Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:00, 13 June 2006

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Move request

The first name should be in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Wladyslaw Spindleshanks is precisely his original name, spelling was not so established at that time. I chose Vladislaus instead of Ladislaus because it is more loyal to the Polish pronunciation. He was the high ksiaze, which could be expressed by "Grand Prince" - alternative would be for example "Duke of Cracow". Marrtel 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Write Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.

Support. As nominator. Marrtel 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So far I have seen the user opposes names based on opinion that they were made by "Polish nationalist minority"[1]. Such rude comments should be outside of wiki and certainly not a basis for changes.--Molobo 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think. Ksiaze is generally, as I understand it, translated as "Duke" for Polish rulers. (And I thought "Great Prince" was something along the lines of veliki ksiaze, rather than just ksiaze. I also don't like the latinization/pseudo-anglicization "Vladislaus". I'd prefer to use "Wladyslaw". john k 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prefer Wladyslaw and not a king, per John K; what do the experts call him (Wladyslaw Laskonogi ?). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to move; however, I'd prefer "Wladyslaw" if the name is changed. Dpv 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Who knows how to pronounce Władysław or Wladyslaw? I prefer the Latinisations and Anglicisations. No style need be included in the title: a fuller discussion must be had on the proper naming of the Polish overlords of the period of the Seniorate. Also, as to Molobo's comment above, while the notion of a "Polish cabal" and the accusations of "Polish nationalism" are less than good faith, I would say, it is not a good reason for voting against a proposal that the proponent has expressed such views. Srnec 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly weak support/Comment I support a move to the appropiate anglicization of the first name, i.e. Wladyslaw III, including whatever the appropriate title or designation is. Charles 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for above reasons, and this makes my list of 'really bad names' just below Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania. Especially if we were to discuss his title (king? great prince? duke?) we should start this at talk and consider all possible variants, and not launch into a major renaming. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The issue what was this monarchs title, and how to refer to the various contenders to the throne of Poland during the time of fragmentation of Poland is certainly worth discussing, although I'd recommend Talk:List of Polish monarchs for such a discussion instead of this page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a thread I have recently begun at the said discussion page. Srnec 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ===Discussion===
 The issue what was this monarchs title, and how to refer to the various contenders to the throne of Poland during the time of [[fragmentation of Poland]] is certainly worth discussing, although I'd recommend [[Talk:List of Polish monarchs]] for such a discussion instead of this page.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
+:Such a thread I have recently begun at the said discussion page. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)