Misplaced Pages

Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:18, 27 July 2006 editTirid Tirid (talk | contribs)167 edits →New poll on consensus-building← Previous edit Revision as of 12:06, 27 July 2006 edit undoRenata3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,578 edits →New poll on consensus-building: note on possible space cadetNext edit →
Line 379: Line 379:
* ] <small>]</small> 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) * ] <small>]</small> 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
* ] 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) * ] 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
**<small>A sockpuppet of ]? ] request for checkuser, but because of a massive backlog it . ] 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)</small>

'''Leave the page where it is for now (at "Jogaila"), take a break for a month, and then re-visit things to test for consensus.''' '''Leave the page where it is for now (at "Jogaila"), take a break for a month, and then re-visit things to test for consensus.'''


Revision as of 12:06, 27 July 2006

Archives

Approval poll for article renaming

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Jogaila. -- Kjkolb 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that gaining consensus for the name of this particular article has been a difficult discussion which has lasted for many months. The following list of options was compiled via a previous poll where participants were asked to list their first choice of what the name should be. Any option which received at least two such votes is now included in this approval poll, with the agreement that debate about any suffix such as "of Poland" is being set aside for now -- this poll is concentrating exclusively on the name of the monarch, and the inclusion or exclusion of the suffix will be discussed later. If, however, you feel extremely strongly that other options should be included, feel free to add them.

Please also try to remember that we are all here for the same purpose, which is to create a useful open encyclopedia. In cases where we disagree on certain details (such as naming this particular article), the Misplaced Pages way is to build consensus. Please try to avoid feelings of competition here. If a particular name that you like "loses", that does not mean that you have lost -- it simply means that more editors found a different choice more to their liking, in this one particular case. Try to look at it professionally.

Please vote for which name that you think should be used for this article. You may vote for as many names as you like, either indicating your support, or your first choice / second choice, etc. You do not need to specifically oppose any names, as by not voting for a particular option, it will be assumed that you oppose that choice. 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jagiello

  1. Support. Most recognisable name to people unfamiliar with Polish history. In English, the dynastic name is usually Jagiellonian and this was his personal first. Srnec 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, with first line specifying that this is about Polish-Lithuanian king, and for dynasty see Jagiello (dynasty) Szopen 06:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Simple, elegant, common usage. Septentrionalis 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Second choice; would prefer Jogaila. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support a good solution for the reasons set out by Srnec, but not the best one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jagello

  1. Support. Shilkanni 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila

  1. Support His birth name, Grand Duke name, most recent English publications refer to him as Jogaila (see earlier disucussion). Second choice - latin Jagello.--Lokyz 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kusma (討論) 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. heqs 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Doc15071969 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    --- Note: This user has < 100 edits. --Elonka 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    ---- No offense, but who really cares? They are good edits. heqs 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    ----- Ditto. There can be no reasonable objection to this vote. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support He was not "only" the king of Poland. He started his "career" as Grand Duke of Lithuania. Orionus 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support but do not prefer, but instanced in recent publications. Septentrionalis 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support By far the most sensible option. It was his actual name after all, rather than a modernized Polish-language version of a medieval Polono-Latin regnal name he probably never used as a personal name. No wonder contemporary scholars favour the name! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Second choice after Jagiello. I still prefer Jagiello because I think it is probably the most familiar form of this ruler's name to people unfamiliar with Polish history. However, after that, Jogaila is far and away the best option. As per Calgacus above, it is his name and Jagiello is only a Polonisation of it. It is also gaining in popularity in writings apparently and it avoids the problems of diacritics, ordinals, and nicknames etc. This article can be an exception like Charlemagne or Alexander the Great. Srnec 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support That is what his name was. I have no other choices. Add, what ever redirects help everyone find their way. Dr. Dan 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support as a matter of course. How many other votes will be forced upon us by the Polish Cabal before the fairly obvious move is finally effected? --Ghirla 11:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support the best solution, short, simple and widely used by reliable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support as per Lokyz. eLNuko 15:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support as per Calgacus, Dr. Dan and Snerc. Should be an exception, since the numeral and other names are confusing. As for country of greater importance, Jogaila's medieval Lithuania included current day Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, parts of Russia . Even if it is called Grand Duchy (very misleading, IMHO, even if it is a very old historiographic tradition), medieval Lithuania was ruled by pagan rulers up until the end of 14 century, 1386 (King Mindaugas being an only exception for a short period). Nobody calls western parts of Mongol empire, for example Golden Horde Grand Duchy just for not being Christian. Even after Jogaila, Lithuania and Poland followed quite different paths until 1569 when Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. Juraune （ゆらうね） 10:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support M.K. 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I agree with what has been stated above --Jadger 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support . `'mikka (t) 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland

Władysław II

  1. support only if it has "of Poland" or "of Lithuania" after it; name has to contain either the country name or the dynastical name. – Alensha 寫 词 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (first choice): "Władysław II of Poland" is the correct title per the relevant MoS page. KissL 15:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wladyslaw II Jagiello

  1. Support. Elonka 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Charles 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Nunh-huh 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. -R. S. Shaw 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Szopen 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --Francis Schonken 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Władysław II Jagiełło

  1. Support. Laziness is no excuse for incorrect spelling ;-) --Lysy 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, but then without the country name, for "Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland and/or Lithuania" would be too long. – Alensha 寫 词 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, this the correct spelling. Zello 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kusma (討論) 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. (second choice) //Halibutt 06:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. The scholarly works listed below indicate that "Władysław II Jagiełło" is commonly used. Appleseed (Talk) 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Petr K 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Second choice. I still think that the diacritics can cause problems in Misplaced Pages titles, such as making for an overly complex and confusing URL, but this version of the name is clearly common in major English-language reference works, and, according to my research, the most likely to be found (along with the non-diacritic version) in history book indexes. --Elonka 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support--SylwiaS | talk 05:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ladislaus II of Poland

  1. Support per WP:UE and all the others listed at Ladislaus. //Halibutt 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (second choice): see the relevant MoS page; the Latin name is a valid alternative. (Posted by KissL 15:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC) )
  3. Kusma (討論) 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support as an English form. Charles 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. (second choice) --Francis Schonken 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support but prefer Jagiello. result of straightforward application of policy. See below. Septentrionalis 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - Tylop 03:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support only if Ladislaus, or "Ladislais" is used, otherwise support Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland used in Cambridge Medieval History, 1998', provided by Calgacus, as a nice compromise. --Juraune （湯労根） 14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I might be willing to go for that "Jogaila-Wladyslaw II of Lithuania-Poland" compromise. --Elonka 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Władysław II Jagiello

  1. Second choice support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

English contains no "ł" letter but this is not an English name. The community consensus has been to use the correct spelling, where technically possible, including diacritics in non-English proper names. See e.g. Zürich. Therefore the correct spelling is "Jagiełło", not "Jagiello". With some exceptions, proper names are not translated into foreign languages. Therefore we have Paul Cézanne and not Cezanne or Albrecht Dürer not Durer. Neither laziness nor ignorance can be an excuse for careless spelling of foreign names. --Lysy 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is, however, the name of an article in an English encyclopedia. There are guidelines on this at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). From there:
  • Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage.
  • If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Misplaced Pages guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles.
In this case, it doesn't seem that "Władysław" is common (English) usage. Personally, I have heard of Wladyslaw but not Władysław. -R. S. Shaw 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, (certain) vowels with diacritics are much, much more common in English usage than consonants with diacritics. Charles 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and there are several reasons for this. One might be that more English speakers are familiar with German or French language than e.g. Polish. Then for many years there were technical limitations where Western-European ISO-8859-1 charset codepage did not include Central European characters. This is however the past, luckily, and what we are building here is encyclopedia for 21st century. The fact that this is the English language Misplaced Pages, does not mean that it is intended for native English speakers only, but also the millions of people that speak "Euro-English" or other English dialects as foreign language. --Lysy 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, this is English Misplaced Pages. We don't push non-English, non-recognizable forms of names upon people unless there is no other option. Just because the letter is available doesn't mean it must be used. We don't invent usage here, we are guided by it. Charles 03:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles, you may not have noticed, inspite of this being English Misplaced Pages, that there has been a pushing of non-English, non-recognizable forms upon people, for some time now. This has been most obvious with the naming of Cracow, although there is a host of other examples. Ironically, the object of our affection, WLadislaus, never saw the diacritics ŁŁ as they did not exist in his lifetime. Dr. Dan 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is English Misplaced Pages, but the name is not English. The usage that you mentio is simply driven by 20th century typewiter shortcomings but again, we do not have these limitations now. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be informative, not ignorant. Otherwise, why would you need a new encyclopedia in the first place if you can use the 1911 Britannica ? --Lysy 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice explanation Lysy. Is this why Cracow, is no longer used in English WK? 20th century typewriter shortcomings? Dr. Dan 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladislaus II of Poland is the straightforward application of policy. None of the forms with a dynastic name are overwhelming usage for this man. Poland is the most notable crown; and we have agreed to use one realm, even under dynastic unions. (If Piotrus wishes to make the case that Poland-Lithuania is consensus, like Austria-Hungary, I will listen.) That leaves us with the most common form, in English, of his first name, and the results below seem to confirm that Ladislaus is the most common, as it is the most recognizable. I can see reason, in this exceptional case, to run to nice, short, neutal Jagiello, however. Septentrionalis 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold It, People that I knew from academia, warned me not to get too enthusiastic about Misplaced Pages. This was because I peaned it high and low. They said wait, wait until I see the resolution about a deep and historical or philosophical problem solved, by a reading of "google hits". Wait until you see how the "voting takes place". As a result, it took me a while to actually decide to vote in one of these "polls". Now this Sockpuppettry "Scandal" of user:Logologist (talk), has achieved a double edged "victory", in that many people (myself included), will not bother to vote at all. Why don't you just resolve Jogaila's name by trying Rock, paper, scissors? Dr. Dan 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Because this is how wikipedia works. It may be not perfect but will be often better than other "educated" choices. --Lysy 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Is this "how wikipedia works"? One creates user:Anatopism, user:KonradWallenrod, user:Mattergy, and votes themselves over and over in these polls. Is there no shame at all? Is there not even an apology forthcoming? I'm also very concerned that Piotrus "invited" user:Mattergy, to vote a day after he opened his account. Dr. Dan 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, not perfect, but this is how it works. I'm sorry but I do not feel responsible for other editor's sockpuppets, do you ? (rhetoric question, pls do not answer) --Lysy 20:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Dr. Dan, don't you see, it works just like laws of animals in Jungle on this side of planet Earth ;), Juraune (ユラウネ) 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, that is not the way Misplaced Pages works, that is only a way for some people to prove themselwes they're important, or even potent. Most people do not feel urge for that.--Lokyz 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Jaraune, relax WP:TEA. Life's beautifull don't let anyone spoil it for you.--Lokyz 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Dr. Dan 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Specific oppositions to various versions



  • Jogaila- oppose, this is the first time I see this spelling, I guess it's unknown outside Lithuania. – Alensha 寫 词 20:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila - oppose, this is his previous name that he changed during his baptism to Władysław Jagiełło. Should we change Marilyn Monroe to Norma Jean Mortenson?--SylwiaS | talk 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila - Oppose. I think it would add even more confusion about this monarch's name, if the Misplaced Pages article had this title. Very very few reference works have any kind of "Jogaila" entry in their index, even as a "see also" -- it's more likely that they'll have nothing under "Jogaila", and instead list this monarch as "Wladyslaw II Jagiello". Sometimes they'll include an entry that says, "Jagiello: See Wladyslaw II Jagiello". For other "special-case" monarchs such as Charlemagne, the one-name title is appropriate, because he's already being referred to as "Charlemagne" in major reference works, and there are already index entries under that name. But for "Jogaila", it's just not something in common usage. For Misplaced Pages to list this monarch under the name "Jogaila", would be dangerously close to a violation of WP:OR. --Elonka 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)



  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello - Oppose. We should use the correct spelling. Article Polish language says "l" and "ł" denote completely different sounds, so I guess using an "l" instead of a "ł" is like using a x instead of a y. We can have a redirect from this spelling. – Alensha 寫 词 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello - Oppose, we should use the correct form, not an Anglicised one. Zello 21:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło - Oppose. I don't feel this is appropriate when there are English forms available. Charles 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło - Oppose because of diacritics, noone outside Poland knows how to pronounce them.--Lokyz 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło - Oppose. English contains no "ł". Nunh-huh 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło - Oppose strongly. This name is not authentic, although it may appear to many to be so. It is 1) a modern Polonization (remember, this is English wiki!) of a medieval Polono-Latin regnal name he probably never used as a personal name 2) with a modern Polonization of a Lithuanian name which today has a standard form ; and 3) a numeral, which besides being inaccurate, POVedly subordinates the more powerful Lithuanian "Empire" to an average sized Catholic kingdom about 5 times smaller in size based on the naive and false idea that the pagan Lithuanian and Orthodox Rus'ian population of the former state somehow regarded their ruler of lower "rank" just because the elite of the latter and the Pope tried to pretend they were. In short, the title is quite ridiculous. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło - Oppose, since people assume that Jagiełło is a nickname, while it is a polonised version of his original name Jogaila. This is not English, but literal Polish name. Juraune 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries

If you have access to an English-language encyclopedia and dictionary that is not already listed here, please feel free to add your information to the list, thanks. --Elonka 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if using examples from the sources from the 1950s makes much sense (other than to prove that they were not able to print "ł" then). --Lysy 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd add, that most older research is based only on polish historiografy, denotes GDL as Poland - so it is not correct. Only in the last decades there was significant improvement, as many english writing historians began to use Jogaila. It needs some time, till Jogaile gets to the main reference works:)--Lokyz 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well under the principle of Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, I still think that the Misplaced Pages article title should reflect the name as it is being used, not as it will (maybe) be used. If a certain name (such as Jogaila) becomes more popular later, then the Misplaced Pages article can always be moved to match the verifiable popular usage. --Elonka 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope the same goes also for diacritics and Lysy objection?--Lokyz 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, judging by the refs below the diacritics should stay as well. //Halibutt 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

  • Grand Duke Jagiello (New American Desk Encyclopedia, under "Lithuania")
  • Jogaila (Jagiello) (The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition, 2001)
  • Jagielło (Władysław II) (New Catholic Encyclopedia)
  • Ladislaus II, king of Poland (Online Columbia)
  • Ladislas Jagiello (Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages )
  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Online Britannica)
  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Webster's Desk Encyclopedia)
  • Władysław II (Encarta)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland (1979 Brittanica, under "Jagiellon dynasty")
  • Władysław II Jagiełło and Jadwiga (1979 Brittanica, combined article title)
  • Władysław II Jagielło (Poland) (Lithuanian: Jogaila; c. 1351–1434) (Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło, King of Poland (1975 Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia under "Lithuania")
  • Władysław Jagiełło (2003 Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science)

Dictionaries

  • Vladislav II (The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
  • Ladislaus II (The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised))
  • Ladislaus II (Oxford Dictionary of World History)
  • Jagiello (Wladyslaw II) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Other, academic, works of reference

  • Ladislas II (The Story of Civilization, 1957, by Will and Ariel Durant)
  • Vladyslav II Jagiello (The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, 1952)
  • Władysław Jagiełło (Trade and Urban Development in Poland, by F. W. Carter, 1994)
  • King Wladyslaw (A History of Polish Christianity, Jerzy Kłoczkowski, 2000)
  • Władysław Jagiełło (Conceptions of National History: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 78, 1994)
  • Władysław Jagiełło (Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, Anne Markham Schulz, Giammaria Mosca, 1998)
  • Władysław Jagiełło (The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power, Jan Kubik, 1994)
  • Władysław Jagiełło (A History of East European Jews, by Heiko Haimann, 2003)
  • Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila also used where applicable); (A History of Ukraine, Paul R Magocsi, 1996) -
  • Jagiełło (The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Jim Bradbury, 2004)
  • Vladislav II Yaguello (sic! History of the Jews in Poland and Russia, Simon Dubnow, 1915)
  • Władysław Jagiełło (Nation And History, by Peter Brock, John Stanley, Piotr J Wrobel, 2006)
  • Jogaila and Władysław Jagiełło (Europe, by Norman Davies, 1996) -
  • Jogaila (The New Cambridge Medieval History, Editor Christopher Allmand, 1998)
    • Note: I disagree. When I checked this book's index, I saw that the listing is actually "Jogaila (Jagiełło) of Lithuania, see also Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" (which is the primary listing) --Elonka 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Elonka, that book contains many authors, all of whom except the person doing the index are certainly professional specialists in the subject. You are, though, looking at a different volume. In volume VI, the listings are "Jogaila (Jagellon) of Lithuania" (10 page listings)and "Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland" (two page listings; this title, btw, is an interesting suggestion for a compromise title); in the actual book, one author uses the form Ladislas Jagellon (p. 71), but otherwise Jogaila is the form used. There is no use of the form Władysław II Jagiełło in this book. In volume VII, which you refer to, the listings are "Jogaila (Jagiełło) of Lithuania" (two page listings), with underneath "see also Władysław II Jagiełło" (which has 11 page listings), Jogaila is still used. In fact, the "Władysław II Jagiełło"s in the volume are all the responsibility of the Polish historian Aleksander Gieysztor, whereas every other author prefers Jogaila. Familiar story I'm thinking! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present
  • Jogaila Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends
  • Jogaila The Medieval Chronicle: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle
  • Jogaila (Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, by S. C. Rowell, 1994)
  • Jogaila (until his ascent to the Polish throne, then) Jagiello (Foreword to the Past:A Cultural History of the Baltic People, by Endre Bojtar, 1999) -
  • Jogaila (The Crusades And The Expansion Of Catholic Christendom 1000-1714, by John France, 2005),
  • Jogaila (also Yogaila) (The Memorial Book for the Jewish Community of Yurburg, Lithuania - Translation and Update, Editor Joel Alpert, 2001)
  • Władyslaw II Jagiełło, King of Poland (U.S. Library of Congress)
  • Jogaila Foreword to the Past: A Cultural History of the Baltic People
  • Jogaila (Jagiello) combination used at all times A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change
  • Wladislaw Jagiello (30 times) Jogaila (6 times) Tannenberg 1410
  • Jogaila Lithuania: Stepping Westward
  • Wladislaw Jagiello and Jogaila Crusader Castles of the Teutonic Knights (1): The Red-Brick Castles of Prussia 1230-1466
  • Władysław Jagiełło, though Jogaila, Lithuanian Grand Duke also used once (Power and the Nation in European History, various authors)
  • Jagiełło (Władysław II Jagiełło, king of Poland, grand prince of Lithuania), A Concise History of Poland, Lukowski & Zawadzki, 2001 and Jogaila
  • Władysław II Jagiełło, Poland, an Illustrated History, Iow Cyprian Pogonowski, 2000. Index entries include: (1) Jagiełło, King W., (2) Jogaila, Grand Duke (Jagiełło), and (3) Władysław II Jagiełło. In text, the most common name used to refer to him is King Władysław Jagiełło

Commentary on reference works

Though I appreciate the effort that people are putting into this, I think we need to be careful which names we are listing in the "other academic works" section. For example, I see above that two different names are both credited to Magocsi's "History of the Ukraine", Jogaila and Władysław II Jagiełło. Are we pulling these names out of general text, or are these the titles of the biographical articles about the individual? My recommendation is that we stick with those books that have an actual section on the person in question, and that we cite here the title of that section. If there is no specific section, then listing the primary name as it appears in the book's index would probably be most useful. The way I see it, whichever name that we choose for the Misplaced Pages article, should be the easiest version of the name that a layperson could use, to look up the individual in their own home encyclopedia or reference book. So the question of "What does the index entry look like?" is probably the most appropriate way to deal with things. I would also recommend sticking with reference books that include multiple biographies, since that format is the closest to what we are dealing with here on Misplaced Pages. --Elonka 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer the text of such sections; the titles are often altered for political correctness. Septentrionalis 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So, are we to dump all non-encyclopaedic sources just because they are not published in an encyclopedic format and don't have separate biographical notes? That way we would mostly sort out most monographs on history of that part of Europe, as the partially-encyclopaedic format is mostly used in non-scholarly works. And why not adopt an easier system before we spam this page with duplicate of the Google Books search: why not refer to the Google Book search itself? I believe those two links would tell us all we need to know: 3550 vs. 368. Or is there anything more we might want to add here? BTW, the section suggests that we should put there scholarly reference. If so then what does The Memorial Book for the Jewish Community of Yurburg do there?//Halibutt 10:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"Very" representative count - especially when under 'Jagiello'you find books like these , , or even like these .
Well maybe that's bacause Jogaila is quite an unpopular name in Lithuania, and you might guess why.--Lokyz 10:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As regards the specific case of Magocsi's A History of Ukraine, I took a look in the index via the Amazon "look inside this book" feature . What Magocsi seemed to do with this complicated issue, was provide multiple name spellings for this monarch, which all redirected to, "See Władyslaw II Jagiełło". So, if I were going to pick a name that "counts" from that book, that's probably the one that I'd pick. --Elonka 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, I read what you wrote in edit summary. Once more you are using other people oppinion to prove your own agenda. Please, come up with your own words for that. My comment in edit summary was not directed at Elonka. I just wanted to say that the whole list favored Polish variants of the name more than others. I wanted to show that there are really history books, that use Lithuanian name of the subject of this article. Some people have never seen it used. Books on history of Lithuania and on history of Baltic people use Jogaila. Also, books on history of Crusaders, on history of Ukraine and that one book that writes about history of Lithuanian Jews also use Jogaila. Even Polish historians when writing in English, use Jogaila in an appropriate context. Ruthenian name of this man by pronounciation is closer to Lithuanian than to Polish. Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian, Estonian also are closer by pronounciation to Jogaila. I could provide more examples, but this was not my point. The point was to balance the list a litte. Juraune 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, thanks for the feedback, it explains a little, but also shows my real agenda here: every author has to make a choice on his own. Whether it's 60% for Jagiełło and 40% for Jogaila, or the other way around, we would have to chose. On the other hand it seems it's 90% Wladyslaw to 10% Jogaila whichever way we turn the cat...
Juraune, you're completely right on that one. I'm using the opinions of book authors to prove my point. That's what we're doing in the above list of books, aren't we. Does it mean that those who post more links with Jogaila are completely ok, while I'm not? Don't really get it. //Halibutt 06:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Your smooth talk won't change this: my edit summary was: "Adding books that use Jogaila, since the previous list is slightly onesided", next your edit summary: "some more background for Elonka's onesided selection". I doubt if you have your own point, if you used mine to critisize Elonka, as before you used Cyon, Dr. Dan, Renata on Act of Kreva. What is your point? Should Latin name be used? Should Polish name be used? Juraune 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
On yet another note, I took a look at the actual usage of the proposal in line with the current guidelines for naming of monarchs (<anglicized first name>, <numeral>, of <country>) and it seems (at least from a quick Google Book search) that the Ladislaus II of Poland is indeed used, but mostly by books from late 19th century and early 20th century, while modern use Wladyslaw, Władysław or Jogaila... While this by no means should make us drop the proposal, it makes me think that perhaps this could be an exception. Or is it not? //Halibutt 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lokyz, your very appropriate and I might add, excellent, Analysis of "Google Hits" needs to be noted and applauded.(See above comment: "Very" representative count-especially under 'Jagiello' when you find books like these; and click the links). Dr. Dan 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"A Concise History of Poland" by J. Lukowski and H. Zawadzki says that Jagiełło is a polonized form of the name: "Jogaila himself had to come to power in 1382 with the murder of his uncle Kestutis. When, in February 1387, Jagiełło (to use the polonised form) instituted the bishopric of Vilnius and ordered his armed followers, his 'boyari sive armigeri', to convert to Catholicism, he aimed to deny the Knights any futher justification for their onslaught on his homeland. As comonarch with Jadwiga of Poland he hoped for Polish support against both them and Kestutis' dangerous son, Vytautas." Juraune 06:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiled poll

Due to major sockpuppetry in previous poll , I suggest to stop current poll procedure and renew this with eliminated flawed votes. Second thing, I believe that user Logologist should be banded. M.K. 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Logologist's sockpuppetry is a major concern; however I assure you that the sockpuppet votes were discounted before starting the above phase of the poll. Usual Misplaced Pages procedure is to ignore sockpuppet votes when the final count is being tallied, rather than simply invalidating the entire poll. Otherwise it would be too easy for someone to create a single sockpuppet to "cancel" a poll that they thought wasn't going their way. --Elonka 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Elonka! I believe you did not understand me correctly :( The poll, which ended in June 12 counted and user:Logologist 3 sockpuppetry (oppose) votes. (sockpuppetry identified in June 23). If not these 3 votes, consensus on name (Jagiello) could been reached (10 support; 6 against) than . We would have new name already, which we could discussed further. That we have now is a bit different. So I suggesting to renew the June 12 vote – with all votes discounted these Logologist votes.
Second I believe that Logologist case should be strictly evaluated and not ignored! Due to this user intervention on voting, Misplaced Pages policy here is strict. M.K. 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I see what you mean now, thank you for clarifying. That's a good point, I'll check with the closing admin, Nightstallion, and see what he thinks. --Elonka 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Technically, the sockpuppets are discounted, but their masters retain their voting rights :/ //Halibutt 05:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt is right technically, and their masters should be allowed to regroup but not get caught this time!. Dr. Dan 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, their masters are allowed to change their ways and try to work on their tarnished reputation, not to continue their disruptive and unfair behaviour. //Halibutt 06:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Good, so you're not only right technically, but morally too. Maybe you can get your Rodak or Landsman out into the light, from under the wordwork, to make a public apology to us all. I know it's not your job to do so, but I'm sure you all interact from time to time with one another. Even Molobo, chided user:Logologist, before he was banned for a year due to his disruptive and unfair behaviour (sic). Dr. Dan 06:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on, everyone can interact with others regardless of whether he is English, Polish or Chinese, male, female or whatever else. While I consider your conspiracy theories to be funny, your recent attempts to group or divide editors by their nationality in a number of talk pages can be harmful. I'd appreciate if you directed your effort towards integrating the editors of different viewpoints instead. --Lysy 07:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right about everyone be able to interact with one another, but I strongly disagree with your charge that I have attempted to group or divide editors by their nationality... And in fact, there is nothing funny about the Sock Puppet voting, nor is it a "theory", and it was precisely done by in a biased way that was "nationality driven". I'd appreciate it if you directed a little more effort into introspection and criticism of that problem. Dr. Dan 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing funny with people using sockpuppets and therefore Logologist actions has been condemned by everybody involved. Same should go for people using the WP:CABAL-related arguments, who are also creating an unfriendly and uncivil working atmosphere.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, you're right as usual. I noticed that you agreed with me that there is nothing funny with people using sock puppets, or the whole sordid matter. No comment, however, whether or not you agree with me, that it was "nationality driven". Do you think it was? And thank you again for condemning "these actions". Dr. Dan 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Baptized name

I have doubts that the following sentence from the article is correct: "At his baptism, he changed his name from Jogaila to Władysław." I would rather expect a Latin, rather than Polsih, name formally given to him at baptism. Any comments? `'mikka (t) 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, you are 100% correct. Latin is the language used in Catholic Baptisms. No room for wiggling, or weaseling out of that fact. Very relevant observation. Dr. Dan 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m not sure of your meaning. Do you mean a Latin name, or a Latinized form of a Polish name? Anyway, I’m not aware of any Latin name he might have been given. It would probably be mentioned somewhere if that were the case. If you mean a Latinized form of a Polish name, then I don’t think so. Latin stopped being used during masses in Poland quite recently (in terms of the church’s history in Poland of course), yet Poles were always being given Polish names. As to the choice of the name – Jagiełło took his name after his godfather Władysław Opolczyk, who himself was a great grandson of Władysław I the Elbow-high, the son of Kazimierz I of Kujawy (also a Polish name). Do you suggest that all our kings were in fact called something different?--SylwiaS | talk 01:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all the fact that Latin has stopped being used during masses in Poland quite recently...has absolutely nothing to do with the point. Or does it? Secondly when a boy or girl were Baptized or Confirmed, in the Roman Catholic faith, the names were pronounced in Latin by the clergy. The pontiff was also officially named in Latin, therefore not called John Paul II, or Jan Pawel II, but Ioannes Paulus P.P. II. So the real question is do you suggest that all your kings were in fact, treated differently by the Church in these ecclesiastical matters, rather than as was traditionally done? Dr. Dan 01:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's check outside sources though. For example, according to my 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 19, page 904, heading Władysław II Jagiełło and Jadwiga:
When the grand duke of Lithuania, Jogaila, was wedded to the Queen of Poland in 1386, assuming the kingship of Poland and the Christian name of Władysław II, he united two states in one that became the leading power in eastern Europe.
--Elonka 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, I know that it’s unbelievable to you that people may speak one language and in the same time not translate personal names into it from another, yet it does happen. So yes, till recently priests were speaking Latin, but the names were not pronounced in Latin, only in native languages. Otherwise all Poles baptised prior to the Second Vatican Council would have Latin or Latinized names! The example with John Paul II certainly doesn’t prove your point. He was baptised Karol, not Carolus, and when he was chosen a pope they introduced him to people in Rome in Latin language, but pronounced his name Karol Wojtyła (yes, with the diacritic), not Carolus Voytilus as you might think. He chose his name Ioannes Paulus II because Latin is the official language of Vatican, that’s why all popes as the heads of the country are called in Latin, while e.g. cardinals aren’t. Here’s from Wikimedia Commons: “Ioannes Paulus II, baptizatus Karol Józef Wojtyła, natus A.D. 1920, obiit A.D. 2005, erat Papa Romanae Catholicae Ecclesiae ab anno 1978 ad annum 2005.” I hope that and Elonka's good example clear the matter.--SylwiaS | talk 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, while your example is convincing, it does not answer my question. The fact that someone was baptized Karol and not Carolus is instructive, but not conslusive. We are speaking about totally different time frames and traditions. And by the way, Encyclopedia Britannica can write bullshit too: I find it hard to believe that a king would baptize himself into a "someone II" `'mikka (t) 04:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, a commonly known spelling of a name may be quite different from the name given during baptism. If you like an analogy with modern times, here is one: we all know Bill Clinton, Aren't we? But his baptized name was not "Bill". And if you will start telling me that Bill is the same as William, allow me to disagree. `'mikka (t) 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right of course about the II. However, I'm afraid that the issue how exactly his name was pronounced will remain a mystery to us as none of us was present then ;) His name is Polish, and all the various spellings proposed are just attempts to Latinize/Anglicize the Polish name, but he didn't take a Latin name in first place, so I rather assume that it was pronounced in Polish than Latin. Similarly, we can wonder how the names of English or French kings of that time were pronounced during their baptizm but we accept generally observed spellings in the modern languages. I wasn't trying to dismiss your question, actually I tried to find something about it in Polish sources. There is e.g. a supposition that Mieszko I took a Germanic name during his baptizm (again not Latin), but all I found about Jagiełło was that the name was Władysław. Your example with Clinton is valid of course, but I think it's rather American thing to do that. In Poland little Clinton would be called Bill, but the grown up one would be called William. So no, I don't think that Bill=William, but I think that every country has its own customs.--SylwiaS | talk 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the diligence in attempting to answer my question. I have no doubts that modern Polish publications will write "łł". And it is fine with me. I care less how the name was pronounced in these times. It is more important to know how it was written. This piece of information is useful, e.g., when browsing thru documents. Not to say about a possible anachronism: I am wondering when "L kreskowane" was introduced into Polish alphabet? Let me see what wikipedia says:... Ł... 16th century! (good article!) Now, when did Jogaila live? `'mikka (t) 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't tell me you didn't know that before! Surely editing so many articles about Poland as you are, you must have been aware that written Polish wasn't widely used in times of Jagiełło. Still, one is baptized with the name that is pronounced, not the one that is written. It's a sacrament after all! And the purpose of systemising Polish alphabet wasn't making up new sounds only writing down the old ones. BTW How the Lithuanians used to write Jogaila in Lithuanian language prior to 16th century? (good article as well!)--SylwiaS | talk 09:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll result

I hope that I have not angered everyone with my decision on which name to choose on the poll above. If there is opposition, with reasoning, to my decision, I am willing to reconsider. Jogaila had 16 votes, while the next closest were Władysław II Jagiełło with 10 votes and Ladislaus II of Poland with 8. If this were a nomination for deletion, I would have closed it as no consensus. However, I think that it is a sufficient result for a move.

I did not factor my opinion in it. I just counted the votes and checked out the reasoning that people gave to see if the votes should be ignored, or given less weight, in favor of common sense or policy (naming conventions, especially most common usage, the manual of style and such). However, there does not seem to be a choice that is clearly right, in my opinion. Going by the most common usage seems particularly problematic, since it appears to vary by the type of publication. Still, I would have voted for Wladyslaw II Jagiello as a first choice and Władysław II Jagiełło as a second choice. With and without diacritics and the adding of countries to the end, they seem to be the most common forms in encyclopedias. They are less common in the other works listed, but a similar form without the "II" shows up.

Because multiple moves of the article have been performed, I suggest that another poll or move request wait for a little while. I think at least a month would be good, but perhaps it should be given two or three. This will prevent the article from being constantly moved, which I think is undesirable despite the preservation of the history and the use of redirects. Hopefully it allow people to calm down, too. Before the new poll is opened, I also suggest that arguments on all sides be refined and placed in the poll so that participants will have the information they need to make an informed decision from the very start. Arguments could be linked to, if they are long, to avoid confusion. Finally, perhaps Władysław II Jagiello, Władysław II, Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland and Jagello should not be included the next poll, barring additional evidence for why they should be used. They received four votes combined. -- Kjkolb 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad this result finally came. This is quite a resounding vote. If you ask me, Jogaila is a simple and non-controversial name which predjudices neither the dignity of Lithuania or Poland, as he had the name before becoming ruler of either, and the sources retain use of this name even after he takes his latinized western slavic regnal name. Remember also that many of the encyclopedia article tread him only as ruler of Poland, whereas this article is concerned about the man's whole life. I personally hope people will now stop obsessing with names, and get on improving the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
yes I gald by this move too. I strongly believe that another possible move will wait for a little while M.K. 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, one Polish user added a vote after the closer of the poll. Reverted it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to the move. That poll was to determine two most popular names which would be voted upon for a proper RM; as far as I know this was not a RM was not to be moved upon the ending of this poll but we were to have a run-off of the most popular candidates until one would finally have a majority (if any). A previous poll already determined that Jogaila has no majority. And while Jogaila might have had the most support this times, there where twice as many (32) votes for oppose such a move. Therefore the article should stay under it's last name.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

very "interesting" do you also counted and confirmed sock puppet user:Logologist votes? if so "nice" job! M.K. 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Previous poll? Please be honest, Piotrus; that previous poll was about the name Jagiello, not Jogaila. And, did you notice, 4 times as many people opposed Władysław II Jagiełło as opposed Jogaila on this poll. The name you suggest is four times more unpopular. Combine that with the near double popularity of Jogaila, and I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Any 'many on many' votes are easy to twist however one like them, this is why WP:RM (which was NOT followed in that move) is about 1 on 1 votes. I am not saying Władysław II Jagiełło is the most popular name, but it has proven to be more popular then other proposed variants, 1 on 1, before. The current many on many votes is a mess, with second and third choices, other variants being introduced late in the voting, and other issues, not the least of which being that Jogaila only got a third of the votes, which is certainly not a 'majority' or 'consensus' for move. The name of this page is controversial and should not be moved without a formal, 1 on 1, RM indicating clear consensus for move.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, a poll with 10 optionsis never going to get a majority. Point is, Jogaila is considerably more popular than any other name, including Władysław II Jagiełło. And indeed, tha latter name aroses considerable opposition, and wouldnt even be a contender had not the original author chose to give the article its Polish language name. Jogaila won over Władysław II Jagiełło by a margin of 60%. That's gigantic, especially considering the controversy of this page name. At any rate, Jogaila did win by a large margin, and so you should prolly take Kjkolb's advice and wait a few months if you must put up another vote. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I am disappointed with the outcome, because I think that naming the article Jogaila will cause confusion since that it is not how he is indexed in most other reference works. However, I agree with the closing admin that looking strictly at the opinions in the straw poll, that the consensus clearly favored Jogaila. My recommendation is that we follow Admin Kjkolb's advice, accept the consensus for now, and let things sit for at least one month. The world will not come to an end because one Misplaced Pages article about a medieval Polish monarch is at an odd title for a month.  :) In September, we can re-visit the issue with a new poll/discussion, and see who cares enough to still participate. If the consensus for "Jogaila" is genuine, it will repeat in September. If not, the article can be moved to some other (potentially better) title. --Elonka 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Jogaila is really not an "odd title", certainly Władysław II Jagiełło is a much odder way of designating this ethnic Lithuanian ruler of Lithuania and Poland. He was not, as you know, "Polish" any more that Pizarro was an Inca. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, and I apologize. Jogaila is indeed a valid title in some reference works. Perhaps what I should have said was, "The world will not come to an end because one Misplaced Pages article about a medieval Polish monarch is at what some people regard as an odd title for a month.". --Elonka 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
hmm Polish monarch ? :) M.K. 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Okay, I stand further corrected. "A medieval European monarch", how's that?  :) --Elonka 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Perfect ! ;) M.K.
Therefore we should have a proper RM for moving Władysław II Jagiełło to Jogaila, in a 1 on 1 vote which can clearly show if there is a majority for such a move. The straw poll on such a controversial page should not be a basis for a move, a formal RM is the only way which would make all party agree it was fair. I would not question a 1 on 1 RM, but I am questioning the move based on a multi-choice straw poll here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What was the point of having that multi-choice poll then? Was it to make it impossible to move from your preferred name? I don't understand the logic here. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between Jogaila being the most popular out of 10 options and Jogaila having a majority of support in a move from Władysław II Jagiełło. The latter should be determined by a proper WP:RM, which if succesfull would give you a nearly indisputable argument that the move is final and supported by a consensus, the current move is far from that. The multipoll was valuable as it shown us which names are the most popular, the next step, however, should not be to move the article to the most popular one in multipoll (which may not be most popular one in a 1:1 poll as done during RM), but to select the most popular of those (Jogaila) and see if it wins in a 1:1 RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
so why place Władysław II Jagiełło for multi-vote than? M.K. 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly M.K. Anyways, there was never any consensus, and indeed considerable opposition to, Władysław II Jagiełło. So the argument doesn't work. Jogaila is the most popular name by a distance. Ultimately, we all know you don't like the result. If you didn't like the poll, which I thought was quite impressively done - bits for specific opposition maultiple voting etc - you should have complained earlier, instead of waiting until you got a bad result. After all, you've had enough time; the poll should have closed ages ago. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Jogaila is more popular than any single one of the many variants that include some form of "Wladyslaw/Vladislaus/whatever". But that doesn't mean that "just Jogaila" is more popular than "some title form which includes the Polish version of his name". I would suggest a vote between "just Jogaila" and "some form of Wladyslaw II Jagiello", and that if the latter wins, we have a further vote to determine what particular form of the latter is best. Comparing the vote for Jogaila to the utterly split vote for the various other options is unfair. john k 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is wrong analysis. The poll was multiple voting, you could vote for as many options as you liked. So it wouldn't have mattered if there were 40000 Wladyslaw variations. And besides, the "Jogaila group" was also split, with Jagiello, Jagello, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What would be wrong with holding a poll with one simple question: Should the article be moved to Jogaila or should it stay under Władysław II Jagiełło? If you are serious about determining the acceptance of such a move by the community, you should not be afraid to hold a poll on precisely this question. Balcer 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if we counted the above poll as a proper RM procedure (which it was not, at least I did not understand it as such when taking part in it), then there is 16 for Jogaila and 16 for Wladyslaw II Jagiello (in both spellings). How is that a consensus to move? One 16 is in fact larger than the other? //Halibutt 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The poll has determined that Jogaila is the most popular alternative to Wladyslaw II Jagiello. The correct next step would be to have a formal RM procedure to determine if a move to Jogaila would be accepted by the community. This is the proper way to proceed, and will ensure that the majority of interested Wikipedians support the eventual outcome. For such a contentious article, we have to stick to proper procedures. Balcer 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You have a point, but since the article has already been moved, and redirects updated, I'm not sure it would be wise to yank it *back* to Wladyslaw II Jagiello for a poll. So, perhaps we could come up with something else to prove consensus? How about a poll that said, "Is the current name of "Jogaila" an acceptable final name for this article?" Then we could let people vote yes or no, and it would be a "clean" vote, because we wouldn't be arguing about what the proper name *should* be, we'd just be discussing whether or not there was backing for "Jogaila". If the consensus was "Yes", we leave it alone for a month, and if "No," then we can immediately move on to another stage of figuring out what it should be moved "to". Would that work? --Elonka 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Moving the article back is straightforward, and there is value in following the proper procudure. Clearly, this renaming debate has stirred up some controversy, and the best way to address it properly is to do a proper RM. A "yes or no" vote on Jogaila seems to be less useful, and I can't see any clear justification for it in Misplaced Pages procudures, but even that is a better option than leaving things as they are. As things stand at present, I would bet two-thirds of the people who participated in this poll have a potential reason to be very annoyed with this move. Clearly, that is not the way to build concensus, or to have harmonious collaborations among Wikipedians. Balcer 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Remind me please - why this poll was arranged only to move name to other place and move again in another? M.K. 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sticking beans up your nose is straightforward too, but that's little recommendation to try it. Given that even more people disliked the previous name, why would "moving the article back" reflect consensus better than the current name ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid you are missing the point. I am not saying that any given name would reflect concensus better. Right now, we just don't know what the concensus is, one way or another. This complicated poll with 10 options generated a lot of discussion, but it gave no clear idea of which name the majority of the participants could accept. Holding a proper RM vote would be a great way to find out whether the move would be accepted by a concensus majority. What is wrong with following proper Misplaced Pages procedures? They exist for a reason, and they don't hurt. Balcer 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite clear on the point: some people don't like the result. That's inevitably going to be the case, and your suggestion does no more than increase the number of unhappy people. So much for consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess there are different degrees of unhappiness. It's one thing to be unhappy because a name does not use your favourite spelling, and it is something else altogether to disagree with a name because it comes from a different language, with all the historical disputes and baggage that this inevitably involves, not to mention basic questions of historical accuracy and use in mainstream research. Right now, it is a safe bet that 2/3 of the people who voted are not happy. Would you call this concensus? What is your fundamental objection to following proper RM procedure? Balcer 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite simply it's a waste of time. We already followed a long and convoluted route to get here. I don't see any reason to invalidate the whole process because some editors don't like the result. Complaints should have have made before we started down this route, not afterwards. And I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that you would be complaining had Władysław been more popular. If you want to propose a move back, you know how to do it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You don't like the result, it happens. Doing a YES/NO vote on Jogaila is the silliest idea I've heard all week. There'd be no majority for any name. But Jogaila is the most popular, more popular than Władysław II Jagiełło. How is one going to build consensus by riding over the face of the community's established opinion?! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Not liking a result is one thing, having a result that 2/3 of the participants involved have a good reason to oppose is something quite different. Polls are not held to have one option win at any price, but for establishing concensus. The point is to really find out what a majority of the participants can accept, not to have a minority view "win" on a technicality. Balcer 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh gosh, just don't start moving the poor little page back and forth. First decide what to do and only then do it. One way out, as Elonka, said: pool if Jogaila is really that bad and if really no one wants it. If it really screams "how could you do it!" then move it back to whatever Wladislaw you decide and I hope this issue can rest in peace then. Renata 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is not a person, if does not feel pain or inconvenience if it is moved :). I still say that following proper procedure, by holding a proper RM, is the way to go here. Over 40 people have participated in this poll. Could we please try to find out if they would accept this move? Balcer 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto! Following proper RM is the wisest and safest procedure, not only here, but in all cases. Also, since definitely votes among various Władysławs were divided into several spellings of the same name, while there was only one proposition for Jogaila, the opinons should be narrowed. I don't even think we should vote for options with or without diacritics here. One variant should be chosen, and its spelling should be determined later according to the outcome of a general diacritics poll for the whole wiki. There's no need to determine a separate rule just for the kings.--SylwiaS | talk 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello SylwiaS! how do you call this Jagiello; Jagello; and this Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland (+ -) not a divided into several spellings of the same name? M.K. 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Jagello got only 1 "support" and "Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland none, so I understand they are not of our concern.--SylwiaS | talk 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
but name Jogaila had several spellings, so the editors had a choice to choose; what these other spellings was not popular among editors is a different story. So your statement part is wrong above. Plus name Jogaila has strong foundation cuz it do not shift with all these ł Й ζ Ą ž to make a new name. M.K. 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What other spellings for Jogaila were offered? If you mean Jagiello then I disagree. He's not officially called Jagiello without Władysław, and no, people didn't choose it, they preferred he's full name instead.--SylwiaS | talk 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I will say it for second time and probably the last one. Variation of the name Jogaila was provided beginning with Jagiello ending with Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland. The motives why editors pick up other name do not cancel the fact that they do not have a freedom of choice, with in the name.
If you talking why nobody provided name Jogai ł a ; because there is no such and this why editors pick up this name.M.K. 08:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it seems I wasn't clear. I didn't mean another usage of exactly the same name like in Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland, or a changed form of the name after his being elected a king like Jagiello. What I meant was another spelling of the name as it was used in the times when he wasn't yet the king of Poland, like Jagalo. Maybe I'm wrong, but it very much seems like people were mostly voting the Lithuanian name vs. one of the Polish names. So giving equal choices of names in both languages would even the chances. You can't say that Jogaila got more votes than combined number of Władysław II Jagiełło/Wladyslaw II Jagiello.--SylwiaS | talk 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

«Over 40 people have participated in this poll» -- in fact, 33 people: 'mikka (t), Alensha, Angus McLellan, Appleseed, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ), Charles, Doc15071969, Dr. Dan, eLNuko, Elonka, Francis Schonken, Ghirla, Halibutt, heqs, Jadger, Juraune, KissL, Kusma, Lokyz, Lysytalk, M.K., Nunh-huh, Orionus, Petr K, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, R. S. Shaw, Septentrionalis, Shilkanni, Srnec, SylwiaS, Szopen, Tylop, Zello. Jogaila is one vote short of half of participants in support. «Right now, it is a safe bet that 2/3 of the people who voted are not happy» -- a baseless claim rather than a safe bet. 4 people have used the opportunity to voice specific opposition to Jogaila during the poll, including Alensha, whose stated ground - «this is the first time I see this spelling, I guess it's unknown outside Lithuania» - is of «just because I've not seen something» variety. Additionally, three more people, including one person whose vote is not in the poll, have voiced their disappointment - after the poll was over, citing procedural grounds. That's about 1/5 - somewhat expected when the topic is controversial. «Could we please try to find out if they would accept this move?» -- But of course, we could. We could also simply accept the outcome of vote «Approval poll for article renaming» and move on. --Doc15071969 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Great post, Doc.

New poll on consensus-building

Okay, so how about we figure out what the consensus is on how to proceed, from this point forward. The various options seem to be as follows. Please vote for as many as you like! (and if I missed any, please feel free to add more choices) --Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave the page where it is (at "Jogaila"), and hold an approval vote on whether or not "Jogaila" is an acceptable name.


Move the page back to Władysław II Jagiełło, and then hold a formal RM vote on whether there is consensus to specifically move to Jogaila.

Leave the page where it is for now (at "Jogaila"), take a break for a month, and then re-visit things to test for consensus.

  • Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If I had been the sysop closing the vote, maybe I had done something completely different and/or had maybe written a completely different comment. But I choose this option while it is the closest to what the sysop closing the vote actually did and actually recommended. Well, if everything we do ends in a draw, maybe the sysop is right, let's leave this alone for some time, and see what we do later. Misplaced Pages is not going to collapse if we leave this monarch where he is for some time and work on some other articles in the mean while. --Francis Schonken 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's ridiculous there's another poll after such a resounding vote. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Francis Schonken. Angus McLellan (Talk) 06:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have seen a lot of decisions and moves that were made by experts in law or nationality censuses or internet programmers, who felt superior to professionals Historians, since they had better computer skills. Support Calgacus on this one. Juraune 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Leave the page where it is permanently -- it doesn't need any further action.

And the joke goes on and on. If Jogaila could vote today, he would be voting as I have, don't even dream that it would be otherwise. I'm thinking that Pilsudski himself would agree, after examining the evidence, and say the historically obvious vote, goes to Jogaila. Dr. Dan 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

A poll on what kind of poll to have? What's else is new? :) Renata 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People familiar with Rejs should be ROTFLOLing now :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  02:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's ridiculous there's another poll so quickly. 16 out of 33 votes is resounding for a 10 option poll, and let me add a whopping majority of non-Polish users. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And 16 for Wladyslaw Jagiello should obviously be discounted as 16 for a Polish name is much less than 16 for a Lithuanian one, right? //Halibutt 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please present these internet counts in .php code and people will vote editing it. And don't forget to extract the census results from people oppinions presented as .txt. No doubt we will get 100% for English/Polish-Latin name, 1 Lithuanian pretty alone will be discounted. :))) Juraune 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still lost. From my point of view this new poll is arranged only that minority of voted editors which somehow dislike the new name, providing quite controversial arguments and then old poll is over - ringing the bell that poll should not end it this way. Even the heading in the article itself during the vote (quite unusual in poll case) shouted > that article be renamed . Why nobody rang the bell than? Some editors say that this poll was arranged just for pointing out which name could challenge the older article name Władysław II Jagiełło; lets pretend that this way it should be, but why the same name Władysław II Jagiełło was placed in multi-poll in the first place? Just for fun? Why nobody rang the bell than? And such procedure “protector” as editor Piotrus, somehow failed to remember the quite recent even here. The same situation – multi-vote. But somehow the same editor Piotrus as well as other unhappy editors of this vote did not rang the bell for 1vs1. Why nobody of you rang the bell in Vasa case? It should be 1vs 1!!! Thy editor Piotrus is not answered the question does he then said -A previous poll already determined that Jogaila has no majority- also counted and sock puppet user:Logologist 4 votes. I am confident that if this vote ended for Ladislaus II of Poland or Wladyslaw II Jagiello favor there were no such talks about 1vs1. So there is a signs of double standards. My suggestion is to stop this new “poll” and wait for few moths, maybe user:Logologist also show up with his/her new puppet “friends” (cuz the old ones User:Mattergy; User:KonradWallenrod; User:Anatopism apparently having not the best days) and we will have new outcome. M.K. 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)p.s. the new poll is multi-vote again, so that we will present for 1vs1 battle this time???

Let's start a poll on whether to continue this poll. heqs 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support :D M.K. 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's start poll to decide what 5 polls to do next and start collecting socks--Lokyz 09:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could not agree with that. The number of future polls should be decided by poll. To prevent discrimination against rarely mentioned numericals (such as 927714, 448771, 455787134), there should be infinite options of number of polls to chose from Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I voted today on my free will, not because Calgacus has invited me to vote. (Oppinions expressed are my own oppinions) Juraune （湯労根） 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

I just wanted to say that Elonka was only trying to find a democratic solution. Surely she didn't deserve all that mocking?--SylwiaS | talk 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kunigaikstis

The following comment deleted from article:

Please note that Jogaila's title was 'supreme duke/prince of Lithuania' while as the same time the traditional title of 'high duke/prince of Lithuania' was reserved for his cousin Vytautas.

Acording to wikipeida, both of them had title "Didysis Kunigaikštis", so there is no "while". Please clarify the discrepancy. `'mikka (t) 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the original documents their titles differred:
Władysław Jagiełło king of Poland
Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracovie, Sandomirie, Syradia, Lancicie, Cuiavie, Lithuanie princeps supremus, Pomoranie Russieque dominus et heres etc.
Jogaila of Lithuania
Jagalo divina deliberacione magnus Rex vel dux litwanorum, Russieque dominus et
Vytautas
Alexander alias Witoldus eadem < Dei > gracia, magnus dux Lithwanie terrarumque Russie etc.
--SylwiaS | talk 03:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)