Talk:Stephen Bathory, King of Poland

Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice

Danzig succesfully defended against Bathory??!?!?? I would prefer Gdnaks name too, if we call Lithuanian city by Vilnius...szopen

Maximilian's army was defeated at Krakow, Parzymiechy, and Byczyna. He was caught and held prisoner. When released, he still was usurping title of Polish king.

The 66.47 idea that he was not interested is ridiculous. If he was not interested, why he entered Poland with army in first place!! Szopen

Name

I think our royal name policy needs to be adjusted with respect to kings of Poland. This guy is universally known as Stefan (or Stephen) Bathory. Similarly, Jan or John Sobieski. Stanislas Poniatowski. I'm not sure what the advantage of putting them in positions like this is. Anyone else have thoughts? john k 21:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to clean the mess with both Stevens B. put in the same article. Ideally, this article should be at Stefan Batory and the other at where it is now, but the Stefan Batory article has an edit history longer than one line (two lines actually...) and the move function did not work. I believe we should either ask one of the admins to move this article to where it belongs or leave it here.

Moved; cf. István Báthory. Mikkalai 07:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the policy someone chose for the Polish kings (there was some discussion on this topic some time ago) is not very sensible IMO, but at least it is consistent. I've never heard of Stanislaw August Poniatowski referred to as Stanislaus II of Poland, but at least that name is consistent with the others. That's why I chose Stefan I of Poland as a (temporary?) name. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 06:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Kings of Poland template

Wojsyl, I don't see you communicating on the talk page here, either. At any rate, the Kings of Poland templates are inappropriate, as are all the Polish officeholder templates. We don't do such templates for any other officeholders, and there is no reason to do it for Polish kings. Why does having a list of all Polish kings add to the article on an individual Polish king? Why isn't a succession box sufficient? john k 15:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you removed it silently on April 25th. I think it would be appropriate if you explained this before you removed the template. I find the template useful, as it puts t\he monarch in a better historical context. I also don't see any harm it makes and cannot understand why you keep removing it even if I'm sure you're aware that no consensus was reached on this. Forcing your views is not the best way of conduct on WP. Could you explain what is that you find offending in this template. I'm sure more people would appreciate it if you could contribute to the article in a positive way instead of deleting content that you don't like for some reason, especially when you know that other people find it useful. In the meantime, I would like to ask you to refrain from removing the template before a consensus is reached to do so. Wojsyl 17:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There are procedures for this - namely Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. I don't think that the argument 'others don't have them, so those few that have them should be downgraded as well' is valid. True, most of the relevant articles are stubs and thus the templates stand out, but eventually they will be expanded to large size and the templates will be barely noticable. Of course, the templates can be divided without losing much content - for example into Piasts, Jagiellons and elected kings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The current policy on article series boxes is such: "For very long series, it is preferable to use incumbent series, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article." - Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes. The Kings of Poland template clearly falls under this rubrik. By removing the template, I was following current policy. At the very, very least the template needs to be broken up. Can I also note that I removed the template for every prime minister of Poland, every president of Poland, and every King of Poland after Stephen (as well as Henry III of France), and nobody objected except to this one page? john k 20:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

At the very, very least the template needs to be present in the very article relevant to it. I.e. the 'kings of Poland' template should definetly be used in the kings of Poland article. If you go on removing template spree, make sure you leave (or add) it to the main article, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove it from any main articles, just the articles on individual officeholders, although I did just nominate them for deletion - the information could easily be moved from the template to the main article, if the conclusion is that they shouldn't be on the individual pages. john k 02:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's a good and polite practice not to remove contents when you see that others find useful. If you don't like the template, then VFD is the way to go instead. Please hold on with your deleting until it's resolved there. Wojsyl 08:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)