Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5

message: See Archive 3 for broken off voting --Francis Schonken 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moved during WP:RM vote - this breaks off voting

message: Now then the conditions are normalized and article has the original name we can try to reach good consensus. But before any I stress any (!) possible move in a future please state about the move in a appropriate manner. M.K. 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status quo

message: Write Support or Oppose with an optional max one-line reason. Longer otexts of opinions to discussion below.
* Support. Elegant solution, and the name (spelling variants aside) the one the subject is overwhelmingly best known as. Shilkanni 10:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is Jagiello, without dicritical marks, the proposition is not 'Jagiełło'. Shilkanni 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: Please note, that in the poll above, 
*
*
*
*
are confirmed sockpuppets . The outcome of the vote may change based on this information -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: The Polish WP cites new scholarship that puts Jagiełło's date of birth around 1362.  Perhaps someone would like to look into this. Appleseed (Talk) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Someone is making mess of this disscusion by dividing freely it to not logical parts and editing others posts - like removing signatures and priotity. Please, stop that.   --Lokyz 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, Elonka without any bad intentions, moved the previous poll to an archive 4, and rearanged current page to poll and discussion sections, according to what she said in "Next Step". On the other hand, I also don't understand, why some of the discussions was left on the poll section, and why not all of the proposed names are listed in discussion section, with one name repeated twice. As an editor with ~1.5 month experience I don't understand one more thing, why the previous poll of renaming "Władysław II Jagiełło" to "Jagiello" was over in 4 days, while other polls on renaming drag for more than a week. It is frustrating to see, that the discussions, ideas, proves, google counts have been moved to archives in an arbitrary point of time, and I have to vote and provide my arguments over and over again. I suppose, other editors felt similar way too. On an optimistic note, I should say, that at least I learn a lot of new interesting facts in history from all of this. Juraune 11:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was trying to make the page more readable, not less.  I'll freely admit that it was a complex process, but I made my best good faith effort to do it in an even-handed way.  I do sincerely apologize if I accidentally lost anything important.  If you see a comment that was moved improperly, or a signature that got lost, please feel free to edit it to fix the comment or re-add the signature.  As for the reasoning of what I moved, I tried to move all the lengthy conversations out of the poll and into their own sections, but I left comments that were just "singleton" comments.  As for which names are listed at the top of each discussion section, I moved the original vote that seemed to spark that particular discussion, and italicized it to show that it wasn't a "vote", but just a copy of one so as to give context to the later discussion. If anyone knows of a way to present this information so it's easier to understand, or sees anything else that needs to be moved, then by all means feel free to proceed. --Elonka 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ok with me, Elonka. I will add suggested name Jagiello to discussion too a little bit later and maybe Jagello, since the reasoning for them looks very sound to me, if you don't mind. Juraune 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see what you mean, about how the discussion looks.  Yes, that sounds like a good idea! --Elonka 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop making mess, please

message: And on that note... I'd like to appeal to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and other guidelines. Because the format for monarchs is generally "Name Ordinal of Country" and their is strong statement on the use of English: why is this article here? Let me ask a few questions and make a few statements:
*He was a monarch: no exception there
*Is Władysław his English name? I don't think anybody believes this: English variants include Wladislaus, Ladislas, and several more. Why, then, is there an exception here? What merits it?
*Why no "of Poland"? He was indisputably the monarch of Poland. He was also the monarch of Lithuania, so this could easily be an exception. 
*Is Jagiełło English spelling? No, that would be Jagiello. Is it part of the standard MoS form? No, so why is it there? 
*There is an exception because he has two names and two kingdoms. I don't see how to prefer one name or one kingdom over the other and the two names put together seem artificial to me. Why prefer his Polish name? Why put Jagiello after the ordinal like that (as if its a surname)?
*Therefore, it is best to ignore the ordinal and find the one name (and nickname) by which he is best known. Precendent for this includes Charlemagne, Alfonso the Battler, Alexander the Great, and many others. Since he has no popular nickname, he should be called by his only well-known name: Jagiello (or, more commonly these days, Jogaila). 
Please tell me where the logic above goes wrong. Srnec 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first, I never see a consensus-building exercise as pointless, because I value everyone's opinion, as long as they present it in a civil manner, and show respect for the opinions of other editors even when they disagree. To address your question though: For me, the issue with the most weight, is what the article titles for this individual are, in major English-language encyclopedias.  In the majority of those works, they seem to have chosen to entitle his article as some variation of "Wladyslaw II Jagiello".  Now as for whether or not we add "of Poland" or "of Poland & Lithuania" to the mix, I have no strong preference.  I'm also personally against diacritics, but that's a separate issue.  Where I personally have trouble with the Wikipedia "name/ordinal/country" guidelines, is if, by strict following of those rules, we end up with an article title for this monarch that matches no Encyclopedia, anywhere.  When that kind of situation occurs, it goes against what I believe is the Wikipedia philosophy, which is that articles here should reflect outside sources, and I'm going to cry foul, say that there's a problem with the guidelines, and insist that we stick with the original, pre-guideline rule, of following the lead of outside sources. --Elonka 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this were a debate on facts to include in the article, the secondary sources which have been cited as using Jogaila would be considered reliable, and the tertiary sources - encyclopedias and dictionaries - would likely be dismissed if they happened to disagree with them. Why shouldn't the same methodology apply to the article name ? WP:NAME says: "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages. It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone." There's no such disclaimer in WP:V and WP:RS. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This has been utterly pointless

message: I'd like to leave the above "first choice" name poll running for a few days more, but also wanted to start a discussion about the next step.  My own feeling (as the person that started the poll), is that we take any name that got 2 or more people choosing it, and then proceed to a larger "approve/reject" poll, such as listing each of those names (Jogaila, Jagiello, Jagiełło, Wladyslaw II Jagiello, Władysław II Jagiełło, etc.), and then letting the community choose which are acceptable, with the assumption that any name that you're not voting for, is one that you're actively opposing.  It's also my recommendation that we set aside the discussion about the "of Poland" suffix for now, and concentrate just on achieving consensus for an actual name.  Then we can move the page to that name (or leave it here, if that's what the community consensus is), and then launch into a separate debate on whether or not "of Poland" needs to be added to the end of it.  Would that work for everyone?  Or is the country suffix really an integral part of which name you would choose to begin with? --Elonka 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next step