Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

message: I see we've gone from one not the best choice title to another. MOS is not a dictate to trump nomenclature as used in seminal works of scholarship on Poland-Lithuania. Registering my disappointment that at the face of it it looks like another Lithuanian "he's ours" versus Polish "no, he's ours". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I'd support Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila). Nobody else ever was on board with that, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be fine with that too. This is a special case and strict application of MOS is completely inappropriate based on the best scholarship on the subject, including how his information is indexed. We probably know this topic better than most editors and arguably represent both sides "claiming ownership," Polish versus Lithuanian kin to Latvian. I'm willing to open the can of worms one more time. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you. Jogaila is a special case and Piotr's suggestion for the title seems like a good compromise. Either that or Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello). Having read lengthy discussions about the title change in the current and archived Talk sections, it seems many contributors are missing the point that English being an international language, people from numerous countries prefer history in English as it often provides more information and/or tends to be more objective/reliable. Native Lithuanians, Latvians, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians know Jogaila by his birth name alone, and are oblivious of baptismal name. This is probably true for many other nations that utilise English as number one foreign language. Hence current title causes confusion for a big chunk of readers. Danieliuslt (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunate (IMO) choice 

message: While the 19th-century painting of Władysław II Jagiełło no doubt looks pretty nice, how nice a picture looks should always be secondary to the authenticity and accuracy of a picture. As such, when choosing what picture to use as a portrait in a biographical article on Wikipedia, it is generally best to choose a picture that is dated as close as possible to the time the person lived. The 19th-century painting cannot be accurate because it was painted over 400 years after the person in question died. If the painter used a good source for his portrait, then simply use that source as picture for this article. If the painter did not use a source, then the portrait is pure fiction. I have replaced the picture with what I thought was the best example in the commons directory. If there are better pictures, then please put them on top, as long as they are accurate depictions of the person in question. Omegastar (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely.  (That is why I've sometimes even used tomb effigies from the period.)  Nihil novi (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old portrait versus 18th century portrait painting 

message: About your revert, my sources aren't more dubious than the Ilustrowany atlas historii Polski, wyd. Demart, Warszawa 2006 who confuses "wassal state" with "fief" and anticipes "hospodar" for a century. About your "millions of grammatical mistakes", into the "Two nations", the names are in their POLISH form (used in this times, verify). Into Hungary, in their magyar form. Into Transylvania (under the Magyar names), Moldavia & Wallachia (upper the polish names), in their romanian form (transcripted from the romanian medieval specific cyrillic script). Into the Crimean khanate, into their turkic form, transcritped from the arab script. All this are known by the historians of this area. But you prefer, for Wikipedia, a map who represents Bialgorod & Akkerman as two different cities, and anticipes Akkerman (appeared after 1484 - ottoman conquest). Congratulations ! --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Dubious map with millions of grammatical mistakes  

message: His year of birth has been depicted as 1352/1362.... His exact year of birth seems to be unknown. However several users have changed it recently in 1352, also changing other text in related articles without any explanation or source. I will revert again. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth 

message: According to Commons, for :File:Polska 1386 - 1434.png: "The factual accuracy of this map or the file name is disputed." It is sourced with "Ilustrowany atlas historii Polski, wyd. Demart, Warszawa 2006" though. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:URFA/2020]]