Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 6

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)
replies: text: Well, it seems that was false alarm. After this explanation i think it's ok with me.--Lokyz 12:03, 22 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