Talk:Sigismund III Vasa

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]

Keep Zygmunt III Vasa, for all the excellent reasons adduced above. KonradWallenrod 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]