![]() | This page 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. |
See Archive 3 for broken off voting -- Francis Schonken 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(transfered from User talk:Švitrigaila)
Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now then the conditions are normalized and article has the original name we can try to reach good consensus. But before any I stress any (!) possible move in a future please state about the move in a appropriate manner. M.K. 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. — Nightst a llion (?) 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Władysław II Jagiełło → Jagiello. Proposed by Shilkanni 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
On basis of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), the rule stating the Charlemagne treatment to Monarchical titles, exc 4.
Write Support or Oppose with an optional max one-line reason. Longer otexts of opinions to discussion below.
On a related note, we should be careful with plain 'Jagiello' hits. It may be skewed by references to dynasty or other similarly named rulers, like Anna Jagiellon or Alexander Jagiellon. In such cases I suggest repeating all the searches with a use of another parameter, like date of birth. This should eliminate all 'confused' entries.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Juraune 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jagiello is a compromise to give the place for this article, victim of recurring move wars. Hope no one, including sysops, disrupts the poll this time. The solution, to be tenable, should leave out all elements of name that are explicitly tied to these various nations involved. This proposed article name is following the rule that led Charlemagne to be at such location, and therefore conforms the current NC. Shilkanni 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Some citations and googlehit accounts from earlier discussions (compiled by Shilkanni 10:39, 8 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." Originally this was at Wladislaus II of Poland.
Smec: "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. I believe most links to it, however, refer to the person, not the dynasty. I think that in this instance.... Manual of Style recommendations... as in the case of Charlemagne."
"...his Christian name is not 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."<anonymous>
"The problem with this Solomonic Solution, is that neither the 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 use to in the U.N.), and say they are the true Litvins, and that the object of "our affection", Jahaila (sic), is a Belarusian, anyway." Dr. Dan 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"I disagree on use of 'ł' in this case (not in general), pronounced as 'w' in Polish. Jagiello or Jogaila, not Jagiewo."
"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..."
"Here are some Google Books results:
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."
Jagiello Hedwig: 74 hits Jogail Hedwig: 17 hits Wladyslaw Hedwig: 28 hits
Szopen 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have seen some votes, and this case is such that opinions of even those who strenuously oppose the current name, regarding it as the worst possible or near, will diverge along different lines of thought, if several alternatives are given. This is now intended to the opportunity to show how much opposition is found against the current name, by proposing one better option, but only one, for the poll. This is because the presumed supporters of the current, non-english name, "divide et impera" in this and possibly in a couple of other very problematic cases. This person is not at all so straightforward a case as for example one of the Sigismunds. In my opinion, we cannot allow a non-english version remain just because it has a numerous camp (some have referred it as cabal) behind its scheme and most of the others diverge in details. Besides, Charlemagne example works for this - what is the one word with which this guy is best known??.
Shilkanni 18:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Since Jagiello was a ruler of Lithuania originally, including the lands of modern Bielarus, Ukraine and Russia, a key figure in Lithuanian history, then becoming a King of Polish-Lithuanian Union state, isn't it a case of Polish POV to keep his name in modern Polish spelling? If we don't want to build a Babylon tower with Bielarussians, Lithuanians, Polish, Russians and Ukrainians fighting each other, we should keep his name in Latin-English form Juraune 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
(summarized from earlier discussions)
The Wikipedia policy on naming says that articles should receive "the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Granted, there is no one standard, but here is a list of how this individual's name is listed in major English-language works. Feel free to add other listings if you have them, though to keep the list manageable, please let us stick with just encyclopedias and dictionaries for now. -- Elonka 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Polish WP cites new scholarship that puts Jagiełło's date of birth around 1362. Perhaps someone would like to look into this. Appleseed ( Talk) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
He ascended Lithuanian throne in 1377. In which case he would have been 15 years old then. Not probable: Lithuanian ruling family was highly competitive, an underage would not have lasted more than a week. As it was, he faced later deposements, rebellions etc and barely survived such. Would like to know precise text of the new knowledge, and how realible research group, and what are the reasons to that conclusion. Anyway, of it is published, it could be mentioned, but some additional info about credibility of source would be needed in order to balance the two conflicting views. Shilkanni 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
See Archive 3 for broken off voting -- Francis Schonken 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(transfered from User talk:Švitrigaila)
Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now then the conditions are normalized and article has the original name we can try to reach good consensus. But before any I stress any (!) possible move in a future please state about the move in a appropriate manner. M.K. 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. — Nightst a llion (?) 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Władysław II Jagiełło → Jagiello. Proposed by Shilkanni 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
On basis of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), the rule stating the Charlemagne treatment to Monarchical titles, exc 4.
Write Support or Oppose with an optional max one-line reason. Longer otexts of opinions to discussion below.
On a related note, we should be careful with plain 'Jagiello' hits. It may be skewed by references to dynasty or other similarly named rulers, like Anna Jagiellon or Alexander Jagiellon. In such cases I suggest repeating all the searches with a use of another parameter, like date of birth. This should eliminate all 'confused' entries.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Juraune 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jagiello is a compromise to give the place for this article, victim of recurring move wars. Hope no one, including sysops, disrupts the poll this time. The solution, to be tenable, should leave out all elements of name that are explicitly tied to these various nations involved. This proposed article name is following the rule that led Charlemagne to be at such location, and therefore conforms the current NC. Shilkanni 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Some citations and googlehit accounts from earlier discussions (compiled by Shilkanni 10:39, 8 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." Originally this was at Wladislaus II of Poland.
Smec: "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. I believe most links to it, however, refer to the person, not the dynasty. I think that in this instance.... Manual of Style recommendations... as in the case of Charlemagne."
"...his Christian name is not 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."<anonymous>
"The problem with this Solomonic Solution, is that neither the 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 use to in the U.N.), and say they are the true Litvins, and that the object of "our affection", Jahaila (sic), is a Belarusian, anyway." Dr. Dan 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"I disagree on use of 'ł' in this case (not in general), pronounced as 'w' in Polish. Jagiello or Jogaila, not Jagiewo."
"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..."
"Here are some Google Books results:
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."
Jagiello Hedwig: 74 hits Jogail Hedwig: 17 hits Wladyslaw Hedwig: 28 hits
Szopen 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have seen some votes, and this case is such that opinions of even those who strenuously oppose the current name, regarding it as the worst possible or near, will diverge along different lines of thought, if several alternatives are given. This is now intended to the opportunity to show how much opposition is found against the current name, by proposing one better option, but only one, for the poll. This is because the presumed supporters of the current, non-english name, "divide et impera" in this and possibly in a couple of other very problematic cases. This person is not at all so straightforward a case as for example one of the Sigismunds. In my opinion, we cannot allow a non-english version remain just because it has a numerous camp (some have referred it as cabal) behind its scheme and most of the others diverge in details. Besides, Charlemagne example works for this - what is the one word with which this guy is best known??.
Shilkanni 18:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Since Jagiello was a ruler of Lithuania originally, including the lands of modern Bielarus, Ukraine and Russia, a key figure in Lithuanian history, then becoming a King of Polish-Lithuanian Union state, isn't it a case of Polish POV to keep his name in modern Polish spelling? If we don't want to build a Babylon tower with Bielarussians, Lithuanians, Polish, Russians and Ukrainians fighting each other, we should keep his name in Latin-English form Juraune 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
(summarized from earlier discussions)
The Wikipedia policy on naming says that articles should receive "the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Granted, there is no one standard, but here is a list of how this individual's name is listed in major English-language works. Feel free to add other listings if you have them, though to keep the list manageable, please let us stick with just encyclopedias and dictionaries for now. -- Elonka 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Polish WP cites new scholarship that puts Jagiełło's date of birth around 1362. Perhaps someone would like to look into this. Appleseed ( Talk) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
He ascended Lithuanian throne in 1377. In which case he would have been 15 years old then. Not probable: Lithuanian ruling family was highly competitive, an underage would not have lasted more than a week. As it was, he faced later deposements, rebellions etc and barely survived such. Would like to know precise text of the new knowledge, and how realible research group, and what are the reasons to that conclusion. Anyway, of it is published, it could be mentioned, but some additional info about credibility of source would be needed in order to balance the two conflicting views. Shilkanni 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)