Disputatio:Miecislaus I (dux Polanorum)
(Redirectum de Disputatio:Miecislaus I (dux Poloniae))
Latest comment: abhinc 14 annos by Xaverius in topic Mieszko I
Misico does not appear in en:wiki. The form which appears is Mesco and Dagome. Plus, the traditional Spanish name for Mieszko is Miecislao. Furthermore, Mieszko was the first king of Poland and last duke of the polanes. I prpose this page to be moved either to Mesco (rex Poloniae), Dagome (rex Poloniae) or Miecislaus (rex Poloniae) or else dux Polanorum. --Xaverius 20:06, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- At the time it was inserted, the link to en:wiki did support this spelling, but it doesn't now (anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source!) By all means move to a better-attested form. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Then it should either be Mesco or Dagome (Miecislaus might just be a random latinisation into Spanish). --Xaverius 20:30, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- It's not random, Mieszko is a short form of Mieczysław in Polish already, and Slavic names ending in -sław/-slav are commonly Latinised using -slaus (Miroslaus, Venceslaus, Stanislaus, Ladislaus, ...). As per Google, "Miecislaus rex" and "Mesco rex" are well attested. Gabriel Svoboda 21:14, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- I'll move it then to Miecislaus --Xaverius 21:50, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- It's not random, Mieszko is a short form of Mieczysław in Polish already, and Slavic names ending in -sław/-slav are commonly Latinised using -slaus (Miroslaus, Venceslaus, Stanislaus, Ladislaus, ...). As per Google, "Miecislaus rex" and "Mesco rex" are well attested. Gabriel Svoboda 21:14, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Then it should either be Mesco or Dagome (Miecislaus might just be a random latinisation into Spanish). --Xaverius 20:30, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Mieszko I recensere
ex pagina disputationis mea --Xaverius 16:57, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Mieszko I was dux Poloniae. The first rex Poloniae was Bolesław I Chrobry crowned in 1025. Poznaniak 15:53, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Unless Poland was a duchy before, he was not dux Poloniae, but dux Polanorum (leader or prince of the Polanes rather than duke of Poland). All clear now, it is similar to Pelagius (dux Asturum) and his successors such as Ranimirus I (rex Asturorum). Do you agree then to move it to Miecislaus I (dux Polanorum)?--Xaverius 16:27, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Poznaniak 16:50, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Not wanting to cause any more moves ... but "Polonorum" seems better attested than "Polanorum". I'm not sure if there is a difference in meaning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- We are talking about the Polanes here rather than the Poles, which of course is a confusing term.--Xaverius 18:58, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Not wanting to cause any more moves ... but "Polonorum" seems better attested than "Polanorum". I'm not sure if there is a difference in meaning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Poznaniak 16:50, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)