Talk:Stanisław Potocki (1659-1683) - Wikipedia


7 people in discussion

Article Images

– For alignment with WP:NCPDAB, especially to remove the lifespan ranges (especially the one using a hyphen). These people have more specific titles (szlachcic, voivode, etc.), but I think they are not used in English, so I am just suggesting "Polish noble" for all of them. For one of these, we have the birth year, but for the others we do not, so it may be best to consistently use the death year for all of them. Note that Stanisław Potocki (1734–1802) redirects to Józef Potocki (1734/35–1802). This seems to be an artefact of a previous error; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Stanisław Potocki (1734–1802). Note that there is also a non-disambiguated Józef Potocki. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As in the Jan Działyński (1590-1648) case, I strongly suggest to use their highest title. In the Kingdom of Poland, and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there existed a relatively stable hierarchy of senatorial offices (bishops, voivodes, greater castellans, lesser castellans). Below them were offices that did not grant a seat in the Senate (from these, generally only starosts gain notability on Wiki). These titles have fairly commonly accepted translations into English. Therefore, among those you mentioned, we should change to:
Marcelus (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Side note: we also should keep in mind that this "titles" aren't aristocratic titles, but name of the offices they held. Marcelus (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BarrelProof I checked and we can move Józef Potocki (d. 1723) to Józef Felicjan Potocki, as this was his full name. Marcelus (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
But not his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Wikipedia WP:AT / WP:NCP does not include middle names if they are only being included for disambiguation purposes. They are only included if they are part of the common name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Necrothesp, @BarrelProof they are part of his common name, that's how he is called in the Polish Biographical Dictionary. Marcelus (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK; no objection. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, of course he is. Anyone is in a biographical dictionary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If we use role descriptions, I think "starost" and "voivode" should be lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a good note Marcelus (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have the impression that we have a consensus that using 'Polish noble' doesn't really make much sense. So at this point, the main issue is whether to use the date of death or the name of the office, such as 'voivode,' 'starost,' 'hetman,' etc. I lean towards the latter, but I don't oppose the former solution. Marcelus (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since Polish Wikipedia does indeed list Józef Potocki (d. 1723) / Józef Potocki (starost of Bełz) as Józef Felicjan Potocki, I would likewise support this alternative option. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Alternative As the date of death is sufficient to disambiguate and is WP:CONCISE, we should go with this. We don't need Polish noble and the obscurity of the various actual titles are not helpful. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • We don't use dates of birth or death alone for disambiguators. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • Quoting WP:NCPDAB: For historical figures for whom there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death. For historical figures, this will often be the date of death, when it is better known, more certain, or is more recognisable than their date of birth. This is the type of case being indicated by the guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
        • However, it may be worth noticing that until very recently that statement was accompanied by an example: George Heriot (died 1610). That example had to be removed, because it was agreed on 13 September that the example article should be renamed to George Heriot (Edinburgh MP). Since then, we haven't been able to identify a good example. People ordinarily have some notable characteristic that can help identify who they are and why they are included on Wikipedia, even if that characteristic is not sufficient to disambiguate them from other topics. My current impression is that DOB-only/DOD-only disambiguators may be so rarely justifiable that they don't even need to be mentioned in the naming convention guideline, lest the mention of them encourage their use in insufficiently extreme cases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
          • This happens to be a case that is a good fit. Polish noble does not disambiguate these people and the obscurity of the various actual titles are not helpful (per my OP). This then fits with the guidance: for whom there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one) [emphasis added]. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Question Why is Józef Potocki excluded from this RM? While that article is more developed than the other articles, this does not men that they are the primary target. Furthermore, the article has no hat note to the other figures of the same name. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Of all the "Józef Potockis," Józef Potocki, born in 1673, is by far the most prominent and well-known. He held the highest secular senatorial office (the Castellan of Kraków) and was also the highest military commander (after the king) — the Grand Hetman of the Crown. Above all, he was a great magnate, a behind-the-scenes power player who played a decisive role in the struggle for the Polish crown between Augustus of Saxony and Stanisław Leszczyński, later opposing the rule of the former. Marcelus (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I checked pageviews before submitting the RM. He gets about 71% of the pageviews of the three. I did mention that article in the last sentence of the RM rationale in case someone might want to discuss that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is an uptrend in page views for Józef Potocki for the last twelve months which appears as if it may be returning to the previous baseline. I am wary of claiming they are the PT. Being the most prominent does not necessarily mean they meet the threshold to be the PT. Nonetheless, we are missing the DAB links. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. At a minimum, a two-topic hatnote is needed on the Józef Potocki article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply