Talk:Władysław IV Vasa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Wikipedian removed Władysław IV Vasa from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: September 19, 2006
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
Władysław IV Vasa is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] King Vladislaus or Wladislaus (never Ladislaus)

The king name was Władysław in Polish and was also spelled: Wladislaus (early Latinized version) or Vladislaus (late Latin and English version), never Ladislaus. This shoud be corrected. Below is a sample of original documents sign by the Vladislaus kings. Althout the form Wladislaus was used more often, in my opinion Vladislaus is much better here, beacuse it is more modern version and more English. Vladislaus Rex 00:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] King Vladislaus I the Short (Władysław I Łokietek)

  • 27.02.1298: Wladislaus Dei gracia, dux Regni Polonie et dominus Pomerania, Cuiavie, Lancicie as Siradie
  • 7.03.1298: Wladislaus ...
  • 1.09.1999: Wladislaus ...

[edit] King Vladislaus II Jagiello (Władysław II Jagiełło)

  • 3.05.1386: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie Litwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
  • 30.09.1388: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradia, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithuanie princeps supremus, Pomoranie Russieque dominus et heres etc.
  • 22.04.1389: Wladislaus ...
  • 28.01.1392: Wladislaus ...
  • 10.05.1394: Wladislaus ...
  • 11.04.1409: Wlodislaus (sic! with o) ...
  • 12.12.1410: Wladislaus ...
  • 17.07.1416: Wladislaus ...
  • 6.09.1422: Wladislavs (sic! with v)...
  • 24.06.1425: Wladislaus ...

[edit] King Vladislaus III of Varna (Władysław III Warneńczyk)

  • 21.12.1436: Wladislaus Dei gratia rex Polonie Lithwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie
  • 16.12.1438: Wladislaus Tercius Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithwanieque princeps supremus, Pomeranie Russie dominus et heres et cetera
  • 5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
  • 5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
  • 11.06.1443: Wladislaus Dei gracia Hungarie, Polonie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Litwanieque princes supremus et heres Russie etc.
  • 11.06.1443: Wladislaus ...
  • 17.04.1444: Wladislaus ...
  • 19.04.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Lithwaniaque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
  • 18.08.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. tex necnon terrarum Cracouie, Samdomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuyauie, Lithwanie princeps supremus, Pomeranie, Russieque dominus et heres etc.
  • 18.08.1444: Wladislaus ...
  • 27.08.1444: Wladislaus

[edit] King Vladislaus IV Vasa (Władysław IV Waza)

  • 20.02.1633: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
  • 12.03.1633: Wladislaus Quartus ...
  • 14.08.1634: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 17.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 24.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 7.05.1638: Vladislaus IV ...
  • 30.09.1641: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 24.03.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
  • 1.09.1647: Vladislaus Quartus ...

[edit] Tsar isue

This User:Emax is constantly reverting my edits and isn't even making sense. Russia couldn't have had two tsars at the same time, and as a matter of fact, I believe he just technically ruled briefly, whether it was official or not. Marcus2 00:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So why do you not change Michael_I_of_Russia if you are the opinion that its not possible that Russia had two tsars? Official he reign until 1635 (irrelevant how)--Emax 00:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there was an exception to the rule. Ivan V and Peter I were joint tsars, but they were half-brothers, and as I recall, Wladislaus IV reigned briefly, even though not officially for a while to the Polish monarchy. Marcus2 02:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look what a mess you made (points below). You two should be ashamed of yourself. Wladislaw was always a titular tsar, and had no real power. But he did retain the insignia and used the title until 1635. I admit I haven't noticed the 'reign in Russia' tab in the biobox. I'd suggest deleting in completly or changing the text to read 1610-1635 (nominal) - it is extremly confusing to see his 'Russian reign' compared to Polish one, and the matter is sufficiently explained in the article text. Please vote (or suggest your version) here. I want to get rid of the protected status ASAP. While we are dealing with this, take a look at the tsar template below, and consider how we may apply the changes from compromise at the Michael I of Russia and Vasili IV of Russia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Nie widze powodu by cos zmieniac w tabelce, tekst artykulu wyraznie mowi ze rzadzil "with no real power", dolna tabelka rowniez to potwierdza, wiec po co w paru miejscach pisac to samo? Druga sprawa, "tytularnym" to on byl krolem Szwedow, Gotow i Wandalow a nie Carem. Zostal wybrany i do 1635 trzymal tytul, wiec oficajlnie byl caly czas Carem (niema znaczenia czy rzeczywiscie rzadzil, czy nie - o tym mowi artykul). Ten ostatni kompromis z tym "titular", wcale nie byl dobrym - i tak na marginesie, jak na encyklopedie bardzo mylacym - rozwiazaniem. Wybrany prezydent ktory cala swoja kadecje przelezy w szpitalu - nadal bedzie prezydentem, chodz zadnej wladzy nie wykonywal (i w takim przypadku artykul o tym opowiada, a nie tabelka ktora przedstawia tylko podstawowe fakty w skrocie)--Emax 21:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Note: please keep to English. I can understand you, but majority of other discutants may not. True, his tsar title was not the same as his 'King of Sweden' title, but neither was it the same as his 'King of PLC' title, was it? At the very least we should add some kind of note. While as I wrote, won't mind if some kind of note that he was a tsar stays in the biobox, it cannot look - from battlebox - as his tsar reign was the same as his PLC reign. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::Wlasnie o to chodzi ze byl takim samym carem jak krolem Polski (nawet to ze w Polsce i w Rosji zostal wybrany na wladce) - roznica polega na tym, ze praktycznie nie wykonywal wladzy w Rosji, a w Polsce to robil. I o tym mowi juz artykul bardzo wyraznie. Troche mi sie nie chce tu kaleczyc z moja angielszczyzna :), bo problem wyglada na "a mnie sie nie podoba ze polski krol byl carem". Oficjalnie byl carem, oficjalnie rzadzil w Rosji do 1635, nieoficjalnie nie mial tam praktycznie wladzy. Tabelka podaje informacje w skrocie, a artykul wyraznie juz mowi ze nie mial tam praktycznie wladzy - a tym co sie nie podoba ze byl carem, musza z tym zyc ;) --Emax 14:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

:::::A może po prostu usunąć tą całą tabelkę? Sprawa jest skomplikowana i jedna linijka w tabelce po prostu nie będzie w stanie jej wyjaśnić. To chyba jedyne rozwiązanie, bo Emax przecież zdania nie zmieni :).

:::::A tabelka wcale nie jest niezbędna. Przykład: James II of England. Z nim podobna sytuacja: prawowity król Anglii od 1685, zdjęty z tronu i wygnany do Francji w 1688, uważał się za króla do śmierci w 1701.


Short translation: since the chances of convincing Emax are low (based on previous experience), the only reasonable solution seems to be getting rid of the table altogether. Tables are not a necessity: see James II of England. Balcer 09:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Or meaby you should just call 172 for help like on Anti-Polonism?...(niektorzy z diablem podpisza pakt by przeforsowac swoja opinie i zaszkodzic innym, wstyd, wstyd...)--Emax 13:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
This gem by Emax deserves translation. Emax writes (niektorzy z diablem podpisza pakt by przeforsowac swoja opinie i zaszkodzic innym, wstyd, wstyd...) which means (some will sign a pact with the devil to push through their opinion and harm others, shame, shame ...). So, for the record, Emax considers 172 to be the devil :). What did 172 do to deserve this?. Balcer 16:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Targowica confederation :) (fajnie kablujesz, moze przetlumaczysz jeszcze to zdanie w ktorym pisze ze kablujesz? nie ladnie, nie ladnie... Piszesz po polsku, masz nick (prawie) polski, ale Polakiem to Ty chyba nie jestes) ;)--Emax 17:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

And btw, just for the record... pls dont claiming that "Emax considers 172 to be the devil" - i wrote you only a saying, that you should learn :)--Emax 17:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

A simple solution: we leave the 'Reign in Russia' table (btw, I am going to merge elected with reign, they are duplicates), but add a note1 linking the paragraph explaining the tsar issure. I think this should be acceptable to everyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA

[edit] Protected

While we sort out the reverts, I'm protecting this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys sorted out now? Please tell me what the consensus was so I can unlock the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, no response in a while. I assume the parties have calmed down and will find a compromise. I'd suggest requesting for page protection again if the problem crops up again. Unprotecting. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This title is crazy

I've never seen this name as "Wladislaus". "Wladyslaw" would be okay with me, but "Wladislaus" is just weird. john k 03:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also vote Wladyslaw. Still, see section first of this talk page, Talk:Ladislaus and also Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers before you decide to move this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

I see a revert war going on between Witkacy and Voyevoda, mostly related to conversion of Orthodox. Could anyone elaborate a bit? What's the problem here? Halibutt 23:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am entirely in Witkacy's camp on this one. First, Voyevoda is reverting my edits including fixing some broken links. Second, he insist on adding the word 'violently' to convert, which is not factual: Sigismund wanted to convert Orthodox to Catholicism, but nowhere I read does it state he wanted to do it by force *only*. Besides, he never suceeded in this, as no signed agreement even allowed Catholic faith to be preached in Muscovy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

References given do not appear to reference the entire article, I assume this based on the citation needed tag in the intro, and if part of the article summarizing the whole thing has no reference, how much more of it may not be referenced? Convert them to inline citations or something, or better yet, just add more, but this just isn't well-referenced. Homestarmy

The "citation-needed" tag was groundless. The information given is well-established fact. (It is supposed that Władysław's father wanted the Muscovite throne for himself.) logologist|Talk 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand inline citations are a must. I have Czaplinski's ref with me, and I will try to find some time to add inline cites in the future.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and try to summarize the failures section more if you can, it looks a bit big, maybe split it up into two sections or something. Homestarmy 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/%C5%82/a/Talk%7EW%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_IV_Vasa_8227.html"