Talk:John III Sobieski

message: In English, we don't usually put the ruler's family name.  Just to repeat myself.  Again. JHK
----
I'm pretty sure the Poles didn't call him John; what was his original name, Jan? I think it should at least be mentioned in the article. Jeronimo
:Lithuanians call him Jonas. So the name have to be translated (Poles also dont't write Elisabeth 2, but Elżbieta II) or write it also in lithuanian an ruthenian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolis-lt (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comments 

message: I have just been watching Michael Portillo's Great Railway Journeys and, travelling in the Highlands, he investigates the history of tartan and two Sobieski-Stuart brothers claimed to have an old book on Scottish tartans which was used to reintroduce them after they were banned after the Battle of Culloden. As it turns out, this book was fake.
I decided to investigate this Polish-Scottish connection, dating back to Bonnie Prince Charlie as it seems a very interesting one. He was the son of the Old Pretender, Prince James, son of exiled Stuart King, James II & VII and his wife Maria Clementina Sobieska and great-grandson of John III Sobieski, most famous for the victory over the Ottoman Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna. It is John Sobieski who features as the hetman and who makes the grand entrance at the funeral of Michal Wolodeyowski at the end of Henryk Sienkiewicz's historical novel Fire in the Steppe. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sobieski, Stuart Connection

message: The infobox and the main text have different dates for the Jan III Sobieski's election as the new monarch of the Commonwealth. Was it May 19 or May 21 ? --199.71.174.100 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Jan III Sobieski elected the new monarch of the Commonwealth ? 

message: Okay, 22 years is quite a while. I'm removing some of that. Reinsert it if you will. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only 22 years" 

message: This article was moved to the Polish name in December 2005, along with several other articles.  Many of the others have since been moved back to English names and this article should be moved back too, to the English name of  "John III Sobieski", as it appears in English-language reference works , per the Wikipedia guideline of Use English.  Please indicate below if you support or oppose this move. --Elonka 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If ones excludes "hotel", these 95,800 hits are reduced to 19,000  , or less when "street" or other place names are also excluded. According to Google counts, "Jan III Sobieski" would be a good name for a traveller's guide to Poland then ... -- Matthead discuß!   O    16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the same then -hotel, -street Jan 15,600  John 12,800 .--SylwiaS | talk 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Among the first results for Jan, impartial sites like "gov.pl" pop up, pages titled "Jan III Sobieski: Listy do królowej Marysieńki" (do we have to consider that english?), and coins sold on ebay. For John, sites like britannica.com oder .edu sites show up first. So better stop beating this dead horse. -- Matthead discuß!   O    06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute, the first two sentences of the very first result for Jan deserves an honourable mention: "“He is a perfect oval which from a distance looks like a very large egg stood on the small end,” wrote one French observer, as he watched the Polish king, Jan III Sobieski. Blessed with a large head, enormous belly, and small feet, Jan Sobieski did indeed look something like an egg." -- Matthead discuß!   O    06:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you simply bring some evidence that John is more often used than Jan in English? BTW That page with Letters to Queen Marysieńka has his biography in English. I can't help it that people often look it up.--SylwiaS | talk 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sylwia pointed out that Google can be (mis)used as a funny and useless source for naming historic figures. -- Matthead discuß!   O    16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment I would, however support any combination of redirects which take all the various Jan/John/Sobieski/KingOfPoland and still get a reader where they need to go. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *While I prefer Jan, I wonder what do you think about John III Sobieski as compared to John III of Poland? See also John I of Poland, a monarch virtualy unknown to anybody but some people who put a very specific Wikipedia Naming Convention about rulers above such things as, oh, 99,9% of printed academic works in English language.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming proposal - John III Sobieski 

message: I really hate Google tests as a justification for "common usage in English", when we're talking about an individual who already has entire articles in major English-language encyclopedias.  Here's a list of what I have easily available at the moment. If you have others, please feel free to add to the list. --Elonka 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  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.</div>
===Trivia: Scutum Sobieski modifications===
The constellation Scutum Sobieski was named after John III Sobieski. The trivia section speculated that the name Sobieski was dropped since no other person/house kept it's constellation person/house connection. That's speculation – fascinating –  but not proper for an encyclopedia. For talk page's it might be OK, however, since some editor might know a doctor, that actually know an old pergament where astronomer X writes to astronomer Y, saying that "this family stuff in the stars is unacceptable, I will speak for removing the name sobieski", etc. (just speculation – don't take this for truth, please!). Now speculation alternatives:
# the name Scutum Sobieski was too long and awkward, and since there was no other shield in the sky, the astronomers decided Scutum was enough,
# all other "fawning" constellations were removed, f.ex. Sceptrum Brandenburgicum, Taurus Poniatovii, Telescopium Herschelii etc., but since Scutum was too well established, then only the the last name was dropped ...
Speculated: Rursus declamavi;  17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries 

message: The constellation Scutum Sobieski was named after John III Sobieski. The trivia section speculated that the name Sobieski was dropped since no other person/house kept it's constellation person/house connection. That's speculation – fascinating –  but not proper for an encyclopedia. For talk page's it might be OK, however, since some editor might know a doctor, that actually know an old pergament where astronomer X writes to astronomer Y, saying that "this family stuff in the stars is unacceptable, I will speak for removing the name sobieski", etc. (just speculation – don't take this for truth, please!). Now speculation alternatives:
# the name Scutum Sobieski was too long and awkward, and since there was no other shield in the sky, the astronomers decided Scutum was enough,
# all other "fawning" constellations were removed, f.ex. Sceptrum Brandenburgicum, Taurus Poniatovii, Telescopium Herschelii etc., but since Scutum was too well established, then only the the last name was dropped ...
Speculated: Rursus declamavi;  17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia: Scutum Sobieski modifications

message: Can anyone tell me if Sobieski ever lost a military engagement? I checked all the articles that wikipedia has on his battles and they're all victories. I wasn't able to find much on the smaller battles so I can't tell what their result was. Help is much appreciated. JRWalko 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any defeats?

message: Do the depictions of him wearing the triumphant commander's laurel wreath start after the Battle of Vienna? It seems a safe bet, but I'd like to be sure before mentioning it in the article. —Charles P._(Mirv) 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  laurel wreath 

message: She has the same last name, but I don't think her Jewish descent as it pertains to bagels warrants inclusion in this article. Any assertion of lineage to Jan III Sobieski belongs in Leelee's bio. Rstandefer 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leelee Sobieski 

message: Here's the beef. "Jan III Sobieski" Google Book Search yields 1087 results. These are English language titles of course. Although the same Google Book Search yields 1385 results for John III Sobieski, I would argue that, since the numbers are comparable, Wikipedia ought to promote the name most reflective of both English and Polish scientific literature. --Poeticbent talk 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, consensus is John III Sobieski. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You can try a proper WP:RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before my edits, the article violated WP:MOS#Article_titles which says "If possible, the article’s title is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide”". And besides, what were your unilateral move and edits, if not "for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another"? -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I made an edit that fixed the intro according to the article name (English Wikipedia), defended it (rv - John as per consensus article name) and then reverted back to the state before your unilateral move and changes (revert back to consensus Talk:Jan_III_Sobieski#Renaming_proposal_-_John_III_Sobieski). Poeticbent, better explain now where I "carefully removed that fact" "that almost half of all English language titles speak of Jan". All there is is this diff , which, compared to the last version of Piotrus, adds the underwhelming also referred to as  before the other name version. -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan III Sobieski 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 
John III Sobieski → Jan III Sobieski as per Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland. See above.
*Oppose unless the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken control of English Wikipedia.  Has anything changed since the last round? —   AjaxSmack    06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I think that polish translation is wrong, there are two times "litewski" but it rather should be "inflancki". Please check it.--77.253.55.110 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal titles 

message: I deleted the whole thing until it can be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page was vandalized 

message: Seriously?  An article about a baby who died at two years old?  He wasn't even the heir to the throne, since Poland was an elective monarchy.  john k (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: content moved to his father's article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an article? 

message: Here is a copy of the ahnentafel which was removed from the article, as seen in this edit.  While I agree with the removal as so many persons are not notable, I have included here so that other editors can view it decide if those notable relations should be incorporated into the text. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahnentafel removal 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. Also, some parts need expansion, the current article does not look comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: hello, am new here.
please just get back  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian225 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello 

message: Hello, user Oliszydlowski reverted this picture when I added it to this article. Oliszydlowski, I realize that you have not yet had the opportunity to realise why that picture was added that you reverted. Maybe you didn't realize we are trying to nominate this picture Portrait of John III Sobieski as a Featured Picture. The same way there are Featured articles, there are Featured pictures too. That would be Wikipedia:Featured Pictures.  
The painting is a google file and is from the project Google art project, that deliver  high-resolution images of artworks in collaboration with the museums. The Google Art Project is noted for its accuracy in the depictions of the artworks.  This one was comming directly from the museum, and has a good chance to make it  as a very good scan of high quality of a notable and important person.  I am familiar with the requirements. 
I tried to add a file that had a fair fighting chance, because I know how pictures are judged and what it takes to became a FP. The  picture that in the lead and the other pictures in the article would get quickly   Oppose votes for a number of reasons.  It is about how pictures are judged. I'm afraid that I if you remove the picture, we are not going to make it to nominate a painting of John III Sobieski  as Featured picture. That would be a great pity. Please add back the picture to the article. If I don't get any response I will add it back for all the reasons above. Hafspajen (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture removed

message: I am moving this terrible and mostly unreferenced section here. I will write a new legacy and significance section, and I don't see much here worth retaining. Still, maybe somebody will want to do something with that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia legacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John III Sobieski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212930/https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/21badcbf-0c18-4fb8-8b19-3d382469d25f%3AJCR to https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/21badcbf-0c18-4fb8-8b19-3d382469d25f%3AJCR
*Added  tag to http://wielkisobieski.pl/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified