Talk:Oldřich, Duke of Bohemia

	Czech Republic portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Plese, before move of page, use this talk page. English sources use Oldrich, see [1], Historical dictionary of the Czech State p. 295, or Britannica--Yopie (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Note, that 7 books of 15 with "Ulrich" are more than 100 y. old and thus are unusable.--Yopie (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves us with 8 books with "Ulrich" as opposed to 5 with "Oldrich" and precedents such as the above mentioned Duke Frederick. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back, Urich is clear typo. Britannica is more reliable than "some books" from Google. --Yopie (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. You did not have to wait two months to respond. I will request a move. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldrich, Duke of Bohemia → Ulrich, Duke of Bohemia - Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Per WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with other Bohemia rulers whose names are anglicised. Details are in the preceding section. Surtsicna (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have theory, that Encyclopædia Britannica was written by Czechs? --Yopie (talk) 17:32, 30 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]
Oppose Reliable sources (Encyclopædia Britannica use Oldřich.--Yopie (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not use Oldřich. It uses a mish mash, Oldrich. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free and correct it to right "Oldřich"...--Yopie (talk) 17:19, 30 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]

Support. Definitely. For the reasons cited above. Ulrich is the common name used in English sources. Walrasiad (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you share with us these English sources? Are these modern and reliable as Britannica?--Yopie (talk) 17:19, 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.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 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? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:04, 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]
    - Did I mention "national principle" or "collective guild [sic]"? Where? Citation needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 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]