, as it then was, was -well- limited.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Opposed. The Google Book results that this RM is based on are really old. I did post-1980 and I got
8 for Oldrich, and
4 for "Ulrich". Those numbers are inconclusive, so I'm going with A History of the Czech Lands, which appears to be the most authoritative of the sources that come up, as well as with Britannica. I see the fact that this is also his Czech name as an advantage.
Kauffner (
talk)
06:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I do not believe it should be Oldřich. I simply pointed out to the fact that the current name was not the name used by Britannica, as you had implied.
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
You can see
here: "Břetislav succeeded his father, Oldřich, to the Bohemian throne after a period of dynastic struggles." and
here: "Boleslav II’s death was followed by a period of fratricidal warfare between his sons that terminated in 1012 when the youngest son, Oldrich, established himself as prince of Bohemia. Oldrich died in 1037 and was succeeded by his son Bretislav I (1037–55)."--
Yopie (
talk)
21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The English sources have been shared with you.
This is one of the modern and reliable sources. It also happens to be a secondary source as opposed to a tertiary source like Britannica.
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't ask you, but Walrasiad, because I´m interested about his sources, so please don't disrupt discussion. By the way, source you cited is primary source - translation of German mediaeval chronicle, not secondary source. --
Yopie (
talk)
21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Bohemia is a Czech-speaking area. Its history (in English) is likely to have been mediated through German sources, and so use a German spelling. However, that does not seem to me a good reason for retaining a German spelling for a Czech subject. If the change is made, a redirect should be retained from the present version.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)reply
And French sources (hence
Prague). So what? we are here to write in English as she exists, rather than inventing a mew language which we like better, and which our readers will not understand. (Czechs may; buit they have a Czech Wikipedia.)
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per reasons listed above by
Yopie and
Kauffner. Moreover, if we consider that, for example, almost all
Polish rulers are listed here under their original (Polish) names then I really don't understand why is such problem with a few non-anglicized names of Czech rulers! --
Iaroslavvs (
talk)
22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. Has any anglophone gone to the Czech wikipedia and demanded that
cs:Alžběta II. be retitled Elizabeth II, since "it's her right name"? Not as far as I can see. How would they be received if they did? Probably much as they deserved. Do these national principles work only one way?
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson08:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Reply You are first, who mentioned "national principle" and "collective guild". Next, you will be reported for it. Understand?--
Yopie (
talk)
15:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
If you've already mentioned that British monarch, then I recommend to your attention this article:
cs:Seznam anglických králů – "as far as you can see" it proves that not all names of foreign rulers are Czechized in Czech settings. And that's the point! I don't call for Czechization of all names of the Czech rulers here in English Wiki. Read my words once more: ... why is such problem with a few non-anglicized names... I'm not supporter of "nationalizing" of the English Wiki (as, for example, many Poles are) but I oppose enforcing of 100% order into the area where it doesn't exists (I mean language) and even is undesirable. By the way – how would you translate names like
Jaromír or
Spytihněv? --
Iaroslavvs (
talk)
16:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, the Czech wikipedia should spell things as Czech does; I cannot imagine what slavicization of
cs:Ethelbald would do other than to remove the Æ (as the article does and the list does not). Perhaps you may wish to consider consistency there. In any case, please allow this English wikipedia to spell as English does.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Who am I "to allow en:wiki to spell as English does"? :DD But You don't want admit there are reliable English sources which use spelling Oldr(ř)ich.
Yopie and
Kauffner listed them and I support such objective facts. Besides, in case of language matters, I'm strong opponent of pointless, artificial systemization – as here as on the cs:wiki! --
Iaroslavvs (
talk)
20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I'm getting the same results as others from recent Google books - more Oldrichs than Ulrichs.(Though I wouldn't mind putting the hacek on the "r", in line with what we normally do with non-Anglicized names).--
Kotniski (
talk)
09:24, 13 December 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Who was his mother?
The infobox says that his mother was Emma of Melnik, whereas the article text states that Adiva was his mother. No source seems to be provided for either claim. Unless a source can be found, I think both claims should simply be deleted.
Nikolaj1905 (
talk)
12:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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
15 books call him Ulrich, while
5 call him Oldrich. If you need a more detailed analysis of the sources, I'll gladly provide one but, as it stands now, it seems fairly clear that his name is usually anglicised - much like
Frederick of Bohemia is not called Bedrich.
Surtsicna (
talk)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. 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.
Support per discussion above. Looking at the sources strongly suggests Oldrich is the usage of Czechs writing English as a second language; furthermore, most of them were written when contact with English-speaking countries and Czechoslovakia, as it then was, was -well- limited.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Opposed. The Google Book results that this RM is based on are really old. I did post-1980 and I got
8 for Oldrich, and
4 for "Ulrich". Those numbers are inconclusive, so I'm going with A History of the Czech Lands, which appears to be the most authoritative of the sources that come up, as well as with Britannica. I see the fact that this is also his Czech name as an advantage.
Kauffner (
talk)
06:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I do not believe it should be Oldřich. I simply pointed out to the fact that the current name was not the name used by Britannica, as you had implied.
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
You can see
here: "Břetislav succeeded his father, Oldřich, to the Bohemian throne after a period of dynastic struggles." and
here: "Boleslav II’s death was followed by a period of fratricidal warfare between his sons that terminated in 1012 when the youngest son, Oldrich, established himself as prince of Bohemia. Oldrich died in 1037 and was succeeded by his son Bretislav I (1037–55)."--
Yopie (
talk)
21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The English sources have been shared with you.
This is one of the modern and reliable sources. It also happens to be a secondary source as opposed to a tertiary source like Britannica.
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't ask you, but Walrasiad, because I´m interested about his sources, so please don't disrupt discussion. By the way, source you cited is primary source - translation of German mediaeval chronicle, not secondary source. --
Yopie (
talk)
21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Bohemia is a Czech-speaking area. Its history (in English) is likely to have been mediated through German sources, and so use a German spelling. However, that does not seem to me a good reason for retaining a German spelling for a Czech subject. If the change is made, a redirect should be retained from the present version.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)reply
And French sources (hence
Prague). So what? we are here to write in English as she exists, rather than inventing a mew language which we like better, and which our readers will not understand. (Czechs may; buit they have a Czech Wikipedia.)
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per reasons listed above by
Yopie and
Kauffner. Moreover, if we consider that, for example, almost all
Polish rulers are listed here under their original (Polish) names then I really don't understand why is such problem with a few non-anglicized names of Czech rulers! --
Iaroslavvs (
talk)
22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. Has any anglophone gone to the Czech wikipedia and demanded that
cs:Alžběta II. be retitled Elizabeth II, since "it's her right name"? Not as far as I can see. How would they be received if they did? Probably much as they deserved. Do these national principles work only one way?
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson08:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Reply You are first, who mentioned "national principle" and "collective guild". Next, you will be reported for it. Understand?--
Yopie (
talk)
15:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
If you've already mentioned that British monarch, then I recommend to your attention this article:
cs:Seznam anglických králů – "as far as you can see" it proves that not all names of foreign rulers are Czechized in Czech settings. And that's the point! I don't call for Czechization of all names of the Czech rulers here in English Wiki. Read my words once more: ... why is such problem with a few non-anglicized names... I'm not supporter of "nationalizing" of the English Wiki (as, for example, many Poles are) but I oppose enforcing of 100% order into the area where it doesn't exists (I mean language) and even is undesirable. By the way – how would you translate names like
Jaromír or
Spytihněv? --
Iaroslavvs (
talk)
16:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, the Czech wikipedia should spell things as Czech does; I cannot imagine what slavicization of
cs:Ethelbald would do other than to remove the Æ (as the article does and the list does not). Perhaps you may wish to consider consistency there. In any case, please allow this English wikipedia to spell as English does.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Who am I "to allow en:wiki to spell as English does"? :DD But You don't want admit there are reliable English sources which use spelling Oldr(ř)ich.
Yopie and
Kauffner listed them and I support such objective facts. Besides, in case of language matters, I'm strong opponent of pointless, artificial systemization – as here as on the cs:wiki! --
Iaroslavvs (
talk)
20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I'm getting the same results as others from recent Google books - more Oldrichs than Ulrichs.(Though I wouldn't mind putting the hacek on the "r", in line with what we normally do with non-Anglicized names).--
Kotniski (
talk)
09:24, 13 December 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Who was his mother?
The infobox says that his mother was Emma of Melnik, whereas the article text states that Adiva was his mother. No source seems to be provided for either claim. Unless a source can be found, I think both claims should simply be deleted.
Nikolaj1905 (
talk)
12:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply