Talk:Sigismund II Augustus

Template:BioCOTWs

Sigismund II. was a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece, thus had given his pledge of allegiance to the imperial Habsburgs, see portrait with Golden Fleece: [1]

Coronation took place in 1529 in Vilnius...

Last paragraph is so full of Polish POV it's not even funny. "Only a stateman of genius"... "The most striking memorial of his greatness"... Come on! Even Lithuanian historians are quite critical of Lublin Union, let alone the nobles of Grand Duchy Of Lithuania. Why the need to paint it as the greatest thing in history? Vytzka 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly text from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which tended to POV. The article certainly needs revision. logologist|Talk 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation

The coronation could not take place in Vilnius: he was nominated as co-grand Duke there in 1529. Lithuania was only a grand dutchy and could not crown kings. He was crowned in Cracow, where almost all Polish kings were crowned.

Kazimierz

Requested move

The name as it appears in most English-language encyclopedias, appears to be spelled Sigismund. The name "Zygmunt" is the Polish spelling. Is there consensus by the non-Polish majority of the Wikipedia community, to move the article back to the English version of the name? --Elonka 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Polish spelling is used by at least 32 English books, including the popular reference work by Norman Davies, God's Playground [2]. But I should add a disclaimer that as a Pole my note/vote should not be counted toward or against the 'consensus by the non-Polish majority of the Wikipedia community'. For the editors new to this issue, I'd recomment checking the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), however you should be aware that Polish editors seem to be active there, thus likely invalidating the discussion in the eyes of some.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 30 compared with 157 for "Sigismund II Augustus" [3], and 105 for "Sigismund II August" [4]. I find it strange that here, at Talk:Sigismund III of Poland and at Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki you cite google, show that the English name is more common, and then use the Polish name anyways. What exactly do you think is gained by such an interesting argumentative strategy? And why do you bother arguing at all when you know you can just move articles away from English names and then demand a supermajority to move them back to pages in line with wiki conventions? I think you can be pretty sure your page names are safe from being moved. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made me feel much safer now. In return, may I interest you in such nice reading as Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I am sure you will find it intriguing. Also, you may want to note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has an 'exceptions' section, which stresses the existance of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), a subset of which we are trying to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers). Last but not least, Wikipedia:Search engine test is another useful reading, please note that 'Google dominant name' does not equal the 'most correct name for Wikipedia', although it is certainly a helpful tool.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approval vote as survey for naming

Please add your signature under all (yes, to all) those alternatives you regard acceptable - acceptable in the sense that you can accept it as name of this article. Vote for all acceptable alternatives, even if there are two or more of such. Do not do anything to those alternatives that are not acceptable to you (do not vote explicit negative - that is not part of approval voting - in approval voting, being silent towards an alternative is the same as finding it unacceptable). (Do not add alternatives - it will probably disrupt the vote. It is thought that no other alternative than these ready ones would anyway garner any meaningful support or that other alternatives are non-alternatives, being essentially same as one of the ready ones here. If you feel strong preference to some unmentioned alternative formulation, raise it at Discussion section and see whether it ever receives any verbal support from others.)

Zygmunt II August

I accept this alternative:

First choice.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. I prefer a less anglicized version. Sarge Baldy 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. As above. KonradWallenrod 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigismund II Augustus

I accept this alternative:

john k 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC). This would be acceptable, although I'd prefer "Sigismund II Augustus"[reply]
Yes. Sigismund Augustus; but I'd rather Polish monarchs got restandardized as per wiki convention. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, as this is how the name is spelled in my 1979 Encyclopedia Brittanica. --Elonka 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, most common rendering. Sarge Baldy 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigismund II of Poland

I accept this alternative:

john k 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC) First choice would be this or "Sigismund II Augustus of Poland". john k[reply]
Best choice. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigismund II Augustus of Poland

I accept this alternative:

Secnd choice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. --Elonka 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Three way poll. Well, you can forget about having this page moved then. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to build some semblance of consensus, not outright attempt to file a request for moving. Marrtel 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]