Talk:Sigismund III Vasa

message: It seems that some dates in this article follow the Gregorian calendar while other dates follow the Julian calendar, sometimes following the Swedish system (Julian calendar until 1700-02-28 and then a huge mess), sometimes following the Polish system (Julian calendar until 1582-10-04 and then Gregorian calendar), without telling whether the Swedish or the Polish system is used. Can the calendar (Gregorian/Julian) be specified everywhere, in order to avoid confusion? As it is now, some dates differ between Swedish and English WP because different calendars are used on different Wikipedias, and that is confusing, since it doesn't tell what's used where. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy dates 

message: file::c:File:Zygmunt Waza Soutman.jpg Reason:internet copy of :File:Soutman Sigismund III Vasa in coronation robes (detail) 01.jpg subpage:link 
Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  File nominated for deletion on commons 

message: Well done, User:Oliszydlowski, I think this is almost ready for a GAN. A few sentences need citations. I recommend replacing century+ old sources like Fabisz 1864, Pears 1893, Czermiński 1907 and Dyer 1861 with a more modern reference (PSB is fine). What makes  reliable? Likewise, Kinga 2020 published by e-bookowo.pl is likely a WP:SPS. Lastly, we can surely find a more reliable source than  too (communist-era tourbook?). Overall, sourcing is close to a GA level, but I am unsure if FA reviewers would let those older sources slide or not; updating as much as possible to more modern scholarship is advisable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I have added references-citations where you have outlined and removed the SPS/unreliable ones. Now I have the Legacy section to do and some styling changes (image placement, lead etc.) Sadly, I do not think that replacing those centuries old sources will be possible as the contemporary ones lack depth and detail. Sigismund has not been featured often in modern Polish publications and, if so, then not in great lengths. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Fair enough. Good luck with the GAN! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-GA review 

message: The lead gives an uninitiated reader the impression that he was known as Sigismund III even in Sweden (including Finland). That's not too great. The repetitious first-line bold text Sigismund III and Sigismund III of Poland strengthens that incorrect impression and, in any case, looks weird.
Also, why is his name in Polish Zygmunt not included up there?--SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - It is all included in the note cite. Moreover, different variations of the name also appear in the infobox. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead gives an uninitiated reader the impression that he was known as Sigismund III even in Sweden (including Finland). That's not too great. The repetitious first-line bold text Sigismund III and Sigismund III of Poland strengthens that incorrect impression and, in any case, looks weird. That was the main issue I brought up. Still needs attention. The footnote is not enough when the lead text is that confusing. Footnotes are normally used to add information of lesser interest to the average reader, not to clean up text that has been left confusing intentionally.  --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that in Sweden he is also known as Sigismund III av Polen. I don't see the issue here, particularly that his reign in Sweden was brief. Unless you are suggesting to remove the bolded text Sigismund III of Poland or the removal of the footnote? Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that it looks like we are going to try for good article status and the article started off with wording that was not good. The article is not (not) perfect. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - What other changes do you suggest? Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ask that, when you are only going to start edit warring to get your way? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigismund III all over the place

message: Wording such as "monarch of" (in the lead) is too vague and highly unusual. What was his title there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: by another editor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarch ''of''?

message: The name of the article does not coincide with what's in bold type at the very start of it. The name of the article is in bold type nowhere in the text. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The only title that should be in the lead is Sigismund III Vasa which corresponds to the title of the article. If anyone wishes to know what he was known by in Sweden then they can use the footnote. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's  not what footnotes are for. And a "title" of an article is the article's name. His regnal name in Sweden was Sigmund Sigismund (no "III", no "Vasa") and that goes in the lead of the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Well on Help:Footnotes, point two states it can be used for explanatory information, for instance that in Sweden he reigned as 'Sigismund'. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not explanatory information it's part of his vital life history. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

text: It was considered unconventional and unique when Norman (who was my history teacher in junior college) came out with "Sigismund Vasa" in Swedish. I've had the book in my libary on Swedish kings since 1987. This king's regnal name in Sweden should be bold in the lead of the article. That's not pedantic. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   - Swedish sources are, in this case, not superior to any other. His reign in Sweden was brief and uneventful. It's like changing the name of Henry VIII of England to Henry of England and Ireland. The term Sigismund III Vasa is acceptable for both Polish and Swedish side (e.g. it contains the Swedish preferred "Sigismund Vasa" and the Polish rendering "Sigismund III"). Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, if I was Polish I would never dare to write anything that nationalistically biased here. The users's knowledge of Sigismund's history in Sweden, and the enormous impact on Swedish history that it had, is furthermore surprisingly scant. No interest in it, I suppose, as per my first sentence this time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

text: If you believe it so then let it be. But how is 'Sigismund Vasa' not acceptable for the Swedish side? And please don't extend this to nationalism, I am not the one engaging in edit wars. Earlier you mentioned his regal title in Sweden was Sigmund. Swedish Wikipedia says otherwise.... Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a typo. Sorry. His regnal name in Sweden was Sigismund and that belongs in the lead of the article. Hardly anyone (except my old teacher) has ever called him Sigismund Vasa in Swedish, and even less Sigismund III. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see now (proposed edit) and determine on whether you agree. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: His regnal name in Sweden was Sigismund and that belongs in bold type the lead of the article as a highly significant item in his life history. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Polish and Swedish titles are not in bold. It is fair. Only the English rendering is, per article title. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct English rendering of his Swedish regnal name is Sigismund - nothing else. GA? Never! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is the end of the discussion. The article is not quite finished yet. User:SergeWoodzing you are being disruptive and please consider that there are other users who will determine whether this is a GA article or not through the nomination page. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Disruptive"? That's an argument to improve this article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are suggesting is not an improvement only satisfying your goal. If you doubt the article name (and what should be in bold) please see the RfC from years ago on this page. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no RfC on this page, but we might need one. The move discussion above was not at all about my issue here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But very much linked to it. I'd be more than happy with an RfC.  what do you think? Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Title versus lead

message: ,  the  last sentence in the third paragraph of lead seems like it could use editing: .  
*It sounds like Adolphus lost Polish Livonia, which is not the case. The commonwealth lost it, right?
*The clause after "and in" remains ambiguous.  Interpretations could be be:
**the campaign resulted in Sigismund's claim to the Swedish crown, 
**the campain resulted in partial loss of claim to Swedish crown
**what I think is the intended meaning, which is campaign resulted in Sigismund's loss of the claim. (but is even this accurate? see point below.)
*Is the Britannica citation needed here?
**You got rid of other citations in the lead, so why not this last one? . 
**Britannica seems a weak reference anyway.  It's citing a tertiary source in a tertiary work.
**The Britannica article doesn't really support the claim.  It only states he could no longer regain the Swedish crown, which is slightly different than losing a claim.
*For the Britannica, I'd suggest slightly changing the phrase, removing the citation altogether and adding a sentence about the impact of the war on the status of the Swedish Crown at the end of the section of the Polish-Swedish war to support the clause in the lead. Then, you can support it with one of the secondary references you use.  I'd do it myself, but I'm not equipped to work work with the Polish references in sufficient depth.
Please note that although my suggestion sounds kind miniscule, I want to let you know that I can see and appreciate the hard work you've done on this article and the effort to make the sources accessible so that English speakers can verify most of the citations with the help of online translation tools if they choose. (At least the handful I glanced at.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Adolphus is not a surname. Please make sure it is not entered into the article text as such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for pointing this out Wtfiv. I will attend these issues promptly. Merangs (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  - All done. I shortened the sentence and removed redundant internet sources. The reference for the partial loss of Livonia is "Podhorodecki 1985, pp. 193–200", located in the Polish-Swedish War section. Warmest regards. Merangs (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing suggestion for sentence in lead

message: I have no intention of starting a RM right away, but I'd appreciate a reply from User:Merangs (who just improved this to GA) over why Sigismund is preferred to Zygmunt. I'll note that the inconsistency of calling father with Latin/English name (Sigismund) and the son, Polish (Władysław IV Vasa) is a bit jarring. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - If I was to be completely honest, I'd advocate for changing Władysław to Ladislaus as Latin was then the official language of the Commonwealth. It is WP:NEUTRAL as it does not emphasize Polish, Swedish, Lithuanian etc. names over each other. All other Polish kings who have an equivalent English name are called by that name (eg. Jan III is John III, August II is Augustus II etc.) Merangs (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , John should be Ioannes...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Yes, but Sigismund is the acceptable version in English, as is Sigismund I and Sigismund II, or Sigismundus either way. I believe this pre-dates my presence on Wikipedia and it was decided long ago by other users. I have also found English sources which use "Sigismund" from decades ago as the preferred styling/spelling. Merangs (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been a decade since this was discussed. Wonder if we could use a new WP:RM or WP:RFC for those names? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - RfC is always good to solve a problem. By the way, when would the article be available on the main Wiki page? Is there a set date? Merangs (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , You mean as a DYK? That's really up to DYK-managing admins,  you could ask at WT:DYK. Generally, nobody cares if a submission has to wait weeks or months in the queue unless it's for a selected anniversary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zygmunt 

message: This article is unfortunately riddled with historical copyright issues introduced in approximately 2014 (all sources listed below clearly pre-date the edits). Because it is a Good Article, I have endeavored to rewrite rather than simply remove the content. Obviously I have no complaints if someone rewrites my rewrites, but the content should under no circumstances be restored to its previous state.
The CV-introducing edits and their respective sources are here:
* , from 
* , from 
* , also from  (mostly already rewritten but the article was still liberally spiced with phrases from that article).
Thank you and my apologies for having to do this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Thank you so much for undertaking this and removing any traces of CV. Kindest regards! Merangs (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues