Talk:Ladislav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Not true - the king name was WŁODZISŁAW in Polish. Today Polish form Władysław is Czech influence/borrowing. /Pmazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.30.36 (talk • contribs) 05:23, November 4, 2006

[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] Vladislaus vs. Ladislaus

I've certainly seen historians (e.g. Norman Davies) use the version Ladislaus. Stop changing the articles, please. Ausir 00:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For me Ladislaus seems to be a speling error. How about an article at Vladislaus, Ladislaus being a redirect?? Vladislaus Rex 00:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google returns much more "Ladislaus" than "Vladislaus" results. It seems that both latinized versions were in use. Ladislaus is more common in google searches, so it should IMHO be kept as the main name for the articles, but Vladislaus/Wladislaus/Ladislas (this version is also common in google) versions should be created as redirects. Ausir 00:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How many of these google returns are about the Polish kings??? Should we promote an error, just beacase it is widespread?? Ladislaus looks like a German version of the name, not English at all. Vladislaus Rex 00:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It might have been borrowed from German, but it is indeed the most common version in English language usage nowadays. The Wikipedia naming policy is to use the most common English language versions. And a google search for "king ladislaus" also gives more results than "king vladislaus". Ausir 01:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please look at Ladislaus disambig. Maybe the Ladislaus name was used in Bohemia and Hungary, but certainly not in Poland. Vladislaus Rex 01:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't seem to find any uses of Ladislaus for Bohemian rulers, but I do for Polish and Hungarian ones. Here are google search results:

Ladislaus - 15,100
Vladislaus - 801
Wladislaus - 741
Vladislav - 117,000 (mostly because it's still a modern spelling of the Czech name and a transliteration of the Russian name)
Ladislas - 12,600
Wladyslaw - 58,200 (mostly because it's a modern Polish name)

Ladislaus, Poland - 4,450
Vladislaus, Poland - 215
Wladislaus, Poland - 417
Vladislav, Poland - 11,500 (see above)
Ladislas, Poland - 2,040
Wladyslaw, Poland - 26,100(see above)

"king Ladislaus" - 805
"king Vladislaus" - 232
"king Wladislaus" - 75
"king Vladislav" - 563
"king Ladislas" - 690
"king Wladyslaw" - 561

"Ladislaus of Poland" - 66
"Vladislaus of Poland" - none
"Wladislaus of Poland" - 6
"Vladislav of Poland" - 18
"Ladislas of Poland" - 138
"Wladyslaw of Poland" - 36

"Ladislaus I of Poland" - 211
"Vladislaus I of Poland" - none
"Wladislaus I of Poland" - none
"Vladislav I of Poland" - 24
"Ladislas I of Poland" - 76
"Wladyslaw I of Poland" - 30

Ausir 01:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please try also: Wladislaus, Vladislav, Ladislas Vladislaus Rex 01:40, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added more examples and changed to English language search results only. As you can see, the most common spelling for the names of Polish kings in the English language is Ladislaus/Ladislas, then Vladislav, and only then the versions you proposed. It might not be a correct latin version, but it is currently an English version of this name (when monarchs are considered). Ausir 02:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vladislav IV, king of Poland -wiki (English only)

Ladislaus IV, king of Poland - 1,860 Vladislav IV, king of Poland - 1,650 Ladislaus IV, king of Poland - 1,090 Wladislaw IV, king of Poland - 812 Wladislaus IV, king of Poland - 265 Vladislaus IV, king of Poland - 98

The names with initial W- and V- are pretty good present in the English language internet. Aproximetelly half of the hits begin with L-. So we have to choose, deciding which form is right. In my opinion the rights form is Vladislaus or Wladislaus; Ladislaus/Ladislas although present in internet sources is clearly an error. Wikipedia should promote the right names, and that why I recommend the Vladislaus forms. Vladislaus Rex 02:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the Ladislaus hits represent the Hungarian kings, and the Wladislaus hits show the Polish kings in most cases. Vladislaus Rex 02:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the L-version used by English-speaking historians, like Norman Davies. Apparently, the version Ladislaus is currently the most common equivalent of Władysław/Vladislav/Ulaszlo, whether you like it or not, and whether it is correct latin or not. English Wikipedia uses the English language names, not Polish or Latin ones, even if they are derived from those sources. Would you call "Cracow" an error just because it is spelt differently than the version it is derived from? It just happens to be the English name for Kraków. And for using different versions for rulers of Hungary and Poland, some of the Ladislauses were rulers of more than one of those three (Poland, Bohemia, Hungary) countries, so there has to be a common naming convention for all of these. We don't have to choose which version is correct, because all of these versions are. THe question is - which one is the most common? And in most google searches it is Ladislaus. Ausir 02:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another way to test is to find the best modern histories of Poland by an English-speaking historians, and just do what they do. Google is not entirely trustworthy on tricky technical points of transliteration - it is possible for lots of people to have cloned the same bad info. A better version of the test is to search Amazon's book list, effectively gives you the collective wisdom of authors, editors, and factcheckers. Stan

I've checked with Norman Davies, currently the best known English language writer of Polish history books, and he uses Ladislaus. Ausir 07:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Britannica also uses Ladislaus. Ausir 07:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a problem with using Ladislaus as the English form of Władysław. It's that Ladislaus is also being used for a different name - László in Hungarian. Thus we could have two separate kings of Hungary referred to as Ladislaus II: both II. László (1162-63) and II. Ulászló (1490-1516). Maybe both Hungarian names derive from the same Polish name, but nevertheless there are different names in Hungarian and this difference needs to be expressed somehow in any anglicised form. I notice on the Ladislaus disambiguation page that II László isn't even listed - so clearly there is some confusion caused by this naming convention Scott Moore 17:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming, revisited

I did some counts at Talk:Wladislaus_I_Herman_of_Poland and the most popular variant is Vladislav where this disambig should be moved. Google search indicates there is no common English spelling, with the three most popular variants being Vladislav (1m), Ladislav (800k) and Wladyslaw/Władysław (400k). Out of the latinized versions, Ladislaus is the most popular one with 111,000 hits. As I explained on the W.Herman talk page, in the case of Polish kings Władysław is the best choice. I have done similar research on the pages about other Polish kings and the most logical answer seems to be the following formula: Polish first name, roman numeral, second name in English if nickname, in Polish if a proper surname. I plan to move all Polish kings to their new, better names soon, and I recommend adoption of a similar scheme for all European kings.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piping

I see a lot of discussion here about these people having multiple monikers; and the names of the target pages not agreeing with some people's preferences; but I read nothing here about piping the links i.e. hiding the actual name of the page. I think this is a mistake (and I think it also goes against the spirit and style of disambiguation pages). I suggest the links should be unpiped (and also bypass any redirects) so the text of the link is the name of the page. If that person is known by more than one name, those names can be listed along with whatever other information is necessary for a reader to find the page heir looking for. Forexample:

could become:

Ewlyahoocom 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, apparently my original comments on this page did not actually post. Thank you for responding anyway. I am not convinced by the opposition to piping. It is sometimes highly desirable and indeed required by the style or content of the text. Wikipedia entries do not always list things in optimal fashion, and sometimes they may be quite out of place. Consider, for example Theodore I Ducas found in various articles on medieval Greece. This is (or was) the Wikipedia entry, but in fact there was no second Theodore, the name Ducas really ought to be rendered Doukas by ODB standards, and finally he generally used the names Komnenos Doukas, while actually belonging to the Angelos family. Obviously, piping here is highly desirable.
As to the content of the Ladislaus disambiguation page. I do not think there should be a problem with the piping here. The entry is Ladislaus, which means we do not have to repeat this form (which is in all but one case technically incorrect) for every person listed in the tabulation below. A reader who has reached this point or followed a link from it would know that Ladislaus is one of the forms of the respective person's name. Supplying the actual Wikipedia entry seems to me a little redundant and messy. For example, since the disambiguation entry is Ladislaus, and the kings of Hungary are listed under "Kings of Hungary", there is no reason to show
Ladislaus I of Hungary 1077–1095, László I, Saint László instead of:
László I 1077–1095 = Saint László.
This would get much messier if he were ruler of other states (e.g., also king of Bohemia and duke of Austria).
Moreover, in the increasingly culturally sensitive climate of modern usage, the largely artificial form Ladislaus is increasingly out of place. Why does a king of Poland or a king of Hungary merit less consideration than a modern Polish or Hungarian crewman on a movie set? Furthermore, modern English usage is extremely inconsistent. Encyclopaedia Britannica may have listed such rulers under Ladislaus in its 11th edition, but then how does one distinguish between a László and an Ulászló? By creating an even more artificial form? In current standard reference works one finds:
Ladislas of Austria and Naples, Vladislav of Bulgaria, Vladislav and Ladislas of Bohemia, Władysław of Poland, Ladislas and Vladislas of Hungary (Morby, Dynasties of the World Oxford University Press, 2002) or
Ladislas of Austria and Naples, Vladislav and Ladislas of Bohemia, Ladislas and Vladislav of Hungary, Vladislav of Poland and Bulgaria (Tapsell, Monarchs Rulers Dynasties and Kingdoms of the World, Facts on File, 1983) or
Vladislav and Ladislav of Bohemia, Vladislav of Bulgaria, László and Ulászló of Hungary, Ladislas of Naples, Władysław of Poland (Ross, Rulers and Governments of the World, Bowker, 1978). This last publication makes a point of following the modern vernacular forms (with the exception of Ladislas of Naples).
While I realize that it would be difficult and unadvisable to change the titles of actual Wikipedia entries, especially since some of the bearers of the name reigned in more than one realm. I think that on this disambiguation page the simplest and clearest usage would be to list rulers according to region, with a miminum of visible forms represented (e.g., the fifth Ladislaus of Hungary is László V, who was also Ladislav as king of Bohemia and Ladislaus as duke of Austria), while the piped link would lead to the appropriate Wikipedia entry. This seems less messy, more precise (given distinction between forms even in the same language), and more culturally sensitive. In fact, using the standardized vernacular forms is the only way to achieve a consistent usage, which cannot be achieved by the arbitrary form Ladislaus or any recourse to medieval Latin (which itself was inconsistent in the treatment of such forms). That being said, I am open to further discussion of this issue. Imladjov 19:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I understand you correctly: you find it "highly desirable and indeed required" to have Ladislaus Posthumus of Bohemia and Hungary linked on this page 3 different times with 3 different texts (László V, Ladislaus, Ladislav) and never as the actual name of the article? Ewlyahoocom 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ladislaus Postumus is a ruler of three separate entities. A person seeking to consult Wikipedia on him may not be aware to look under Ladislaus of Bohemia and Hungary, wherever that may be found in a list in which he would be mentioned only once. Consequently, I think it is clearer to have a separate section for each monarchy, and each ruler listed there. The actual title of the article not appearing does not cause any problem, as long as the terms are linked up correctly. László V, Ladislav, and Ladislaus all link up to the same Wikipedia entry. And if one wants to see the title of that entry at a glance, all one has to do is place the cursor over the link. It seems to me that a disambiguation page should be simple and unambiguous, and that is best achieved by a consistent tabulation by monarchy plus the necessary minimum of name forms and other information. And that seems best achieved by piping. Best, Imladjov 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what other wikis say

Hungarian: "A László férfinév a szláv Vladislav névből fejlődött Ladiszló, Ladszló, Lacló, László alakokon keresztül. A szláv név elemeinek jelentése: hatalom és dicsőség."

Polish: "Władysław lub Ładysław - imię męskie pochodzenia słowiańskiego. Wywodzi się od słowa oznaczającego 'ten, który zawładnął sławą'. Istnieje teoria, iż jest to pierwotnie imię bułgarskie, zapożyczone przez Węgry do Polski i za pośrednictwem polskim zaszczepione w Czechach. Na polskim gruncie powstała również inna forma tego imienia, bardziej dostosowana do specyfiki jęz. polskiego: Włodzisław. Nie jest możliwe określenie, która z tych form pojawiła się w Polsce wcześniej."

German: "Die Herkunft ist aus dem slawischen Raum und bedeutet in der wortwörtlichen Übersetztung 'Ruhm und Macht'. Eine Theorie besagt, dass der Name ursprünglich aus dem Bulgarische Sprache entlehnt wurde und später nach Ungarn und Polen gelangte. Die Tschechen haben den Namen durch Polen vermittelt bekommen. Im polnischen Sprachgebraucht existiert noch die alternative Form Włodzisław. Welche der beiden Formen zuerst in Polen benutzt wurde ist nicht bekannt."

The origin of the name is in Slavonic languages and their region. The literal translation is "Fame and Power". There is a theory that the name was originally loaned from ancient non-Slavic Bolgar language in Ukraine and taken later to Poland and Hungary. The Czechs have received the name from Poland. In Polish usage there however existed an alternative form, Wlodzislaw (though it is unknown which of the two forms was firstly used in proto-Polish). Shilkanni 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page. While it lists the variants of the name in various vernaculars, is this really the place to detail hypotheses about linguistic borrowing? Moreover, this is highly suspect. I see that you took out the blatantly wrong assertion that the origin of the name came from non-Slavic Bolgar in your edit to the actual page, but I think it is quite questionable whether the name was borrowed into Czech from Polish. The name occurs earlier in the Czech (well, Moravian) ruling elite than in the Polish. I am not sure this paragraph (in whatever) form really belongs in the actual article. Imladjov 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is no longer a pure disambig page. And it is well allowed to dvelop this page further. This could as well be the article (the report) of research knowledge about the origins and the use of the name Ladislaus. Its article name certainly is fitting for that purpose. (If someone wants a pure disambig page, it c/should be at Ladislaus (disambiguation)) Shilkanni 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but even so, the paragraph you inserted contains various inaccuracies as I pointed out above and as noted by Cyon (below). Given that it becomes worthless: the phrasing "origin of the name is in Slavonic languages and their region" is of questionable style and at any rate covered more precisely by noting that the name is Slavic. The path of borrowing from Polish to Czech is both unproved and unlikely. The direct path from any language in Ukraine to Polish and Hungarian likewise. The existence of the alternative Polish form is already noted in the intro. The translation "Fame and Power" is inaccurate as Cyon pointed out below. While the translation of the two elements in the name is clear enough ("rule" or "ruling" and either "glory" or "Slavs"), it would be difficult to provide an unassailable precise translation. Given all the problems with this paragraph, I am editing it out. Imladjov 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you obviously got it wrong. First, not non-Slavic Bolgar language, but Slavic Bulgarian language. I guess the assumption of such an origin of the name was made because of a certain phonetic feature: the proto-Slavic phonetic group *vold had different continuations in different Slavic languages. The Bulgarian (and OCS) had vlad, Polish has włod (which was earlier equal to vlod), and Eastern Slavic volod. Another name with this morphem is Vladimir (which is OCS form used in Russian), compare Polish Włodzimierz and Ukrainian (which uses native Eastern Slavic form) Volodymyr. The form Władysław simply doesn't conform to rules of Polish historical phonology and that's why it is regarded to be a borrowing. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to be borrowed to Poland via Ukraine, because there were many loanwords in Eastern Slavonic from OCS due to liturgical use of the latter in orthodox church - but in fact, both Polish and German verisons you cited don't mention Ukraine, but Hungary. And last, the name doesn't literally mean "Fame and Power" although it is a compound of two morphemes of similar meaning (one of which is usually regarded to be verbal, in Polish version above: "He who rules over fame"). Another possibility is that the name was borrowed from Czech or Moravian (which share form vlad with Bulgarian), or to be more exact the underlying word: Polish władza ('power'), władać ('to rule') in comparison to Polish native forms włodarz (originally: 'ruler'), włości (originally 'things that are ruled' = 'estate'). Cyon 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladislaus (disambiguation) - proposed page move

I spent some time today trying to sort out several variations of Wladyslaw III, Ladislaus II, and so forth. While adding disambiguation notes to various pages, it became clear to me that Wikipedia badly needs a Ladislaus (disambiguation) page. The question is now, whether to just move this Ladislaus page to the new name, or start up a separate disambiguation page (I created one today, which is temporarily redirecting here). Does anyone have an opinion on "start a new disambig page" vs. "move this one"? --Elonka 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move this page

in my opinion move this one is the best idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zawada (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)