This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 02:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Alexander Jagiellon → Alexander of Poland — The naming of the monarchs of Poland has become a mess, and should be brought into line with WP:NCROY. I have made a start, at this stage confining myself at this stage to the period after the rulers of Poland undoubtedly became kings and not high dukes, and excluding those where there could be problems e.g. dispute over the numbering, or (arguably) they were not primarily monarch of Poland. The proposed new names are all at present redirects to the current names. PatGallacher (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose as we speak not only about rulers of Poland, like Sigismund I he was a ruler of Lithuania. I see no sense why "of Poland" should be put forward in the name. Similar proposals were put in front few years ago I think, and feeling was that putting just "Poland" is not desirable. Nothing changed I think, M.K. (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I quote WP:NCROY: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal, although there should be redirects from these locations." It is clear that Poland was the dominant partner in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Consensus can change, where is this discussion from a few years ago? Anna Jagiellon is particularly problematic as it appears to be ambiguous. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, what about Polish monarchs from before the union of the Polish and Lithuanian crowns in the late 14th century? (Although I feel cautious about changing names like "Wladyslaw the Elbow-high"?) PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Names like "Augustus", "Bathory" or "Wiśniowiecki" are essential. "Stephen of Poland" -> I would not have a clue who's that, though I instantly recognize "Stephen Bathory". I generally agree with efforts to standardize the names (and I was actually thinking the other day that the rulers are a total mess), but a more thought-out proposal is needed. Renata (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The neutrality policy recommends avoiding nationalist bias where possible. There is no need or justification to favor one country over another in the title when a neutral alternative used in reliable sources is available. DrKiernan (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
'Oppose this particular suggestion, unless it can be shown that these monarchs actually are widely known by those names. But the titling of these articles certainly does need tidying up (but in line with actual usage, not with this ridiculous naming convention).--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This would be the short end of the wedge like Renata says, so let's stop it here. The nominator mentions Anna Jagiellonka in justification, but the badly written and unloved guideline referred to produces similar problems (see Anna of Austria and dozens more). Angus McLellan(Talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Support per WP:NCROY. I know the guideline itself is being debated, but it's unlikely that the debate will be over any time soon. At the moment, we should stick with the guideline as it is. — Kpalion(talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
Old engraved portrait versus 18th century portrait painting
While the 18th century painting of Alexander no doubt looks pretty nice, how nice a picture looks should always be secondary to the authenticity and accuracy of a picture. As such, when choosing what picture to use as a portrait in a biographical article on Wikipedia, is it generally best to chose a picture that is dated as close as possible to the time the person lived. The 18th century painting cannot be accurate because it was painted over 200 years after the person in question died. If the painter used a good source for his portrait, then simply use that source as picture for this article. If the painter did not use a source, then the portrait is pure fiction. Omegastar (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)