Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 7

Approval poll for article renaming

 * 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. 

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 Wikipedia 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 -трёп-  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)

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 ;-) --Lysytalk 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 Wikipedia 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 Talk 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 Talk  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. --Lysytalk 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is, however, the name of an article in an English encyclopedia. There are guidelines on this at 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. --Lysytalk 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply put, this is English Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 ? --Lysytalk 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 Wikipedia. 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. --Lysytalk 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) --Lysytalk 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 Wikipedia 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

 * Jagiello - oppose, this became the dynasty name, so we should include "Władysław" in his name too. – Alensha 寫 词 20:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jagello - oppose as per above; also, Jagiello is a more common spelling English. – Alensha 寫 词 20:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Władysław II - Oppose. I don't feel this is appropriate when there are English forms available. Charles 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Władysław II - Oppose. English contains no "ł". Nunh-huh 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wladyslaw II Jagiello - Oppose as per discussion below. --Lysytalk 20:33, 25 June 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)
 * Of course, the version without the "ł" is the correct spelling in English. - Nunh-huh 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because it is not an English name. I wonder how would you pronounce "Jagiello" then ? ;-) --Lysytalk 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wladyslaw II Jagiello - Oppose, we should use the correct form, not an Anglicised one. Zello 21:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anglicised ≠ wrong. - Nunh-huh 15:53, 26 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)
 * I second the opposition of Calgacus above. Srnec 03:34, 4 July 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). --Lysytalk 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 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I still think that the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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

Dictionaries

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

Lithuanian name

 * 1) Jogaila Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends
 * 2) Jogaila The Medieval Chronicle: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle
 * 3) Jogaila (Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, by S. C. Rowell, 1994)
 * 4) Jogaila (The Crusades And The Expansion Of Catholic Christendom 1000-1714, by John France, 2005),
 * 5) Jogaila (also Yogaila) (The Memorial Book for the Jewish Community of Yurburg, Lithuania - Translation and Update, Editor Joel Alpert, 2001)
 * 6) Jogaila Lithuania: Stepping Westward

Polish name

 * 1) Ladislas II (The Story of Civilization, 1957, by Will and Ariel Durant)
 * 2) Vladyslav II Jagiello (The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, 1952)
 * 3) Władysław Jagiełło (Trade and Urban Development in Poland, by F. W. Carter, 1994)
 * 4) King Wladyslaw (A History of Polish Christianity, Jerzy Kłoczkowski, 2000)
 * 5) Władysław Jagiełło (Conceptions of National History: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 78, 1994)
 * 6) Władysław Jagiełło (Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, Anne Markham Schulz, Giammaria Mosca, 1998)
 * 7) Władysław Jagiełło (The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power, Jan Kubik, 1994)
 * 8) Władysław Jagiełło (A History of East European Jews, by Heiko Haimann, 2003)
 * 9) Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila also used where applicable); (A History of Ukraine, Paul R Magocsi, 1996) -
 * 10) Jagiełło (The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Jim Bradbury, 2004)
 * 11) Vladislav II Yaguello (sic! History of the Jews in Poland and Russia, Simon Dubnow, 1915)
 * 12) Władysław Jagiełło (Nation And History, by Peter Brock, John Stanley, Piotr J Wrobel, 2006)
 * 13) Władyslaw II Jagiełło, King of Poland (U.S. Library of Congress)
 * 14) Władysław Jagiełło, though Jogaila, Lithuanian Grand Duke also used once (Power and the Nation in European History, various authors)
 * 15) Jagiełło (Władysław II Jagiełło, king of Poland, grand prince of Lithuania), A Concise History of Poland, Lukowski & Zawadzki, 2001 and Jogaila
 * 16) 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

Both

 * 1) Jogaila and Władysław Jagiełło (Europe, by Norman Davies, 1996)  -
 * 2) Jogaila  and Władysław (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 (????????) 01:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Jogaila (baptized Władysław) The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present
 * 2) 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)   -
 * 3) Jogaila (Jagiello) combination used at all times A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change
 * 4) Wladislaw Jagiello (30 times) Jogaila (6 times) Tannenberg 1410
 * 5) Wladislaw Jagiello and Jogaila Crusader Castles of the Teutonic Knights (1): The Red-Brick Castles of Prussia 1230-1466
 * 6) Jogaila (until 1392), then Jagiello Foreword to the Past: A Cultural History of the Baltic People'' -

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. --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 (, , of ) 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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. --Lysytalk 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 Talk 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)
 * LOL. You guys should get married ;)  // Halibutt 11:46, 28 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
 * Thank you for doing a systematic count. The numbers don't change my basic point: over 50% of people have a good reason to be unhappy, less than 50% support the current name.  This is not concensus.  Wikipedia is not based on the principle "all power to the greatest number of votes on an issue", but instead it tries to build concensus among its editors.  This move did not reflect any concensus. Balcer 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this (as someone who somehow missed the entire poll business, but would have voted for a Wladyslaw variant). 16 people voted for Jogaila. On the other hand, 10 people voted for "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" with diacritics, and 6 people voted for "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" without diacritics. There was no overlap between these 16 people - nobody who voted for it with diacritics also voted for it without. And somehow this demonstrates a consensus for "Jogaila"? This is ridiculous. john k 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put. The debates over whether to use diacritics and whether to use Polish or Lithuanian names are completely separate, and should not be mixed. Balcer 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They must be mixed; they are the issues. (That Jagiello is in some sense both a Polish and a Lithuanian form is one of its merits, but oh well...) The strength of the feeling about diacritics is demonstrated by the fact that only Elonka (or was there one other?) voted tactically for both forms, when (if securing Polish naming was your chief goal) it was the obvious thing to do. Both forms, therefore, are opposed by a majority; Jogaila has half. Septentrionalis 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there was an overlap among the W II J votes. Please make sure you check carefully. --Irpen 02:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

The four options are:


 * Leave the page here at Jogaila, and hold another approval vote
 * Move the page back to Władysław II Jagiełło, and hold another approval vote
 * Leave things alone for a month, then re-visit
 * Leave things alone, period. No further action required.

Please vote below, for as many options as you like

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


 * Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Second choice --Doc15071969 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Second choice. The page should not be here in the first place as the move was clearly a violation of wiki laws, but since it's here already...  // Halibutt 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Option: Move it back to Władysław II Jagiełło, and hold a formal RM
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.


 * Elonka 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I am officially removing my support of this option, to instead go with consensus that we should let things sit (at least a month) before taking further action on this page. --Elonka 20:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Balcer 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --SylwiaS | talk 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RM is not perfect, but it's better than in such cases where 16:16 parity is interpreted to either side.  // Halibutt 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Radomil talk 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tirid Tirid 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet of User:Space Cadet? User:Matthead filed request for checkuser, but because of a massive backlog it got never checked. Renata 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at his contributions, I'd put a pretty safe bet that he is someone's sockpuppet; perhaps we need to call in a monitor to make sure this "poll" is conducted fairly. Remember that sockpuppetry amongst the Polish users spoiled a previous poll here. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I myself am suspicious of that user, if he is indeed a sock of Space Cadet (who is not blocked IIRC), assuming SC doesn't vote here, this is a perfectly legit vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is nevertheless a suspicious user account. Hopefully one of the people with the tools will investigate of their own accord, and inform us before the "vote" ends. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As Halibutt notes above, the vote was really 16-16 if you count together Wladyslaw II Jagiello and Władysław II Jagiełło. It seems deeply procedurally problematic to then move to Jogaila. john k 12:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be standard procedure in cases like this. Gene Nygaard 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Option: Take a break for a month, then re-visit
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. Wikipedia 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)
 * Second choice. First choice bellow. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Second choice. We have a decision reasonably closed as consensus. It's not my first preference either. Septentrionalis 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First choice --Doc15071969 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First choice. I think we must not only "to test concensus", but to come to an understanding and compromise. May be the title can be "Jogaila of Lithuania, Wladislaw II of Poland", "Jogaila-Władysław II of Lithuania-Poland" or something like that. Orionus 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm joining this discussion quite late, but I think it'd be nice to see some compromise in the end. But cool down for now. SWojczyszyn 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Option: Leave it alone, no further action required
Leave the page where it is permanently -- it doesn't need any further action.
 * I guess the intended meaning of this choice is:
 * Leave the page where it is without any collateral action. `'mikka


 * 1) As per vote. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I still prefer Jagiello, but this is getting outrageous. Srnec 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) It's like the "democratic" elections being held in Iraq, when they go the way one wants them to go, they are legitimate. When the results are "unacceptable", then a new vote should be taken, right? 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)
 * 4) Saving the word permanently (but a decent interval anyway). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 06:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) "permanently" is against WP:NBD. However, I suggest leaving the page alone for at least three-six months. What's the point in having an approval voting poll if we decide not to follow it? Kusma (討論) 07:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Calgacus, Dr. Dan, Snerc, etc. Juraune 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Don't you ahve enough of those forward back polls? Don't you have anything more productive to do? Leave it.--Lokyz 09:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) It shoud stay as it now. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) First choice; read as three to six months, per Kusma. Much more below. Septentrionalis 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) For christ sake, leave it here, take a while (3-6 moths, that's about how much permanent is WP) to cool down because endless and pointless polls on polls and moves for the sake of moves will not solve a single thingie. Have your proper RM when everyone cools down. Putting more gasoline in the fire (i.e. moving back the page) certainly will not help. Renata 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) keep it at Jogaila--Jadger 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Third choice --Doc15071969 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) M.K. 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) `'mikka (t) 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Second choice,  Orionus 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Let this be, for now. Certainly I do not want it to any diacritics-version. Finlandais 06:39, 3 August 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)


 * I am not mocking Elonka. Dear SylwiaS, why do you think I am doing so? I mocking wrote this very seriously, I have voted in many polls, and there were votes discounted because an invitation was found on a user page of Wikipedia editor. Juraune 13:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not mocking Elonka either. She is doing a hell of a job mediating this mess and trying to make everyone happy. What I am mocking is what kind of mess and nonsense all these polls became... Renata 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course no one was mocking Elonka. A very typical straw argument, and cheap tactic to divide people and create a hostile atmosphere. Sylwia, I know you've been away for a little while, maybe you need to brush up on who Elonka herself, thought was giving her a rude and difficult time. Not these people, dear. Dr. Dan 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank Calgacus for informing me of this; but the page is on my watchlist and I would have commented in any case. We have a reasonable close as a consensus decision; and we should live with it, as is policy. The consensus was neither of the names I prefered, but I'm willing to tolerate it.

I see no basis for this meta-poll. The claim that the approval poll was intended to produce finalists who would have battled it out head to head is novel; I see no evidence of it before the poll. The assertion that an approval poll is "not a proper WP:RM vote" contravenes practice and policy; approval polls are preferable in complex situations. The claim that the two forms of Wladislaw II should be added together ignores the discussion (and the votes; people were perfectly free to vote for both); one of the issues here is whether diacritics are acceptable. Septentrionalis 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the relevant part of the policies that a multi-choice poll, with secondary votes and such, is a 'proper WP:RM vote'?? As several users pointed out, consensus what not reached during the discussion, and WP:RM should be used as it is the only applicable procedure for controversial votes. Further, WP:RM procedure is clearly explained at WP:RM and I don't see it allows anywhere for multi-choice RMs or secondary or such votes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Under no circumstances can this be "okay". What entitles any one or a group of you to do any of this - to institute a new, self conceived "move poll-cum-discussion" lasting less than a day, to move page back and to institute another poll - a day after previous approval poll was over and administrator had exercised his discretion to move the page to Jogaila? The guideline states one thing quite plainly: "page moves take place after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." You have violated the 5 day requirement; in setting up the one day "poll" you have disregarded the procedure for requesting move laid out on this page, and you have disregarded the decision admin made within his discretionary powers a day or so earlier. What entitles you to do any of that?

I refer you to the text above: "The result of the debate was rename to Jogaila. -- Kjkolb 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" Which part of that is too dificult to understand or to accept? --Doc15071969 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

--

Note this poll [above] is spoild by User:Balcer after his scandalous move M.K. 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC) : now article in in proper state M.K. 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uff, I dunno, I haven't got an idea how this could be settled to the liking of most, both groups have their arguments. Two conditions are important though: 1) the actual moves are initiated and carried out in accordance with policy guideline (incorporating a "stealth" move-back into this poll-cum-discussion wasn't a good proposal, I believe); 2) the voting/polling setup is agreed beforehand (I was under impression that that was the case, and that the setup now challenged had emerged after long back and forth). It seems impossible to come up with a title that incorporates preferences of most, but, if it comes to a new poll and if there are no "tech issues" with brackets, my suggestion would be to put up for vote Jogaila (Jagiello) rather than “plain” Jogaila. That has been the choice of the authors of The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition, it includes at least one less supported choice from the previous poll, and it also includes part of the name our opponents propose... --Doc15071969 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic, but maybe this will help to cheer up a bit: "It has been proposed below that Jogaila be renamed and moved to Jogaila" currently at the top is a good one :) --Doc15071969 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Counted here too?? M.K. 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Halibutt is distorting the discussion. Some of those 16 find (Francis, for example; I'm surprised Elonka went for both) find  Władysław unacceptable; some of them (like Piotrus) find Wladyslaw unacceptable; that's why neither of them have anywhere close to 16 supports. Septentrionalis 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly a surprise. It appears that any excuse to reverse the last vote will be attempted. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, a normal move vote should show Jogaila widely preferred over Władysław II Jagiełło. john k 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, John. Jogaila is the most popular name and is now the page's default name. There can be no "to Jogaila" vote. Any future vote will be a "to x" vote, where x does not equal Jogaila. You might be better reaching a consensus among yourselves about what name you'd like so you can have realistic chance of achieving a broader consensus amongst non-Poles. As it is, opposition to Jogaila almost entirely comes from Polish wikipedians. A name like Jogaila (Wladyslaw II), Wladyslaw II (Jogaila), Wladyslaw II Jagiello, Ladislaus II of Poland or Wladyslaw II of Poland, etc, is likely to gain support beyond the narrow confines of the Polish wikipedian communinity Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jogaila is neither the most popular name nor the one chosen through a proper procedure. It's simply a name chosen by some of us, while the majority voted on other options. We are all entitled to our views, but we should not try to force all people to accept them as if they were accepted by a consensus. To paraphrase your comments above, it seems any excuse to violate the proper WP:RM and keep the article under the title most people opposed would be good. Also, mentioning some alleged Polish conspiracy is absurd, dear. Out of 16 people to vote for Wladyslaw were 2 Americans, a Czech, 2 Hungarians, 1 Belgian/Dutch, 1 German, 5 Poles, 1 Polish Jew, and 3 people I could find no info on. Out of 16 people to vote for Jogaila were 4 Lithuanians, 1 German, 1 German Canadian, 3 Brits, 2 Russians, 4 people I could not identify at all and a newcommer. Does it mean anything? Nope. So please be so kind as to stick to the arguments, not the people who make them.  // Halibutt 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks SylwiaS for reminding Halibutt that he had already voted once (po Polsku), and he, oops made the necessary deletion of his second vote. God forbid he should vote three times. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your information about the nationalities of the various parties? Or are these just educated guesses? Or original research? Dr. Dan 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In such polls, voters could (or should?) openly declare their nationality/ethniticiy/allegiance/etc. by putting a to their names  - that's what flags are for. 🇩🇪 -- Matthead discuß!   O    23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that mistakes happen to everyone, but if you are free of them, I can only be in awe. You must be perfect, indeed! :)--SylwiaS | talk 06:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Buddha says: do not act and you will not commit mistakes - or act, and live with them. As to the nationalities - educated guesses, basing mostly on user pages. I might be wrong here and there, but the main point stays: Calgacus is wrong portraying the question in nationalist categories, as a conflict of Poles vs. ROTW.  // Halibutt 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and Buddha isn't voting once in this poll, or twice by accident either. And SywiaS, dear, while you were away, there was an unfortunate incident involving user:Logologist and three sockpuppets of his, that were set up to vote in Polish related matters (including this one), that may cause a little "sensitvity" to vote counting in some circles. In spite of this, I am aware that I am far from perfect. So you have no need to be in awe. Some of the things you say, do amaze me however, from time to time. Dr. Dan 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL You've posted the news about Logologist all about the Wiki. Really hard to miss! ;D But Halibutt wasn't signing as someone else, he's voice would be discarded anyway, wouldn't it?--SylwiaS | talk 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but you were away. Glad you caught it though(the sockpuppet voting)! I'm sure that some would have preferred that I swept it under the carpet rather than posted it all about the Wiki. Btw, who could ever even begin to think about discarding Halibutt's voice in any capacity? Lighten up for pete's sake (sorry Piotrus, again). Your pal, Dr. Dan 03:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit I voted twice by accident. I immediately erased my other vote. Double voting is not allowed and such votes are discounted anyway. I'm a bad, bad boy and I'm my own sockpuppet. Can we please stick to the topic now? Thank you.  // Halibutt 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets! And one bad is enough of a description, bad, bad, is over doing it. Dr. Dan 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dan, I have to disagree, I thought it was sufficient. ;) And I have to admit, the idea of Halibutt spanking himself just kind of ... "worked" ... for me, heh. --Elonka 17:50, 30 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)
 * Is there any evidence of the period usage in Lithuanian? Septentrionalis 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Lithuanian language article. I think Mikka should put the information back, esp that both Jagiełło's position as a supreme duke/prince of Lithuania since he became king of Poland and Vytuatas' as a great duke of Lithuania were confirmed by Pact of Vilnius and Radom.--SylwiaS | talk 22:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey for Requested Move to Jogaila
''This was a temporary poll while the page was at a non-consensus name. It is now closed.'' --Elonka 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please vote. After all the discussion, this should be quick and painless.

For move to Jogaila: Against, keep article under current name:
 * 1) `'mikka (t) 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Jadger 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Balcer 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I suppose. john k 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) This would set a dangerous precedent for all rulers, ranging from Stalin to James I to the Hanoverians (judging from the main objections raised). Pawel z Niepolomic 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Radomil talk 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Two notes. One, I'd support the move to Władisław II Jagiello, as I mentioned several times the current name is not my favourite-top-of-all pic, neither, and I have been convinved during our discussions that Jagiello would be better then Jagiełło. Second note: it's nice to see the RM procedure followed, but please, let's not move this article ever again without a RM consensus, ok? On that note perhaps a neutral admin should move-protect this page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Balcer has taken it on himself to move the page while cooly editing the new redirect. At the same time, he tried to call another vote. I cannot revert his move. An admin will hopefully come shortly to do this. This action is absolutely horrendous, and a perfect example of the kind of behaviour which destroys mutual trust among users. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disgusting move !!!! I hope the admins will take to consideration this “editor” moves. M.K. 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Balcer is following a proper WP:RM procedure. As for horrendous actions, I think that your attempt to portray a ~1:2 vote as a consensus and majority is a better example. If you are so sure Jogaila has a majority, you should be perfectly happy to confirm this through a proper RM vote, instead of the controversial and hard to interpret multi-poll. PS. I find it amusing how 'controversial move to Jogaila is good, controversial move from Jogaila is bad' :) Hypocrisy, anyone?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I can't believe you're supporting this. Does the name of this guy really mean that much to you? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Calgacus, I can't believe you are loosing your cool over this. Does the name of this guy really mean that much to you? Great logic, btw :) No, it does not mean that much to me. But following the right procedures does. The page should be moved via a proper WP:RM, not through some contorted multi-poll which has more holes then the Swiss cheese.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank Piotrus for defending me, and don't really have much more to say beyond what he so eloquently did. Per Piotrus, I don't have anything in particular against moving to Jogaila, if that move is carried out via a proper procedure and with clear concensus support. Following proper procedure is essential in a collaborative effort among mostly anonymous strangers that Wikipedia is.  As per redirect, I made the edit precisely to prevent silly moves back and forth while the discussion is going on.  If I broke Wikipedia policy, please point me to any relevant guidelines that I violated.  I am ready to accept the community's judgement on this.Balcer 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I require to restart Elonka's poll. There was no consensus, and the voting was too short for everybody interested to vote their oppinions. Mr. Balcer, there was no consensus for your move. Juraune 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr.Juraune, there was no consensus for the previous move. Balcer just reverted a move for which there was no consensus, now we can follow the propoer WP:RM procedure which will clearly show if there is consensus or not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After the prolonged discussions that we had, Piotrus, mon amie, I allow you to ommit Mr./Ms./Mrs./Miss. whatever, and call me simply Juraune. Juraune 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Balcer, I'm sorry, but I think you were out of line in this case. The poll was closed by an admin, who made a determination that the consensus was Jogaila.  If that admin made a bad call, then there are procedures on how to question the admin's decision (which we were in the middle of).  It was not appropriate for you, within less than 24 hours of the matter, to unilaterally decide to countermand the closing admin's decision, and move the article to a different name, especially since you are not neutral in this matter.  Further, though the newest poll hadn't been running long enough to gain a genuine determination of community opinion, it was clear even within the first 24 hours that there was not a clear consensus on what to do next. At this point, even though I am personally against the title of "Jogaila" as a final title, I still support moving the article back to Jogaila immediately, so that proper process can be followed.  An admin made a good faith effort at a decision on a complicated matter. We should respect that. --Elonka 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite of good faith, we should remember that admins are only people, and errare humanum est... that's why humanity invented procedures... to eliminate as much humans mistakes as it's possible. Radomil talk 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Move protect?
Submitted a move protect request here: Requests for page protection --Francis Schonken 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruption Aftermath
After Balcer's disgraceful subversion of a community decision he didn't like, and Piotrus' disingenuous attempt to legitimize the situation, can I invite them both to apologize for their actions in an attempt to reestablish mutual respect and harmony? Moreover, where do we go from here? Should we abandon the current poll because it is currently supporting Jogaila and start a new one? Or shall we wait for the current poll to finally end and see what the result is, and go from there? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that I am only a simple user with no admin powers, and my actions can be reversed with ease by any admin, I am not sure what I have to apologize for. An admin reversed my move after a few hours, and everything is all right with the world :).  Furthermore, no one has yet pointed out to me any Wikipedia policy that my move violated, as the admin's closing of the discussion was not an end to a formal RM process.  It is also not clear to me why starting an RM procedure, which is still necessary here, should be considered offensive.  Nevertheless, if some people are offended by my action, I do offer them my apology.  Still, I hope my action made it perfectly clear that the move of this article was a highly controversial one, and something will have to be done to reach a solution that a concensus majority of the editors involved can accept. Balcer 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Balcer, despite a whole series of spurious qualifying clauses and excuses, I didn't expect you to apologize at all, so in an act of good faith I personally will accept your apology and offer my hope that everyone will get on. I hope Piotrus will follow your example. And I hope further action like this does not occur, and that this talk page can be turned into a functioning dialogue, rather than an armed camp warring against the other, which is how it currently may look. . Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I could call "disgraceful" is that a proper WP:RM procedure which Balcer started was closed, but I would avoid such strong terms especially as I am sure Elonka acted in good faith. Nonetheless I see no good reason for the closing of this poll, and I would add that it should be an admin familiar with RM who is the only person who can close the poll without stirring controversy. I would ask Elonka to revert her edit; let's see if there is indeed a RM support for the move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed in you Piotrus. This isn't very helpful. We should be thinking about re-building mutual trust and respect, otherwise all this will go nowhere. I hope you're not going to maintain this stance Piotrus. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty words, but what is truly not helpful are your comments like The Poles are pretty tenacious, and doubtless will campaign vigorously or find some device to get it moved to a Polonocentric name, made in direct relevance to this page. Rest assured, Calgacus, that such behaviour is NOT building mutual trust and respect. So unless you have a real point to make, please stop your personal attacks and consider apologizing for your offensive remarks. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I too offer my apologies for the lack of faith my experience with this talk page and more broadly has caused. So I apologize if those comments have really offended you. But please, I ask you to apologize too in the same regard, so we can move on. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one find it striking how much reluctance there is for the article to go through a formal RM process for move to Jogaila. Surely, if there is concensus support for such a move, then such an RM would pass with flying colours!  Why do the partisans of the Jogaila option oppose such a vote so strongly, while at the same time twisting statistics to make it seem that their option enjoys overwhelming support?  If we really want to rebuild mutual trust and respect at this point, a proper RM vote seems to me the only way to go.  Let's pose a clear question and let everyone interested express themselves with a simple yes or no. If the Jogaila move is supported by a concensus majority, it will be secure and not questioned again for a long time.  Isn't this our goal here?  If the current name stands, it will be at best a pyrrhic victory for its proponents, since obviously a motion to move it back will be made at the earliest opportunity by people who are unsatisfied with the way the multi-option poll was conducted. Balcer 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If an RfM is what is wanted, then I have no objection. If this is the feeling, then I'd encourage you to make a RfM Jogaila to Władysław II Jagiełło or any alternative. But we should at least wait until the current poll is finished, or agree to close it first. Two separate polls is hardly an option, is it? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would encourage you, in the interest of rebuilding mutual trust and respect, to continue the RfM  Władysław II Jagiełło to Jogaila, since the present move was carried out without a proper RfM procedure.  Why don't we keep to a simple rule, that the only move which is legitimate is the one that goes through a proper RfM vote (if clear majority concensus for a move is absent). Balcer 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a poll was carried out and the result was move to Jogaila. My suspicion was that you want a supermajority to prevent it staying at Jogaila; after all, the first thing you did when you moved the page was try to conduct a poll whose basis you perceived to favor your position. That is not possible. Anyways, I can't be bothered responding to comments ad infinitum, so I'll be off for a wee while. I'd encourage you to focus on building mutual understanding from now on, rather than attempting to gain a favorable vote for the cause you espouse at the expense of good feeling. Best wishes, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I closed the poll because it was confusing to have multiple polls on the same page, and because the premise of the poll was no longer valid, since it was started at a different name than where the article is currently. My strong recommendation is that we try to wait at least a little while (is 72 hours too much to ask?) to let other people check in. I'm sure that there are many other people who have been involved in this discussion, who would like a chance to participate, but they only visit once every couple days.  So can we please take a step back, find other things to do on Wikipedia (if anyone's bored, I recommend helping out at Category:Category needed, like we could all go and attack the letter "M". It's currently at 79, we could see if we could whittle it down to zero?), and give this article a chance to breathe?  Can we please agree on a cease-fire?  Calgacus, the article is currently where you want it, right?  So you have a reason to be happy.  Piotrus, I promise you that we will revisit the situation later.  Just not today, not this week.  And as I'm sure you know, I can be as persistent as all get-out, so I assure you that in the longrun, this article will have a genuine consensus name, with all the I's dotted, T's crossed, and L's (if consensus agrees) slashed.  ;)  So, ceasefire?  At least temporarily?  Please?  Pretty please?  :) --Elonka 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I think it is perfectly clear now that there were serious issues with how this renaming was carried out.  Given this, when the proposal comes to move it back from Jogaila, hopefully the circumstances of this renaming will be taken into consideration when determining what the concensus support level for the move back should be. Call me crazy, but isn't this what the move proponents are doing, trying to change the name on rather insecure grounds and then digging in, claiming in the future that this name now requires a concensus supermajority to be changed back, even when it did not have such a supermajority in the first place?  Such thoughts make me feel jaded about the whole Wikipedia experience. Ok, ceasefire.  Over and out. Balcer 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are crazy, but then they could claim that the move to Władysław II Jagiełło was also done without a proper RM... in many regards this is a gordian knot and I have no idea how to cut it so everyone is happy (or equally unhappy, isn't this one of the definitions of a consensus? :D). Perhaps as some suggested earlier, we should go back to the oldest name of this article and start discussions from scratch, carefully vetting every single proposed name in a RM move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still not happy that the proper procedures were not followed, but yes, I can wait. Let's see what the lastest open multipoll will tell us to do in a few days...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just imagine what would be the reaction if it were you to count the votes that way, move the article to your liking and cry murder... I must say I'm kind of disgusted by the entire situation. First a simple poll, one of several going on, was all of a sudden declared a proper WP:RM voting, regardless of the fact that its construction is completely different (to mention only people voting on several options). Then the guys to count the votes decided that one 16 is greater than the other 16, and that 1:1 ratio is now considered a clear consensus. No doubt this was done in good faith, but still in violation of proper ways. And then people protesting that (not the outcome of the vote, as some suggest here) started to be called names and such. I would consider moving the article back to where it was before the decision to move it elsewhere against wiki consensus and in violation of proper ways the most logical, natural and fair option. However, apparently suggesting just that is a bad thing, judging from the heated comments by the proponents of the move.
 * A cease fire would not change a thing, except for the fact that we'd have to start a proper procedure to move the article on Jogaila from... Jogaila to Jogaila, as that's what people propose and that's what should we vote on. So perhaps after the cease fire we'd have to ask for this article to be moved back again - and only then start to vote on a possible move to Jahaila, Jogaila, or whatever. Alternatively, we could agree to dump the WP:RM rules altogether and allow anyone to move any article anywhere they please. Just imagine me moving the article on, say, Vilnius to Wilno and then request a voting to be held whether it should be moved from Wilno to Vilnius...  // Halibutt 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto! This article should be moved back, and a proper WP:RM started.--SylwiaS | talk 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Argument summary
Could someone seriously involved in the dispute please provide a terse summary of pro/contra (besides google and book counts). I mean logical arguments as to why would a particular name be good and why bad. I'd like to repeat: please a concise summary here, not a discussion. `'mikka (t) 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1) It was the only name he used for his entire life; the article covers his entire life. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Related to this, it is neutral. Only this name does not give favour to his Polish regnal name over his actual name. Władysław II Jagiełło by contrast, besides not even being the name he used, and besides being inaccurate (he wasn't only the second ruler of Poland to have the name Wladislaus), makes out that his rule of Poland was more important, when in reality Lithuania (of which he was overlord his entire life) was 5 times larger and probably twice as strong (Lithuanians were only every cowed when Poland had the more powerful kingdom of Hungary on its side, e.g. the false conversion of Gediminas). The very least wikipedia should do is be neutral. Jogaila, rather than Jogaila of Lithuania, pertains to only to the person, and gives no favour to either realm.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) It was his birth name. It was the name he had before he converted to Orthodox Christianity or Catholicism, and, contrary to what is made out, appears from all the evidence to have been the name he continued to use outside the realms of the Polish royal chancellery.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) It was his ethnic name. He was after all Lithuanian, and was no more Polish than Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was an Inca. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) It is the name given most favour by current non-Polish academic historians. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) For what it's worth, the name, as Jagiello or Jogaila, is widely recognizable and typable. Władysław II Jagiełło by contrast is not, unless you have a Polish keyboard, or are prepared to paste an ł four times for every time you wish to write his name. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Name Jogaila is only one which preserved the meaning of name. M.K. 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Before becoming the king of Poland he was also referred by contemporary as rex of Lithuania M.K. 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) If we believe “historian” Dlugosz, Jogaila done much more good to Lithuanian when Poland and was a patriot of Lithuania. And never learn to speak well in Polish during his all life. M.K. 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) This is often the shorthand method of referring to this monarch, even if the title of a particular article uses a different name. --Elonka 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

contra

 * 1) Jogaila seems to be used almost exclusively for the period when the guy was in power in Lithuania, while the Jagiello (and all of its versions) seem to be more universal. At least that's what the Google book search above shows.  // Halibutt 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer the point about the relative importance of Poland and Lithuania at the time, it is of course important to note that power came from the size of the population the country had, not its territory. In battle it matters how many mounted warriors you can bring to the battlefield, not how large your territory is.  Does anyone have any information about the relative size of the populations of Poland and Lithuania?  For what it's worth, in the key Battle of Grunwald most modern estimates give Polish to Lithuanian forces ratio as 2 to 1, which does give some indication of the relative power of the two states.
 * On top of that of course, the real power in Lithuania for most of his reign was in the hands of his brother Vytautas the Great, so calling Jagiełło an overlord of Lithuania for the second half of his life is a bit problematic. Balcer 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795 by Daniel Z Stone:
 * “At the end of the fourteenth century, the Kingdom of Poland’s population comprised some two million people living on about 240,000 km2. Ethnic Lithuania covered some 80,000 km2 and counted over 400,000 inhabitants. 1 million to 1,5 million Ruthenians (Belarussians, Russians, and Ukrainians) inhabited the remaining 820,000 km2 of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Kingdom of Poland enjoyed a population density of about 8 persons per km2, while ethnic Lithuania held about 4 persons per km2, and the Slavic portion of the Grand Duchy (Belarus, Ukraine, and Western Russia) less than 2 persons per km2.”
 * From The New Cambridge Medieval History edited by Christopher Allmand
 * “About 1370, the Kingdom of Poland had 2 million inhabitants with a population density of 8,6 persons per km2.
 * At the beginning of 16th century the joint population was in the range of 7,5 million. Poland had 15 inhabitants per km2, grand duchy didn’t exceed 5 persons per km2.”
 * I think it deals with the Lithuania was "probably twice as strong" argument. I'd also like to ask Calgacus how does he know that the king was addressed as Jogaila throughout all his life?--SylwiaS | talk 05:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) In most major English-language reference works, there is no index entry for "Jogaila". They instead use "Jagiello", "Ladislaus II", or "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" (with or without diacritics).  The name "Jogaila" is only used as a casual birth-name reference. --Elonka 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro
Survey of major encyclopedias, and their titles for the relevant articles: Conclusion: The omission of the Polish name Wladyslaw/Ladislaus in the current name of the article (Jogaila) is totally unreasonable, and goes against major English language encyclopedic references.Balcer 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Britannica: Wladyslaw II Jagiello
 * Columbia: Ladislaus II, king of Poland
 * Encarta: Władysław II


 * The article is about a king of Poland, while the name Jogaila is not associated with him as a king of Poland. While it’s fairly popular (although less popular than Wladyslaw/Władysław combined according to google books and main encyclopeadias) it’s hardly ever used in reference to him as a king of Poland. His being a great duke of Lithuania for 9 years before becoming a Polish king is very important of course, but his being the king of Poland for 49 years is even more so, and that’s why we strive to apply to him the WP:NC in the first place. During the first period he was known as Jogaila, during the second as Władysław, and that’s how majority of sources call him. Even the few examples brought above clearly show that the sources switch to calling him Władysław as soon as they come to his being crowned, and in their indexes list him under a name applied to a king, not duke. We can of course discuss which form of Władysław is the most popular in English, but we cannot call him a name that is associated only with his life prior to his being chosen a king. Otherwise we’d have to make two articles: Jogaila for his being a great duke of Lithuania, and Władysław for his being a king of Poland. As to the most popular English name vs. “real” name, I’d like only to point out that as much as we don’t know how his name would be spelled in Polish in his times, we don’t know how Jogaila would be spelled in Lithuanian either. All we know is that as a great duke he was called in Latin Jagalo, and later as a king of Poland Wladislaus, none of them being the most popular English usage. So I propose to stop the discussion on what he might have been called then, as according to WP:NC it’s fruitless, and focus on choosing the most popular English name for the king (not great duke) as the Wiki conventions suggest.--SylwiaS | talk 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) This is the most common form of the name used to refer to this monarch in major English-language encyclopedias. --Elonka 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This monarch had many titles, and in those cases, the guideline on Wikipedia is to use the highest-ranking one, which in his case, was as King Wladyslaw II. As Jogaila, he was only a Duke. --Elonka 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) On Wikipedia, most other monarchs of this type use a variation of the name "Wladislaw".  See: Ladislaus I (disambiguation), Ladislaus II (disambiguation), Ladislaus III (disambiguation), and especially Ladislaus Jagiello, which is a disambiguation page for monarchs of the dynasty which this monarch founded.  It seems inconsistent to have all of his descendants named a variation of Wladyslaw after him, whereas his own article title does not include his Wladyslaw name. --Elonka 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) This is also a name used in the majority of English language works (or, to paraphrase Calgacus' statement above, this is the name given the most favour by most non-Lithuanian scholars). Many of them also mention Jogaila, Yaguelo, Jagailo or Jagiello, but with few exceptions all use this name in all cases except for the ones clearly related to his Lithuanian period.  // Halibutt 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) As noted by Sylwia, he was one of two rulers of Lithuania for 9 years, while he ruled Poland for 49.  // Halibutt 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Monarchs, popes, saints and other people to fall in that category are commonly referred to by their adopted name rather than the name they were born with, both in Wikipedia and off-wiki.  // Halibutt 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) On becoming a Christian and a king, he adopted a new name for a reason. Why not follow his own choices?  // Halibutt 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1) The name is untypable for most English-speaking users. Fine on Polish wiki, not here. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This name is not authentic, although it may appear to many to be so. It is a modern Polonization (remember, this is English wiki!) of a medieval Polono-Latin regnal name he probably never used as a personal name with, along side it, a modern Polonization of a Lithuanian name which today has a standard form. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) The 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. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Name probably not even used by the ruler in non-formal context. It is favoured by the contemporary Polish chancellery, but many Polish sources, along with Russian, Byzantine and other sources continue calling him by his real name, as he himself probably did. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Many people will believe Jagiello to be a surname, when it was no such thing. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Name Władysław is just one version of a pan-Western Slavic name which, in the contemporary context, was not perceived as being any different from the same Bohemian and Germanized name, Ladislaus, Vladislaus, Wladislaus, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) There are multiple names for this monarch in various reference works. Wladyslaw, Jogaila, Jagiello, Ladislaus, Ladislas. --Elonka 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) The name is difficult to spell for many English-speakers. --Elonka 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) The diacritic version of this name is difficult to link to, and makes a real mess out of the URL. --Elonka 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) The biographical article should reflect the whole life of the man, not only the period of his most significance, so the years of ruling Lithuania and Poland are just numbers.
 * 11) He is important not to Poland alone, but even more to Lithuania. With him Lithuania changed course to Western Christian culture.
 * 12) He was a Gediminid. His descendants were chosen as Rulers of Lithuania by Lithuanian Lords not automatically, as Poland-centered history writings tend to portray, but deliberately, since they were from the Lithuanian Ruling family.

Comments
(Please put here all comments and disputes of the validity of all pro/contra)

Ugh, here it comes again. If someone would consider reading previuos discussion pages - there it is all. I wonder is it hot summer of hot topic ...--Lokyz 23:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I specifically asked to write terse pro/contra, to have a brief summary in one place, for easy reference, rather than in a dozen of archives. Welll, if someone wants to disregard my suggestion, they are welcome to screw it up. Unfortunately we don't have user:Pilsudski here to clamp on a talkative sejm :-) (Although I do see that Silvia is convincing.) (But it may well be that the opposite side will be just as convincing.) `'mikka (t) 01:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, it's very hard to be terse or concise after everything that's been said and done in the last 48 hours or so. How's this: I wanted to add Elzbieta Rakuszanka, good! (but that's been changed already). Cracow anyone? Dr. Dan 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Laurynas Gucevicius, bad!
 * Veit Stoss, bad!
 * Apskritys, bad!
 * Oltarz Wita Stwosza, good!

And again I'm stuck trying to understand what does Dan mean... But what the heck, let's stick to the topic and revise Calgacus' points one by one. First go the pros for Jogaila:
 * 1) Valid one. With the exception that he did change his name upon adoption of Christianity. We call popes, saints and monarchs by their official, adopted names rather than the names they were born with.
 * 2) The relative importance case is covered separately below, so I'll focus on the rest of that point: calling him Jogaila is not more or less neutral than calling John Paul II with his original name of Karol Wojtyła or calling Saint Peter with the name Simon son of Jonah.
 * 3) This was also covered by someone else below, so I'll only repeat that there is no evidence for that.
 * 4) Sure, it was his ethnic name - so what? See point number 1 above.
 * 5) An obvious lie, as evidenced by our small list of publications above. In most cases Jogaila is either used exclusively for the Lithuanian period of his life - or not even mentioned at all.
 * 6) People do not have ç sign on their keyboards, yet it does not make the word façade any more or any less accurate and proper. Besides, that's what redirects are for.
 * 7) I'm afraid I don't understand this one. Does Calgacus mean that Władysław is meaningless, or what?
 * 8) Rex Lithuaniae? I thought it was Magnus Dux or something similar... Anyway, Grand Dukes were not kings.
 * 9) Well, that is of course relative, but if we believe Długosz, he has done much more good for Lithuania specifically because he attached it to Poland - and ceded much of Lithuanian lands to that state. Which does not prove anything when it comes to his name, but still.

And now the time for Calgacus' contras for Władysław II.
 * 1) See point number 6 above. Also, take note that a large part of English authors mentioned on our list did not have a problem with that.
 * 2) Perhaps you're right, though it is a mere speculation. Judging by other monarchs, his contemporaries simply called him king Władysław, without numerals or any other part. But this is but my assumption.
 * 3) The numeral is accurate as Władysław was the second king of that name. There were more Dukes to bear it before, but the numbers go for kings only. Also, the religion, population or size of those states has little to do here. A fact remains, that Grand Duke was a lower title than that of a King, just like a king was something less than an Emperor.
 * 4) A citation for that being...? If Calgacus has obtained a copy of his memoirs, I believe it is a miracle! Especially that it is often said that he never learnt to write...
 * 5) Just like many people would believe that Paul is the surname of Pope John Paul I, that moon is made of cheese and that the earth is flat. However, we're here to write encyclopaedia, not to make people with such problems happy.
 * 6) I'd personally prefer to use Latinized forms everywhere, but since there is a consensus to use original Polish names rather than their modifications - it's fine with me. As to the languages - contemporary Czech and Polish were mutually intelligible back then and the Slavic names (this particular name meaning one who praises the power) were used on both sides of the border. I don't know if German rulers used it as well, I doubt it though. Anyway, I don't see how is that related here. The matter was already solved by a voting...  // Halibutt 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer me to the place where this consensus was reached. Juraune 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus to use original Polish names? Decided by a voting? I agree with Juraune, could you please point to what you're talking about? --Elonka 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right above. The poll, which people defend so fiercefully as a proper RM procedure (I guess I know why as I have a reason to believe this page would never be moved without sneaky actions, pardon my French), chose the most popular versions to chose from. Ladislaus got virtually no votes, while Wladyslaw/Władysław got lots of. I'd consider that a consensus not to use Ladislaus.  // Halibutt 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to cite Halibutt's address to the editors, and put my comments under the corresponding points: Halibutt's revision of Calgacus' points:

1. Valid one. With the exception that he did change his name upon adoption of Christianity. We call popes, saints and monarchs by their official, adopted names rather than the names they were born with.
 * He was a monarch of Lithuania and Ruthenia before accepting Polish Crown. Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2. The relative importance case is covered separately below, so I'll focus on the rest of that point: calling him Jogaila is not more or less neutral than calling John Paul II with his original name of Karol Wojtyła or calling Saint Peter with the name Simon son of Jonah.
 * lets stick with monarchs. Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Sure, it was his ethnic name - so what? See point number 1 above.
 * Halibutt, you were determining Laurynas Gucevicius ethnicity by usning methods unknown to scholarly research. Everybody should also note, that Halibutt contributed a lot to Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, with the list of censuses including one performed in 2000, while Central Lithuania was a pseudostate actually, spreading over the territory of sovereign states of Republic of Lithuania and Belarus and it ceased to exist since 1922. Why are you so obsessed with ethnicity? Why are you so busy fighting any mention of Baltic/Lithuanian origin? Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

4. An obvious lie, as evidenced by our small list of publications above. In most cases Jogaila is either used exclusively for the Lithuanian period of his life - or not even mentioned at all.
 * I can tell that this is not a lie. You are getting very boring by stating other people arguments as 'obvious lies' based just on your own assumptions. Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

5. People do not have ç sign on their keyboards, yet it does not make the word façade any more or any less accurate and proper. Besides, that's what redirects are for.
 * Should people start typing all Unicode characters with the keybords that have about 100 keys. Shoud we start mutating to octopuses :D Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Rex Lithuaniae? I thought it was Magnus Dux or something similar... Anyway, Grand Dukes were not kings.
 * 'you thought' is not an argument, and your conclusion is based on what you thought. Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I call it gaps of education M.K. 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Well, that is of course relative, but if we believe Długosz, he has done much more good for Lithuania specifically because he attached it to Poland - and ceded much of Lithuanian lands to that state. Which does not prove anything when it comes to his name, but still.
 * Which lands you have in mind? Are you talking about "applicare" of Jogaila's Lithuanian lands to Polish Crown in Krewo Union act, which is considered controversial by modern scholars, or the lands, that Lithuania had conquerred from Poland and Jogaila promised to returned them back if he gets Jadwiga's hand? Juraune 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt's revisions of Calgacus' contras for Władysław II:

2. Perhaps you're right, though it is a mere speculation. Judging by other monarchs, his contemporaries simply called him king Władysław, without numerals or any other part. But this is but my assumption.
 * It is not a speculation. It is a linguistic reconstruction, based on versions of the name mentioned in historical sourses. Perhaps you're right, though it is a mere speculation is an example of nonsensical statement. Juraune 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Juraune 07:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's get to Juraune's comments I took the liberty to move out of my own comment.
 * Just like popes are private people before they accept the papal tiara. So..?
 * Pope is a monarch. Also, we're talking about specific naming convention here.
 * And your point here is...? Perhaps you'd be happier if I admitted I'm a moron, ultra-Nazi vandal and I eat Lithuanian children for breakfast. So I admit that. Happy now? Fine, so let's stick to the topic, shall we?
 * Alright, perhaps the wording was too strong, I apologize. I should've said something like he couldn't be further from the truth, or Calgacus has got it all wrong. Which does not change the fact that the list of publications is there for all to see. Feel free to add more, I'm sure the ratio would still be similar.
 * Akhem... I beg your pardon? What's with that octopus here? My argument was precisely that there are English words to contain diacrites, even though an average Brit does not have them on his keyboard.
 * It was not me to state we should believe what Długosz says :)
 * oh, and a hint: edit summaries are not the best place to ask for specific translations. Fortunately I noticed your question, but next time you might want to check some dictionary for yourself: wiktionary:alien or this link might help you. In case they don't, here's a hint: I meant that these comments were not mine. Alien.  // Halibutt 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, you started out with the courteous...And again I'm stuck trying to understand what does Dan mean...but what the heck, let's stick to (the) topic and revise (sic) (revisit), Calgacus' points one by one. I read your revision (sic) and have become stuck trying to understand what does Halibutt mean (sic). Are you saying (in point three of your rebuttal to Juraune's comments that you are a moron, an ultra-Nazi vandal, and you eat Lithuanian children for breakfast? And then you added, "So I admit it". I'm confused and "stuck trying to understand all of this". If you were joking or being sarcastic (hope so), was that an example of "sticking to the topic"?
 * This is becoming way too surrealistic, I think I need a Wikibreak! Dr. Dan 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is becoming way too surrealistic, I think I need a Wikibreak! Dr. Dan 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I stated a simple fact that there is no evidence for one of Calgacus' assumptions, Juraune responded (?) with a mixture of links, unrelated to the topic, yet related to me personally. Judging from that post, as well as from numerous others made in a plethora of places, I assumed that Juraune did not want to refer to my comment (which he in fact ignored) but rather wanted to present the wider audience with some insight into what he presented as some sort of a conspiracy and presenting me as a moron who allegedly uses methods unknown to modern science (I guess he meant my knowledge of Latin, which is apparently unknown to modern science). He also mentioned the article on Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, which is simply a collection of various censuses held in and around the city of Vilna, accused me of being obsessed with ethnicity, and busy fighting any mention of Baltic/Lithuanian origin. So I decided that, instead of trying for the umpteenth time to explain that I'm not a camel, as we say here in Poland, I will simply agree and admit I'm exactly the monster he takes me for. If that will make him happier and allow other Wikipedians to stick to the topic (which, let me remind everyone, is a King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania) - that's great.
 * Alternatively, I could yet again start to explain that those articles are unrelated, I'm not obsessed with ethnicities and that I don't fight people of Baltic or Lithuanian origin. But that doesn't work, as I hear the same slander every other day.  // Halibutt 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well after you did WP:NOR after you have doubted there did ever exist ethnical Lithuania, after you told towns in Lithuania untill 1918 were called by ALL inhabitants Polish names, and after your (I have to admitt) never told assumption, that Lithuanians landed in Lithuania from Mars ONLY in 1918 year - it's no wonder, that some people suspect you being ignorant on some topics and contemporary situation on object of discussions, and having a little bias on national bottom. And your continuig reverts are distracting and and creating an unessesary tension on national POV's. You're not discussing, you're bashing your POV. Now you can rpeort me for my (uncvic action) explanation, of my POV. And please note - I do not go in any edit-revert wars, as you do.
 * An please, remember - this is discssion, not an act of agression on your beliefs.--Lokyz 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not introduce any original research into any article, I did not doubt in existence of ethnic Lithuania (though I did doubt in its clearly-defined borders in historical context), I never said that all Lithuanians spoke Polish prior to 1918 and I never stated that there were no Lithuanians in Lithuania prior to 1918. Not to mention revert wars. Those are your own inventions, no idea where did you get such rubbish from. Yet you spread it here and there, harassing my good name. Don't. And stick to the topic. Please.
 * Alternatively I could state that: after you tried to convince me the Earth is flat, after you stated that water is dry and after you suggested my mother was a hamster I have a reason to believe you don't feel well. Of course you never said anything like this, but I could post such slander on a dozen or so pages. No matter whether right or wrong, some of such filth would stick... Can we please get back to the topic now?  // Halibutt 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should now proove my uncivic behavior by putting links to my statements? I'll do that. If you'll still think that it is  "rubbish there and here" I do expect your comments.
 * of course this will be done not on this page, becaus, it's offtopic. I'll notify you personaly, when I'll be done thinking over and collecting evidence.--Lokyz 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also remember that JOgaila is modern approximation of his Lithuanian name. Let me quote the article itself: * Lithuanian title in Latin: Jagailo, magnus Rex vel dux Lithuanorum, Russieque dominus et heres * Title in German: oberster/ grosser König der/zu Litauen

(breviary excerpts: from a Latin document in 1383: Nos Jagalo divina deliberacione magnus Rex vel dux litwanorum, Russieque dominus et here; from a German document in 1380: Wir Jagel obirster kung der Littouwen, from a German document in 1382 where together with his brother Skirgailo: Wir Jagal von gotis gnaden grosir konig czu lyttauwen und wir Skirgal Hertzog zcu Tracken, gebrudere - So we have Jagailo, Jagalo, Jagal, Jagel. Methinks Polish approximation Jagiello is as good as modern Lithuanian one of his original native name. Arguments that we should call him Jogaila because that's was his name are therefore obsolete, unless someone will prove me wrong. Szopen 09:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is here common with Jagiello and Jagailo, Jagalo, Jagal, Jagel? M.K. 09:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Jagiello is _better_ than Jogaila. I said it is _as good_ as Jogaila. So the argument "Jagiello" is bad, and "Jogaila" is good, since Jogaila is how he called himself is wrong, since as we see in the sentences quoted in article itself, he never used neither Jogaila no Jagiello. While Jogaila is closer to Jagaila, Jagiello is close to Jagel or Jagalo Szopen 10:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Szopen, your points are well taken, and make sense on the surface. One thing that you neglect to consider is the concept of phonetic spelling, and unified spelling (even in the same language), which until somewhat recently was all over the place. I'm sure you've heard of Ellis Island. This place was notorious for "mudering" the names of immigrants to the United States, especially of Eastern European immigrants who were illiterate. People would state their name and the clerks (some who were probably semi-illiterate themselves) would write down their names. This led to some very bizarre spellings of the last names of many people over here in the U.S. This phenomenon of un-unified spelling can be seen can be seen even among very literate and great writers of works in the English (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind) language.
 * The name of our hero was first spoken, and then spelled differently by many different sources. Simple enough? What I find amusing is the argument that the man did not spell his name Jogaila argued by the same people who want to spell it Władysław Jagiełło. Btw, is Szopen a Polish phonetic spelling of Chopin? Dr. Dan 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Our own Wikipedia article about Ellis Island states: Ellis Island is also known as a place where people changed their names; however, this is largely legend. Please, Dr. Dan, put some effort into using correct analogies! Balcer 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My dear Balcer, I stand by my analogy in spite of the supposed sanctity of our own Wikipedia article's belief that this is largely legend (a little bit weasely, but not denying it either}. My own personal original research has shown this to be true. Horrors, original research! If the fact can be demonstated one time, the analogy would still have validity. Any other thoughts on the idea of un-unified phonetical spelling. Any thoughts on the Thomas Jefferson analogy? Any thoughts if you think Szopen is a Polish phonetical spelling of Chopin? Dr. Dan 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am of course not denying that some instances of name changes by immigration officials must have occured, but you made a much stronger statement that the island was notorious for this, which implied that this name twisting happened in a great number of instances and was routine. I simply wanted to dispute that statement.  Urban legends happen to be my pet peeve, and Wikipedia is very good in debunking them (see Ich bin ein Berliner for my favourite example).  I leave the discussion of how to spell a Lithuanian name from 600 years ago to you and Szopen, as that issue is way outside my expertise. Balcer 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr.Dan, yes Szopen is Polish spelling of the Chopin. Notice however i am not in favour of any solution in particular. I would prefer Wladislaw II of Poland as most conforming to wiki rules, but I am perfectly ok to accept Jogaila, Jagiello or whatever. I am attacking the arguments, that some names "are better" and some are not only worse, but also results of inherent Polish anti-Baltic traits. Szopen 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think if the the vote was for a more Polish acceptable spelling, there would have been an outcry from those wanting to conform to wiki rules? Maybe, but I'm not so sure. In any case you, and Balcer tend to view these matters in a much more rational and introspective manner, and I'm always glad to discuss various things with you. Balcer, go to wwww.ellisisland.org, and have some fun putting in some Eastern European names. It's an interesting site. Szopen, it's not about better vs worse, but the belief that Jagiełło is a Polish phonetic interpretation of Jogaila. Both are modern spellings, no doubt about that. That part is very simple. I prefer Jogaila to Jagiello, mainly as a result of Calgacus' research (my opinion was changed by his valid and scholarly research), I prefer Chopin to Szopen (can play many of his works rather well), but that phonetic spelling change of yours is rather interesting, in the context of our debate. Dr. Dan 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there would, Dan. Yes there would.  // Halibutt 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Halibutt. If you were a girl, I'd tell you I love you too! Dr. Dan 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why I say Jagiello is preferable to Jagiełło. But Jogaila, as was shown by Elonka and others, is much less popular then W2J variant(s), and as others noted, while reasonable to use for period before his ascention to the Polish trone, is not that reasonable afterwards. Thus the logical solution, which I wrote about some time ago, is to have the article under W2J name, and to use Jogaila in all contexts dealing with Lithuanian-only period, and W2J afterwards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Relative importance of medieval Poland and Lithuania
I have a feeling that much of the acrimony comes from the perception held pro Jogaila editors, that the importance of medieval Lithuania has been downplayed by historians relative to that of Poland, and now it is necessary to correct that error. Very well, let's settle this.

No one is disputing that Lithuania had a much larger territory than Poland, but obviously in the Middle Ages power did not come from territory, but from the size of the population. Having extensive but sparsely populated provinces was more of a problem than an advantage, since it was difficult to find forces to defend them adequately. Now it is perfectly clear from looking at the map that Lithuania must have contained large areas which were very sparsely populated (due to Mongol raids, difficulty of farming the steppe etc). Poland, on the other hand, was a fairly compact kingdom, in which most of the land was at similar, high level of population density.

So, the real indicator is the relative size of the two populations. Does anyone have any information on how the population size of Poland and Lithuania compared around 1400? This information would be very useful. Balcer 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When I once wrote the TL I dig the following data in about beginning of XV century: Poland: 1.5 million of inhabitants, density: 6 person per square km, max density in regions of Krakow, Wislica and Bochnia: 50 person per sq.km. In comparison France had about 28 persons per sq km, with above 15 millions of inhabitants in half of XIV century, Spain had around 8 person per square km with 5 millions of inhabitants, Scandinavia: 1-2 per sq km, Muscovy: 2-3 person per sq km. 15% of Polish population lived in cities. 8 -10 % was gentry. Lithuania: About two millions of people, 300.000 from them in Lithuania proper with Zhmudz.

Id Calgalacus would keep saying things like "Lithuania more powerful than Poland" despite lesse population density and comparable population, then I will have to ask him for his definition of "powerful". Poland was much more centralised than Lithuania (before Witold) and I think it was more powerful kingdom (despite smaller size) than Lithuania. Less reliable data since I can't remember where I found it taht tieme: Poland could acc. to my sources moblise easily 30 thousands of knights, to which one may add their retinues and mercenaries resulting in total mobilisation potential of something like 80.000 soldiers. Polish economy was MUCH stronger in comparison to Lithuania. As for importance of king vs grand duke one must note that at least Vytautas seem to think that title of king is better than grand duke (otherwise, why trying to get it so hard?) Szopen 09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. And the Poland's "strenght" is clearly seen in marriage contract, in which Jogaila promissed to return Polish lands and release Polish prisoners. State that is loosing it's lands does not seem very strong. Don't forget, that at the time Masovia simply separated from Kingdom of Poland. Is it a proof of strenght? As for potential - yup, Poland really had (much) greater potential, altough at the time it was struggling and could not afford a two way war against GDL and Order. And GDL were attacking Polish lands (but not Masovia!). That's why they choose to became allies and dropped another William of Austria.--Lokyz 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really. Lost lands were those which were simply occupied (without war) by Hungarians as the effect of post-Louis death. Prisoners were effects of raids (were Tatars more Powerful than Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth because they were raiding PLC?) Masovia didn't simply "separated" from Poland, it was duchy under POlish overlordship. Szopen 10:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the number of forces fielded for the battle of Grunwald should tell you enough. Besides, the case of Masovia must be a joke (at least it sounds so in Lokyz's interpretation). Apart from what Szopen wrote, the "separation" took place in... 1113, that is roughly 300 years before Jagiello. Let's then compare modern strength of Poland with that of France 300 years ago... :)  // Halibutt 10:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do admit my mistake, just somhewat it wasn't reconnected at the time (and Duke pof Masovia was in family relations with grand duchy). And how Jogaila could return lands losty to Hungary? I didn't get it. AFAIK Act of Kreva nmentions lands lost to GDL.
 * Aren't raids act of war? --Lokyz 11:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "lands lost" argument is a bit weak. Most books mentioning Krewo that Google Print spits out do not say a word about them, so they could not have been that significant.  Does anyone have any idea what their area was?  At any rate, the Union of Krewo was after all an alliance, and a small land and prisoner swap between two alllies seems to me a sign of good will, not evidence for the strength of one or the other side.


 * This facrt only says one thing Google books is not library and not a serious tool for education and research, it can be used only as supplemental tool.--Lokyz 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At any rate, the population density figures, and the level of economic development that is in direct correlation with them, speak for themselves. According to what constituted the basis of power in the Middle Ages, the compact, densely populated, homogenous Poland was a more powerful unit than the much less densely and unevenly populated Lithuania (which was not homogenous and in which Lithuanians were a minority).  Thus the argument "we must use Jogaila because Lithuania was stronger than Poland" does not have a leg to stand on. Balcer 11:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, when it comes to contemporary dukes of Mazovia, there were at least two of them. Janusz I the Elder was indeed involved in Lithuanian matters: in 1382 he took advantage of the struggle between Jagiello and Kiejstut, and seized Podlachia, until then part of the GDL. Then, in 1389 he supported Jagiello and handed over Vytautas to the Teutons, for which Jagiello permanently granted Podlachia to Masovia. The other guy, Siemowit IV was also involved in Lithuanian matters, as he was trying to seize the Polish throne for himself and engaged in a civil war he more or less lost. However, in the peace treaty he returned all Polish lands to Jadwiga and accepted her claims to the throne in exchange for parts of - again formerly Lithuanian - Halicz Ruthenia, or rather the land of Bełz. That's when he married Jagiełło's sister, Aleksandra.
 * As to raids - remember we're dealing with mediaeval tribes rather than modern states. The Lithuanian raids were no more an act of war than Teutonic raids on Lithuania, also held almost every year. It all depended whose family raided whom - yet the overlord very seldom was involved.  // Halibutt 11:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And the Teutonic raids and GDL counterraids are called a war in Lithuanian historiography.--Lokyz 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * or parts of it Lithuanian Crusade by contemporary and now M.K. 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ekhm, this is an amusing but ultimatly OR discussion. I have yet to see any naming convention that would weight the relative importance of two concepts, like countries. You can make good arguments about numbrers. But importance?? Both were equally as important, that's my view, and let's stop it here before somebody starts saying which was less important and offends half of the interested party :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

well said Piotrus, "importance" is not the rite word, power would be more appropriate. So he ruled over Poland -- so what? he was Lithuanian. When Hitler conquered Poland, we did not make up a Polish name to call him by. Frederick the Great took parts of Poland in the Partitions, he is called Freidrich der Grosse or Frederick the Great, we dont make up a Polish equivalent to that name.

--Jadger 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not serious, are you?--SylwiaS | talk 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether he's serious or not, is his business. But what I'd really like to know is why some idiot, included Hans Frank, as a leader of Poland in the that category (Polish Heads of State), and no administrator or editor has removed it. Dr. Dan 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting it. I removed it. We'll see how long it survives though. --SylwiaS | talk 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was only showing the ludicrousy of the stance people have taken that is for giving him a Polish name, when he was not polish. it is also equal to naming the king of england a German name becuase he was also ruler of Hannover.

--Jadger 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Acrimony
No Balcer, the acrimony does not come from the populations and territorial size of these nations and their bordering neighbors over five hundred years ago. If you go to user talk: Lokyz and read the section called talk: Laurynas Gucevicius, you might get a better idea where the acrimony comes from. Dr. Dan 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)