Talk:Bretislav I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Clarification needed[edit]

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.

Al-Hakam70 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2016[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by page mover) Music1201 talk 18:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)



Bretislaus I, Duke of BohemiaBretislav 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. Music1201 talk 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)



– "Bretislav" is undisputably the common name. Disambiguator (Duke of Bohemia) redundant. Zoupan 01:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Gbooks hits
    • "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)
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.--Zoupan 06:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

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.