Talk:Frederick the Great/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Timeline

Is there any reason why the event timeline is placed in the middle of the article? It seemed rather jarring when I read it. -Rjo 06:57, 28 November 2004 (UTC)

File Under Unintended Consequences

TWIMC:

Your collective efforts are to be applauded and for my part, I am very grateful as I access this resource nearly every day at least once. However, the utility and sensibilities of naming 'conventions and standards' can be taken too far in historical names long established, as standards in their right. Applying your conventions to such can be silly, can lead to user frustrations, as in this case, IMHO, all three. When searching for the article name of a notably famous great power leader one should not be lead to an AMBIGUOUS (apparently dozens of hits on the first name) result when one searches for the tradtional name. Imposing your standard on the widely accepted historical common standard then verges on the childishly egocentric, not the informed and scholarly. In a word, shortsighted.

To wit, Searching for the (Historically established standard - at least in American English and History texts) Name "Frederick The Great" (quotes also used in the search input field) should turn up a HIT with a Frederick The Great result -- not a list of dozens of Fredericks; at the least, it should give an overt null search result.

I notice that the article I accessed indirectly through a battle reference citing 'Frederick the Great' correctly noted that it had been redirected from some heading of that name -- implying a link to that (invisible and inaccessible) page that was kind enough to forward me to this page (article). What bemuses me as a computer professional is that your search engine 1) evidently ignored my quotes 2) Ignored the redirecting page (or buried it somewhere down in the many pages of hits it (at least 7 or 8 indicated) generated.

My message here is simple -- don't impose your house standard in a way that is arrogantly casual so that you create a condition like this search result. Either adjust the search engine to look at disambigulation (or is this more properly a 'redirection type' page?) pages, or devise some means of satisfying both the accepted historical name search and your naming convention. The Search Engine should certainly be fixed so as to not ignore quoted strings!... perhaps by asking if I want a wider search, but honoring the grouping! (I like to flatter myself that I'm more intellegent than a machine - and most programmers allowing these types of errors!!! <g>)

A simple stub article entitled 'Frederick the Great' informing readers that Wikipedia conventions rename him "Frederick II of Prussia" with the connecting link would, I think. suffice. If there were another 'Frederick the Great' (say of Fiji), the natural result would be to create a disambigulation page citing both and letting the intellegent user do the decision making. So should you here. Then you can rename things, historical figures, and whatever to your hearts content without looking totally foolish.

Gratefully yours, Frank Bar tus,

Affecionado of Matters Historical

now FrankB

It's not immediately clear what you're complaining of...it is the search function? Clicking on Frederick the Great or Frederick The Great would get you to this article, as does clicking the "Go" button after entering "Frederick the Great" in the search box. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you type '"Frederick the Great"' in the search box and then click "search" instead of "go", you don't get this article as the first result. But that is a problem of the search engine, not of the naming convention. john k 05:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move, 2005

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC) The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • support for proposed move --Francis Schonken 22:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • *sigh* not again. No here. No everywhere. Will you stop with this nonsense. You are in a minority of two on the other pages you tried this. oppose. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT. Oppose john k 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Craigy (talk) 11:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- #REDIRECTS are the way to deal with an alias. --StanZegel 13:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. James F. (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, support redirects Olessi 05:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not so great for everyone, let's stick to common terms. Halibutt 07:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with above comments. Timrollpickering 10:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 04:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

In order to support this being evident, I elaborate a bit: my usual field of knowledge includes quite a portion of (Western) classical music (I mean, royals as a separate topic is less my cup of tea). In classical music one encounters Frederick the Great for example in connection with the Musikalische Opfer. I read quite a lot about that one, in several languages, and usually in English "Frederick the Great" comes up, not the other version. I'll give some examples even comparing with an other-language version of *exactly* the same text when available:

Example 1 "Johann Sebastian Bach - Das musikalische Opfer", Aufnahme mit historischen Instrumenten nach dem Erstdruck von 1747 ("Johann Sebastian Bach - The musical offering, Recording with historical instruments using the first edition of 1747):

The German version of the text (by Cristoph Wolff), where Frederick is mentioned the first time, reads:

[...] Potsdamer Hof Friedrichs II. von Preußen, [...]

The same part in the English translation (by Karin Pilkington):

[...] the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia in Potsdam [...]

So the "the Great" epithet appears even more usual in English than the equivalent in German! (Note that the same naming convention is applied throughout the remainder of the text in both German and English versions)

Another text, this time by Clemens Romijn, all mentionings of the monarch in a text about the same composition:

[...] Frederick the Great [...]

Encyclopædia Brittannica (1984 printed edition), discussing the same composition:

[...] Frederick II the Great of Prussia [...]

The encyclopedia entry on the monarch adds a komma:

Frederick II the Great, of Prussia

So seems we need "the Great" in the article title either way, if striving for encyclopædic standards.

That are the printed quotes in English I have at hand. For what it's worth, all quotes in Dutch and French I encountered used the respective translation of der Große/the Great when reffering to this monarch.

So, indeed, let's try to arrive at something reasonable as article name for this monarch, and not just vote with an accusation that the one who proposed this vote is in a "minority". --Francis Schonken 11:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, the current Britannica has "Frederick II" as its article title, the Columbia article is at "Frederick II, king of Prussia," and the Encarta article is entitled "Frederick II (of Prussia)." Whether or not he is usually called "Frederick the Great" in casual contexts, Frederick II of Prussia is a perfectly reasonable place for an encyclopedia article about him to be. john k 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, "Current Britannica", as in "printed edition", or as in "web resource"? Don't you go "casual contexts" over me, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about things that are more appropriate to base wikipedia on (as in "wikipedia:verifiability") than web resources. History books is not casual contexts. "Frederick the Great" is certainly not less a perfectly reasonable place for an encyclopedia article, with even better references (and if we go really searching the web, my best guess is still there also "Frederick the Great" will come up first, in the most scientific manner). But I'd like the vote above to be cleaned a bit from POV ad hominem remarks. The topic of the vote was not "what should we name Francis Schonken?" "Francis the Nonsensical"? "Francis the Minoritarian"? etc... so please take note that if it is as evident that votes were cast not with the primary goal of improving wikipedia articles, but with as primary goal to take your grunt out on a fellow-wikipedian, then, of course, no wikipedia sysop doing the WP:RM vote result assesment will only by approximation think this an acceptable way of bringing out your vote. If you don't agree me putting up this vote, complain in the appropriate place WP:VIP or whatever you think justified. But don't disrupt the vote with ad hominem attacks. Please. --Francis Schonken 20:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am talking about the web version of Britannica. I don't see why web versions of major encyclopedias are not appropriate models for what wikipedia, a web-based encyclopedia, should call him. john k 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I never intended to say "web encyclopedias" weren't part of the "bigger picture". What I wanted to say is that in this case I had made a list of printed items, which is at wikipedia generally regarded as quality reference material. In a previous case (William the Silent) I had made a web research, conforming to the relevant wikipedia guideline (wikipedia:Google test). That met with some comments, so that's why I alternatively did this one "on paper".
I had a look at one of the three web encyclopedias you mentioned. I'm convinced wikipedia can do better (and already does better in quite some respects), much better...
The point I wanted to draw attention to is that if we do a web search, we don't do that by making references to three competitors on the web exclusively. There's a how-to guideline giving some advise on the art of using web research for wikipedia purposes. If we do web research, it's better to follow that guideline (which is btw full of ifs and buts, while this art is not so evident as it might appear). --Francis Schonken 09:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Figuring out what a page title should be is a delicate art. I don't think references where people call him "Frederick the Great" tell us very much about what an encyclopedia article about the man should be called. I think that figuring out what other encyclopedias call him is a much better modus operandi. If we can look into more encyclopedias than just the web ones, that is fine, but I really think that when trying to figure out what title an encyclopedia article should have, the most important thing is to figure out what title other encyclopedia articles about that person have. john k 07:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I see we come closer to putting in words where our opinions differ:
  • I suppose I think Britannica's move to the web as not so successful. One of the major points I see is that it is lacking in web-usability. Wikipedia has better web-usability, and that is one of its competitive advantages (so wikipedia's success is not exclusively resulting from being free and editable). You know, Belgian national broadcasting organisation often uses wikipedia (both English and Dutch version), while they certainly also have access to Britannica and Winkler Prins (which is the Dutch version of what Encarta grew out). And what articles are named is one of the points of this difference in web-usability. Part of my motivation lies there.
  • About the "delicate art of article naming", yes, and the present names & titles NC is disturbing that art heavily while trying to force it in a too rigid structure to be still compatible with a wiki application used by many: increasing the "policing" of a guideline that is so square to the wiki system only worsens the situation.
And yes I think an article should be named whatever is most likely people type in the search window the first time they do that when visiting the wikipedia website. And the most likely is that they type *exactly* what they encounter when they read something, or hear something on the radio, and want to know more about it. The chance that they type what is in Britannica or another encyclopedia is much lower. And then web-usability kicks in: if what results from that search action is a web page, with a different title, and what they looked for only mentioned casually as a nick name by the end of the first paragraph or in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, THERE IS MORE CHANCE THEY WILL CLICK AWAY THAN THAT THEY WILL READ THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE, merely a web-usability fact, laid down in many web-usability research reports. And if clicking away the first time, the chance of ever returning is even more negligible, by what has been proven so many times in web-usability research. Now I give you an example of what I typed in Britannica on-line: I typed "William the Silent". In the "for members" section on the left it appears there are 22814 hits on this search term. "William Frederick" lists higher than "William I". The fourth in the list is "The Edison laboratory", the fifth has something to do with psychotropic drugs. From the 11 times "Silent" is mentioned on that page none links to the main article about William the Silent (although "William the Silent" is as far as I know completely unambiguous). The 5 external links are completely unrelated (about "silent film", "silent scream", and so on). A normal user would have clicked away a thousand times. So, I'm not going to analyse the web-usability of that hopeless lot any further. Wikipedia can do better. --Francis Schonken 21:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
PS: I just typed "Frederick II of Prussia" in on-line Britannica. Results even more appalling than with William the Silent. I should have analysed that example, which is surely still more impressive in its lack of encyclopedical value, but I think you get my drift if I say that the Frederick the Great article didn't show up on the page showing the search results, and that I-don't-know-which "Prince of Wales" showed up as first result on the left... --Francis Schonken 22:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


The problem with "what people are most likely to type" is that trying to apply this would lead to complete chaos in the field of royal names. Let us begin with the fact that...

  1. usually the name that "people are most likely to type" is ambiguous for royal figures. Henry IV, say. This is what people are most likely to type for at least three quite famous people (Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor), and several more somewhat less famous people (Henry IV of Castile, for instance, but probably others). So a rule needs to be developed for how to disambiguate, at least in instances where it is necessary.
  2. Sometimes, one finds a situation where it is unclear if disambiguation is necessary. George V, for instance. There are only two notable monarchs named this, that I am aware of. George V of the United Kingdom and George V of Hanover. Obviously, the first is much more famous. But saying that whenever there's more than one monarch of a name, we disambiguate, makes it a lot simpler figuring out where articles should be than trying to weigh dubious cases.
  3. At this point, you come to a uniformity issue. Other than (probably) some Reuss Princes, who aren't terribly notable, there is only one Henry VIII. But it is rather incongruous for Henries I to VII to be disambiguated, and Henry VIII not to be. Henry VII of England being followed by Henry VIII just seems awkward. So we (wisely I think), decided that all monarchs should be disambiguated in the "Name Ordinal of Place" format.
  4. Unfortunately, this doesn't always eliminate ambiguity. There are two men who are Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, for instance, and two men who are Frederick Augustus III of Saxony (the second Frederick Augustus I of Saxony is the first Frederick Augustus III of Saxony, to make things most confusing). There are two Maximilian I of Bavaria's. And other instances can be found. It is also sometimes difficult to determine on a dividing line between dukes who should be treated as monarchs, and dukes who should not be. Furthermore, with many of the German rulers, the absence of ordinals from complicated compound named means that a normal title would leave it unclear if we are actually referring to a ruling monarch. Alfred of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was actual reigning Duke, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was merely the younger brother of one. But this isn't very clearly conveyed by the normal monarch naming function. As such, Name, Duke of X seems a plausible title for rulers who are below the kingly level. It avoids the Maximilian I of Bavaria issue, and also makes clear who is a ruler, and who is not.
  5. Having gone through this, let us go back to the issue of cognomens. There are a lot of monarchs with cognomens. Let us think on John the Good, Charles the Wise, Charles the Well-Beloved, Charles the Victorious, Louis the Prudent, and Charles the Affable. These gentlemen are sometimes called by these names, and their cognomens are certainly remembered. But they are more normally referred to as John II, Charles V, Charles VI, Charles VII, Louis XI, and Charles VIII. So we sensibly do not put them at their cognomens. But then you come upon, say, Frederick the Great. He was certainly Frederick II of Prussia, but is normally just called Frederick the Great. On the other hand, none of the other Prussian monarchs have well-known cognomens (do they have cognomens at all?). Calling the article Frederick the Great is, again, oddly off-putting, like Henry VIII succeeding Henry VIII of England. Especially since we (necessarily) do not use so many cognomens.
  6. Which is to say - there is much to be said for uniformity of naming. Your system would ultimately lead to chaos, since it is ultimately a matter of opinion what the "most used name" is, and whether or not that "most used name" is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant disambiguation. The royal naming conventions were devised in order to address precisely this problem, and they have evolved in more complicated directions to deal with the very complicated issues that arise out of the fact that there are just a lot of people with the same name, and that there should be some kind of commensurality between the names of articles on people who are commensurable. If the conventions perhaps err too far in the direction of uniformity, at the expense of common naming, I think that is a necessary evil, and a considerably lesser evil than the utter chaos that would come from abandoning the convention. john k 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: the fact that Britannica's search engine is crap says little about what our article titles should be. john k 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In the list at #5 above, please don't forget my favorite cognomen, whose influence seems so prevelant today: Charles the Simple. --StanZegel 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ad 1: "Henry IV" is *exactly* what the other on-line encyclopedias do, not wikipedia. Wikipedia does "the simplest best recognisable unambiguous one" (as the general rule). If simpler than unambiguous, you get a disambig page (where you better don't find the "Edison Lab" if looking for "William the Silent"). Yes, if combining these 3 principles (1. simple; 2. good recognisability; 3. unambiguous) you get major trouble when trying to combine with a "top down system". "Systematic" (as in royal genealogies or succession lists) is as far as I'm concerned not an essential characteristic for a page name where the content is; the "systematic" can be handled by redirects, lists, navigational templates, family trees (etc, I've given completer enumerations of the many possibilities before). "what people are most likely to type" reflects only the simplicity and recognisability principles of wikipedia's general naming policy: of course that has to be combined with disambiguation, for which wikipedia has far better systems than on-line Britannica seems to have. So, no, people don't expect there to be only one "Henry IV", maybe they do for Henry VIII, and miracle, indeed at wikipedia there's only ONE Henry VIII, while at Britannica's you get to choose between a king, a play, an actor with a totally different name (No. 2 and No. 3 still somewhere related with Henry VIII), but then follows a pope named Clement, Charles VIII, Henry II from Bavaria, etc... So disambiguation is a problem that needs to be solved; Wikipedia solves it better than on-line Britannica. Note that "Systematics" in naming is OK for me, but for page names where the content is I'd rather see that as secondary to the other 3 principles.
Ad 2: I never said that. I don't even understand what you want to say with this second point, since George V is a disambiguation page (with 5 entries, not 2). And no, if someone types either "George V of the United Kingdom" or "George V of Hanover" there needn't be a "disambig" sentence at the top of the wikipedia article. FIY, but I don't know if that has any relevance for the example you tried to give George I of Hanover and George I of the United Kingdom redirect to the same page, and I think that's correct, not needing any further disambiguation. George I disambiguates with a Greek king, and I can't see a problem there either.
Ad 3: I haven't the slightest problem with Henry VIII's main content being on a page titled Henry VIII of England. That's what the "Names & titles" guideline can specify. Here I can't see a problem that "systematics" hamper the three other principles mentioned above. But that guideline should not specify that necessarily "William the Conqueror" could not be at William the Conqueror. Yes, he was a king. But he was also a conqueror. It is POV to choose anything else than what he is named most. In the title of a wikipedia page one doesn't have to choose whether the fact that he was "conqueror" was less or more important than that he was a "king": one just chooses what he is presently named most often, averaged over all people consulting English wikipedia. If it can't be determined clear enough what he is called most often, I think I'd have a light preference for the name with the ordinal. I didn't search deeply in that one yet, but I thought "William the Conqueror" is nonetheless more current.
Ad 4: I don't see the "specifics" w.r.t. other disambiguation. In ancient Rome it was far more common for people to have the same name, see for instance this disambiguation page I made at Dutch wikipedia for disambiguating Julia Caesaris. A lot of explaining for 6 of the best known women with this name (there are many more, less known). On English wikipedia these 6 women are simply put on the same page (Julia Caesaris), which I thing much less elegant. So no, I don't know how I would solve the problems with the saxon and other kings you name, but as you say yourself: the "ordinals" system is not always the most suitable disambiguator system for page names. And that's what I always said, don't treat it as if it is. In some cases disambiguating with something between brackets added might be necessary. Or using the foreign name if that is more usual for the one than for the other, and have good (a) disambiguation page(s) for these saxon kings, because that's most likely where people will arrive at some point.
Ad 5: I'm not too acquainted with the French kings you name, also not what they would most often be called in English. Anyway, I don't see how this would affect what I said above in previous contributions on this page regarding Frederick the Great. That's what the guy is called most often. Period. Independent of whether or not French kings are nowadays most often named by their nick or their ordinal. No, I don't see a problem in William the Conqueror being succeeded by a king with an ordinal in the page title. But the navigational template at the bottom of the page should, in my view, best reflect that "succession", naming the king about which the page is with his "regnal" name there (and not the nick, or exclusively "king of..."), which makes that the name in that template could be differing from the page name. This happens often, e.g. James I of England = James VI of Scotland (the difference in numbering in this case doesn't reflect in the present template at the bottom of the page, but that's what I'd do). A page name Frederick the Great (among numbered monarchs) does not put me off in whatever way. I don't even really see why this should be off-putting, with a sound use of templates, etc.
Ad 6: No, here's where you make the biggest mistake. You know what, I advise reading of the text by Eric Raymond called The Cathedral and the Bazaar (there's a link to that text in the wikipedia article). I think you're maybe not a computer programmer. So maybe you never heard about the text. Some sections are maybe somewhat technical if you would never have programmed (which I don't know), but really I can only advise as much as I can to read that text (and skip the too technical parts). To use the analogies of that text: Wikipedia is by definition a bazaar project (even more because of its GFDL licence than because of being a wiki system), Britannica is by definition a Cathedral type system. Nupedia (wikipedia's ancestor) was also rather a Cathedral system. So no, if the basic principles according to which a bazaar system can flourish are followed this will not lead to chaos. The general naming conventions contributed largely to making wikipedia what it is. The present Names & Titles NC is somehow square with these general conventions, because they are too much of the Cathedral idea, including enforcement (which doesn't work all too well in an open system). So this square system is often responsible for triggering chaos, in the system that basically follows other rules. What is "used most often" is in most cases not uncertain. It is certainly not dependent from opinion. In some cases it can be difficult to discern (but that's different from being dependent on "opinion"). That's where the Naming Convention could help a hand: showing ways for distinguishing what is used most often, and, further, proposing a standard solution for these cases where it can not be discerned. That's even not so different from what's in the Names & Titles NC now, it's only turning the thing around a bit: what is now exception 2, should be the main principle. The rest should be guidelines for how to approach those cases that are less straightforward according to the general rule (e.g. when "simple" and "unambiguous" conflict). Oh and stop that "utter chaos" rhetoric. It's so preposterous. Wikipedia has lived very well & prospered, and will continue to live and prosper, with systems that you don't even know about but all try to classify as "utter chaos". Like GPL was going to produce only software that was "utter chaos" according to the same type of prophets you're now trying to play. The MediaWiki software, and Linux, etc is not utter chaos, but you've got to get a feeling for the kind of dynamics according to which such systems are built. --Francis Schonken 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, in spite of the vast verbiage we've both expended on this, I think it all comes down to this: you don't think a systematic naming policy for royal personages is useful or necessary, and I think that it is. Perhaps we should just present this disagreement at the naming policy page, and request thoughts and comments from others. john k 04:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable - I said we were coming nearer to a clear formulation of what our difference of approach was. --Francis Schonken 07:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If only all this energy and research had been directed toward expanding poor Charles the Simple's article.
Francis, I doubt very much whether Old Fritz ever introduced himself saying "Hallo! Ich heiße Friedrich der Gross -- wie heißen Sie?" The cognomen most likely came after the fact, although he may have been pleased if flatterers used it in his presence. Francis, a beauty of computers over paper is the ability to assign multiple synonyms for data. (EQUATES, for us technical types.) With a paper book, yes, it is best to insert the article alphabetically where the average reader is most likely to first look for it. You seem to be attempting to do that here, and it is quite unnecessary on an electronic reference that has tools like #REDIRECT and disambiguation pages and hyperlinks available to it. In the long run, it really makes little difference what the article itself is named internally or even visibly, as long as someone typing in a reasonable synonym for it gets it up on his screen.
Please come and live in the 21st century would you? It's how he is referred to most often at the time wikipedia is written, not at his own time, while then the title'd have to be in German. No, there is consensus to use English as much as possible, so it is always what he is referred to today. The "alphabetical" is nonsense. Numbering "I", "II", etc is much more alphabetical - besides, above I gave plenty of explanation why I would not use the alphabetical. --Francis Schonken 07:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to the thought implicated in the previous comment, "Use English" does not precisely equate with "use the name that is the most frequently used in English". Regarding names, "use English" means for example preference for William instead of Willem, and preference for Frederick instead of Friedrich. Whereas "Frederick the Great" and "Frederick II of Prussia" are approximately equal as to whether English is used. (If it is otherwise, well, then Philip would have been correct in insisting William of Orange to be redirected to William III of England, but he was not correct, as most of us know.) I can guess that this distinction could be difficult to get through to stubborn persons, but hope they still at least try. Arrigo 08:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite well aware of that, no problem there. I just tried to draw attention to the fact that any translation is always an interpretation. In the case of nobility, the interpretation of our day of several millenia of history. And btw "no translation" would have meant "Wilhelm" in William the Silent's case. "Willem" is the Dutch translation of the name he got at birth. And "no translation" of his monarch name would have meant "Guillaume d'Orange" (...you know: in his life he maybe spoke more French than any other language, and that's the most likely name he would have used to present himself). So, with translation there's always a part interpretation. That's the only point I wanted to make. --Francis Schonken 08:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you certain that the German spoken around 500 years ago had already developed the "Wilhelm". I have an idea that the precise formulations of names and words yet floated in those centuries, and actually could have been closer to some other languages than they are today. What was the dialect then used in Nassau region? could it have been closer to Dutch (Lowv German...) than today German? What about the fact that those families also used Latin - Guilelmus and its variants. I woould not put so much emphasis on versions of names that could very well be quite retrispective assignations. Arrigo 08:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed I'm not even sure of how Wilhelm would've been written a few centuries ago. But if it were different, that would only confirm my argument, which has been expressed in this motto, known for many, many years:Traduttore, traditore (which is of course untranslatable without committing a treason to the original).
Even transposition of the manuscripts of those days to print (without even translating) can be a hectic undertaking, this is the example I gave in The Dutch guideline on transcription and transliteration, two transcriptions of *exactly* the same text, not more than 11 years between the two printed editions, marking the differences in bold (the text is by Hadewijch, sometimes spelled Hadewych, and based on manuscripts I think from the 16th or 17th century or thereabouts):
Siet hoe vaderlike u God gehoet hevet ende wat hi u gegeven hevet ende wat hi u gelooft hevet (Br. I, 22-23) Siet hoe vaderlike .v. god ghehuet heuet Ende Wat hi v ghegheuen heuet Ende wat hi v gheloeft heuet (Br. I, 33-35)
The point I wanted to make to Stan, and which is only further confirmed, is that it is more important to consider how a name is used today, than how it was used centuries ago.
Like you say, we shouldn't focus on these antique alternate versions of names, for the wikipedia article name where the text is. Even for redirects old alternate versions of names are of limited importance: only if they're still to some extent used today. --Francis Schonken 11:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
To me, the phenomenon of fluctuating (spoken as well as written) forms of names simply means that we should, also for helpful systematics, use the established English form of that same name, and not burden ourselves with thoughts of whether we make a treason against the original name. Thus, I would state that first names are to be used as they are used in today's English. That line however is not intended to say anything about whether to use nicknames, be they used widely either centuries ago or today. Nicknames tend to be unhelpful for systematics and for simplicity. Arrigo 06:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
So I think we really agree on this one: what Stan said above (quote: "I doubt very much whether Old Fritz ever introduced himself saying "Hallo! Ich heiße Friedrich der Gross -- wie heißen Sie?"") is unrelated with how names should be treated at wikipedia. How names should be treated is another point, and that's the point on which we disagree. But we agree, I suppose, that that issue can not be resolved by referring to how "Old Fritz" or the Dutch "father of the fatherland" would have introduced themselves. And that's what I wanted to say to Stan. --Francis Schonken 15:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think all the page names should always be the formal name (William I of England) with redirects from William the Conqueror etc. Use of "popular" names or nicknames should be taken care of in redirects. Those cognomens are often POV or self-promotional anyway, designed to spin a reputation through the centuries. Witness Ivan the Terrible (and PLEASE don't change his article title from Ivan IV of Russia!!!).
In this, I mostly agree with Stan. Please remember that systematic headings help in many ways. And, I will not usually condone nicknames in headings, as it is a recipe that easily leads to POV in certain cases. Let's not open the thin end of the wedge. Arrigo 08:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
We'll wait till after the Names & Titles NC rewrite I suppose. The rest of your chat appears highly self-contradictory: "often" self-promotional? Give me a break. --Francis Schonken 07:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
However no use to hold your breath in that wait. Arrigo 06:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's just use the official name for article titles, multiple redirects for popular names, and while you work on expanding Charles the Simple, I want to get back to my Habsburg tombs! Both of you guys are too valuable to be spending so much time on this (although I think you are unwisely turning Emperor into an article on Empires, so maybe this is a worthwhile diversion after all, but it keeps John Kenny tied up too!) --StanZegel 06:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I work a bit on guidelines now. Sometimes I do that. Avoids distress & loosing energy afterwards. That's what guidelines are for. It's not your cup of tea to write guidelines, I can see that (equalling "synonyms" with "equates" - those acquainted the least bit with language know that full, completely equal "synonyms" are virtually non-existent. At least, none have been discovered yet. If you'd worked on "natural language" web search engines you'd probably be aware of that) - So, no I won't bother you any more with working on guidelines.
Further, I worked & still work towards preventing that the "Emperor" article would turn into a "history of Empires" article. Please, at least try to pretend you know what you're talking about. --Francis Schonken 07:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

French and German

I'm removing the claim that he never mastered either French or German as it seems highly implausible. Is there a basis for this statement? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can not reference this right now, but my understanding is that Frederick or Fredric as he preferred to be called spoke excellent French (he was educated by an French tutor), but that his German left something to be desired. Along the same lines, I'm not sure if we should be referring to German as his native language; Frederick always considered German to be a peasant language unworthy of civilized people. Frederick preferred that his name be spelled the French way and all of his books are written in French. The French philosopher Voltaire on visiting Frederick's court in Berlin reported that everyone spoke French and German was only used for addressing servants and soldiers. A.S. Brown 08:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot reference this at the moment either but I have read many books that discuss this topic, sadly it was many years ago and I cannot recall their titles off the top of my head although maybe someone else can. The most common thing I've read is that he was taught both French (vital for any aristocrat) and German (the language of his people) when he was a child. One little detail often included is that he eventually came to despise German as a language. He considered himself an enlightened intellecutal, and reckoned himself above using German in communication because he thought it was vulgar. Many authors throw in the fact he only spoke German to the occasional servant and when talking to his horse. How much of this is true? Thats up for debate. However I have read some of his poetry (in French) and I can attest to the fact he had a good mastery of that language. There are a great many documents showing his fluency in French, so I dont think there is a question about that at all. His German is a little more difficult to prove, but I believe he mastered German as well even though he rarely used it. Hopefully someone can find something a little more concrete. I apologize if anything here doesnt make sense; although I am currently living in the United States, I still sometimes have difficulty writing in English. Karl Friedrich 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Frederick pretty clearly spoke both French and German fluently, even if he didn't like German. john k 06:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

His written german was terrible (like my english, sorry). And I do not mean by any means only isolated spelling mistakes. Some (very funny) german letters prove that (Die Religionen Müsen alle Tolleriret werden und mus der fiscal nuhr das auge darauf haben das keine der andern abruch Tuhe, den hier mus ein jeder nach Seiner Façon Selich werden). But that simple German (he spoke a very popular German) was also a reason for its popularity with the people and the soldiers. He was also not interested in the new german literatur of its time (Goethe, Lessing). Nevertheless letters to the King were answered in the language, in which they were written. But he was a german, so its native language was german.

Brown is correct, all that he said is written in my history book. --DerMeister (not logged in)

Sanssouci

Sanssouci is currently up for peer review here. If anyone has any comments to make to improve it, I would be very grateful. Trebor27trebor 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Slavic language??

Later in his life, he learned Basque, Slavic, and Chinese. - which Slavic? There are more slavic languages, and the article does not indicate what actually he spoke - contemporary sources might well say slavic, having in mind some specific language. Given that it was all about Prussia, I'd expect most probably Polish, or perhaps with much lower probability Czech or Sorbian. rado 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Uniting Germany?

Why is the part about uniting Germany and Bismarck important? I'm not really sure if it is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.13.200 (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The part about the hositlies between Prussia and Austria lasting for a very long time fits in but the part of Bismarck is way out of line. --DerMeister (not logged in)

I added citation marks

Is this person really admired in Germany  ? How could it be said that the civil code was based on ethics if people were discriminated for being Poles ? --Molobo 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, he is admired in Germany. Has been admired since and even before unification. He is called "Frederick the Great" for a reason, eh. Also, I changed the sentence that states the translation of der alte Fritz to be "the old fritz", to "the old fred". Considering that Friedrich = Frederick, and that "fritz" is short for Friedrich" and that "fred" is equivalently short for "frederick", thus fritz = fred. -Alex, 74.133.188.197 23:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Frederick the Great or Frederick William de Thulemeier?

If you look at the Prussia U.S. Treaty of 1785 is Frederick the Great's real last name Frederick William de Thulemeier? If so can we add his real last name?

Sources: The German Embassy http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga1-860606.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.191.29 (talk • contribs)

According to this text, not the king is named Frederick William de Thulemeier, but the person he put in charge. With this view his majesty the king of Prussia has nominated and constituted as his plenipotentiary, the baron Frederick William de Thulemeier, his privy counsellor of embassy, .... Learn to read before you write. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then who is F. G. de Taulemeier at the bottom? Surely couldn't be F.G for Frederick the Great? Hence: DIFFRENT SPELLING 68.111.191.29 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Frédéric Guillaume, one would assume. john k 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, as he wrote place and date also in French ("F. G. de Taulemeier, la Hage de 10 Septembre"). Besides, the proper German name of the guy, who was from 1763 to 1787 the Prussian ambassador in The Hague, is Friedrich Wilhelm von Thulemeier -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom failed

  • The lead needs to be 2-3 paragraphs (see WP:LEAD) that summarizes the article.
  • Consider using active voice to make things more concise and direct, etc. Examples:
"Interest was returned the same year, however, by Hans Hermann von Katte, the 22-year old son of a general, and also a lover of French literature and music." to something like "However, Hans Hermann von Katte returned his interest that year. The 22-year old son of a general, he shared Frederick's love of French literature and music."
"The prince was threatened with the death penalty" an example where passive voice should be avoided as it hides who did the action. Who threatened him? His father?
"The only way that Frederick regained his title of crown prince, however, was by marriage to Elisabeth Christine von Braunschweig-Bevern, a consort chosen by the king, on June 12, 1733" passive voice, awkward, etc. How about "Frederick regained his title of crown prince on the condition that he marry Elisabeth Christine von Braunschweig-Bevern, a consort chosen by the king. They married on June 12, 1733, and Frederick wrote to his sister that..."
"After becoming king, Frederick largely ignored his wife, but she remained devoted to him nonetheless and never became pregnant by another man." to something like "Once Frederick secured the throne, however, he largely ignored his wife. She remained devoted to him nonetheless and never became pregnant by another man."
  • This left me intrigued: "His escape was botched, however, and Frederick and Katte were arrested" - how did it get botched? Who botched it?
  • Awkward sentence, consider revising: "An accusation of treason was leveled against both the prince and Katte since they were officers in the Prussian army and had tried to flee from Prussia, allegedly even having hatched a plan to ally with Great Britain against Frederick William."
  • Though inline citations are not required to pass GA, they are strongly encouraged. Try to source what you can to help lay the ground-work for FA, especially statements such as "He considered suicide" and "his ability to retain Silesia during the Silesian Wars made him and Prussia popular throughout many German-speaking territories" When using inline citations, you should also note page numbers.
  • This has be uneasy: "but apparently disseminated by Voltaire to great popularity" - do you have any source for this? If not, it's hearsay, right? Should also source who stated it achieved great popularity.
  • "He deceitfully invaded Silesia " - I'd avoid making a value judgement on the reader's behalf. The facts should speak for themselves.
  • some words shouldn't be wikied, like horses in this context: "six horses"
  • review WP:PEACOCK to make sure you're not using peacock terms, such as here: "Frederick is often admired as one of the greatest tactical geniuses of all time" and "Prussia's education system was seen as one the best in Europe" and "the most important work of Northern German rococo". This can be rectified (and left as is) if you source it.
  • What is Czernichev's full name?
  • The beginning of this sentence is confusing: "Although out of the partitioning powers Prussia annexed the smallest portion of the land (20,000 square miles) and received the fewest new inhabitants (600,000), the new West Prussia united East Prussia with Brandenburg and Hinterpommern and allowed him to control the mouth of the Vistula River" I think it's saying that of the three entities partitioning Prussia did such and such, I think it would be clearer to just state what happened because it's already known Prussia formed part of the tripartite and say "Although Prussia annexed ..."
  • I would rewrite the list under popular culture into prose and include it under legacy, since they are aspects of his legacy....
  • needs its tag updated.

I own an engraving of the picture in black and white attributed to Wm Camphausen and Ernest Forbeng no reference to the artist cited in the page. It is definitely the same picture. The link to this picture needs more research and authority —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatrevivalist (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

plange 05:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

failing this since there's been no activity since the above was written plange 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentence fragment

The 'Youth' section currently begins, h found an ally in his sister....' What's missing? Sca 20:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See this edit. Olessi 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Frederick II of Prussia

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Partition of Poland

Is no map for that available with the correct naemes of the towns on it? I dare to suppose Kroliewic is Königsberg?--Tresckow 06:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. "Królewiec" is the Polish for "Königsberg." Nihil novi (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of vs. In

For an English-speaking audience, the bit about being the last king in Prussia and the first king of Prussia seems an odd detail in the beginning of the article. Only those familiar with German history would know what that's about. Sca 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But its critical to his claims. Nickjost (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Family tree

As a possible alternative to the table used for describing Frederick's family, I found the template {{3gen}}:

Frederick William, Elector of BrandenburgLouise Henriette of Orange-NassauErnest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-LüneburgSophia of HanoverErnest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-LüneburgSophia of HanoverGeorge William, Duke of Brunswick-LüneburgEleonore d'Olbreuse
Frederick I of PrussiaSophia Charlotte of HanoverGeorge I of Great BritainSophia Dorothea of Celle
Frederick William I of PrussiaSophia Dorothea of Hanover
Frederick II of Prussia

There is also a more complex template set {{familytree}} which is a bit tricky to work with but can be of use here. Since one set of Frederick's great-grandparents are repeated, we can say:

Frederick William
Elector of Brandenburg		Louise Henriette
of Orange-Nassau		Ernest Augustus
Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg		Sophia
of Hanover		George William
Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg		Eleonore d'Olbreuse
Frederick I
of Prussia		Sophia Charlotte
of Hanover		George I
of Great Britain		Sophia Dorothea
of Celle
Frederick William I of PrussiaSophia Dorothea of Hanover
Frederick II of Prussia

I haven't put it on the article yet because I wasn't sure how it would look. Apparently you can also colour boxes (if that were to be at all useful). I also put in a heap of line breaks within the boxes here, in an attempt to condense the size a little. But in all, something could be made of this. What do you think? - 52 Pickup 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "simple" chart is not universal. This chart obiviously took work and it just as clear and easy to follow as the newer version, if not more so. Cladeal832 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a rationale for undoing work which has been done to make things simpler. The old chart has no real advantage and most royalty articles are having the new coloured charts put in when ancestry is added. For this reason, I am changing it back. You have provided no rationale for changing it. Charles 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shows clearer that his parents were cousins and easier to read then color chart. No real advantage to changing it to newer version. Cladeal832 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You have provided no viable rationale for your disruptive edits. Stop, you are behaving like a vandal. Charles 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You have provided no viable rationale for your stalking of my edits and unneccessary edits and vandictive campaign to stop anybody who doesn't agree with your style. It's a style issue. Cladeal832 22:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are guilty of harassment and you are the one stalking my edits. I have 1300 talk pages in my watchlist and it is only unfortunate that you have carried out your campaign of petty reversions on several of them. You are unwilling to reply to or discuss the matter at hand other than insisting "I'm right, this is better" like a spoiled child. I'm not trying to stop anyone except the pitiful vandals. You are not a civil user and you have not heeded the advice of the admin in its true form. Again, your "reply" above gives no reason for reverting the changes I have made. You are simply being disruptive. Charles 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wit

Moved to talk:

It is written that when Voltaire was his guest, they exchanged puzzle notes. Frederick sent over a page with two picture blocks on it: a pair of hands below the letter "P", and then the number 100 below a picture of a handsaw, all followed by a question mark. Voltaire replied with: Ga! Both messages were rebuses in the French language: deux mains sous Pé, cent sous scie? (= demain souper, Sanssouci?, "supper tomorrow, Sanssouci?"); reply Gé grand, a petit ("big G, little a" = j'ai grand appétit!, "I am very hungry!").

IMO, the text does not fit well with the rest of the article and I imagine would be difficult for a layman to follow. Olessi 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kant

From what I've read about the life of Immanuel Kant, the claim that Frederick "patronized" him (as to some extent he did Voltaire) would seem to be dubious. The article itself notes only that Kant's religious writings were allowed to be published in Frederick's Prussia, which does not exactly equate to Frederick (a religious skeptic) having been his patron. I suggest this reference to Kant be removed.

As to Voltaire, I'm not sure Frederick was his patron so much as his friend and admirer — with whom he later had a falling out.

Sca 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Modernization

One of the advantages he had on the battlefield was a steel reloading rod for the muskets which allowed almost double the rate of fire for his forces. I read this in Strategy&Tactics magazine decades ago. Good luck finding it at this point, maybe someone else can get lucky?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

undue weight

Is a separate section entitled "sexuality" important enough to exist? Miskin 12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of speculations. You could add such a passage to nearly every historic person. --217.83.65.119 12:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, when I read the sexuality section it sounded like a bunch of rumours to me. Anybody got any hard info to back it up? If not, maybe we should remove it.User:Uriah is Boss 10:19, 13 December 2007 {UTC}

Ah the bliss of the uneducated. And could anything be more obtuse than this quote from the article: "it is impossible - and unnecessary - to reconstruct the king's sexual history" And it comes from someone who terms themselves an historian. Lord save us! Engleham (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Frederick's sexuality has often been disputed by historians, so it could be included within the article if it is sourced and written neutrally. Contaldo80 (talk · contribs) recently added several quotations implying he was homosexual. Much of the added content duplicates information already in the text (Katte, his wife), while the Voltaire addition would be better off condensed and discussed earlier in the article. Olessi (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the text could be condensed - there is always room for brevity and conciseness. However, the reduction made by Olessi does not give a sufficiently balanced view of the subject. It removes details of Frederick's relationships with Katte and others; while retaining the section that stresses that historians disagree over his sexuality and motives. The text I have included is properly referenced and cited, and from reputable sources (both primary and secondary historical sources). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is already longer than some article sizes suggested at WP:SIZE. Mainstream biographies of Frederick that I have read naturally focus on his philosophy, wars, kingship, etc.; his sexuality is usually given lesser emphasis, and sometimes not at all. That scholars have discussed his sexuality should certainly be included within the article — my concern is that doing so does not imbalance the article or promote one point of view over another. His deeds as king were vastly more important than whatever his sexuality was.
From WP:UNDUE, "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." While I personally believe Frederick was homosexual, including numerous quotations which suggest that about the king imbalances the article. Larger paragraphs about Katte, Elisabeth, Voltaire, etc. in a sexuality section currently duplicate text already discussed earlier or include information that could be significantly condensed. More fitting would be briefer text such as "Historians X,1 Y,2 and Z3 have suggested that Frederick was homosexual, citing his friendships with Katte and Voltaire and his ostracism of his wife. A4 and B5 have disagreed, citing ...." Olessi (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that sounds fair. As long as the reduced text in the main article provides a balanced view (which it did not previously). I am not surprised that mainstream biographies of Frederick have traditionally downplayed his sexuality in favour of his kingship and philosophy. That is very much the way of "whig interpretation of history" that focussed in the past on the great deeds of great men. In recent years, historians have begun to branch into areas not traditionally covered (for example the growth in 'black history' and 'feminist history') - certainly sexuality is one issue that earlier historians would have had no interest in (and a general distaste, whatever the facts might have been). In my own opinion Frederick's sexuality is of real interest in the same way as his religious views are (I don't think they are necessarily of lesser interest - and goes some way to redress the traditional marginalisation and "wiping out" of homosexual men and women from the past). Having said that I can accept the need to make sure no sections of the article are too long in comparison to other areas. To help with this I suggest creating a new article dealing purely with the sexuality of Frederick II (which is a notable aspect, and with a fair deal of source material to inform readers). Contaldo80 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ascending the British throne?

The youth section said "Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick ascending the British throne, Frederick William presented impossible demands to the British". This doesn't make sense, because the heir to the British throne was the prince Frederick Louis who would have married Wilhelmina. Amelie's husband would only have inherited the throne if Frederick Louis were to die without heirs, and another daughter (Anne) to die without heirs. I removed 'ascending the British throne'.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.145.81.2 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move, 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Frederick II of Prussia → Frederick the Great — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Deacon of Pndapetzim. Although I thought Matthead should have been the nominator as the one who started the whole drama about this case. But I guess he might be busy pointing out imperfections elsewhere. Space Cadet (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The present text of WP:NCNT adds that the quoted sentence applies only if there is consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor; Frederick II is quite commonly known as Frederick II. But this is a reasonable test vote to see whether that language should be weakened. Please note however, the quite strong consensus for this name higher on this very page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I gotta be honest, I thought you'd have voted for this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's see what happens. I am reluctant to let our policy be determined by nationalist turbulence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, common names are preferable. I would not know this individual as Fred II. Kbthompson (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose (for now) The naming conventions for monarchs are currently being discussed and may become more lenient to further support names like this. I think we should wait though. Charles 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Naming conventions are always being discussed; these votes are an attempt to get somewhere; voting against simply because no discussion has ended defeats the purpose of the discussion. These are part of the discussion! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose seeing as there's a Frederick I and a Frederick III. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, I think this is arguably a case where one would be surprised not to find the epithet, and would thus qualify even under current standards. I think I'd prefer "Frederick II the Great," though, in spite of its awkwardness. john k (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support: Firstly, there is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he was known as Frederick the Great, mainly because we were at the time pro-Lutheran Prussia and opposed to Roman Catholic Austria. So yes, he is better and popularly known to us as that. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "Frederick the Great" for the reasons adduced. I might be persuaded at a later date also to consider "Frederick II the Great" as possibly the best of both worlds. No doubt links could be made available to the latter version from both "Frederick II of Prussia" and "Frederick the Great." Nihil novi (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) [1]
  • Support. See above #Requested move, 2005 for my reasons --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to me to be the common name in English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems most common in English. - Darwinek (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I favour consistency and the naming standards we worked so hard to establish. Deb (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I encourage you to get thoroughly involved in discussion at WT:NC(NT) then. Under a number of proposals, this name would be allowed, with consistency for naming monarchs without rather common nicknames. Charles 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Charles, I have been so thoroughly involved in that discussion for about three years now that I am sick to the back teeth of hearing the arguments. Deb (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
But that's what commitment means. You have to stick around. Or if you want to back out, back out together with your (one sided) opinion. Space Cadet (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deb, the discussion is going on now. Even if you briefly appear to say your matter on each proposal, you can say you did it and then let it be. Charles 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As a Pole I have no problem with Frederic being Great; he is known as such in Polish literature, too. I don't have to be a fan of his to recognize he was a great ruler of Germany (if no friend of the Poles).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain. At Talk:Casimir I of Poland, I had voted against a move requested by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim to "Casimir I the Restorer", pointing to conventions and that e.g. Frederick II is listed at Wikipedia as "of Prussia", not "the Great". Seeing that Deacon of Pndapetzim now requests this move reminds me of WP:POINT. In general, I prefer standardized naming like Napoleon I of France (do we have to brace for an upcoming move?). All the fancy and often controversial nicknames should be only redirects, especially for lesser known figures. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per the reasons described by Shilkanni. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per the nom. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PMA, with the addition that I do not think the guideline should change. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. Current title puts the subject in historical context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As Frederick the Great redirects to Frederick II of Prussia, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Keep consistency with naming monarchs. He is still known as Frederick II of Prussia, Frederick the Great is just a flamboyant epithet... not something fit for an encyclopaedia article, especially when the more proper and consistency friendly title is available. Parable1991 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While Frederick the Great is a recognizable epithet for him, Frederick II of Prussia is at least as familiar, more informative, and completely unambiguous. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ordinals work for me. Ratagonia (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, ... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet". This proposal fails that test at both the simple Google search and also in reliable sources. Further a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Is "Fred. the Great" completely unambiguous? I know that when I was younger I was under the false impressions, successively, that Frederick Barbarossa and Emperor Frederick II were "Fred. the Great" before something set me straight. Srnec (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

But they are not... john k (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ever? (Modern history is not my primary interest, so I hardly care where this page goes, hence I didn't vote. I am just wondering if my childish "error" had any basis in actual usage.) Srnec (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Barbarossa was in every book I've read, described as that, whereas Frederick The Great was always described as that. Maybe as a child you became confused? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware. Frederick II was called "The Wonder of the World" (Stupor Mundi?), and Frederick I was called Barbarossa. Of other Fredericks with cognomens, all I can think of is Frederick the Wise of Saxony. john k (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases - this is one of them. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

If its not to late to add to the vote I vote for Frederick the Great Bolinda (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Bel

Deleted information restored

I restored deleted information about persecution of Polish people under Frederick. The article right now looks very unbalanced and contains false myths about supposed tolerance of Frederick. This is incorrect. He was tolerant perhaps of Muslims, Jews or Hugenots, but towards Poles or Catholics he had a very harsh attitude and opressive one.--Molobo (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

put the copy right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.98.100 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn´t mention anything of persecution. And being Pole is not a religion. In fact, the source on the page you gave tells more about tolerance, so I corrected the sentence. --ThePiedCow (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_the_Great/Archive_1&oldid=1136739981"