Talk:Adam Wenceslaus, Duke of Cieszyn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dukes of Teschen (Dukes of Cieszyn not a historical name at all)[edit]

Google books result :Dukes of Cieszyn = 1400-1920 = 3 books

1400-1945 = 20 books, 1960 = 44, 1980 =104, 2008=200 books

Google book result :Dukes of Teschen 1400-1945 = 798 books, 2008 = 858 books

Duke of Cieszyn by 1920 = result 3 books,

1945 = 20 books, 2008 = 200 books

Despite that there were no Dukes of Cieszyn until after 1920/1945, and the name Duke of Teschen is the correct one, a group of people at Wikipedia [1], [2] want to force recently invented names, such as Dukes of Cieszyn on the public, insinuating, that this is the long established correct name

Teschen and Duchy of Teschen on 1600s Map of Duchy of Silesia with Teschen in Duchy of Teschen An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I support observer and urge Wikipedians to reconsider usage of Teschen/Cieszyn in English texts on history of the dukedom.--Qasinka (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Wenceslaus, Duke of Cieszyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]