Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 2

message: There has been an attempt to create a naming system specifically for Polish monarchs (but it is just a proposal and never received consensus), against the system used for other European monarchs. There is also the fact that most Polish monarchs now are located in places which contravene to general naming convention. There is no consensus for permission to use an exception for Polish monarchs, and such permission should be sought from consensus atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) where there is the thread Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs. At that spot there are editors who are more or less experienced in overall picture of monarch naming and not only one country. It is deception to advertise any system for naming before a consensus there is convinced of the need for such exception. I hope all of you continue the naming scheme discussion for Polish monarchs there, before continuing or creating policy forks. Shilkanni 13:09, 6 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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support (nominator) --Francis Schonken 10:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

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 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: :I've moved the "pollbottom" of the poll that ended 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia will require some form of dash instead of a / because the / is impractical in titles, as the subpage separator.
*Poland and Lithuania, separated.
*Poland-Lithuania
*Lithuania-Poland
*Lithuania
*Poland
** King of Poland, definitely. No need to mention all the titles he held in the article's title. //Halibutt 09:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual items

message: *Jogaila
**Juraune 09:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forename

message: *II
**logologist|Talk 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numeral

message: *Jogaila
**Lithuanian; may be useful balance Septentrionalis
**Dr. Dan 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname/Name as Grand Duke

message: :Wikipedia will require some form of dash instead of a / because the / is impractical in titles, as the subpage separator.
*Poland and Lithuania, separated.
*Poland-Lithuania
*Lithuania-Poland
*Lithuania
*Poland
** King of Poland, definitely. No need to mention all the titles he held in the article's title. //Halibutt 09:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Country

message: Norman Davies' Europe: A History lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila (not Władysław); Eric Christiansen's The Northern Crusades has him in the index as Jogaila also, and when ones looks him up as Władysław, the closest one gets is "Wladyslaw IV, see Jogaila"; likewise, he is called Jogaila in Lithuania Ascending. A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–1345. Evidently, when it comes to impartial authorities not taken over by Polonocentrism, Jogaila is the preferred name. Thanks to Francis Schonken and Pmanderson for trying. I suggest giving up. This page is the subject of a Polish cabal; there is no hope of it being moved. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why not change your statement to Evidently, when it comes to biased authorities taken over by Polonophobia...? Come on, you have your POV, just like anyone else. You've failed to convince other people around here, but why the slander? Why use so strong arguments? //Halibutt 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, Halibutt, many Polish Wiki users seem to think I am anti-Polish, yet I'm not in the slightest anti anything eastern Europe. I do have my own POV, he should be called Jogaila or something else where Jogaila is the first name, which you might think is POV, fair enough. But Władysław II Jagiełło is not an appropriate name on English wiki, that has already been shown. This is a cabal. Argumentation is actually irrelevant. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to User:Francis Schonken and User:Pmanderson 

message: Wladyslaw II Jagiello and Wladyslaw II Jagiellon, so confusing. This is one more reason to name the article by the name Jogaila, shorter, clearer, not mistakable. Juraune 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wladyslaw II Jagiellon is a red link, and your link points to Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary. It is remotely possible people would get confused, so it may be wortwile to emply  in both articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No confusion.  "Jagiełło" is one specific person, Władysław II Jagiełło.  "Jagiellon" in English, "Jagiellończyk" in Polish, refer to the House of Jagiełło.  It's like the relation between John F. Kennedy and the Kennedy clan.  The other cited English spellings are incorrect.  KonradWallenrod 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These inconsistencies in "Kazimierz IV Jagiellon" are now cleared up.  Thanks for bringing attention to them.  It's hard to perfect the entire Wikipedia all at once.  An approximate pronunciation of Kazimierz's name is also given.  KonradWallenrod 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible confusion between Wladyslaw II Jagiello and Wladyslaw II Jagiellon 

message: While all of this sound and fury goes on about his name, the article itself is paltry, without much substance, and without much information about his life and accomplishments. And there is a lot that can be wriiten. Why don't we back off for a moment and work on the article itself for a while. We can always come back to this question later (I'm sure many will), but the article is weak and needs attention. God only knows how much better it would be, if half of the energy and effort of the arguments sounding off were applied to the article. A little less Polemics, maybe? Dr. Dan 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But how are you going to rewrite an article if even the name of a subject is under discussion? :) Juraune 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article

message: 1) From above, I got information that Jogaila (Lith.) is usually Jagiello in English. Is this correct? (My own touch had been that it is without that -i-  thus, Jagello or Jagellon but I may have thought wrong.)
2) There is the fact that this guy's regnal number is not an established fact. He is sometimes II and sometimes V.
From these assumptions, I propose he be named Vladislaus Jagiello of Lithuania, King of Poland. I know, somewhat exceptional naming. But the shortest I can arrive at with inclusion of elements under contention. At least, with this, English-speakers, Polish and Lithuanians should get nothing too repulsive. How about this - and please remember that probably all others will be yet more monstrous. ObRoy 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikipedia guides are quite straight that you should NOT use that kind of title. Szopen 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you elaborate on how did you chosel Vladislaus over, let's say, Wladislaw (or current Władysław)? For the record I have never opposed the change of Jagiełło into Jagiello/Jagiellon, provided it is done to all relevant kings and queen (just as I supported the use of Vasa instead of Waza). The exceptionaly long 'of country' is somewhat strange, and I'd like to note this combination seems to be OR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The various Englicizations of his first name were one of the first things discussed here, so if you have not looked at the archives it may be worth checking. The last time I tried to do some analysis I could not find a variant with significant majority, and decided to go with Polish one. As far as Wladyslaw vs. Władysław my stance is that if we go with Wladyslaw we may as well put the diactrics where they belong. I have never seen 'Jagello' used, the two variants from my experience seem to be 'Jagiello' and 'Jagiellon'. I would love to have more input from Lithuania related editors and I have requested the attention of interested editors from Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. I am however afraid that Lithuanization of his Polish name is even less used in English then the Polish variant. Jogaila is certianly something different, but we have discussed the pros and cons of Jogaila above; it seems to be a good name for Jagiello up to the point he became the King of Poland, but not afterwards, and he is better known as king of Poland then as High Duke of Lithuania...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has anyone compiled information, showing how the name is spelled in each of the major English-language encyclopedias? --Elonka 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As a Lithuanian editor, I would like to remark on Wladyslaw vs. Władysław (Jagiello vs. Jagiełło). I do not agree that this is simple the case of using or not using diacritics in English and that both forms are equal. Diacritics used in other languages with Latin alphabet vary widely from language to language. For example, pronounciation of 'ą' in Polish is completely different from same character 'ą' in Lithuanian. From reading discussions earlier I learned that ł is pronounced like w in Polish, while Jogaila was definitely not Jogaiwa. Being Lithuanian speaker, my heart cries for Jogaila, anyway, I can accept Jagiello as the name used most commonly in English. But not Władysław Jagiełło! Why should English wikipedia favor Polish diacritics more than Lithuanian diacritics? Juraune 08:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jaraune, got my support. No diacritics is good idea - but we should keep the redirects. Also, there should be redirects from Jogaila of Lithuania and other versions of the name, if there is no already one Szopen 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise about name 

message: Request of restoring previous name till consensus will be reached or at least not use  of Poland!!!!! M.K. 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just made Wladyslaw Jagiello, would that be Ok? Szopen 12:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wladyslaw Jagiello is a disambiguation page (and all of the names there should be probably changed to be in accordance to wiki rules, too!). So, actually, Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Other versions should be redirects. We would then avoid to touch uneasy issue whether he should be of Poland or of Lithuania (even if against wiki rules). OR we could create Wladyslaw Jagiello (disambiguation), and Wladyslaw Jagiello as main article... Szopen 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland???