Talk:Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives

Contents

Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland???

Request of restoring previous name till consensus will be reached or at least not use of Poland!!!!! M.K. 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just made Wladyslaw Jagiello, would that be Ok? Szopen 12:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not good. There were several persons named Wladyslaw Jagiello. Ambiguate names should be avoided. Maed 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as I know there could be another Wladyslaw Jagiellon, but not another Wladyslaw Jagiello.

(The idea came from Francis Schonken and John Kenney. Of Poland seems to belong to the policy here. I would not fight against it. The regnal number has two alternatives, and therefore it is not good.)

Wladyslaw Jagiello is a disambiguation page (and all of the names there should be probably changed to be in accordance to wiki rules, too!). So, actually, Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Other versions should be redirects. We would then avoid to touch uneasy issue whether he should be of Poland or of Lithuania (even if against wiki rules). OR we could create Wladyslaw Jagiello (disambiguation), and Wladyslaw Jagiello as main article... Szopen 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) +
I would support rejection of - of PolandM.K. 13:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the ordinal, I understand that there was another Wladyslaw II (although, if I recall correctly, he was only duke of Poland, not king, and thus should, under naming rules, be at Wladyslaw II, Duke of Poland, but there aren't any other "Wladyslaw II Jagiello"s, are there? The alternate numbering (V?) can be listed in the article, but I feel like the "II" is the more commonly used one. john k 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the poll should been added before moving article, besides Jogaila case is more sensitive then others. M.K. 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

John, there was another Vladislaus II Jagiello, the grandson of this man. He reigned in Hungary and Bohemia, but held also Polish-speaking provinces, particularly lands in Silesia. It is not out of the question that some may refer to him by "Wladyslaw II Jagiello". ObRoy 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support (nominator) --Francis Schonken 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. (Although how did it get here to begin with?) john k 14:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Tx for asking, my error: I had erroneously copied your choice as Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland (which was in fact someone else's choice, and as I discovered later in the process *ambiguous*, see Ladislas Jagello). Anyway, then Maed moved the page there, then I did double redirect cleanup, then in the end I discovered the ambiguity, then I went back to check what your first choice was, then I moved to Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland and did the cleanup, then Maed moved again and made moving back impossible, then I moved to the nearest to your choice "still available" for non-sysop move, and started WP:RM. --Francis Schonken 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My 1979 Encyclopedia Brittanica, in the "Jagiellon dynasty" listing, shows the name as Władysław II Jagielło of Poland (with diacritics), but I prefer non-diacritic article titles on Wikipedia anyway. --Elonka 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose to of Poland. There was a Union of Poland and Lithuania, see Krewo Union. Juraune 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Appleseed (Talk) 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Juraune, and also I see no reason why not to use diactrics. Besides this vote is now out of context, as the article was moved from the original Władysław II Jagiełło.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sensible. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ObRoy 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Regnal number is controversial (other sources say V), and Lithuania was so important to him and at that time that "of Poland" in exclusion of Lithuania is unacceptable. Moreover, the spelling of first names are too close to Polish that combined with the "of Poland" and no Lithuania in country part gives me a feeling of certain POV.
  • Oppose. KonradWallenrod 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mattergy 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Szopen 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) He was not known as Jagiellon, but as Jagiello or Jogaila.

Alternative 2

or to Wladyslaw Jagiello of Lithuania, King of Poland. Rationale: His regnal number of Poland varies in various sources, being either V or II. Lithuania is, for several reasons, an important element to be mentioned in his article name. ObRoy 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support M.K. 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support more than Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland. Poland and Lithuania formed a Union. Juraune 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a very odd article title. Appleseed (Talk) 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Appleseed, and also I see no reason why not to use diactrics. I do agree with Juranune that this version is somewhat more correct then the one proposed above, but the best solution is to avoid mentioning all nations altogether. Besides this vote is now out of context, as the article was moved from the original Władysław II Jagiełło.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Weird. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. KonradWallenrod 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mattergy 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Szopen 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia rules state clearly that titles such as "X king of Y,Z and W" are strongly discouraged.

Alternative 3

or to Jagiello. Rationale as presented by Smec (see below).

  • Support. ObRoy 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) This would be an elegant and simple solution to the vexing problem.
  • Oppose. This is reminiscent of Jogaila, but I don't think it's very common. Appleseed (Talk) 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even weirder. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Srnec 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I did propose it.
  • Support. Seems like a simple solution to a controversial problem. How many other encyclopedic persons called simply Jagiello are there? H Padleckas 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. KonradWallenrod 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mattergy 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Szopen 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 4

to the original name but without confusing diatrics, also used by EB Wladyslaw II Jagiello

  • Support. Szopen 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Disambiguation link can be provided to his grandson. Avoids "fo Poland" so not to offend Lithuanians, amd avoids montrosity of "king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania"

Alternative 5

to Wladislaus II of Poland

  • 'Support Szopen 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) as above.


Discussion

Add any additional comments

May I suggest Jagiello of Poland and Lithuania as a possible alternative? H Padleckas 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He is quite often referred to as of Lithuania, because many settings of his life's important events benefit from it. When speaking of his marriage, he is mentioned as "of Lithuania" and Jadwiga is mentioned as "of Poland". Lithuania was also a kingdom at that time, its monarchs using the title "King of Lithuanians and Ruthenians". This guy needs that sort of special treatment in naming. ObRoy 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If article need to have country name in the headline, I would keen on this on: Wladyslaw Jagiello of Lithuania, King of Poland too M.K. 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Lithuanian rules had _not_ title of king. If they had, why Witold tried to get the title? Szopen 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Suggest removing part: of Poland M.K. 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


First of all, I believe that moving the page before the RM vote is unacceptable. The RM should start fromt he page the article spent its last half a year at, i.e. Władysław II Jagiełło, especiall as that move survived the previus RM. Second, if somebody is moving the page, you should at least take care of the double redirects, like Vladislav II of Poland. Third, I prefer the original Pmanderson proposal Władysław II Jagiełło of Lithuania and Poland with diactrics. Fourth, we don't need 'of country' which were invented for disambigs since all proposed titles in 'W II J' format are unique. All things said, this article should be moved back to Władysław II Jagiełło; and the votes should concern moving it from that name. PS. As mentioned in the discussion I would not object to moving it to '[[Władysław II Jagiellon(n)' variants.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
See my reply at wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles)#Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland --Francis Schonken 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Piotrus on use of 'ł' in this case (not in general), pronounced as 'w' in Polish . Jagiello or Jogaila, not Jagiewo.
Also, he was Jagiello, not Jagiellon, in my understanding. Jagiellon is a dinasty that he started. Juraune 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a ton of double and even triple redirects and misdirects now. This must be amended. But how can it be when the page title is not known? I propose that the monarch best known to English people as "Jagiello" be moved to that simple title. It ignores giving preference to either Poland or Lithuania. It ignores any ordinal. It ignores the Polish name he adopted. It is, I believe, a Polonisation of his Lithuanian name Jogaila and it is the name by which I believe most English people recognise the person. Therefore, why not use that simple one-word page title, which currently redirects to the Jagiellon dynasty. I believe most links to it, however, refer to the person, not the dynasty. I think that in this instance extenuating circumstances make the Manual of Style recommendations inapplicable, as in the case of Charlemagne. Srnec 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree! but now I am lost a bit :( M.K. 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is no obligation to use any of the country names, then I would very happily see this under the simple "Jagiello". I believe the man is best known by it, I would say that overwhelmingly best known. Jagiello as itself is based on the Polish variant of the name (not Latin, which is Jagello), but the name itself is the Lithuanian name. Both of those nations should feel sufficiently appeased by it. Of course not the diacritics, as this should be the English word and not the Polish. No country names to compete, or one of them to be excluded. Both excluded - none of these two countries preferred. And, for Wikipedia, the elegance of briefness. I am fed up with yet increasingly complex monsters... ObRoy 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Return the article first, then discuss the move!

I totally agree with Piotrus that before anything is done the article should be returned to the original name. This is very alarming that some users just go ahead and move stuff[1] around and others have to do a listing at WP:RM just to get the article back. What's a big deal to ask and propose at the talk before doing this? No one demands WP:RM listing each time but a courtesy proposal for others to comment should always be given in advance and discussion needs to be settled (except for totally trivial cases). Once it is returned, my favoured version is Wladyslaw II Jagiello or Wladyslaw Jagiello (see also this. --Irpen 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that any admin should clear the mess with artificial redirects, return the article and talk to its original location Władysław II Jagiełło despite I very much find "ł" inapropriate to force on En. L. readers. Following that, the discussion should continue. --Irpen 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I browsed through the talk archives of this article. No move has ever been accepted in a RM survey. Therefore all moves this has underwent, are equally suspect. The vote and the survey is continuing. Marrtel 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with continuing the vote. All I am saying is that the article needs returned to its pre-move-war name, see above. The survey needs to find a consensus on what its new name is going to be. If none is find, it sould remain under its original name, not on the name imposed on others by someone who dared to be too bold. --Irpen 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Google Books results:

  • "Jogaila Jadwiga" - 77 hits
  • "Jagiello Jadwiga " - 248 hits
  • "II-Jagiello Jadwiga" - 15 hits
  • "Wladyslaw-Jagiello Jadwiga" - 15 hits

I'm sure we all know how many hits "Władysław II Jagiełło" got.

I conclude that Jagiello, however "weird" it looks, wins the Google Books hitcounting beauty contest. On the other hand, the New Cambridge Medieval History uses Jogaila and so checking the books I have, do Davies and Bideleux. Bearing policy in mind, can any editors who happen to be passing a decent English-language library have a look ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Google Print does not recognize Polish diactrics in input, search for "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" and use Mark. I Eyeball to see that indeed it is used in English literature; I believe I have given some direct links above, but see for example here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but how would you find them ? Google Books recognises diacritics (compare [2] and [3]), but whenever you go beyond ISO Latin 1 there are major problems, as shown when you try to search. The world is not yet Unicodified, so let's avoid non-Latin 1 characters everywhere in enWP page titles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
from WP:NC(UE) a well known quote: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

Note that only Encarta uses diatrics, Columbia uses the latinized Ladislaus and Britannica, the only one with J.. uses Jagiello.

My personal choice of the three names is EB's one and also without diatrics. But before doing anything, the article needs returned to the name from which it was moved by a too bold user, se above. --Irpen 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen.  :) From my own reference shelf, here are a few more datapoints:
  • 1979 Brittanica:
    • In the "Jagiellon dynasty" section: Władysław II Jagielło of Poland
    • As a combined header in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia: Władysław II Jagielło and Jadwiga
  • Webster's Desk Encyclopedia: Wladyslaw II Jagiello
  • Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary: Jagiello (Wladyslaw II)
Anyone else got any encyclopediae that we've missed? --Elonka 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How many more you need?

  • Ladislas Jagiello (Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages ), published by Oxford
  • Vladislav II (The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
  • Ladislaus II (The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised))
  • Ladislaus II (The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary)
  • Ladislaus II (The New Oxford American Dictionary )
  • Ladislaus II (A Dictionary of World History ), also published by Oxford
  • JAGIEŁŁO (WŁADYSŁAW II) New Catholic Encyclopedia (published by "The Catholic University of America and The Gale Group"
  • WŁADYSŁAW II JAGIEŁŁO (POLAND) (Lithuanian: Jogaila; c. 1351–1434) (Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World)publisher link

All above are the current editions. Before we do anything, the article needs returned to the original name. All names are arbitrary but the one it ended up with is a random one and this whole mess was started by whoever made the original undiscussed move. This whole mess created the history of the original redirect [4] and this entry needs deleted, the article returned and then discussion continued. Of all names, that one was at least the original one. The current one is just random. --Irpen 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Google Printing yelds some more, although the question is whether anything that call itself 'an encyclopedia' is really equal? On a sidenote, in addition to agreeing with Irpen that the move needs to be reverted I'd like to point out that "Wladyslaw II Jagiellon" is completly unknown to Google Print (the single hit is a Polish publication which likely uses diactrics anyway).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all are equal, but we can be safe about stuff that come from EB, Oxford sources, Columbia and few other respected authorities. In any case, please revert the move. --Irpen

Jezus, Maryja! How's that for an entrance into this discussion! To the newcomers, or persons simply unaware: You Can Not Move Things Around At Random, especially with unresolved matters that are in dispute. When you do, we get into to a mess like we have presently. If I really, truthfully (without any bias), get back to the origin of this debate, I am beginning to think, Wladislaus II of Poland, makes the most sense. Hold it! Hold it! I know some are hoping for something else, from me, but here is my rationale. His name was Jogaila, He, made the decision to change his name to , Wladyslaw, long before there could be a debate about it, on Wikipedia. The previous, Wladyslaws, messing up the nunbering scheme were princes, ergo he gets the number, "II", as King. The Wladyslaw, is "anglicized" to Wladislaus, and we get, voila, Wladislaus II of Poland. He didn't leave Poland to become the Grand Duke of Lithuania, it was the other way around. If, and when this name of mine can be agreed upon, everyone can improve the article with all of the knowledge and information that they have about his origins, grandparents, and favorite food and color that he liked, etc., ect. Now why of Poland, you may ask? Simply, simplification! We don't say Henri IV, we say Henry IV of France (auf gut Englische) (sic). Lastly, and very important, the Jagiello, Jagiełło Question. Let's be honest (those of us that really know what's going on here), he never called himself Wladyslaw Jagiello. This is merely a designation, if you will, in Polish history. Just like "Chrobry" and "Smialy", for Boleslaw. Or the "Great" or the "Lion Hearted", in other contexts (maybe not so much Lionhearted, but you get my drift, I'm sure). Dr. Dan 00:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat. To begin with "Carthago delenda est". Return the article to where it was. And then discuss all you want. --Irpen 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, My Brother, what does the destruction of Carthage have to do with Jogaila, or the price of soap in North Dakota? Dr. Dan 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This has to do with my repeating my plea to revert the blatantly against the Wikispirit move before we go on. Read the link to the phrase above. --Irpen 02:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought my above remarks are in line with your thinking. And I read the link before I made my observation. Dr. Dan 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the article will almost certainly be moved anyway, it seems wisest to try and reach a conclusion on where the article should be before moving it anywhere.
Now, it seems to me that there are five components to the name that are debated:
  • His Christian name, whether it should be included and how it ought to be spelled
  • His Lithuanian name, whether it should be included and how it ought to be spelled
  • His ordinal, what it is and whether it ought to be included
  • A designation "of Poland" (and should there be a "King")
  • A designation "of Lithuania"
Now, my opinion: if his Christian name is going to be included, it ought to be "Ladislaus". If his Lithuanian name is included, it ought to be "Jagiello." His ordinal appears to be a bit confusing, but if it is to be included it ought to be "II". I don't know if his Christian name is useful, it's probably not recognisable to most who are just barely familiar with this man's existence as unifier of Poland and Lithuanian and one of Poland's greatest monarchs. Lithuania is too important to be ignored and therefore I eschew the use of "Ladislaus II of Poland," an otherwise good title. Because all other forms are complex and largely artificial (they'll rarely appear in other works and they are not contemporaneous or English), I support the simple, recognisable, descriptive, nonpartisan "Jagiello." It is a Polonisation of his Lithuanian name and it is common in English: it should please those parties with no vested interests in the matter; as someone put it, a Solomon solution. Srnec 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this Solomonic Solution, is that neither ther Poles, nor the Lithuanians, want to divide Leah's baby, and every once in a while, the Belarusians "veto", the whole proceedure (kind of like they did in the U.N.), and say they are the true Litvins, and the object of our affection, Jahaila (sic), is a Belarusian, anyway. Dr. Dan 03:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back to where it was before all this nonsense started, that is to [Władysław II Jagiełło]. —Nightstallion (?) 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)