Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Unfortunate (IMO) choice

I see we've gone from one not the best choice title to another. MOS is not a dictate to trump nomenclature as used in seminal works of scholarship on Poland-Lithuania. Registering my disappointment that at the face of it it looks like another Lithuanian "he's ours" versus Polish "no, he's ours". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd support Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila). Nobody else ever was on board with that, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with that too. This is a special case and strict application of MOS is completely inappropriate based on the best scholarship on the subject, including how his information is indexed. We probably know this topic better than most editors and arguably represent both sides "claiming ownership," Polish versus Lithuanian kin to Latvian. I'm willing to open the can of worms one more time. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Jogaila is a special case and Piotr's suggestion for the title seems like a good compromise. Either that or Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello). Having read lengthy discussions about the title change in the current and archived Talk sections, it seems many contributors are missing the point that English being an international language, people from numerous countries prefer history in English as it often provides more information and/or tends to be more objective/reliable. Native Lithuanians, Latvians, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians know Jogaila by his birth name alone, and are oblivious of baptismal name. This is probably true for many other nations that utilise English as number one foreign language. Hence current title causes confusion for a big chunk of readers. Danieliuslt (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Year of birth

His year of birth has been depicted as 1352/1362.... His exact year of birth seems to be unknown. However several users have changed it recently in 1352, also changing other text in related articles without any explanation or source. I will revert again. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

According to Commons, for File:Polska 1386 - 1434.png: "The factual accuracy of this map or the file name is disputed." It is sourced with "Ilustrowany atlas historii Polski, wyd. Demart, Warszawa 2006" though. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Lituanos ab Italis originos

That Statut say:Ia gello translated in Latin: I will 207.107.113.94 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking

Per MOS:GEOLINK, "If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is not, it is preferable to space the links out when feasible, e.g. Kumrovec, then part of Austria-Hungary". This edit should be restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your proposed change should not be restored, because the cited part from MOS:GEOLINK (added on 3 January 2025 and then altered the same day) is a about a prose matter (link to that discussion). The page that caused that discussion shows that it was about prose. In addition, subsequent MOS discussions reiterate that infobox question about these things was not resolved in that discussion (or newer for that matter). – sbaio 05:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This limitation does not exist in GEOLINK, nor in practice - see for example this recent RfC, which closed in favour of that change, citing GEOLINK. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It does exist in practice. Your refusal to acknowledge that is leading to nowhere. In addition, "that change" in discussion above is regarding Baltic states and USSR. Do you even know anything about Baltic states vs. USSR problem? Clearly not. – sbaio 03:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no substantive difference in linking practice between "Panevėžys, then part of Lithuanian SSR" and "Vilnius, then part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania". So evidence from a sitewide RfC supports applying GEOLINK in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with Nikkimaria that GEOLINK is relevant here. The wording of the actual part of the MOS does not distinguish between infoboxes and prose. Katzrockso (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)