Jump to content

Talk:Sigismund III Vasa: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Approvals.
Line 186: Line 186:
**<s>'''oppose''' (please discount if disaproval votes aren't allowed). -[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**<s>'''oppose''' (please discount if disaproval votes aren't allowed). -[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''First choice'''.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''First choice'''.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''First choice.''' [[User:KonradWallenrod|KonradWallenrod]] 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


*'''Zygmunt III Waza'''
*'''Zygmunt III Waza'''
** My second option. If we don't use English names defined by the convention (Sigismund/Zygmunt III of Poland), then why not use the local name? ''<font color="#990011">//</font>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
** My second option. If we don't use English names defined by the convention (Sigismund/Zygmunt III of Poland), then why not use the local name? ''<font color="#990011">//</font>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Second choice''', this or '''Sigismund III of Poland'''.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Second choice''', this or '''Sigismund III of Poland'''.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Second choice.''' [[User:KonradWallenrod|KonradWallenrod]] 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:02, 7 June 2006

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

Old talk

Gee -- another article about someone who was actually reasonably important in the Early Modern world, and all we get is his breeding. People reduced to bloodlines --I'm so glad someone thinks this crap is worthy of posting. I suppose actually doing some work would be too much to ask...JHK

Lars and David -- is he Sig III of Poland or of Sweden?

As JHK said: what did he do? He was king for decades, something must have happened then? And how did he lose the Swedish throne? Vicki Rosenzweig

To Vicki Rosenzweig. Read Vasa and you will find, that he lost the throne due to the Reformation and Counter Reformation. The Vasa branch, that governed also as kings of Poland etc, had to become Catholic. The Swedish did not want a Catholic king. The Swedish parliament in 1599 removed Sigismund III and his uncle Charles IX received the throne instead. user:H.J.

---

Waitaminnit. The article claims that he was Sigismund I of Sweden, not III; he was Sigismund III of POLAND. If this is true, this article should be at Sigismund I of Sweden or Sigismund III of Poland, not where it is now. - Montréalais 04:49 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

sounds right to me. Moving to Sigismund I of Sweden, with a redirect from Sigismund III of Poland. -- Someone else 05:00 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)
Absolutely right. Who does it, it must be a sysop, since the file "Sigismund III of Sweden" is not relevent and has to be delited...Dan Koehl 01:34 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
Actually, he was Sigismund of Sweden according to both Wikipedia standards (no ordinal if there was only one) and common Swedish usage. So it should be at either Sigismund of Sweden or Sigismund III of Poland (actually, I would prefer the latter, since he was Polish king a lot longer, both before and after - but perhaps there is some weird standard about precedence of states or something that forces it to "Sweden"?). -- Jao 17:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Now I've organized this article to quite an acceptable extent IMHO, though there are of course lots of information to add. The intro now reads King Sigismund of Sweden, Sigismund III of Poland-Lithuania, which is correct, but as for moving of the article, it's of course way too long for a title. It should still really stand between Sigismund of Sweden and Sigismund III of Poland, but of course both exist (as redirects). -- Jao 22:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


If anybody reads Swedish, they have more info :) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund At least they have nice pictures, and I think Wiki policy is to share all, right? So we can borrow those? :) Since I read Polish I will be adding more info and iterlinks (to his son's data for example) soon.

--Piotrus 13:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


As far as I am concerned, Sigismund was also Tsar of Russia. In matter of fact, the article is 80% about Sweden. Can we make more balance view? Cautious 14:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a tsar. Ladislaus IV of Poland was. Sigismund was a king of Poland and Sweden. Ausir 15:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me this article should be at Sigismund III of Poland. He was King of Poland for 45 years, he was King of Sweden for seven. Any objections? john k 23:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nope, I support it. But perhaps the better name would be Sigismund III Vasa as he is better known in Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are Sigmund and Sigismund the same person? The "Sigmund Politics" section of the article keeps referring to "Sigmund". - Walkiped 01:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes they are. I prefer Sigmund, but there is this problem of diffrent spellings in diffrent languages, which is a bit tricky and I prefer not to say which spelling is right for English wiki. Do take a look at Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers - it is the best guideline there is ATM, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems like we should be consistent within the article in regards to what name we use for him. Perhaps we should edit the "Sigmund Politics" section of the article to replace "Sigmund" with "Sigismund", as he's referred to in the rest of the article. - Walkiped 19:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure, good idea, feel free to do it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in this naming. The page is "Zygmunt III Vasa" which is a mixture of Polish and Swedish (and English?); purely Polish version would be "Zygmunt III Waza". There is a redirection to this page from "Sigismund III Vasa", and you can find it from the page "Sigismund". On the other hand, if you try "Sigmund", you get "Sigmund (disambiguation)" but it does not take you to this page! Tsferreira 13:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I think Sigismund and Sigmund (disambiguation) should be merged into one disambig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Obviously his royal title is wrong, since he can't be Vladislaus IV.

Date of death

Anonymous contributor to Polish wiki changed from 19 to 30 July. I found 30 on German wikipedia too. Please help to find out which one is true. A.J. 10:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, he died in April. Anyway: Both dates are correct, depending on whether it's a Julian or Gregorian date. The 19th is the julian date, the 30th is the gregorian one. Following the Wikipedia style guide, we should probably disambiguate this by having both dates and noting (old style) and (new style). No need to do it for his birthdate though, since that's before the Gregorian introduction. --BluePlatypus 21:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he was king of Sweden too, and naming should not be decided by Polish usage

I cannot understand that any objective editor would want to name Sigismund III as Zygmunt III here in English Wikipedia - after all, he was an international personality, having reigned also in Sweden. Much less reasons have lead monarchs to their Anglicized names. The question cannot be solved by counting which-language-kingdom he ruled longest. The name should be something all those kingdoms can live with. I am willing to grant that Poland was the bit more important of his kingdoms, but it certainly was not the only. No Swedish intressent would accept Zygmunt as his name in English Wikipedia. Sigismund is the most common English variant. Marrtel 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on discussions on this talk page, the consensus clearly agrees that his name should be Sigismund, not Zygmunt. The article should not have been moved to a non-consensus name. --Elonka 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Poland he was "Zygmunt III Waza" (with the ordinal, "III"); in Sweden, plain "Sigismund" (no ordinal). What version would be both nationally-neutral and unambiguous? KonradWallenrod 02:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Konrad, for answer to that question I recommend to read a couple of paragraphs above. The English variant. Marrtel 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a contest between two nations, Poland and Sweden, over who have THEIR own way to describe him. The answer of course is the English version of the name. It only coincides that Sigismund happens to be the best acceptable variant both in Swedish and in English. It actually is the same in German too, and close in French and in Italian... Everyone should see that "Sigismund III of Poland" is the English name of this king. I have not suggested putting him to Sigismund I of Sweden. Marrtel 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Swedish ("English") name and Polish ordinal and country? logologist|Talk 15:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor is here "Sigismund" because of Swedish language? Please tell me what the name we usually refer to by "Sigismund" (the namesakes of the early Burgundian king, St.Sigismund) is in English, if it is not Sigismund. Marrtel 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One version is "Sigmund." KonradWallenrod 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigmund is a variant rarer in English, because Latin usage usually uses that with -is- (Sigismund) and english borrows so much from Latin. If an english speaker is to chose between Sigmund and Sigismund, the choice will be Sigismund. Marrtel 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that people who refuse to understand that the Polish-succession-determined ordinal can be used in the name in English as long as the name refers to kingship of Poland (or does not refer to any other explicit kingship), are doing something incredible. Surely people generally comprehend that Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor can use that German/HRE ordinal, although the name Henry is not in German (Heinrich) or Latin (Henricus) but axctually in English. The positive aspects of this discussion, as poor as it may be, however is that writers reveal their level of comprehension of English. Marrtel 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to debate our own Wikipedia version of the name, since that would be inappropriate original research. We should use the name as it most commonly appears in outside English-language reference works. The 1979 version of Encyclopedia Brittanica that I have here, lists his name as Sigismund III Vasa. --Elonka 18:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement over the Polish-nationalist "Sigismund III of Poland." Now all we have to do is give this king his Polish name, "Zygmunt," since the Swedes didn't want him anyway and dethroned him. KonradWallenrod 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "Sigismund III of Poland" is, it certainly is NOT "Polish-nationalist" compared to any use of spelling Zygmunt, which is Polish-nationalist - no english speaker regards that spelling as English. And, the argument "Swedes did not want and dethroned" has no place is decision how to name him here. Otherwise, Charles I of England (whom the English did not ultimately want and whom they dethroned and executed) would need to seek another name that what he is very well known as. Marrtel 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus for now. WP:RM may be advised. Also, it would really benefit us all if we can finally work out the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for Wikipedia naming convention for Polish rulers. They are quite similar with other european rulers. There is no other naming convention specifically for rulers - the general WP convention is for names and titles, which has guidelines for clerics, monarchs, other royals, nobles, holders of peerages... And that is for generally all European ones. One for Polish rulers would be as useful as a specific set of rules how to name all the moons of Tellus. I could understand a neec for Manual of Style how to treat Polish words generally, but certainly not how to treat a group of some 20-30 biographical articles. Moreover, that whole proposal for convention is clearly written by people who do not know much about how English books refer to those persons. It seems somehow that they have written a proposal how a list in Polish would write those names.
Generally, the same reasons why European nobles, rulers, royals etc have that naming system, holds for Polish too: they share ame first names with other countrues, they were and are known by name around europe and since hundreds of years ago they are mentioned in literature of other countries, their appellations often became known in other countries through Latin-written material, they are rulers (and not commoners or lower nobility) so their names generally are translated (which means translated, not transliterated) into the languages they were narrated about in. They are not easily recognizable to English-speakers with those names they are under in that proposal. Sometimes I feel that people who have another mother tongue than English, should not be allowed to impact here upon what form of name is used of person from their own language circe, as the "eyeglasses" of such writers is too easily determined or at least influenced by her/his own native experience of usage in that language, and the actual usage of English has not gotten through that ready schema of misguided conception. Marrtel 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In some ways, it feels like having Polish speakers here suggesting policy changes on Poland-related articles, is like a violation of WP:AUTO. --Elonka 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

This page was improperly moved to its current name of Zygmunt III Vasa, by a non-native English speaker who moved the page in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. It should be moved back to Sigismund III Vasa. Please indicate "Sigismund III Vasa" or "Zygmunt III Vasa" below to indicate your preference on page name. --Elonka 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigismund III Vasa, although it would be nice to eventually move these rulers to the "X N of Poland/Poland-Lithuania" format. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigismund III Vasa, as it appears in Encyclopedia Brittanica. --Elonka 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigismund III Vasa per Calgacus. Marrtel 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - keep at Zygmunt III Vasa. First, his first name should be the same as that of Zygmunt I the Old and Zygmunt II August, and in a larger picture, we have all Polish kings follow the system: Polish first name - number - English adjective - no 'of country' because it 'of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' or 'of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania' is way to cumbersome. If you are dissatisfied with the naming system, feel free to gather majority support at [[ Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers). Second, in reply to Elonka, who seems to be fond of unbased accusations (although it is nice you started using RM), "Zygmunt III Vasa" is far from my (?) invention, it is used in several books, including one of the best popular histories of Poland, Norman Davies God's Playground ([1]), and with the 'Zygmunt' first name being no stranger to the English world and appearing in hundreds of books. Third, as has been pointed out in the convention name, there are many, many variants of names for every Polish king; for example, this one has been called (in English publications) from "Zygmunt III of Poland"[2] through "Sigismund III Waza"[3] to "Sigismundus Vasa"[4]. I don't have the will to count all the variants for this one but usually there is about 20 combinations for each king, and the mentioned above current variant is 1) among the most common (or to be specyfic: it contains the most common, on average, parts), 2) is not original research and 3) means we don't need any disambigs. Finally, I strongly recommend everybody reads professor Lukowski's words of widsom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google books has "Zygmunt III Vasa" at 6 [5] and "Sigismund III Vasa" at 93 [6] I'm afraid you have no case at all. As the farce at Władysław II Jagiełło (i.e. Jogaila for all you non-Poles) indicates, wikipedia conventions, historical balance, cross-national fairness and common sense have all been subverted in your desire to Polonize wikipedia monarchs. You are right though that "Zygmunt II the Old" and "Zygmunt II August" should be moved. Hopefully, the wikipedia community will get around to this eventually. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and btw, stop putting "of country" names to google test. The "X N of Y" format is wikipedia convention, and is not supposed to be the most popular name. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been an attempt to create a naming system specifically for Polish monarchs (but it is just a proposal and never received consensus), against the system used for other European monarchs. There is also the fact that most Polish monarchs now are located in places which contravene to general naming convention. There is no consensus for permission to use an exception for Polish monarchs, and such permission should be sought from consensus atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) where there is the thread Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs. At that spot there are editors who are more or less experienced in overall picture of monarch naming and not only one country. It is deception to advertise any system for naming before a consensus there is convinced of the need for such exception. I hope all of you continue the naming scheme discussion for Polish monarchs there, before continuing or creating policy forks. Shilkanni 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, comment, (Halibutt and Irpen not at each others throats, makes me happy), Halibutt and Irpen, are you nuts? By this logic, we should open up Pandora's Box again, and name Jogaila, Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Lithuania. Right? Dr. Dan 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

voting is not stopped

I moved the page back as the user who moved it[7] just 3 days ago didn't inquire of the community in the first place. It is the original move than should be voted for rather than we have to vote to return the article to the name it used for a long time which coinsides to all major EL encyclopedias. Proponetns of the move are welcome to propose the move to the Polish rather than anglicized name. --Irpen 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Could you cite some policy to explain this move? I see no difference between this voting and the case of Polski Słownik Biograficzny, which was moved without a consensus to Polish Biographical Dictionary and then went through a RM vote (which, btw, indicates it should be moved back to the Polish name). I find your action very much encroaching on WP:POINT, especially as you introduce a much worse name (replacing Vasa with much less useful 'of Poland'), invalidating the vote above, including the RM request. Once the RM request is placed on the page the page should not be moved by anybody unless the closing admin decides the consensus was to move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For my own part, I am willing to compromise and support the name of Sigismund III of Poland. --Elonka 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, whoever wants to move the article has to justify the move in the first place. The article was moved 3 days ago[8] to a less known name by someone I've never met before. The article was under the original name for a while and I returned it there. Whoever wants to have it moved, has to propose the WP:RM and gain the consensus for a new name, not the other way around. I consider moves without asking (at least when the case is not clear) highly disrptive as imposing someone's view on the community. Please study my moves log and try to find the move there where I didn't ask (except for the obvious ones). If you do, I will issue my apology. --Irpen 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, perhaps you should look at the edit history more closely. The article was moved to from Sigismund III of Poland to Zygmunt III Vasa in responce to another move, as the edit summaries in the edit you cite clearly show. If you look at the edit history you will see that the article had a stable name as Zygmunt III Vasa for half a year, since 28 Dec'05. It was moved in accordance with majority support at WP:NC(PM). Of course, for some the fact that the majority support came from Polish users means that it is a plot by nationalist Poles to rename articles...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what happened. Just before that someone else also moved the article and as such there is no a clearly original name here. I apologize. Move it as you please and start a vote like you want. I would simply vote for the anglisized name. Sorry, for disruption. --Irpen 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. I have asked at WP:RM for a neutral admin to move the article, I am afraid that if I were to move it it would be taken by some as the further "evidence" of my bad faith :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no dirty tricks were used, the article could be then moved back to revert my move and the vote conducted (redirects have no history). If we start from the Polish rather than anglicized name for the English Wikipedia, fine with me. I urge my colleagues, though, to give some credence and pity to the English speaking and Polish non-speaking users and pay respect to the majority of sources as well as other encyclopedias. But that's the matter of WP:RM discussion merit. Go ahead move it as you like. Sorry again for not noticing that the move I reverted was not the first one. --Irpen 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOC, is 'Sigismund' easier to say for an English speaker the 'Zygmunt'? Because according to my quick scan of Google Print, if we go with 'most popular' variant then we should go with 'Sigmund' (230k hits, were Zygmunt gets around 30k and Sigismund, 50k. On a lighter note, if we want to talk about original (early Wikipedia) names, the article was for a time at Sigismund I of Sweden...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No,this was not. There was for a time a younger fork of the same person, but this page always lived that entire time, and finally the fork was redirected to this. And this was at that time at S III of P. Marrtel 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? I didn't say it was exlusively there? I just think it is worth pointing out that if we go with 'of country', then 'of Sweden' should also be considered. As well as 'of Lithuania'. It should be interesting when we rename Władysław IV Waza to Ladislaus of Lithuania, Poland, Muscovy and Sweden. Do you think we should go all the way out and include Latvia or Estonia in his title too? Or would just Livonia be sufficient? One can make a good case for Ruthenia, too. I just can't wait... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand on what basis he would be Vladislaus, Duke of Estonia or Vladislaus III of Latvia (did you make an intellectual error?). But, if we had not that pesky rule to keep article titles short, the guy could be under Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow (I would not recommend, though). Since he never truly got the realm of the tsars subjugated, he would not be Vladislaus of Russia except in some POV forks, because we do not endorse pretensions, we just report facts (We do not have Michael II of Russia, we have Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia). Marrtel 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can move it anywhere now. No need to ask any admins. Redirects have no history. Cluttering WP:RM isn't necessary, IMO as it brings people with no clue of the issue. It is only needed when the name can't be decided by all buddies. --Irpen 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, this was at Sigismund III of Poland, since the first write of this article on 20 May 2002. Only as recently as on 28 December 2005 Logologist moved Sigismund III of Poland to Zygmunt III Vasa. Then a slow move series ensued. None of these moves were voted. Perhaps we should start this being at Sigismund III of Poland. Marrtel 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already said on numerous occasions that, while I understand Logologist's idea that the names of Polish monarchs could be used in Polish, I prefer to use English. Sigismund III of Poland is a fine solution to me, no need to change it. //Halibutt 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, what happened. --Irpen 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People should probably consider the example of James I of England, which has been stable at that name for some time (with one suppressed move war). The better-known title gets the article name, but the lesser-known title gets precedence in the bold opening to the article. This is compromise, which is a good thing.

Which way that applies here is open to discussion, but Sigismund III of Poland is probably right. I have no objection to Sigismund III Vasa, but doubt it will be consensus (James I Stuart, the analogy, has a fatal flaw: no one uses it, because it is ambiguous.); I do strongly object to the use of the non-English Zygmunt in the article title. In using the English name, we are following the example of pl:Jerzy III Hanowerski which is where the Polish WP, properly, lists George III. Septentrionalis 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While no Polish source will use 'George III of Hanover' or 'George III of England', there are (as shown above) respected English sources which use 'Zygmunt III August'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt they exist. Are you willing to claim that they are consensus, or even majority, usage in English? Septentrionalis 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

The voting process has been disrupted. The vote as it is involves people voting on different issues, because the subject of the vote has been changed half-way through. The vote will have to be restarted, because no result produced in the current vote can be acceptable. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of new alternatives in discussion is one of the things that are supposed to happen; it's part of the meaning of the "This is not a vote" mantra. It may be worth setting out an approval vote, to see who can tolerate which alternatives; but not restarting things. Septentrionalis 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The was listed as one vote, then changed to the next. Now some votes for Sigismund III Vasa look like they are opposed to Sigismund III of Poland, when they are not. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, do not make the vote yet more difficult. While it is true that a new alternative really disrupts a vote, we should not let it disturb this yet more. The poll above is going nicely anyway, as the interpretation is: That vote is strictly between "Zygmunt III Vasa" and "Sigismund III Vasa". So, the loser of that vote CANNOT be made the new name. The situation between the winner and "Sigismund III of Poland" should be checked from comments, before this is moved away from "Sigismund III of Poland" - and if comments do not offer enough about that, a new poll should THEN be aranged, between the winner and S III of P.

MY interpretation of the present division of votes is that Zygmunt is losing, so this cannot be moved to that location. The comments show much support to S III of P, and there is not supermajority for S III V, whereby this is going to remain at S III of P. Marrtel 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approvals

Please indicate all you find tolerable, with possible one-sentence commentary; feel free to add choices. Silence implies disapproval (although new alternatives should be dated). Votes above should still be counted.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sigismund_III_Vasa&oldid=57299351"