Talk:Sigismund I the Old

Name
His official name has Sigismund I, as you can tell from the coin. All English-language books authors call him by his known name. Why is Wikipedia article now name Zygmund I the Old ? MG 2/19/2006


 * Short story: there are many names he was actually called, and we are trying to standarize the naming of Polish monarchs. Feel free to commenta at Naming conventions (Polish rulers). And note that there are at least 6 books calling him 'Zygmunt the Old'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus,


 * sure a person is known by many different names in different language countries. The different language wikipedia can reflect that. This is the English language wikiupedia and there is no English/American language name Zygmunt I the Old. It could either be Zygmunt Stary (Polish) or Sigismund the Old - English. But Zygmunt I the Old is a mixture of Polish and English- maybe we should call that new language Polenglish'''?


 * His official name was Sigismund, as one can tell from records, he specifically was named after his great-grandfather emperor Sigismund (Holy Roman Emperor). He was a duke in Silesia (imperial ruled) and a grand duke of Lithuania before he became king of Poland. Why not call him Sigimantas? The beauty of the 1000 years government of Europe, was, that all the rulers were family. One ruler was the Landesvater father of the land not only in one country, but in many different countries. The Landesvater, as rough as they might have been, by todays standard, had however the countries well-being first and foremost at heart. Did it stop wars? no - but in general all the wars in Europe for the thousand years were a lot less destructive, than the wars in the last hundred years in the name of establishing democracies.

MG 2/20/2006


 * Poland at that time had two official languages: Latin, in which his name was Sigismund, and Polish, in which it was Zygmunt. I think it is better to use a live language rather than a dead one. There reasons for mixture of Polish and English are explained in the discussion I gave you the link above, but a summary is that the nicknames should be given in English because this is an English wiki, but translating first names is a bad idea. As for Lithuanian versions of the names, the fact is that they are very rarely used in English books, much less then Polish/Latin variants. As for wars, I'd argue that they were quite destructive - look at casualties as a proportion of population, don't comapre past numbers with present.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clutter
I don't know if it's just me but the images on this article seem far too cluttered and it makes a really high standard and concise article look a mess. As for the naming if Zygmunt I the old is the preffered name to be used why isn't it declared in the first sentence there is an alternative? Most other articles do this. E.g. Zygmunt the Old (alt. Sigismund the Old) was the a Polish ruler... etc. etc. Kyle sb 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
This article appears to be another example of a recent agenda by Polish nationals to force Polish spelling on various articles. The correct name for this article should be Sigismund I, as it is listed in English-language encyclopedias. If the Poles want to spell it as something else in the Polish-language Wikipedia, that's fine, but in the English Wikipedia, the name should conform to that of English reference works. --Elonka 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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). 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 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, many English reference works seem to prefer the fully Polish name of "Zygmunt I Stary". However as a Polish nationalist working in mysterious ways I would like to strongly oppose remaning this article with 'Stary', as I believe 'the Old' makes it much more useful for English readers. As for Sigismund I I strongly oppose it, as it should be a disambig between our Zygmunt and Sigismund, Archduke of Austria, Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund Korybut and Sigismund_of_Bavaria. I see no reason why Sigismund would be preferable to Sigismundus, Sigmund or Zygmunt, the latter one being the correct Polish name for the Polish king, ensuring that he is not confused with other Sgizi-whaterver of neighbourung countries. New editors may want to review this issue, as it already has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The same search produces tens of times the number when "Sigismund I" and Poland are combined. The disambiguation problem, by WP recipe, is solved by using, precisely as naming convention (that for all european rulers, not the one proposed specifically for some reason for those Polish rulers) directs, Sigismund I of Poland. ObRoy 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ObRoy, I would agree with you if not not for the following reasons 1) what about Lithuania? One needs to look only at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło to see users arguing that the 'Lithuania' is at least as important as 'Poland' for the kings of PLU/PLC, It was this argument that convinced many 'nationalist Poles' that current naming conventions are not aplicable, as 'of country' becomes not very useful when you have two (or more!) countries. And to further complicate matters, 'of Poland-Lithuania is not as clear as 'of Austro-Hungary' (just follow the links). 2) 'the Old' is short, more memorable and 'interesting'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I would also direct editors to Talk:List of Polish monarchs, where it was made clear that there was not consensus to move these articles to Polish titles, and yet clearly the moves went ahead anyway. --Elonka 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Elonka, perhaps we should start with Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01 where a majority of users supported the moves. As for consensus, note on WP:RM that they define it as >60% (rather stange definition of consensus if you ask me, but it is what we use...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I lokked at those discussions, and observed that there was no consensus (not in any stage) to formulate a new policy or an exception to policy. 60% does not suffice for rewriting a policy or making a general exception. A consensus is required for such. When doing those series of moves, you had the general guideline yet in force (because no consensus allowed an exception to it nor had accepted a new guideline) and you moved those articles in contravention to that general guideline. Sad, and admonishable. 60% suffices (usually) for RM of one article (mostly because one article is not regarded an inevitable slution, but can be later moved quite easily again, sometimes aa just an editorial decision and always by a new survey for RM), but your 60% was not a response to an individual move request (which belong to talk page of the article to be moved), it was -if even reached as you claim- in page where a policy or guideline is talked about. Because you had no consensus behind a new guideline or an exception to guidelines, you cannot use that proposal as any argument. One of the ideas of 60% re RM is that it can be used only as example of an once-approved move, a situational solution, and not any policy or guideline. I realize that you have effected a series of moves and condoned, even abetted, actions of one party in a move war without there having been a consensus for any such general principle. It seems that you have insufficient grasp of WP guidelines of conduct and should study all such much more before doing these harmful series of moves. ObRoy 09:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would look at the time of the moves, you would see that at the time they were done most of the current opponents were not interested in the matter, thus they majority for the move was much higher.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that that is a false problem. When Poland-Lithuania is meant by using a short term, it is Poland. That suffices for those kings who were of union (besides, a justification comes also from King being generally a higher title than Grand Duke, so the possibly small unit that is titularly kingdom would be over the possibly huge unit hat was titularly just a grand duchy). Vladislas Jagello was the only one anyone can make a case of Lithuania being a bit more important - but that's not really meaningful, if it leads to him being alone. He could also be, was it IV, so Vladislas IV of Poland (there is some confusion in numbering earliest Vladislases). I admit that I have originally heard and read most of him where he is referred as Jagello of Lithuania, but that's because his marriage is so important an event and in that context he is of Lithuania and Jadwiga is of Poland. (There are always one or two problematical individuals, but it is dishonest and patently wrong to wreck the whole systematics on basis of such one(s).) The Vladislas IV who was elected in Muscovy too, one must remember that Wikipedia does not endorse pretensions, so of Sweden is out of question, and of Muscovia almost. With a possibility of multiple titles, the highest, and then the one where the realm is best known or most important of the alternatives. For him, Muscovia was not so important realm than Poland, so I think Poland wins. And it wins over Lithuania as explained above re all other P-L union monarchs. One thing that always intrigued me is whether the monarchs of Poland before Premislas and Vladislas Lokietek wwre actually "Dukes" (or were they "prince" or "petty king", "kinglet", or fully "king")? However, a final word of ordinals: such that are in use in literature, should be mentioned and used, not any that is just counted by someone here, without any use in literature or in person's official titulary. ObRoy 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow: "a justification comes also from King being generally a higher title than Grand Duke, so the possibly small unit that is titularly kingdom would be over the possibly huge unit hat was titularly just a grand duchy)." Remember Jogaila, when crumbling polish kingdom was saved by some "titularly just a grand duke" AND lithuanian born Sofia. And another one thing - Jogaila literary "bought" this title by paying ransom accordin to Kreves act: not bad for a pagan, huh? --Lokyz 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article ought to be at Sigismund I of Poland, where it was before this whole mess. And I agree with ObRoy that the Poland-Lithuania issue is not a serious problem. john k 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, on what basis does Piotrus claim there was ever even a majority for this policy, much less a consensus? On the part in the archived talk page he links to where Piotrus actually makes a proposal, he has one supporter (Logologist) and three opponents (Elonka, Halibutt, and Calgacus). One might add Appleseed, and perhaps Khrystene, to supporters at the time, and me to opponents. Which gets us to evenly split, at best. And this is with more than half of the users involved in the discussion (I think all the supporters of the policy, plus Halibutt) being Polish, which is hardly representative of the wikipedia community at large. I think someone would be within their rights to move all the Polish king articles back to their previous locations. I'm not going to do that, because it would be disastrous, but there's certainly no actual policy supporting Piotrus's preferred locations. Note also that the discussion of this was held not on the main policy page which would deal with this issue (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), nor were individual move requests listed on each separate article. Instead, the discussion was carried out on the page listing Polish monarchs, where it is harder to find.  The discussion clearly ought to have been carried out at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles).  In fact, I think this is where we should be discussing this whole issue right, now, rather than on sundry talk pages for individual monarchs. john k 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * John, please note that by the time the moves were done (December) there was 2:0 support of my proposal (see Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01), which has been there for about a month before Logologist started moving the articles. As was pointed out later, we might have been at fault by not advertising the move wider, but certainly it was not carried with any significant opposition at the time. The entire debate started after attention was attracted with the move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was unanimous support (based on, three people), for a while. You continued moving even after I made my objections clear, though. (I noted my objection while you guys were in the middle of moving the articles). john k 12:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Such support is surely enough to begin moves. Looking at the page I see that in many cases you simply said that old name is ok, but did not object to the move per se, and in all cases you brought the arguments we replied to them. Last but not least I believe it was not me who was moving the articles but logologist, although it is possible I moved a few too, especially in cases a red existed at the target place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll
What do you think this article should be named? Please cast your vote below. 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I Sigismund I the Old or Sigismund I of Poland--Elonka 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that simple, Elonka. In Lithuanian history there was Sigismund I of Lithuania, and Sigismund I of Poland is also Sigismund II of Lithuania. (Too bad, that there wasn't enough editors with knowledge of Lithuanian history and this person was wrongly mixed up with completely different person Sigismund Korybut. Not all the links are fixed yet.) Juraune 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have changed my vote.  :) --Elonka 16:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I of Poland is acceptable to me as well... I just want to make sure we don't get so fragmented here that the page ends up staying at a Polish name because somebody rules "no consensus". --Elonka 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I the Old not mistakable with anybody else. Juraune 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zygmunt I the Old, with Sigismund I the Old as a second choice. Certainly no 'of country'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I of Poland or else Sigismund I the Old; in essence, if the "of Poland" format is to be followed, then the former; or if not, then the latter. "Sigismund I" is out of the question, for obvious dabbing reasons. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund the Old; good enough for G.R. Elton is good enough for me (yes, Elton is indeed inconsistent in how he names him, so I picked the one that disambiguated the subject). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I the Elder, is more poetic. Think about it. If it's a no go. Sigismund I the Old (a little awkward), works. Dr. Dan 15:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believer "elder" and "younger" are used to disambiguate between two people. But Sigismund actually was *old*.  He ascended the throne at the age of 39 and ruled for 42 years. Appleseed (Talk) 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigismund I the Old ; Elder is good too but it is not used in books much. M.K. 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that we change a lot of things from "books" in Wikipedia. So, can't we be BOLD, and make things "better" or more Poetic? Dr. Dan 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * good point about books and wik. I just wondering could anybody give a hint on any EN book with Elder? from curiosity...M.K. 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We should not so change, except when quite necessary. Septentrionalis 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigismund I of Poland, just like Sigismund, Archduke of Austria should be at Sigismund I of Austria, Sigismund of Burgundy to Sigismund I of Burgundy, and so on.  // Halibutt 04:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Sigismund of Burgundy falls under the exception for Victoria, unless there is some evidence he used the numeral (which I doubt). Septentrionalis 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund of Austria was the only one in Austria and they did not yet use regnl numbers at that time. Same with Sigismund of Burgundy. The king of Burgundy really is without title "king", but archduke is lower than king and therefore our convention is to include the title, as is done there now. If Sig the Old were "only" a ruler of Silesia (as he was in his career's beginning, when he was not so OLD), he would be Sigismund I, Duke of Silesia. Shilkanni 09:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I of Poland. Sigismund I the Old will not do, because he was also Sigismund II of Lithuania. Sigismund the Old loses too much definitiveness. Septentrionalis 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I of Poland. Let's keep them systematical. Shilkanni 09:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I. Bubba ditto 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I the Old. Appleseed (Talk) 18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigismund I of Poland. Agree with Shilkanni. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Result
I think the majority goes to Sigismund I the Old. Page moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Name as it appears in encyclopediae and dictionaries
The Wikipedia policy on naming says that articles should receive "the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." For everyone's use, here is a list of how this individual's name is listed in major English-language works. If you have access to an English-language encyclopedia or dictionary that is not listed here, please feel free to add another datapoint to this list. Thanks! --Elonka 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this demonstrates that Sigismund the Old is not the overwhelming consensus that policy requires. (Encyclopedia is fake Greek, btw; it takes a normal English plural in -s). Septentrionalis 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopediae

 * Sigismund I (Online Brittanica)
 * Sigismund I (Online Columbia)
 * Sigismund (Webster's Desk Encyclopedia)
 * Sigismund I the Old (1979 Brittanica)
 * Sigismund (1975 Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia)

Dictionaries

 * Zygmunt I (The Old) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

People, take responsibilities!
Hello,

I am no Polish history expert, far from it. I found out about this page when editing banknote data. To my surprise, this page had a ton of double redirects, even triple in some cases! This page was moved 3 days ago, and nobody even bother to check that? Yes, I know everyone can edit, therefore strictly speaking nobody is more responsible than others. And robots will "eventually" catch this. But please, I humbly ask you, if you care about Sigismund I the Old, then make things better, for yourselves and other interested readers. --Chochopk 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How?
How did he die? Colonel Marksman 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:200zl r.jpg
Image:200zl r.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:200zl r.jpg
Image:200zl r.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I thought I had made my case, and even compelling. So perhaps I need to do it here so the individual who keeps changing how I, and why I, laid out the infobox as it was, with the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania in separate successions. As I suggested that this individual perhaps do a little research into Polish history and the monarchs in general, and it seems this what not done, I will quickly summarize here. Until 1569, there was no official Joint commonwealth. As such, these were two completely separate realms, with each title being put into place by each countries own parliament. After 1569, there was a joint parliament that required the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to place one ruler, but still holding two separate titles. If you combine these two successions in one area in the infobox, those who are looking at the infoboxes for a quick summary, will not understand this. The Polish succession to it's own monarchs, let alone the additional aspect of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, is not as easy as comparing it to the British Royal successions, as this individual has done here, and on other articles. As this person keeps doing. I am trying to respect the fact that this individual was, as it appears, very involved in the evolution of the template:infobox royalty template. MJSplant (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How could you think that you made your case (and even compelling) when I addressed your concerns on your talkpage? I too made my case, you know. You could be civil enough to refer to me by my username, rather than "this/that individual", let alone giving your opinion of my knowledge about Polish monarchs (based on editing an infobox?!). Anyway, I have never inserted any mention of the P-L Commonwealth into the infobox. I have merely put the Lithuanian title below the Polish title. It just doesn't make sense to have two seperate successions when every parameter is the same. Of course this is as easy as comparing it to the British succession; Elizabeth II reigns over sixteen states and this man reigned over two states. I don't see sixteen successions in the infobox of her article, even though all those states are in exactly the same relationship as were Poland and Lithuania during Sigismund I's reign - in a personal union. Sigismund succeeded the same man as King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania; he was inaugurated as the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania on the same day; his reign in Poland and Lithuania began on the same day; his reign in Poland and Lithuania ended on the same day; he was succeeded as King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania by the same man. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to repeat things. Once again, I would like to ask you to refer to me, rather than talking about me using third-person pronoun. Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexander Jagiellon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

serfdom
Re ''He set up the legal codes that formalized serfdom, locking the peasants into the estates of nobles. '' - which page is that in the Lewalski source?  Volunteer Marek  01:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

the statue in Warszawa
I suppose its Sigismund I Stary whom has this renown statue in Warszawa, the king standing on a high colonn? I think its worth mentioning it somewhere in the article, I suspect for many non specialists he is known mainly by this statue. Or if you want, mentioning this statue gives immediately an Aha-feeling with many tourists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.147.208 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The statue is of Sigismund III Vasa, who moved the Polish capital from Krakow to Warsaw. See the wikipage on Sigismund's Column. Fromthemitten (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Augustus II the Strong which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)