![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 20, 2009. |
( talk) 20:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This individual had several different names in different books. In preparation for a discussion about what will be the best title for the Wikipedia article, information is being collected below as to how third-party sources refer to this monarch. If you have access to a book that is not listed below, please feel free to add to the list. Thanks! -- Elonka 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on my own research in third-party works, and seeing how this monarch is referred to on other Wikipedia pages, I recommend that this article be moved to the title Wladyslaw I the Short. Is there support for this move? -- Elonka 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever may be the case in Polish, Elbow-high as an equivalent of "ell" is good etymology but bad English. The English ell is twice the length to the elbow, 45 inches, 114.3 cm. (The length of the Polish unit should be sourced.) Septentrionalis 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of provinces into which Poland had been divided seems to be missing some semi-colons. It currently appears to list six or seven provinces, not the five that the previous sentence claims (or is that number wrong?) - Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article suggests we will find out how high the king was. All we find is the length of an ell. Does anyone know it, or even have a good guess? Snezzy 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now we know where their mascot design came from. ;) They should have had a much shorter guy in the costume, though. MaxVolume ( talk) 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed a reference to "Mark Glowacki." I am assuming that this was vandalism.
Is there some reason why we have a very careful presentation of his titles before and after coronation - and they are exactly the same? If there is a reason for this, let's say so, otherwise it looks both pedantic and stupid. 173.120.120.192 ( talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 20, 2009. |
( talk) 20:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This individual had several different names in different books. In preparation for a discussion about what will be the best title for the Wikipedia article, information is being collected below as to how third-party sources refer to this monarch. If you have access to a book that is not listed below, please feel free to add to the list. Thanks! -- Elonka 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on my own research in third-party works, and seeing how this monarch is referred to on other Wikipedia pages, I recommend that this article be moved to the title Wladyslaw I the Short. Is there support for this move? -- Elonka 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever may be the case in Polish, Elbow-high as an equivalent of "ell" is good etymology but bad English. The English ell is twice the length to the elbow, 45 inches, 114.3 cm. (The length of the Polish unit should be sourced.) Septentrionalis 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of provinces into which Poland had been divided seems to be missing some semi-colons. It currently appears to list six or seven provinces, not the five that the previous sentence claims (or is that number wrong?) - Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article suggests we will find out how high the king was. All we find is the length of an ell. Does anyone know it, or even have a good guess? Snezzy 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now we know where their mascot design came from. ;) They should have had a much shorter guy in the costume, though. MaxVolume ( talk) 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed a reference to "Mark Glowacki." I am assuming that this was vandalism.
Is there some reason why we have a very careful presentation of his titles before and after coronation - and they are exactly the same? If there is a reason for this, let's say so, otherwise it looks both pedantic and stupid. 173.120.120.192 ( talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)