Talk:Christopher of Bavaria

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: no consensus to move. It is clear that there is no consensus for this move. I have considered all opinions given here and it is clear to me that consensus is that using the common name is more important than consistency in this instance. Dpmuk (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher of Bavaria → Christopher III of Denmark — To conform with other Kings Christopher of Denmark and with other Kalmar Union kings Christian I of Denmark and Christian II of Denmark; as well as e.g. John, King of Denmark; Albert, King of Sweden and Magnus IV of Sweden. "of Bavaria" where Christopher was never king and (unlike Eric of Pomerania) never ever ruled in his own right under any title, is too confusing - King Christopher of Bavaria of Denmark, Norway and Sweden - for frequency of use standards to be the determining factor in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this seems to have gotten rather infected rather quickly (see pervious section). I therefore invite previously uninvolved editors to comment, as that would be more valuable to the debate than some of the rest of us rehashing our old standpoints ad infinitum. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are going to vote, please take into account the arguements on both sides. It's consistency versus a widely used common name.--

talk) 07:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose: It is incorrect that Christopher never ruled in Bavaria. He was not king there, as it was not a kingdom. However, he did rule a part of it, which he inherited from his father, Duke Johan 3. of Neumarkt, in 1443. (One source on the web for this, is here, only in Danish). That is not the main reason why I oppose the move, but best to set the record straight. I oppose the move for all the reasons that have already been stated. Christopher is not known in any historic litterature as "Christian II of Denmark" and Denmark only constituted a part, less than half in terms of population and economic importance, of his holdings. The article should be under the name that everyone would expect to find it - Christopher of Bavaria.--Barend (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed many times over the years that it seems to be very important to many Scandinavians (for reasons I do not understand) that three Scandinavian kings are named with these confusing native formats (Eric of Pomerania, Albrekt of Mecklenburg and this one (Christopher III of Denmark not II). In this case that is particularly inappropriate as it is particularly and unnecessarily confusing to English readers who have no reason to get it. Christopher (this one) lived and died in Denmark, making only occasional visits to Norway and Sweden. He never went back down to Bavaria after being elected king up in Norden. Debrett's, an English expert source that knows what it's doing, never refers to this King of Denmark etc as anything but Christopher III. Such sources should be respected here, primarily, not a multitude of sources, due to their frequency, that stem from Scandinavians, their translations to English (for better and for worse) and their will to impose their own eccentric naming idea (above) on everyone else. The king is called Christopher the Bavarian in his native German. That makes some sense, at least. Compare text usage for yourselves:

• King Christopher the Bavarian of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• King Christopher of Bavaria of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• King Christopher III of Denmark, who also ruled Norway and Sweden

I am also especially inviting non-Scandinavians to comment on what looks like common sense in this case. Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for having an opinion while being Scandinavian. However, I have to point out further factual mistakes in SergeWoodzing's posts. Saying "Christopher lived and died in Denmark", is not correct. He had probably never been to Scandinavia, certainly never lived there, before he was 23 years old, and he died aged 31. For the last 8 years of his life, it is correct that he spent most of his time in Scandinavia, surrounding himself with Bavarian counsellors. It is correct that he never made it back to Bavaria before his sudden death, he was one his way at one point, but apparently turned back in Lübeck because of a political emergency in his Scandinavian realms. Comments from anyone, Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian alike, are obviously welcome.--Barend (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why apologize? Nobody was criticizing you that I know of? Nor did anyone complain about (also) having the opinions of Scandinavians here. As to the issue: to my knowledge (and I have studied him carefully) Christopher never left Scandinavia after he was king, and when he was king (which is the only thing that makes him notable enough to have an encyclopaedic article at all) he lived (spent almost all of his time) and died in Denmark. He was then known only as Christopher III of Denmark or Christopher the Bavarian, never as Christopher of Bavaria. Why don't we go with Debrett's on this? We have no better authority, neither Scandinavian or other. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct a couple more mistakes. A minor point is that Christopher did leave Scandinavia after becoming king, he at least went to Lübeck, which is not in Scandinavia. More important is to correct the claim that he "was then known only as Christopher III of Denmark or Christopher the Bavarian". I have also studied Christopher extensively. I have never seen an original source referring to him by either of these two names. In all sources I have seen, he was either called simply "Cristopher" (as seen here), or (translated into English): "Christopher, by the grace of God, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Duke palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria", or variations thereof. The Norwegian version (as seen here: "Cristoffer med guds nadh Danmarks Suæries Norghes Wendhe oc Gotha konwngh paladzgrefue vppa Riin ok hertogh j Beyarnæ". In Latin: "Cristoferus Dei gracia Dacie, Suecie, Noruegie, Slauorum Gotorumque rex, comespalatinus Reni et dux Bauarie".(In "Norges Gamle Love 1388-1604 første bind, Christiania 1912". The medieval scribe is to blame for the spelling, not me.) If anyone has evidence that he was ever called "Christopher III" at the time, I would like to see it. Finally, I am sure Debrett's is excellent for names of English aristocrats, but I have never seen it used as an authority on Scandinavian Medieval History. I am much more interested in seeing what "The Cambridge History of Scandinavia" and similar books call him.--Barend (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) whih reads in part It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles. English is not always consistent, and it is a long-staning principle of English Wikipedia to reflect this rather than to try to correct it. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say we should be consistent, but should not be consistent? I don't get it. Why not trust Debrett's? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Re: "ease of use" and '"concision" and "precision" and "consistency among article titles" - see the three choices above and give this an honest thought or two! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how you look at something. Nothing in this world is crystal clear. I am sure anybody interest in this man will have the patience to read the first sentences and see that he was also King of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Why don't you think

• Christopher the Bavarian, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• Christopher of Bavaria, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden

--

No, I didn't say we should be consistent, and neither does the guideline. It's a factor, in that we should try to be consistent where it doesn't cost us something more important. The most important consideration is ...the most common form..., I thought that was clear in the quotation. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. He's usually (or more commonly) called "Christopher of Bavaria" in reliable sources as shown for example by simple gbook, gscholar or library searches. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is my opinion (which is being ignored here) that we should disregard frequency of use in this case in favor of guideline's "ease of use" and '"concision" and "precision" and "consistency among article titles". SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is natural, concise, recognisable and precise. It is also neutral as it does not choose one of his realms over the other two. Your choice is longer, less recognisable, and chooses one realm over the others, which can be perceived as bias. Consequently, the current title meets more of the conditions mentioned in

the guideline. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a valid opinion and I respect it but don't agree. If you can convince a rough

WP:IAR, then the move will go ahead regardless of policy. And we might then tidy up the policy to reflect this development. But no change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2010 (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.