Talk:Sigismund III Vasa

Messy dates

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))

Sigismund III Vasa (Poland) & Sigismund (Sweden)

I see no need for this edit which just denies the reader relevant and important knowledge about the king's different naming in the two countries he ruled. Nobody in one of those countries, Sweden, ever called him Sigismund III Vasa. Reversing again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Swedish name is highlighted in the lead. The name in the infobox is actually representing the title of the article. If you haven't noticed the title is Sigismund III. Just because Swedish name differs doesn't mean that the name in the infobox must be changed. Please don't forget that he was also the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the Lithuanian name is not included and should not be as it is not well known. I would also like to mention that he is widely referred to as Sigismund III and his reign in Sweden was short(er) and somewhat insignificant. I'd also like to highlight that many Polish kings ruled other countries, for example Sigismund's son, Władysław IV, was chosen to be the Tsar of All Russia and yet his Russian name is not included in the infobox. I'd also like to advise that you do not make any changes before achieving the discussion. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree. His Swedish regal name is significant, as was his reign there, where he was born. We need his Lithuanian name as little as we need what he was called in Finland, where he also reigned. You might want to have a look at the info box for Charles XV of Sweden. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

His Polish name is more reliable and valid than Swedish. If you look into the internet, he is always or at least most of the time referred to as Sigismund III. Also Charles XV ruled the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway which was one country whereas there was only a strategic/military union between Poland and Sweden which did not last for long: that is a major impact on the name present in the lead. If Sigismund was known by any other number eg. Sigismund II in Sweden, then I'd be happy to add the name Sigismund II & III into the infobox. However, Sigismund was only known by his first name in Sweden, which is already included in the infobox - Sigismund III Vasa. Therefore both Swedish and Polish names are already included. By adding both names and the countries of origin, the infobox becomes lengthy which is not aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore no two names are present in any infobox of a Polish monarch or duke. Oliszydlowski 21:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Swedish-Norwegian union was not that much more than a personal union, but that is not the most important aspect of this. I'm not sure if there is another ruler that could possibly be used as a model for this? Perhaps Haakon VI of Norway, who also was king of Sweden, and has a similar solution as this. I think it would be nice if both names could be included in the infobox somehow, but not necessarily in the title.

Andejons (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree! :) Oliszydlowski 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

Pre-GA review

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 [1] reliable? Likewise, Kinga 2020 published by e-bookowo.pl is likely a WP:SPS. Lastly, we can surely find a more reliable source than [2] 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)

@Piotrus: - 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)

Oliszydlowski, Fair enough. Good luck with the GAN! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigismund III all over the place

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)

@SergeWoodzing: - 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)

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)

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)

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)

@SergeWoodzing: - What other changes do you suggest? Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Why ask that, when you are only going to start edit warring to get your way? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Monarch of?

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)

 Fixed by another editor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Title versus lead

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)

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)

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).

@SergeWoodzing: - 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)

That is not explanatory information it's part of his vital life history. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we are being overly pedantic here. The title of this Swedish-language biography focusing on Sigismund's reign in Poland tells us that a) Swedish historians do not find it so queer to call this king Sigismund Vasa, b) historians do not insist on using the numeral when discussing him as king of Poland. Therefore we can afford to be quite flexible in dealing with this non-issue. Surtsicna (talk)

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)

@Surtsicna: @SergeWoodzing: - 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)

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)

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)

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)

Please see now (proposed edit) and determine on whether you agree. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Correct English rendering of his Swedish regnal name is Sigismund - nothing else. GA? Never! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

"Disruptive"? That's an argument to improve this article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

But very much linked to it. I'd be more than happy with an RfC. @Piotrus: what do you think? Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sigismund III Vasa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

As long as the lead's first line only has bold type on the name form used for this king in Poland, but not that used in Sweden, I will oppose this nomination. It now looks like he was called Sigismund III Vasa in both countries, which is wrong on 2 counts. See talk there. I also think the nomination should be made by someone other than the dominant contributor (but that's maybe just how I feel). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, the person who opens the review is responsible for making an entire review, not just oppose for a single issue that can be rectified. As best I can tell, this is your first attempt at a GA review; did you intend to do an entire review to the GA criteria per the reviewing instructions? If not, and you aren't willing to do a thorough job, then we should find another reviewer to take over. Your inexperience is clear from your statement that the nomination should have been made by someone who isn't the dominant contributor. To the contrary, it is very typical for the person who has contributed most significantly to an article to be the GA nominator, and indeed expected that if someone wishes to nominate the article who is not a significant contributor, they should consult with those who are on the article's talk page prior to making a nomination.

Fortunately, there is a GAN backlog drive going on at the moment, so I can list this as a review needing a new reviewer on the drive page. Please let me know how you plan to proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the nomination for the vital, essential, central, definitive reason given, which the dominant user has shown h-self absolutely unwilling to see "rectified". Some of the rest of what you wrote is like Greek to me. No, I am not "willing to do a thorough job" if that means learning a lot of new rules, regulations, format and rigmarole. Do what you please with this. Sorry if I upset anyone by starting this off in a horrendously inappropriate manner. There's just so much that many of us experienced users are willing to learn and march after, especially if our WP time is limited, as mine is. If you can get the issue reviewed in impressively strict and rigid format, which nobody can attack, that would be great. I obviously do not know how to do that, nor am I interested in learning it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

To get this right - you believe that this article isn't suitable for GA because of one phrase isn't in bold? I recommend talking about this on the talk page - not derailing a GAN review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, I concur. Ping User:BlueMoonset - this review needs to be invalidated, and the article needs to be restored to its GA queue. User:SergeWoodzing is cautioned that GA review process should not be confusing with the article's talk page, and trying to derail the GAN process with a tiny issue like this is a WP:POINTless disruption. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing suggestion for sentence in lead

Merangs, the last sentence in the third paragraph of lead seems like it could use editing: After a series of skirmishes ending in a truce, Gustavus II Adolphus launched a campaign against the Commonwealth which resulted in the partial loss of Polish Livonia and in Sigismund's claim to the Swedish crown.

• 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)

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)

Thank you so much for pointing this out Wtfiv. I will attend these issues promptly. Merangs (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: - 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)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sigismund III Vasa/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article which looks to be not that far short of a GA on an initial cursory inspection. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The image File:Karl IX, 1550-1611, duke and king of Sweden. Eskilstuna stadsmuseum, Eskilstuna, Sweden.jpg is licensed under Creative Commons as "Own work". Please check and confirm that this is the correct license.

 Fixed --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1589, Sigismund's half-brother John, the future Duke of Östergötland, was born." Please add an appropriate verified source.

 Fixed Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "he passed through the clutches of the Protestants". Please clarify as per MOS:IDIOM.

 Fixed - removed the idiom. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• " The Chancellor was initially supportive of Sigismund's candidacy due to his maternal lineage and connection to the royal house of Jagiellon." This seems a repeat of "His candidacy was secured by Queen Dowager Anna, Hetman Jan Zamoyski and several elite magnates who considered him a native candidate as a descendant of the Jagiellons." Please can you add the wikilink to the first instance and reword so that it is more encyclopaedic.

 Fixed - removed repetition and restructured sentence, see the article for detail. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "He established the office of regional governor (ståthållare) and appointed Klaus Fleming as the overlord of Finland, Charles' lifelong enemy." Please reword to clarify that it is Fleming who is the enemy rather than (I assume) Finland.

 Fixed - restructured sentence. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "In September 1597, he sailed for the Finnish coast and was able to take Åbo Castle in Turku". Consider rewording as the pronoun is unclear (the subject of the previous sentence was Finland).

 Fixed - restructured sentence. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "which systematically led to the demise of Sultan Osman II" Please clarify how this was systematic.

 Fixed - reworded sentence to "hastened the downfall of Osman II" for more clarity. For sources see the section about Polish-Ottoman War in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is the source for the children of Anne and Sigismund Spórna, Wierzbicki & Wygonik 2003, p. 519? Please place the reference appropriately.

Comment - Yes that is the correct source. It also lists the children. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "However, it is unknown whether the relations between the two were physical." Please add a verified source.

 Fixed - added two sources. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Her sudden death was a blow to Sigismund who never recovered and died just nine months later." Please expand with a final paragraph about his end of life and legacy.

Comment - not sure what you meant here since the "death" and "legacy" sections are already included in the article. However, this did seem somewhat repetitive, hence I removed it.

• Link Elizabeth

 Fixed - link added where appropriate. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Please add OCLC using this template or another similar designation to bibliographical references which lack ISBN.

 Fixed - All book sources/references should now either have ISBN, ISSN or OCLC. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Although not a GA criteria, consider adding ALT tags to the images as per MOS:ALT.

 Fixed - All files and images in the body of the article and the infobox now have a MOS:ALT caption. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Merangs: This is a really good article and the edits are minor. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: - Thank you so much for your appreciation. I attended to all of your comments and fixed what was necessary. Please review the article and let me known how it stands. Regards. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is looking great. Time for a review. simongraham (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Review

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: - Thank you so much for this. I have one question, could you please assist me in selecting a passage from the text which seems interesting enough to nominate it for DYK? I'd like this to appear on Wikipedia's main page. Merangs (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Merangs: - How about a DYK around the 1620 assassination attempt? It could be an OTD too. simongraham (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zygmunt

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)

@Piotrus: - 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)

Merangs, John should be Ioannes...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - 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)

Merangs 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)

@Piotrus: - 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)

Merangs, 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)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Portrait of Sigismund III by Pieter Soutman, c. 1642

• ... that Sigismund III (pictured) transferred Poland's capital from Kraków to Warsaw in 1596?

• Comment: Article upgraded to a GA status on 3 August 2021

Improved to Good Article status by Merangs (talk). Self-nominated at 04:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

• @Merangs: GA improvement (and hence, size, etc.) all good. The hook is neutral, referenced in the article, and mildly interesting. If anything, I'd suggest coming up with some more interesting hooks to draw more leaders in. Maybe something about capturing Moscow where Napoleon and Hitler failed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issues

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:

• [3], from [4]
• [5], from [6]
• [7], also from [8] (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)

@Premeditated Chaos: - Thank you so much for undertaking this and removing any traces of CV. Kindest regards! Merangs (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)