Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 7

message: #Support. Most recognisable name to people unfamiliar with Polish history. In English, the dynastic name is usually Jagiellonian and this was his personal first. Srnec 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagiello 

message: # Support. Shilkanni 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagello

message: # Support His birth name, Grand Duke name, most recent English publications refer to him as Jogaila (see earlier disucussion). Second choice - latin Jagello.--Lokyz 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jogaila 

message: #support only if it has "of Poland" or "of Lithuania" after it; name has to contain either the country name or the dynastical name. – Alensha 寫 词 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Władysław II 

message: # Support. Elonka 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wladyslaw II Jagiello 

message: #Support. Laziness is no excuse for incorrect spelling ;-) --Lysytalk 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Władysław II Jagiełło 

message: #Support per WP:UE and all the others listed at Ladislaus. //Halibutt 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I might be willing to go for that "Jogaila-Wladyslaw II of Lithuania-Poland" compromise. --Elonka 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladislaus II of Poland 

message: # Second choice support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Władysław II Jagiello 

message: ==== Lithuanian name ====
#Jogaila Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends  
#Jogaila The Medieval Chronicle: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle 
# Jogaila (Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, by S. C. Rowell, 1994) 
#Jogaila (The Crusades And The Expansion Of Catholic Christendom 1000-1714, by John France, 2005), 
#Jogaila (also Yogaila) (The Memorial Book for the Jewish Community of Yurburg, Lithuania - Translation and Update, Editor Joel Alpert, 2001) 
#Jogaila Lithuania: Stepping Westward 
==== Polish name ====
#Ladislas II (The Story of Civilization, 1957, by Will and Ariel Durant)
#Vladyslav II Jagiello (The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, 1952)
#Władysław Jagiełło (Trade and Urban Development in Poland, by F. W. Carter, 1994)
#King Wladyslaw (A History of Polish Christianity, Jerzy Kłoczkowski, 2000) 
# Władysław Jagiełło (Conceptions of National History: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 78, 1994) 
# Władysław Jagiełło (Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, Anne Markham Schulz, Giammaria Mosca, 1998) 
# Władysław Jagiełło (The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power, Jan Kubik, 1994) 
# Władysław Jagiełło (A History of East European Jews, by Heiko Haimann, 2003) 
# Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila also used where applicable); (A History of Ukraine, Paul R Magocsi, 1996) -
# Jagiełło (The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Jim Bradbury, 2004) 
# Vladislav II Yaguello (sic! History of the Jews in Poland and Russia, Simon Dubnow, 1915) 
# Władysław Jagiełło (Nation And History, by Peter Brock, John Stanley, Piotr J Wrobel, 2006)
#Władyslaw II Jagiełło, King of Poland (U.S. Library of Congress) 
#Władysław Jagiełło, though Jogaila, Lithuanian Grand Duke also used once (Power and the Nation in European History, various authors) 
#Jagiełło (Władysław II Jagiełło, king of Poland, grand prince of Lithuania), A Concise History of Poland, Lukowski & Zawadzki, 2001  and Jogaila 
# Władysław II Jagiełło, Poland, an Illustrated History, Iow Cyprian Pogonowski, 2000.  Index entries include:  (1) Jagiełło, King W., (2) Jogaila, Grand Duke (Jagiełło), and (3) Władysław II Jagiełło.  In text, the most common name used to refer to him is King Władysław Jagiełło
==== Both ====
# Jogaila and Władysław Jagiełło (Europe, by Norman Davies, 1996)  - 
# Jogaila  and Władysław (The New Cambridge Medieval History, Editor Christopher Allmand, 1998) 
#: Note: I disagree. When I checked this book's index, I saw that the listing is actually "Jogaila (Jagiełło) of Lithuania, see also Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" (which is the primary listing)  --Elonka 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other, academic, works of reference

message: # Jogaila and Władysław Jagiełło (Europe, by Norman Davies, 1996)  - 
# Jogaila  and Władysław (The New Cambridge Medieval History, Editor Christopher Allmand, 1998) 
#: Note: I disagree. When I checked this book's index, I saw that the listing is actually "Jogaila (Jagiełło) of Lithuania, see also Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" (which is the primary listing)  --Elonka 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both 

message: Leave the page where it is (at "Jogaila"), and hold an approval vote on whether or not "Jogaila" is an acceptable name.
* Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option: Leave it at Jogaila, and hold another approval vote 

message: Move the page back to Władysław II Jagiełło, and then hold a formal RM vote on whether there is consensus to specifically move to Jogaila.
::* Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option: Move it back to Władysław II Jagiełło, and hold a formal RM

message: Leave the page where it is for now (at "Jogaila"), take a break for a month, and then re-visit things to test for consensus.
* Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option: Take a break for a month, then re-visit

message: Leave the page where it is permanently -- it doesn't need any further action.
:I guess the intended meaning of this choice is:
:Leave the page where it is without any collateral action. `'mikka
 
# As per vote. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option: Leave it alone, no further action required

message: A poll on what kind of poll to have? What's else is new? :) Renata 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People familiar with Rejs should be ROTFLOLing now :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  02:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's ridiculous there's another poll so quickly. 16 out of 33 votes is resounding for a 10 option poll, and let me add a whopping majority of non-Polish users. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And 16 for Wladyslaw Jagiello should obviously be discounted as 16 for a Polish name is much less than 16 for a Lithuanian one, right? //Halibutt 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please present these internet counts in .php code and people will vote editing it. And don't forget to extract the census results from people oppinions presented as .txt. No doubt we will get 100% for English/Polish-Latin name, 1 Lithuanian pretty alone will be discounted. :| Juraune 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's start a poll on whether to continue this poll. heqs 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support :D   M.K. 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could not agree with that. The number of future polls should be decided by poll. To prevent discrimination against rarely mentioned numericals (such as 927714, 448771, 455787134), there should be infinite options of number of polls to chose from Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to say that Elonka was only trying to find a democratic solution. Surely she didn't deserve all that mocking?--SylwiaS | talk 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not mocking Elonka. Dear SylwiaS, why do you think I am doing so? I mocking wrote this very seriously, I have voted in many polls, and there were votes discounted because an invitation was found on a user page of Wikipedia editor. Juraune 13:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not mocking Elonka either. She is doing a hell of a job mediating this mess and trying to make everyone happy. What I am mocking is what kind of mess and nonsense all these polls became... Renata 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course no one was mocking Elonka. A very typical straw argument, and cheap tactic to divide people and create a hostile atmosphere. Sylwia, I know you've been away for a little while, maybe you need to brush up on who Elonka herself, thought was giving her a rude and difficult time. Not these people, dear. Dr. Dan 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you quote the relevant part of the policies that a multi-choice poll, with secondary votes and such, is a 'proper WP:RM vote'?? As several users pointed out, consensus what not reached during the discussion, and WP:RM should be used as it is the only applicable procedure for controversial votes. Further, WP:RM procedure is clearly explained at WP:RM and I don't see it allows anywhere for multi-choice RMs or secondary or such votes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Counted here too?? M.K. 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, a normal move vote should show Jogaila widely preferred over Władysław II Jagiełło. john k 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, John. Jogaila is the most popular name and is now the page's default name. There can be no "to Jogaila" vote. Any future vote will be a "to x" vote, where x does not equal Jogaila. You might be better reaching a consensus among yourselves about what name you'd like so you can have realistic chance of achieving a broader consensus amongst non-Poles. As it is, opposition to Jogaila almost entirely comes from Polish wikipedians.A name like Jogaila (Wladyslaw II), Wladyslaw II (Jogaila), Wladyslaw II Jagiello, Ladislaus II of Poland or Wladyslaw II of Poland, etc,  is likely to gain support beyond the narrow confines of the Polish wikipedian communinity Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jogaila is neither the most popular name nor the one chosen through a proper procedure. It's simply a name chosen by some of us, while the majority voted on other options. We are all entitled to our views, but we should not try to force all people to accept them as if they were accepted by a consensus. To paraphrase your comments above, it seems any excuse to violate the proper WP:RM and keep the article under the title most people opposed would be good. Also, mentioning some alleged Polish conspiracy is absurd, dear. Out of 16 people to vote for Wladyslaw were 2 Americans, a Czech, 2 Hungarians, 1 Belgian/Dutch, 1 German, 5 Poles, 1 Polish Jew, and 3 people I could find no info on. Out of 16 people to vote for Jogaila were 4 Lithuanians, 1 German, 1 German Canadian, 3 Brits, 2 Russians, 4 people I could not identify at all and a newcommer. Does it mean anything? Nope. So please be so kind as to stick to the arguments, not the people who make them. //Halibutt 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks SylwiaS for reminding Halibutt that he had already voted once (po Polsku), and he, oops made the necessary deletion of his second vote. God forbid he should vote three times. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your information about the nationalities of the various parties? Or are these just educated guesses? Or original research? Dr. Dan 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In such polls, voters could (or should?) openly declare their nationality/ethniticiy/allegiance/etc. by putting a  to their names  - that's what flags are for.  -- Matthead discuß!   O    23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that mistakes happen to everyone, but if you are free of them, I can only be in awe. You must be perfect, indeed! :)--SylwiaS | talk 06:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddha says: do not act and you will not commit mistakes - or act, and live with them. As to the nationalities - educated guesses, basing mostly on user pages. I might be wrong here and there, but the main point stays: Calgacus is wrong portraying the question in nationalist categories, as a conflict of Poles vs. ROTW. //Halibutt 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Buddha isn't voting once in this poll, or twice by accident either. And SywiaS, dear, while you were away, there was an unfortunate incident involving user:Logologist and three sockpuppets of his, that were set up to vote in Polish related matters (including this one), that may cause a little "sensitvity" to vote counting in some circles. In spite of this, I am aware that I am far from perfect. So you have no need to be in awe. Some of the things you say, do amaze me however, from time to time. Dr. Dan 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL You've posted the news about Logologist all about the Wiki. Really hard to miss! ;D But Halibutt wasn't signing as someone else, he's voice would be discarded anyway, wouldn't it?--SylwiaS | talk 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but you were away. Glad you caught it though(the sockpuppet voting)! I'm sure that some would have preferred that I swept it under the carpet rather than posted it all about the Wiki. Btw, who could ever even begin to think about discarding Halibutt's voice in any capacity? Lighten up for pete's sake (sorry Piotrus, again). Your pal, Dr. Dan 03:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I admit I voted twice by accident. I immediately erased my other vote. Double voting is not allowed and such votes are discounted anyway. I'm a bad, bad boy and I'm my own sockpuppet. Can we please stick to the topic now? Thank you. //Halibutt 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lets! And one bad is enough of a description, bad, bad, is over doing it. Dr. Dan 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Dan, I have to disagree, I thought it was sufficient. ;) And I have to admit, the idea of Halibutt spanking himself just kind of ... "worked" ... for me, heh. --Elonka 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: This was a temporary poll while the page was at a non-consensus name.  It is now closed.
--Elonka 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disgusting move !!!! I hope the admins will take to consideration this “editor” moves. M.K. 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Balcer is following a proper WP:RM procedure. As for horrendous actions, I think that your attempt to portray a ~1:2 vote as a consensus and majority is a better example. If you are so sure Jogaila has a majority, you should be perfectly happy to confirm this through a proper RM vote, instead of the controversial and hard to interpret multi-poll. PS. I find it amusing how 'controversial move to Jogaila is good, controversial move from Jogaila is bad' :) Hypocrisy, anyone?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Piotrus, I can't believe you're supporting this. Does the name of this guy really mean that much to you? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calgacus, I can't believe you are loosing your cool over this. Does the name of this guy really mean that much to you? Great logic, btw :) No, it does not mean that much to me. But following the right procedures does. The page should be moved via a proper WP:RM, not through some contorted multi-poll which has more holes then the Swiss cheese.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I thank Piotrus for defending me, and don't really have much more to say beyond what he so eloquently did. Per Piotrus, I don't have anything in particular against moving to Jogaila, if that move is carried out via a proper procedure and with clear concensus support.  Following proper procedure is essential in a collaborative effort among mostly anonymous strangers that Wikipedia is.  As per redirect, I made the edit precisely to prevent silly moves back and forth while the discussion is going on.  If I broke Wikipedia policy, please point me to any relevant guidelines that I violated.  I am ready to accept the community's judgement on this.Balcer 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr.Juraune, there was no consensus for the previous move. Balcer just reverted a move for which there was no consensus, now we can follow the propoer WP:RM procedure which will clearly show if there is consensus or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the prolonged discussions that we had, Piotrus, mon amie, I allow you to ommit Mr./Ms./Mrs./Miss. whatever, and call me simply Juraune. Juraune 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Balcer, I'm sorry, but I think you were out of line in this case.  The poll was closed by an admin, who made a determination that the consensus was Jogaila.  If that admin made a bad call, then there are procedures on how to question the admin's decision (which we were in the middle of).  It was not appropriate for you, within less than 24 hours of the matter, to unilaterally decide to countermand the closing admin's decision, and move the article to a different name, especially since you are not neutral in this matter.  Further, though the newest poll hadn't been running long enough to gain a genuine determination of community opinion, it was clear even within the first 24 hours that there was not a clear consensus on what to do next. At this point, even though I am personally against the title of "Jogaila" as a final title, I still support moving the article back to Jogaila immediately, so that proper process can be followed.  An admin made a good faith effort at a decision on a complicated matter. We should respect that. --Elonka 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite of good faith, we should remember that admins are only people, and errare humanum est... that's why humanity invented procedures... to eliminate as much humans mistakes as it's possible. Radomil talk 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey for Requested Move to Jogaila 

message: Two notes. One, I'd support the move to Władisław II Jagiello, as I mentioned several times the current name is not my favourite-top-of-all pic, neither, and I have been convinved during our discussions that Jagiello would be better then Jagiełło. Second note: it's nice to see the RM procedure followed, but please, let's not move this article ever again without a RM consensus, ok? On that note perhaps a neutral admin should move-protect this page?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disgusting move !!!! I hope the admins will take to consideration this “editor” moves. M.K. 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Balcer is following a proper WP:RM procedure. As for horrendous actions, I think that your attempt to portray a ~1:2 vote as a consensus and majority is a better example. If you are so sure Jogaila has a majority, you should be perfectly happy to confirm this through a proper RM vote, instead of the controversial and hard to interpret multi-poll. PS. I find it amusing how 'controversial move to Jogaila is good, controversial move from Jogaila is bad' :) Hypocrisy, anyone?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Piotrus, I can't believe you're supporting this. Does the name of this guy really mean that much to you? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calgacus, I can't believe you are loosing your cool over this. Does the name of this guy really mean that much to you? Great logic, btw :) No, it does not mean that much to me. But following the right procedures does. The page should be moved via a proper WP:RM, not through some contorted multi-poll which has more holes then the Swiss cheese.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I thank Piotrus for defending me, and don't really have much more to say beyond what he so eloquently did. Per Piotrus, I don't have anything in particular against moving to Jogaila, if that move is carried out via a proper procedure and with clear concensus support.  Following proper procedure is essential in a collaborative effort among mostly anonymous strangers that Wikipedia is.  As per redirect, I made the edit precisely to prevent silly moves back and forth while the discussion is going on.  If I broke Wikipedia policy, please point me to any relevant guidelines that I violated.  I am ready to accept the community's judgement on this.Balcer 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr.Juraune, there was no consensus for the previous move. Balcer just reverted a move for which there was no consensus, now we can follow the propoer WP:RM procedure which will clearly show if there is consensus or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the prolonged discussions that we had, Piotrus, mon amie, I allow you to ommit Mr./Ms./Mrs./Miss. whatever, and call me simply Juraune. Juraune 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Balcer, I'm sorry, but I think you were out of line in this case.  The poll was closed by an admin, who made a determination that the consensus was Jogaila.  If that admin made a bad call, then there are procedures on how to question the admin's decision (which we were in the middle of).  It was not appropriate for you, within less than 24 hours of the matter, to unilaterally decide to countermand the closing admin's decision, and move the article to a different name, especially since you are not neutral in this matter.  Further, though the newest poll hadn't been running long enough to gain a genuine determination of community opinion, it was clear even within the first 24 hours that there was not a clear consensus on what to do next. At this point, even though I am personally against the title of "Jogaila" as a final title, I still support moving the article back to Jogaila immediately, so that proper process can be followed.  An admin made a good faith effort at a decision on a complicated matter. We should respect that. --Elonka 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite of good faith, we should remember that admins are only people, and errare humanum est... that's why humanity invented procedures... to eliminate as much humans mistakes as it's possible. Radomil talk 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Submitted a move protect request here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection --Francis Schonken 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protect? 

message: #It was the only name he used for his entire life; the article covers his entire life. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro

message: ====Pro====
Survey of major encyclopedias, and their titles for the relevant articles:
*Britannica: Wladyslaw II Jagiello
*Columbia: Ladislaus II, king of Poland
*Encarta: Władysław II
Conclusion: The omission of the Polish name Wladyslaw/Ladislaus in the current name of the article (Jogaila) is totally unreasonable, and goes against major English language encyclopedic references.Balcer 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about a king of Poland, while the name Jogaila is not associated with him as a king of Poland. While it’s fairly popular (although less popular than Wladyslaw/Władysław combined according to google books and main encyclopeadias) it’s hardly ever used in reference to him as a king of Poland. His being a great duke of Lithuania for 9 years before becoming a Polish king is very important of course, but his being the king of Poland for 49 years is even more so, and that’s why we strive to apply to him the WP:NC in the first place. During the first period he was known as Jogaila, during the second as Władysław, and that’s how majority of sources call him. Even the few examples brought above clearly show that the sources switch to calling him Władysław as soon as they come to his being crowned, and in their indexes list him under a name applied to a king, not duke. We can of course discuss which form of Władysław is the most popular in English, but we cannot call him a name that is associated only with his life prior to his being chosen a king. Otherwise we’d have to make two articles: Jogaila for his being a great duke of Lithuania, and Władysław for his being a king of Poland. As to the most popular English name vs. “real” name, I’d like only to point out that as much as we don’t know how his name would be spelled in Polish in his times, we don’t know how Jogaila would be spelled in Lithuanian either. All we know is that as a great duke he was called in Latin Jagalo, and later as a king of Poland Wladislaus, none of them being the most popular English usage. So I propose to stop the discussion on what he might have been called then, as according to WP:NC it’s fruitless, and focus on choosing the most popular English name for the king (not great duke) as the Wiki conventions suggest.--SylwiaS | talk 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Władysław II Jagiełło

message: Survey of major encyclopedias, and their titles for the relevant articles:
*Britannica: Wladyslaw II Jagiello
*Columbia: Ladislaus II, king of Poland
*Encarta: Władysław II
Conclusion: The omission of the Polish name Wladyslaw/Ladislaus in the current name of the article (Jogaila) is totally unreasonable, and goes against major English language encyclopedic references.Balcer 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about a king of Poland, while the name Jogaila is not associated with him as a king of Poland. While it’s fairly popular (although less popular than Wladyslaw/Władysław combined according to google books and main encyclopeadias) it’s hardly ever used in reference to him as a king of Poland. His being a great duke of Lithuania for 9 years before becoming a Polish king is very important of course, but his being the king of Poland for 49 years is even more so, and that’s why we strive to apply to him the WP:NC in the first place. During the first period he was known as Jogaila, during the second as Władysław, and that’s how majority of sources call him. Even the few examples brought above clearly show that the sources switch to calling him Władysław as soon as they come to his being crowned, and in their indexes list him under a name applied to a king, not duke. We can of course discuss which form of Władysław is the most popular in English, but we cannot call him a name that is associated only with his life prior to his being chosen a king. Otherwise we’d have to make two articles: Jogaila for his being a great duke of Lithuania, and Władysław for his being a king of Poland. As to the most popular English name vs. “real” name, I’d like only to point out that as much as we don’t know how his name would be spelled in Polish in his times, we don’t know how Jogaila would be spelled in Lithuanian either. All we know is that as a great duke he was called in Latin Jagalo, and later as a king of Poland Wladislaus, none of them being the most popular English usage. So I propose to stop the discussion on what he might have been called then, as according to WP:NC it’s fruitless, and focus on choosing the most popular English name for the king (not great duke) as the Wiki conventions suggest.--SylwiaS | talk 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro

message: #The name is untypable for most English-speaking users. Fine on Polish wiki, not here. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contra

message: No Balcer, the acrimony does not come from the populations and territorial size of these nations and their bordering neighbors over five hundred years ago. If you go to user talk: Lokyz and read the section called talk: Laurynas Gucevicius, you might get a better idea where the acrimony comes from. Dr. Dan 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acrimony