Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Swedish p Pronunciation of whole official name

I added, to a footnote with the Swedish pronunciation of Carl the sixteenth Gustaf, that it is in fact the pronunciation of all that, including "the sixteenth" and not just of his given names. This was quickly reverted, to my surprise, by a user who has argued with me a lot about such things. To me, it is obviously helpful and relevant, in that particular footnote (i.e trivia, as I see it), to write out in English what that pronunciation is of. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

PS I might add that I actually do not think it is necessary - but rather bizarre - for readers of English to use Wikipedia as a language lesson in order to learn how to pronounce "the sixteenth" in Swedish. If I knew how to remove that part from the (already trivial) pronunciation thingy, I would have done that instead. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing I have removed your nomination at 3rd opinion as there's not actually been discussion here yet of the change. If you and the other editor can't agree after some discussion here feel free to list it again.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98 I would like to reverse your reversal on this, and I hope you don't mind, after you've read this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: what a great idea, what about adding "the Second" at Elizabeth II, "the Eighth" at Henry VIII of England and "the Third" at Victor Emmanuel III of Italy? There is no way I discuss this, it is as clear as day it is totally pointless and annoying to have a written form for the English number. Regarding the Swedish pronunciation, we already talked about it and you agreed on leaving everything in a footnote. If there ever has to be a written ordinal a user needs to see spelled, that’s the Swedish, not the English, one. Last time I bother to discuss this rubbish. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 07:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In any case, do what you want. Some other editor with common sense will certainly remove it. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 07:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have accepted this Wikipedia:Third opinion case. Pronunciation is typically indicated as a parenthetical as opposed to an endnote, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Removing the use of the endnote has the effect of putting the Swedish pronunciation next to the taken royal name, which I believe sufficiently demarcates it from the subject's given name, which appears next. --Bsherr (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous because the Swedish pronunciation is the same as the English pronunciation, except for the numeral. And pronunciation guides are not there to explain how to say "16th" in Swedish. They are there to explain how to pronounce the name, which is unnecessary in this case because the pronunciation is just as an English speaker would say it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In my view, the Third Opinion request was limited to the formatting of the pronunciation, which was the subject of the last edit and revert. I take no position on whether it should be removed entirely or whether there is consensus to do so. --Bsherr (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Celia Homeford - that's exactly what I meant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

PS Third opinion providers normally give their opinion as part of a discussion. They do not go in and make changes on their own before others have had a chance to respond. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford:: what? exactly like the English one? Seriously? The discussion is about the numeral though: pretty much every reader of this Wikipedia knows how to read "XVI" in English, but most will not know how to read it in Swedish. So the only thing I may support is removing the Swedish IPA for den sextonde, but definitely not adding English "the Sixteenth" or cutting the whole Swedish pronunciation off. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 12:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If the Swedish pronunciation of "the sixteenth" gets removed (which I do not know how to do, as I mentioned above), and if the pronunciation thingy is left as a footnote, I will be perfectly satisfied. And if, in future discussions we do not have (1) a 3rd opinion editor who goes in and changes the article while a discussion is going on, and (2) we can have discussions with less sarcasm aimed at each other, and more care with WP:TPYES "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." I will not just be satisfied, but very pleased. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

PS Since Carl hardly is mispronounceable in English, and since I think most people know that Gustaf double-rhymes with bust of (there is many a bust of Gustav), I don't think we need an English pronnciation thingy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

And indeed there is no English pronunciation because we do not need one (there is a Swedish one which is different and not identical, as was said above). @SergeWoodzing: I still don’t get what do you mean by “not knowing how” to remove part of the IPA: I mean you just… do…? However, as I already stated elsewhere and as remarked by Bsherr, a footnote is not really necessary in cases like this. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 18:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings all...totally uninvolved editor here, and found this discussion when I was reading the talk page at WP:3O. When I read SergeWoodzing's comment about most people knowing that Gustaf double-rhymes with bust of, I was a bit surprised because I personally did not know that. I have always heard it pronounced 'GOOSE-toff'. I was surprised to find that I had been wrong all this time, so I did some Google searching to verify, but all I found were examples that said it the way I do (see [1], [2], [3]). What this tells me is that we probably do need an English punctuation guide. :) CThomas³ (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur: I, too, always thought the Swedish pronunciation rhymes with "GOOSE-toff" and not with "BUST of". The name is rare enough in US English usage that I would be unsure how to pronounce it, but more likely to think it rhymes with "BUST of" (because I know US Americans with the surname "Gustafson" who pronounce it to rhyme with "BUST uff son" -- whereas I know no Americans named "Gustaf"), and thus that it differs from the way the same name is pronounced in Swedish. Until a few decades ago, it was common in English to use the latinized version, "Gustavus VI Adolphus" (which I would have pronounced "Goo STAH vus" and "Uh DOLF us"). FactStraight (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cthomas3 and FactStraight: I think there has been a little misunderstanding; probably what SergeWoodzing meant to type was Swedish (not English), because in any case Collins seems to confirm the aforementioned English pronunciation (which I don’t think needs an IPA). The Swedish one instead somewhat rhymes with bust of, and is in my opinion not straightforward and should stay. ;) イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 22:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should tell the thousands of Swedish Americans and Swedish Brits named Gustaf or Gustav or Gustafson or Gustavson that there's a GOOSE in their name in normal English pronunciation. Something pseudo-German similar to Goose-tawf does exist as a theoretical, sort of Hollywood pronunciation of the name in English, but without actually belonging phonetically to any language or being a reality among users of the name or their acquaintances in the real world. Find me one American Gustaf who does not agree that his name rhymes with bust of and I'll eat my hat. Gustav pronounced in Swedish rhymes approximately with wooss-tahv in English. No goose in there either. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently, all evidence (as little as it may be) seems in favor of /ˈɡʊstɑːv/ GUUS-tahv in English; moreover, this transcription has been present on Gustav (name) since this old revision by Slarre (talk · contribs) and it does not seem to have been challenged ever since. @SergeWoodzing: can you find sources in favor of /ˈɡʌstəv/ GUSS-təv? イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There's lots about this thru Google (too much for me to wade through right now), but let me begin by asking: does Gustaf Skarsgård have a GOOSE in his name when it's pronounced in English? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, never heard his name pronounced, and since apparently he usually comes to the public's attention as an actor portraying someone else, I would expect his real name to be spelled out in the programme credits, but rarely if ever pronounced aloud. What difference would it make to the matter we are deciding how any one individual's name is pronounced? FactStraight (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

And I've had 5 friends in America named Gustav and even more named Gustavson, and never once heard a GOOSE in the pronunciation of their names. Hope to get to wading through all that on Google soon. Not today. In the meantime, another question: Why would Gustafson (as in Gustafson's law and Steve Gustafson and Peter B. Gustavson School of Business) be pronounced without the GOOSE, but Gustav alone have one in there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find too many online sources where his name is uttered aloud, but I did find [4], [5], [6], and [7](around 1:00). All are GOOSE. Only one is uttered with him listening, but he doesn't correct the speaker, either. I have yet to find any saying it GUSS, but I will keep looking. You have a good point about Gustafson/Gustavson, though, as I have only heard that "GUS". CThomas³ (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm piling it on a bit, but those of you who do have acquaintances named Gustav in English-speaking countries, and have heard their common nickname of Gus-Gus (rhymes with bus fuss), can you imagine them being called GOOSE-GOOSE or maybe even Goosie? Just askin'. I refuse to even mention the remarkably offensive (to some of those men) horror of being called goosed off - oops! mentioned it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you are piling on at all. That's my problem entirely; I know no one with that name, and therefore I completely accept the possibility that I have been mispronouncing it this whole time. All I am saying is that I can't find any evidence the GUS is correct, though I am perfectly happy to be proven wrong. My only intention with my initial comment was to say "I think there are a lot of confused people out there (myself included), and a pronunciation guide would definitely help." CThomas³ (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few more that all pronounce the name as "goose" and not "gus" dating from 1976 through to 2016 from reliable news sources such as France 24 English, Euronews etc and organisations of which he is a patron. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], 2 are face to face interviews, 1 is an introduction to a speech he made. These three would have been prepared in advance and rehearsed almost certainly with help from the palace protocol departement so one could imagine that any wrong prononciation would have been corrected before the recording. I honestly don't think that the way that nicknames are spelt or pronounced is relevant to the way that one should pronounce a given name as per Hal for Harry or Henry or Maggie for Margaret or Izzy for Issac (is that pronounced I-zak or Ee-zak or I-zuk or Ee-zuk?) or Molly and Polly for Mary. It is possible that those Gustav or Gustaf moving to the US had their names pronounced that way by others and adopted that pronunciation themselves or the family of those born in the US simply adopted a simpler way of pronouncing it to avoid confusion. In France, where I live, my christian name Dominic (pronounced domi-nick) doesn't exist with that spelling, both men and women have their name spelt Dominique and pronounced dom-i-NEEK. I have adopted a pronunciation for my French friends that is closer to their habitual way of pronouncing the French spelling of my name to avoid repetitive and tedious discussion. They also call me Domi (pronounced Dommy) which I have never used in the UK or sometimes the Corsican version Doumé (pronounced Doo-may). In English speaking countries Gus is traditionally a nickname for Angus or Augustus amongst others that have this sound in their name so it is forgivable that English speakers that have not been told how to pronounce a word will use their own frame of linguistic reference to pronounce it. As per "Edin-berg" for Edinburgh for some Americans or not muting the first "d" in Wednesday or in handkerchief for new English learners. I think it is better to use reliable sources of how his name is pronounced in English rather than one's own personal experience of other people. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Dyslexia wrongly removed in 2013

The Knig is famously dyslexic. It's a matter of public record. The Wiki is a worse place for shedding this information.104.244.157.100 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's his son, Carl-Phillip, who is dyslexic 'as a matter of public record'. ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Carl Gustaf is well known to be dyslexic and this has been published many times in reliable media. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Regal Assurance

Is it really relevant for the article to have the entire Regal Assurance printed? It seems highly irrelevant. If we do keep it, a source for it is needed. Jeppiz (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Knugen - Kungen

User:Emjon did a good faith edit and added information from svwp about the nick name "Knugen" in the article, with source. This was reverted by another user in quite harsh wordings, and even harder on Emjons discussion page. (About that. Lets keep that discussion on that disussion page).

About Knugen: it is common known he was called that sometimes, just like the source says. The source might be a tabloid, as the edit comment says, but it is an interview with the king. The source has been in the Swedish article since before 2014 (but not mentioning knugen in the article).

In August 2014 one user wrote knugen in the article, as you can see here. Since then it has been written in the article. Noone have deleted it for five years. The user who wrote it in the Swedish article happens to be the same user who reverted the same thing written by Emjon here on enwp, and therefor I wonder why. Isn't it a fact knugen has been used? (Also used in an interview with the King), and why not mention it then here, in the same way as you wrote on svwp ("knugen has been used to ridicul the kings dyslexia")? Adville (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I'm inclined to keep it out of the article. You could probably swing the very last part of MOS:NICKNAME either way with this one, and if we look in other places, we could note for example that the article on Hillary Clinton doesn't elevate "crooked Hillary" to nickname status in any way. I think it's also got an aspect of WP:CRUFT about it - seems like something Swedes would find interesting and amusing about a subject they're very familiar with, when in fact it is not really (and hence why it's been allowed to remain on the Swedish wp?).

The pertinent piece of information here is really just that he's dyslexic and that he's talking about it openly these days, and that's properly sourced already. EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I should add that the effort required to explain the "joke" isn't really worth the pay-off. If it really really needs to be in an article, I'd put all that in a note. EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

King of Sweden with a capital k

Please see and discuss the principle here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference WP:JOBTITLES. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

He is referencing JOBTITLES & thus in this article's case, we go with capitalization. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of most of "Use of remaining power" section

I see no reason to remove a list which is helpful in defining the few rights this man still has, and all of which is sourced in the articles of those mentioned. Should be reinstated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he may have the right to grant his family members titles and dukedoms, yet we shouldn't make a huge list out of every single decision that he has made. Even though you argued on my talk page that he has more freedom with giving these titles away without the government interfering unlike other monarchies, I still can draw similarities between his actions and those of Elizabeth II, Margrethe II, and many other kings and queens. Obviously, we haven't dedicated a huge chunk of their articles into making a list that says which grandchild has which title, and we shouldn't do so. However, if you insist on having such a section, use prose instead, and incorporate the available info into paragraphs that give specific useful examples that are sourced. References are important because another Wikipedia article cannot be a source for this article, even if it's linked to it. Keivan.f^Talk 04:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What's essential here is not that the Swedish government does not interfere with all that titling, but that it does not officially sanction any of it & that Carl Gustaf has done all that on his own using his own extraconstitutional (house) powers, meaning that the titles are accepted by the Swedish establishment and the royalist majority of the population, out of respect, but may or may mot be legally valid. I think it's more educational to show all that in a matter-of-fact list rather than in tiresome & unavoidably repetitive prose. If anyone else wants each item on the list sourced, that time-consuming project certainly can be done, but at the expense, in my case, of very limited minutes. never hours anymore, that I have to spend on Wiki projects nowadays. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

PS If we are to rewrite the section as prose anyway (I'm beginning to see a possibility), it would be nice to finish talking here before we add any box to the article about what we'd like to see there. I think that's what we do. Talk pages, and consensus there, are normally for what we'd like to see, while it is being discussed, not primarily slapping template boxes on an article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific sentence or phrase in that section at this point which shows that he has the absolute power to bestow titles upon whomever he wants regardless of what the government says? Because if that's the case it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article with a valid source since it seems to be a power that is given to him by the constitution (I guess!). Regarding the references, we don't need to use a source for every single sentence, but for example I would like to see a credible reference regarding the manner in which his wife became queen. Were there any consorts before her that were not created queen once they married a king, or is it up to the monarch to give away this title to his wife? Some sentences are really vague and need more clarification. Keivan.f^Talk 19:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bramstång reference (current #22) clarifies his house powers & that the Swedish government grants no titles. Lilian, Princess of Réthy is one of several examples where a woman married a king w/o becoming queen (she replaced C16G's paternal grandfather's first cousin Astrid of Sweden when Astrid was killed). I will try to return here soon re: the rest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

names of scandinavian monarchs

A number of Scandinavian monarchs, past and present, have a regnal number between two given names, such as Kenneth III William. I am guessing (by all means tell me if I'm wrong) that that means that the individual is the third named Kenneth to have the throne. Would William be a patronymic? I've not seen this pattern outside of Scandinavia. I assume that there are some interesting tales of how it evolved, but so far google hasn't been of any use. But I bet Wikipedia can!!! PurpleChez (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Many Swedes have double given names which, together, either hyphenated or not, are used as their names of address (meaning they are addressed by them, not that they received snail mail with them - the English language lacks a good common version of sv:Tilltalsnamn). The first known Swede to use such a double name was King Anwynd James in the 11th century. When the first Gustav Adolph became king in 1604 he was also the first since Anwynd James with a double name and decided that, counting Gustav for his numeral, not Adolph or the full Gustav Adolph, but still including both names, he was to be called Gustav II Adolph. Later kings named Gustav Adolph (after 1900 legally spelled Gustaf Adolf) and Carl Gustav (as of the 20th century legally spelled Carl Gustaf) have followed suit. I have used normal established English exonyms in this reply. The second name, your William, is by no means a surname. Thank you for asking! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in your fictive example, William would not be a patronymic, and this practice has been followed by all monarchs with double given names after Gustaf II Adolf, such as, for example Karl XIV Johan, except for the ones who were the first ones of their first given name, such as Adolf Fredrik and Ulrika Eleonora.

Right Marbe (you forgot to sign your entry), not a patronymic or any other kind of surname. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

PS Marbe: while we're clarifying, we are not talking merely about given names, as I explained, but about a double name of address. Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden had six given names, not just a double given name. Carl XIV John had 4 even after his adoption, as clearly stated in the Swedish Constitution. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, correct you are on all counts, and I apologise for the missing signature. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Shortening the article title

Requested move 9 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved all. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden → Carl XVI Gustaf
• Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden → Gustaf VI Adolf
• Gustaf V of Sweden → Gustaf V
• Oscar II of Sweden → Oscar II
• Charles XV of Sweden → Charles XV
• Charles XIII of Sweden → Charles XIII
• Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden → Gustav IV Adolf
• Gustav III of Sweden → Gustav III

– There has been a trend in the past years to shorten titles of articles about monarchs by removing the unnecessary disambiguation, so I wanted to gauge support for doing the same for the recent (Bernadotte and Oldenburg) monarchs of Sweden. Such changes are in the spirit of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. It has been 9 years since the shortening of titles of articles about contemporary British monarchs (Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and Edward VII). We have also had moves such as Maria Theresa of Austria→Maria Theresa, Napoleon I of France→Napoleon, Napoleon III of France→Napoleon III, Louis Philippe I of France→Louis Philippe I, and recently Elizabeth I of England→Elizabeth I. The title Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is unnecessarily chunky, especially considering that it is pronounced "Carl the Sixteenth Gustaf of Sweden". No other country has had a Carl XVI Gustaf so the disambiguation is pointless. There is also the issue of some of the kings being kings of Norway too, likening this to the case of the British/Commonwealth monarchs.

I left out Oscar I of Sweden because, since 2018, he has not been treated as the primary meaning of Oscar I. I thought that should be handled by a separate discussion if the community agrees to these changes. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," according to WP:TITLE. No published encyclopedia uses this "of [country]" format. Allan Rice (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Britannica has the present king under Carl XVI Gustaf. Thank you for citing a policy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per explanations and norms ~ Amkgp 💬 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I object to change without some clear benefit and none of the reasons given constitute a clear benefit. OTOH, if we were going the other way, I would argue that adding the country does provide some clear benefits, in that it helps to clarify that the title refers to the monarch of a specific country and it provides more consistency in article naming. Fabrickator (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The benefit is that we would be using a concise title that corresponds to what these people are normally called in other articles and templates, thus eliminating the need for redirects and piping. "of Sweden" does not really mark anyone as a monarch of Sweden; Marie Fredriksson is "of Sweden" as much as Carl XVI Gustaf is. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - any moves that favour removing the 'country' from a monarch's article title. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You are contributing nothing to the discussion if you do not provide arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Abstain is all I can do, because I feel strongly that our naming principles need a thorough overhaul for simplification, clarity & consistency when it comes to still legitimate kings, queens, princes & princesses as well as all the people using defunct titles, most of them illegitimate since 1918. In lieu of such, I dasn't opine here lest I get embroiled in another dramatic & taxing debate. Consistency seems now like a utopian dream, since we are to go by newspapers & magazines calling one person an apple, another a banana and another a turnip, so to speak. If I live long enough and find more time, spunk & courage, I may propose that overhaul. Till then, trying to work on chronically inconsistent Wikipedia, Goodness save us all! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the simplification proposed here will eventually lead to greater consistency: the titles of articles about monarchs with unambiguous regnal names would consist of the said regnal names (e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf) while others would follow the already established "X, King of Sweden" format (e.g. Valdemar, King of Sweden, Ulrika Eleonora, Queen of Sweden, Adolf Frederick, King of Sweden, etc). The comma makes it clear that the title is there for disambiguation; while in the present nomenclature, it is not clear why some are "of Sweden" and others "King of Sweden". Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There used to be consistency in this area, with Monarch of country as the standard. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that standard was untenable, which is why it was eroded years ago. It was never going to work for Roman, Byzantine and East Asian rulers, for example, none of whom have ever been titled "[Name] of [Country]". If supported, this format will create consistency. Articles about all monarchs would eventually consist of regnal names only, unless a title is needed for disambiguation. That would essentially mean having only one main formulation and one alternative instead of three or four. There will never be a better shot at consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:F4DB:3E2B:899F:3848 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support all. Not really much I can add to what Surtsicna has already said, except my agreement. Opera hat (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, shorter is better when possible.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support all, on the grounds of the policies mentioned, and the lack of a specific need for "of Sweden" to avoid ambiguity in any of the articles listed. Sam Sailor 13:30, 17 June 2020 (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.

Nonsense?

Could someone please explain what this is for? What does it mean? Who succeeded to what? It seems to make sense to one Wikipedian. Anyone else get it? If not, I will remove it again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me as well. It is rather your comment above I don't get. What is it that you don't understand? Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Succession title "Swedish royalty" looks like it is in addition to, i.e. excludes, "King of Sweden" above. Can we do better? It's apparently his 1950-1973 title of crown prince that we're doing a succession on. If the intention is to emphasize his son's short tenure before he was demoted, that's fine with me. But how does the heading "Swedish royalty" fit there exclusively, as if that were Carl Gustaf's his only title in Swedish royalty? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory

Monarchy of Sweden claims the title King of Sweden has been in use since the 16th century. DrKay (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not just confusing things with the section you've been editing about the "King of the Swedes, the Goths/Geats and the Wends" title? I believe it's roughly equivalent to Elizabeth II's title of "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", which isn't to say that "Queen of England" isn't her title. The "King of Sweden" title in that short form is from when the current king adopted it, but surely that doesn't contradict Monarchy of Sweden's claim that Sweden has had a hereditary monarchy since the 1500s?

Anyway, I don't see how Monarchy_of_Sweden#Titles contradicts the section you tagged, as it has the same dates? Unless there's some contradiction I couldn't spot... EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One connotation of King of Sweden is the shorter simpler official title adopted by the current king. The other connotation king of Sweden is a position that has existed, as far as we know, since the Pope began writing to men in that position in the 11th century already. How's that for adding a bit of confusion here? I am as confused by the question as any Wikipedian would have the right to be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Monarchy of Sweden says that the title Sveriges Konung, which it translates as "King of Sweden", has been in use since 1544. It also states "The title Svea Konung (King of the Swedes) dated to an older era." This article translates Sveriges Konung as "King of Sweden" in the last sentence of the Title and styles section and as "King of the Swedes" in the first sentence of that section. This article says the title "King of the Swedes" was used from 1544 and that the title "King of Sweden" is a novel invention in use from 1973. That is a contradiction both within the section and with other articles. DrKay (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a translation problem. Sveriges konung is the official title as shortened in 1974 also a very formal way of saying the king of Sweden, whereas king of Sweden in standard Swedish is kung av Sverige. Konung is a formal version rarely in use, whereas kung is standard Swedish. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the absurdity of the section, it's obvious contradictions, the inability of anyone to adequately cite any part of it, it's overly-repetitive poor sentence structure and prose, and its breach of the Manual of Style, it should be removed. DrKay (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite see the problem, and it would appear SergeWoodzing and EditorInTheRye don't see a problem either. DrKay needs to explain better what the perceived problem is. Jeppiz (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What does Sveriges Konung mean? This article says (in one part) it means "king of the Swedes". SergeWoodzing and this article (in one part) says it means "king of Sweden". (It means "King of Sweden", by the way.)

When was the title Sveriges Konung adopted? Monarchy of Sweden says "the 16th century"[13]. This article says "15 September 1973"[14]. SergeWoodzing says 1974[15]. These claims are mutually contradictory. Not one of these claims is cited. (It was used before 1973: here's a coin of Gustav VI Adolf: [16] and here's one from 1906: [17].) DrKay (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a general observation about how the title has been translated in the past, based on how many times they pop up in google books:

• Swedish title currently in the article - refers to lands: "Sveriges, Götes och Vendes Konung" - 100+ times
• English title currently in the article - refers to peoples: "King of the Swedes, the Goths, and the Wends" - 20 times
• English title that refers to lands, not peoples (My own translation, this seemed the most likely): "King of Sweden, Gothia, and Wendia" - 3 times

So, clearly the translation is not accurate per se, but maybe it's just a stylistic choice made at some point to translate the title this way, since it's by far the preferred choice? EditorInTheRye (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• How many hits do you get for "King of Sweden, of the Goths and Vandals"? DrKay (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, that's 60+ actually - nice. I did find out shortly after writing my previous comment that the Wends are just a people and there's apparently no land named after them (that I can tell). So maybe this confuses things a bit further, and might be a reason why that translation is 3x peoples, and not 1x lands/2x peoples, etc?

  However, I also note that the SAOB entry for Vender states that Vandals and Wends are not the same thing (though history confuses the two?) (side note also, both the entries for Vender and Göt in SAOB might be good sources for that 1973 thing as well...)

  What a rabbit hole this is EditorInTheRye (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems a rather straightforward situation has become confused in English. Some simple facts:

• King of the Swedes (Svears Konung) is a very old title, predating Sweden. It originally referred only to 'Svear'.
• King of the Swedes and Geats (Svears och Götars Konung) still predates Sweden.
  • The English translation King of the Goths is long established but not accurate. The Goths and the Geats are not the same. So here we get a confusion in English that doesn't exist in Swedish.
• Gustav Vasa started calling himself Spears, Götars och Venders Konung and the title was transformed from king over tribes to king over territories, becoming Sveriges, Götes och Vendes Konung.
  • Here we get nonsense even in the original as there was no territory called Vende.
  • We get even more established but mistranslated terms in English as Vends and Vandals get mixed up. Again, that (hilarious) confusion is absent in Swedish.
• In 1974, the title Sveriges, Götes och Vendes Konung was shortened to Sveriges Konung (King of Sweden).
  

I hope this clears things up a bit, but we're still stuck with the problem that the old mistranslated title was the standard English translation, even though it didn't correspond to the Swedish title (which of course was the official one). Jeppiz (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

To add further explanation, possibly making things even more confused: Swedish is only one of three important languages here. The others are Latin and Danish. As noted above, the titles of kings of Sweden were first recorded in Latin: "Rex sveorum et gothorum" was used by Karl Sverkersson ([18]). "Vendes konung" was "rex vandalorum" in Latin, but it is originally from the titles of the Danish kings [19]. Of course, this interpretation suited the Swedish kings just fine: it was thought impressive to be the current holders of a throne were the predecessors had shaken the Roman empire and conquered most of Europe.

Andejons (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: insistence on having a photo of the state visit to Russia

I am at a loss as to why the state visit to Russia was picked as of importance. This was deemed so important that a new paragraph was added just to serve as a context for returning the photo.

Once more, the photo is of minor importance to the reign of the monarch. A separate State Visits article covers the material in full, even though there was no actual/pressing need to copy/paste the contents of the official press release. The mentioned visit is one out of many, and in all fairness, there were other visits that were directly related to the reign of the monarch - I would much rather see the photo of royal visit to the USA on May 11, 2013, when Their Majesties King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden visited Wilmington, Delaware, to celebrate the 375th anniversary of the landing of the Kalmar Nyckel ship and the establishment of the New Sweden colony.

Be whatever that may, insistence winning over the encyclopedic knowledge favoring one particular/contemporary politician's PR agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.105.20 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to change that photo for one of another state visit to or from a major power, if you feel so strongly that you do not want Putin in there. In my opinion the Putin photo is exceptionally interesting due to Sweden's strained relations with the Putin regime. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Utterance re: Covid

I do not agree with this reversal, particularly not that it was done without talk here. The utterance is relevant. Whether or not any of his other utterances are in the article is not. I will reinstate the item unless someone can come up with better excuse to exclude it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

First,the utterance was, at the very least, in the wrong section. That section is about his reign, not about any particular opinions or positions or speeches. Second, your line of argumentation here is contrary to Wikipedia policies. You're the one who wants to include it, the burden is on you to make an argument for including it rather than expect others to first argue against it. Third, as for the actual utterance, I have no problem with having a section devoted to position expressed by the king. This one is nowhere near the most notable ones (Palmemordet, Tsunamtalet, Brundlandt-grälet, 'Vi vänder blad', etc.) but could probably also be included. Trying to squeeze it into a section on an entirely different topic is just downright poor editing. Jeppiz (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not originally add it to the article, så där är du helt ute och cyklar. I reinstated it. OK to exclude one utterance because more are not included? Not per any Wikipedia policy that I ever heard of. Burden on you. not me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's true you didn't add it. Also true I wasn't the first to remove it; probably also relevant that the User who had reinserted it thanked me for removing it. As for burden, sorry but I'm starting have a little bit of hard assuming good faith. You've been here for years, just like me, and I'd expect you to know the policies. The burden lies on the User wanting to introduce a change; in this case you're advocating that position. Apparently you, like me, find it difficult to come up with any argument for including. At the very least, you've now made two posts about it, but still didn’t present any argument for including it (whereas I already outlined why it was removed). Jeppiz (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not even reading my entries, so what's the use?

"probably also relevant that the User who had reinserted it thanked me for removing it" - you must be kidding! Relevant to this article that someone thanked you? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I reinstated it because the original reasoning for removing it was hardly convincing or valid. Jeppiz then removed it again, but for a more valid reason citing due weight. I did not care enough if it is in the article or not, and actual policy had been cited, so I left it alone and indeed thanked Jeppiz for providing a legitimate argument. The way I see it is, I do not necessarily find the section itself to be an inappropriate place for it, as he made it during his reign as King of Sweden, but due to how the content in the rest of the section has built up it might look slightly out of place. Though I also do not see another section that would be more appropriate, so an option could be to either create a new one for such statements and personal beliefs, or the existing "Personal interests" section could be renamed into something broader. I think the statement itself is notable, as evidenced by being covered by high quality sources like the BBC, and as for due weight I also believe similar statements he has made belong in the article as well (such as those Jeppiz mentioned above) provided they have the appropriate coverage. TylerBurden (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I rename "Personal interests" to "Personal interests and opinions" and reinstate the relevant remark with it's source, or do we have to research & include the additional items first? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with renaming and including now, the others can be added in due time. In terms of due weight I do not believe the intention with the Covid bit was to put an undue amount of weight on something, other statements simply had not been added when they could have been. I only have one small nitpick: I think "Personal interests and views" sounds a bit more encyclopedic and in line similar sections found across Wikipedia. ;) TylerBurden (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Either King or the king

I rolled back 2 edits where He is King of Sweden had been changed to he is the King of Sweden, the latter version including incorrecrt capitalization. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment at NCROY

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? would be appreciated. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"Tjabbe" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tjabbe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Tjabbe until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)