Talk:Konstantin Tih

Article name

• "Konstantin Tih" (46)
• "Konstantin Tikh" (19)
• "Constantine Tikh" (13)
• "Constantine Tih" (11)

As per Gbook hits.--Zoupan 11:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please wait for a while longer before undertaking moves and consult other Wikipedians directly if you get no response? This right here is ridiculous. Your Gbooks search is not representative due to a small number of matches, of which many are likely not in English. The current Wikipedia practice is to use anglicized first names for Bulgarian monarchs, and the "of Bulgaria" marker is commonly applied for disambiguation. The only thing I would do is to transliterate his second name as "Tih"; i.e. Constantine Tih of Bulgaria.

Cplakidas, Laveol, Gligan, do you have any input? — Toдor Boжinov — 15:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What is ridiculous? I don't think "of Bulgaria" is needed, it is redundant — no disambiguation needed. I went through them, 18 for "Konstantin Tih", 11 for "Constantine Tih", in English-language refs.--Zoupan 16:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The move is ridiculous because you're forcing a single article out of form with all others without any discussion. If you believe that Bulgarian rulers don't need the "of Bulgaria" marker, then you start a discussion about all rulers, rather than just moving one article. Similarly, if you believe native spellings of first names should be used even when they directly correspond to English names ("Konstantin" rather than Constantine"), then you start a discussion about all rulers. Such premature and undiscussed moves destroy the structure that has been previously agreed on. — Toдor Boжinov — 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that can't be reverted/fixed/changed; nothing has been destroyed, take it easy, breathe. Could you link to that discussion? The article has been untouched for 7 years, btw. I see how "Peter of Bulgaria" or "George of Bulgaria", would be plausible, but "Ivaylo" and "Mitso Asen" certainly do not need this disambiguator. Maybe move to Constantine Tih, despite being less popular, to maintain this anglicization if you insist? Fine does use the latter, although English-language academic journals use the native spelling. What do you think?--Zoupan 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not that it can't be changed. It's just that it's a case that requires discussion and more should have been done to initiate it.

If there's been a discussion about the naming policy of Bulgarian rulers, it must have been 7 years ago or so, so it would be hard to find it anymore, unfortunately.

But in any case, there's been some structure and consensus since then. I'm open to redefining it and I agree the "of Bulgaria" disambiguator is not necessary for rulers with unique names. I'd rather keep the anglicization where applicable, but I would accept arguments against it, of course. And it would be very nice if other editors join in with their opinions too, because it's a broad subject.

In the end what's important to me is that all the ruler articles are logically and consistently named and I reacted because I saw this move as out of line with the rest. — Toдor Boжinov — 17:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi to both. I did a GBooks search myself, an could't quite reproduce these results. The hits were pretty similar, i.e. in the dozen-or-so range, regardless of transliteration. The "Konstantin" form is naturally used by some Romanian publications or refers to transliterations of Bulgarian journal articles, but nothing truly decisive. So I would agree with Todor to keep the anglicized first name. Concerning the surname, I lean towards "Tikh" because this suggests the hard "kh" sound to English-speakers and is thus more accurate (unless I am mistaken and the Bulgarian sound is actually a soft "h"). Regarding the "of Bulgaria", I agree sometimes it is silly for rulers who have unique names, but on the other hand, given how obscure they are for the average reader, stating where a ruler ruled directly in the title is probably a sensible thing to do, not just for disambiguation purposes. At any rate, I am in full agreement with Tudor that we should be consistent. If others think the "of Bulgaria" is redundant, frankly it is fine by me. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am OK with "Constantine", but lean towards "Tih" (it is derived from "Tihomir", scarcely anglicized). IPA should be added. I say scrap the redundant disambiguators from these monarchs with peculiar names.--Zoupan 20:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the input! I am also for "Tih" because that's both the scientific and the official transliteration (WP:BULGARIANNAMES), although it's indeed a hard sound as in loch. Also fine by me to remove the "of Bulgaria" part for monarchs whose names do not require it, as in this case. Though for the reasons Constantine gave (improving recognizability) I am also OK with keeping it. I would wait for a few days to see if we receive any other feedback before taking any action. — Toдor Boжinov — 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Constantine that given how obscure most Bulgarian monarchs are for the average reader retaining "of Bulgaria" a sensible thing. Regarding the second name of that particular monarch, I think that "Tih" is more appropriate, per Zoupan's and Todor's explanation. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Asen

Resolved

Konstantin Tih and his son are claimed in WP as being Asenevtsi, however, I can't find information on Tihomir being an Asen.--Zoupan 13:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So, Konstantin married into the Asen, adopted the name, but cannot and should not be regarded an Asen.--Zoupan 13:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)