Talk:John I Albert



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
John I of Poland → John I Albert of Poland - 'John I of Poland' is a name virtually unknown to the world of printed publications (1 page) or academia (no hits). While I would prefer 'Jan I Olbracht', the most popular name (without the 'I' but it's useful), the last RM shown that the communicity strongly prefers the less used by professionals but more friendly to an average reader 'John'. I don't want to dispute that, nor the (IMHO unecessary) addition 'of Poland', but I think that since this king is almost always reffered to in various publications with both his first and second name (Jan Olbracht/John Albert), we should include his second name in our name. Consider: "Jan Olbracht", 333 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jan+I+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "Jan I Olbracht" (9 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22John+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "John Olbracht" (2 pages), "John I Albert" (5 pages), "John Albert" king Poland (204 pages). Among those books we can find virtually all important publications on Polish history, like Davies or Lukowski. Last but not least, note that Britannica also uses his second name Albert (and a numeral):. Therefore I think that the move to "John I Albert of Poland" should not be controversial: we are retaining all that was won by the last RM, and adding an important part of his name used virtually by all major reference works. PS. Albert vs Olbrycht: Olbrycht is more unique and I think even more popular then Albert, but let's cosnider the less controversial (Polish...) Albert first, and then we can discuss whether we need to talk more about Olbrycht or is Albert enough of a compromise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support as the nominator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't really care about the "of Poland" part, but it definitely looks like including "Albert" is the way to go, since that's how the name tends to appear in outside reference works. --Elonka 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral would support this if it were just John I Albert. Atm, John I Albert of Poland is cumbersome and implies there is more than one John I of Poland. --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One step at a time. I would support loosing 'of Poland', too, but for now let's see if we can change this 'original research' ('John I pf Poland') into something that a person familiar with some academic (or general) references can recognize more easily... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it's a survey, I'll just give my preferences: Jan I Olbracht first choice, John I Albert second (per popularity in English references). No "of Poland".--SylwiaS | talk 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Could support the move to John I Olbracht of Poland though the current title is perfectly fine for me.  // Halibutt 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Use an acceptable encyclopaedic name, as used in other encyclopaedias. – Axman (☏) 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. john k 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -  AjaxSmack    00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments


 * Can we just dump this poll (before it's too late), and suggest a move to John I Albert? --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What will be 'too late'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess now might be too late, as there has already been a vote against. --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:02, 1 August 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 other major English-language reference works, please feel free to add to this list, by including the individual's name as it appears either in an article title or index entry. --Elonka 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

 * John I Albert (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)
 * John I Albert (online Britannica )

Dictionaries

 * John I, Olbracht (Albert) - (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Other reference works

 * John I Albert (Jan Olbracht) - A Concise History of Poland, Lukowski & Zawadzki

What?
The article mentions a town named "Kopersztyn". I Googled "Kopersztyn" and got nothing but the sentence used on the article... and vague allusions to it in different languages.... Does it even exist?-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello????-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the book "Dzieje staroźytne narodu litewskiego: Panowania Kazimierza i Alexandra. Tom Ósmy" is Kopersztyn refered as former Nowe-Koniecpole. referes the name as polish Kopystrzyn. Now it is Kopystyryn in Ukraine.-- Ispaleny (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Old engraved portrait versus 18th century portrait painting
While the 18th century painting of John I Albert no doubt looks pretty nice, how nice a picture looks should always be secondary to the authenticity and accuracy of a picture. As such, when choosing what picture to use as a portrait in a biographical article on Wikipedia, is it generally best to chose a picture that is dated as close as possible to the time the person lived. The 18th century painting cannot be accurate because it was painted over 200 years after the person in question died. If the painter used a good source for his portrait, then simply use that source as picture for this article. If the painter did not use a source, then the portrait is pure fiction. Omegastar (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Status
,, , , , - Dear all, please forgive me for the disturbance but I have just expanded this article considerably and was hoping if you could help me in raising it to a GA Status. All advice and opinions accepted! Feel free to expand it further if you find some spare time. Many thanks! Merangs (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a most welcome disturbance. Thank you for your work! I will happily gnome around it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Merangs Good job. I can only suggest replacing some old sources with new ones: Albertrandy (1827), Benni (1876), Bobrzyński (1893) and few others. Can we not verify the facts they are used for with modern scholarship? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - I thought so too, however, modern sources are very scarce. John Albert is a heavily overlooked figure in Polish historiography, omitted wherever possible together with his brother Alexander; most modern sources are based on the ones from the 19th century. I can try and have a dig again, but I doubt it'll be fruitful. Merangs (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Merangs That's a fair argument, if we cannot find modern soruces, and old claims are not controversial, it's fine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments
Well done! Best of luck, I think you will pass GA with flying colors. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * - Many thanks for your kind words! Took a while to formulate and write the article as sources were limited but tried my best. Any chance you can initiate the review process? Merangs (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Afraid no. I have no knowledge of Poland. Good luck. (summoned by a bot) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for touching up the article a bit. Highly appreciated! Merangs (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

GOCE - Copy Editing
On behalf of the Guild Of Copy Editors, I will be copy editing this article. Merangs has requested the copy edit. Please refrain from editing this article until the copy edit has been completed. 多多123 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Edit statuses will be posted under this message: 多多123 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 多多123 (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 多多123 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)多多123 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)