Talk:Casimir II the Just

Question

so who is this? Casimir II or Casimir III? Any time kings have multiple numbers (James the Sixth the First springs to mind) those numbers should be explained immediately! AND this is linked off the Rulers of Poland entry as Casimir III!!!!! -- MichaelTinkler 15:15, December 5, 2001

He's refered in Polish almost only as 'Casmir the Great', without any numbers. --Taw 15:21, December 5, 2001

well, from the current list I can see that he's either #2 or #3, since the list has #1 and #4. --MichaelTinkler 15:24, December 5, 2001

Comment

Family trees are not useful entries. If Casimir (and please don't get me started on people not figuring out nomenclature BEFORE starting an entry) the whichever was great, then there should be something about why, shouldn't there? This is, like so many other entries, not contibutory to history, biography, or even prosopography...just a bunch of facts JHK 15:29, December 5, 2001

Encyclopedias and dictionaries

Where there are articles about this individual, here is how he is listed in English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries. If you have access to a reference work that is not listed here, please feel free to add to the data. --Elonka 02:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

• Casimir II the Just (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)
• Casimir II (Online Britannica) [1]

Dictionaries

• Casimir II (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Requested move

It appears that there was never consensus to move this page to Kazimierz II the Just, and it should be moved back to its English name of Casimir II of Poland. Is there support for this move? --Elonka 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not from me, but that should come as no suprise :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it is not a surprise. But haven't we adequately proven elsewhere, that there was never community consensus for moving this article to a Polish name? --Elonka 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What about a compriomise: Casimir II the Just? And no, we haven't... but let's not go off topic into that again, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Casimir II the Just for me; until we work out a general picture for the "of Poland" format. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I, too, will support a compromise of Casimir II the Just. --Elonka 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with Elonka. Use English. --Irpen 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Casimir II of Poland could do though. //Halibutt 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Casimir II of Poland. We should keep them systematical, and to follow the naming convention. Shilkanni 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bubba ditto 22:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Either "Casimir II of Poland" or "Casimir II the Just" is an improvement. But a systematisation needs to be worked out for Polish monarchs in general and fragmentation-period monarchs in particular before we can know which one will work better. Srnec 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Appleseed (Talk) 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Casimir II of Poland. Charles 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear, so I went ahead and took care of the move. Thanks! --Elonka 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Name, revisited

Wouldn't 'Casimir II the Just of Poland' or just 'Casimir II the Just' be better?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, standarizing the few strange names for Polish monarchs I'd like to move it to Casimir II the Just (consider: the preceeding monarch is at Mieszko III the Old and following, at Leszek I the White).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)