Talk:Gustavus Adolphus pastry

Delete article?

I see no reason for a separate article here, as the pastry can be sufficiently noted in the Gustav Adolph Day article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Even more reason to delete this now that it has been moved back to a Latinized name form under which the holiday as well as the pastry are completely unknown in any Language. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing. What you're trying to do is propose a page merge - to do so, just follow the instructions at that link. If you think it should be deleted outright, the process you need to follow is outlined at Articles for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope to have time to follow your advice soon, today I do not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No rush... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not merged. --Ove Raul (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose that Gustavus Adolphus Pastry be merged into Gustav Adolph Day. I see no reason for a separate article here, as the pastry can be sufficiently noted in the Gustav Adolph Day article and has no other claim to fame. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the pastry deserves its own article, just like it has also in Swedish and in Finnish. Ove Raul (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously, since you created this article. But you give no reason for it except irrelevant comparisons with other projects. Nothing about this pastry is notable outside of the parameters of the holiday. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done no comparisons with other objects, I made comparisons with articles about the same object but in other languages. This pastry is well enough important in Swedish cousine that it may have its own article. Ove Raul (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"objects" ??? who said anything about "objects"?

And the pasty is absolutely not "important in Swedish cousine (sic)" [I guess you mean to Swedish cuisine?]. It's only served one day a year and eaten by about 1-5% of the population. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Object or project, what's the difference? I have not made any comparisons with other projects either, I made comparisons with the same article in other languages. Sure, I misspell sometimes, don't you? I'm no expert in the English language. There are definitely more than 5 % of the population who eats Gustavus Adolphus Pastries on Gustavus Adolphus Day and even if not everyone does, everyone knows about it so it is an important thing to know if you want to know about Swedish traditions. Ove Raul (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Before arguing your error, you might want to learn what is called a project as per Wikimedia.

I would say about 10-20% of the population know that the pastry even exists.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In the world? Well, about 100 % in Sweden knows about it. Ove Raul (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

10-20% max in Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that's true where I've lived. Maybe 100% in Gothenburg? --90.237.12.156 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a stub article but has the potential of being expanded (as has the article on the Gustavus Adolphus Day too). I see no reason to merge them, even if they are connected. Harold O'Brian (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Realistically, there is no potential for expansion of any kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have to support the merge. It might have been different if there really was one standard recipe, but this can be almost any kind of pastry with a chocolate figure on top. It is more of a concept linked to Sixth of November than anything with an independent existance. (And the guesses about the percentage of Swedes who knows of it are charming, but really not relevant. There are surely articles about more obscure subjects, and more well-known things that do not have their own article but are treated in another).

Andejons (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added all the info in this article, omitting all the fluff, to the main article Gustavus Adolphus Day in two short sentences, showing how clearly superfluous this separate article is.

No convincing reasons have been given here to keep it. The creator wants it kept, because Swedish and Finnish WP have it, and has made several grossly exaggerated claims about the pastry's fame and popularity. That it "has the potential of being expanded" is a lame excuse whch could be said about any unneccessary article, and in this case particularly there is no such potential whatsoever, unless som major celebrity chokes on one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: while I've become something of a mergist over the years, these are fairly separate topics (a holiday vs. a pastry normally associated with the holiday). Stubs, even articles that will eternally be stubs, are not necessarily harmful, nor do they need to be merged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The pastry is only associated with the holiday, not "normally". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Mooncake and Paczki are other pastries strongly if not exclusively associated with holidays. The point is that the argument that the association between the pastry and the holiday, while being a necessary condition for merging, is not a sufficient condition. I further find your argument to the nationality of the people making observations here both offensive and irrelevant. Concentrate on the content, not the contributor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Very confusing. One time I'm told to ask Swedes for valuable input in discussions about Swedish matters, and the next time I'm told off for mentioning that a Swede supports my opinion about a Swedish matter. Phew! How to please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The two pastries you mentioned are "strongly if not exclusively associated with holidays". The pastry being discussed here is exclusively associated with one holiday. So what is the relevance of the two pastries you brought up? You did something similar just above. I'm confused about this too, not only by your being offended by my mentioning a nationality. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You used editors' nationalities as an excuse to marginalize or dismiss their opinions. I find such conduct highly offensive. Please refrain from it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, without anything actually appearing in what I wrote to substantiate an interpretation like that. I'm sorry you read that into what I wrote. Like I said, one time I'm told to ask Swedes for valuable input in discussions about Swedish matters, and the next time I'm told off just for mentioning that a Swede supports my opinion about a Swedish matter. That's pretty darn confusing, bordering on highly offensive. Please refrain from treating me like that! Concentrate on the content, not the contributor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So far, we have two Swedish editors who want to merge; one who opposes; plus two non-Swedes who oppose. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several types of food strongly associated with one day or another. The difference here is that if you remove a certain chocolate figure, no one who does not frequent that particular bakery where it was made will ever recognize it as a GA pastry. I think a relevant parallel might be "Christmas turkey": it's a known concept, but it's not much beyond that.

Andejons (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The nationality of editors is not really relevant to the issue, only what they have said. SpinningSpark 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• There does seem to be a lot more that could be said about the history of this custom that is not yet in the article. Not sure about the reliability of [1] or [2] but it does show that information is out there. SpinningSpark 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality is not relevant, I agree. What SergeWoodzing fails to point out is that Gustavus Adolphus Day is not a very important day in Sweden. This is something that we as Swedes - and of course others who have spent a couple of years in Sweden - know. The article on the day unfortunately gave another impression, which I have tried to downplay a bit. --90.237.12.156 (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – while the day and the pastry clearly have a connection to eachother, there is much mor to be say about the pastry. Sepecially since there are so many versions of it. This whould overwhelm the article of the day, which should be expanded with all the information of more solemn celebrations in churches on this day and the many traditional festivities held by student unions and historical societies. The pastry is just a small part of the celebrations and also deserves its own article so it can be easier compared with other pastries and cakes. Bandy boy (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The Church of Sweden holds no such thing as solemn celebrations of Gustav II Adolf. The few instances that "Gustav Adolfsdagen" can be found on the website of the major Lutheran church [3] (use google) it's just the name of the day in calendars etc. Students and historical societies might choose to celebrate, I don't know. It's certainly not mainstream. --90.237.12.156 (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, dumb suggestion. Write more about this pastry instead, so that non-Swedes get to know what it is all about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.240.67.225 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - the arguments for keeping the article seems more valid than the ones wanting to merge it. Irony iron (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is an important dish in its own right in Sweden.Cold as Gray (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral/merge, the main issue to me is whether there is much actual celebration of the day except for the pastry. If not, then merge. See Talk:Gustavus Adolphus Day#Pastry --90.237.12.156 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I found some more info om the day, that apparently was more celebrated before. [4] Perhaps the day should be merged into the pastry article... well, whatever info there could be on the day should be of a more historical nature, on celebrations passed. --90.237.12.156 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's fine as it is. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, oh no. Bo, let it be.

• Oppose. No, this should be its own article. There is a connection, but the pastry has merit for a relevant article in its own right, especially, especially, since there are many different versions of the pastry. This article could be developed to a dissertation longer than most on Wikipedia. It seems the only thing which has stopped the development so far is this suggestion for a merge, so please stop this discussion now. 2A00:801:210:C179:9D2C:5B5D:FF51:43BF (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"See also" links in the article

The guidelines "WP:Undue weight" and "WP:Notability" which were used to remove links from this article, are guidelines about an article as a whole. They say nothing about how links in the end of the article should be characterised, as far as I can see. Ove Raul (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Those links are irrelevant and will be removed again, unless the article is merged like it should be. The pastry isn't notable enough to be linked to a food portal, and undue weight is given the article by using those See also links. You created the article, and you want it kept, so you're adding stuff and edit-warring to keep that stuff. That's all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way are they irrelevant? You should explain that, because as I see it they are perfectly relevant for this article. I'm not the one who added them in the first place, BTW. (Well, except for the link to Princess Cake.) Ove Raul (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If the article is merged, you mean the links will stay? So these links to a list of pastries would be more relevant for the article about Gustavus Adolphus Day than for an article about a pastry? Strange reasoning, I say. Ove Raul (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they would not be "more relevant". They could be relevant to what's there about the pastry in the article about the day. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opposition to linking to the food portal does not make sense. Any food item can justifiably be linked to the food portal. There would not be any justification putting GA pastry on the top level page of the portal, but linking back up to the portal from lower articles is just the noremal way of doing things. As for "see also" links, they really have nothing to do with notability. A good test is whether the link would be included in a fully expanded article. If they would, then they definitely belong. Likewise, if a sensible navigation template could include them (but does not yet exist), then they can be included. The Princess Cake link comes in that latter category to my mind. SpinningSpark 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had read what you are commenting on, you probably would have noticed that I have just expressed the opposite of "opposition to linking to the food portal". My objection was that the links were added to a superfluous article which I believe the creator was trying to save by any means available, including the addition of external links that in my opinion belong in the main article as related to the two sentences there about the pastry. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you. You made the statement "The pastry isn't notable enough to be linked to a food portal" which seems to me to be clearly expressing opposition to linking to the food portal. If you don't oppose linking to the food portal, why did you delete the link to the food portal in the article? SpinningSpark 10:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just above your first complaint about this there is "They could be relevant to what's there about the pastry in the article about the day." over my signature. Why not react to the latest comment I made on a matter rather than going back to find and attack earlier comments I made in a developing discussion? Please!!! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I might add that you also missed this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tried; lost it

I seem to have polluted my participation in dicussions about this matter and am more and more under unwelcome personal scrutiny and supervision which I find very disagreeable. Do what y'all want with this! I have lived in Stockholm off and on for over 50 years, also long periods in Gothenburg, have seen up close the very limited extent of the use of this goody and know how extremely marginal it is in the real world. Thus I've tried to contribute knowlegeably and factually here, to the benefit of Wikipedia, but as of today I just don't care anymore. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not renamed. --Ove Raul (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

---

"Gustavus Adolphus pastry" sounds pretty contrived to me. Wouldn't it better to have it Gustav Adolfbakelse? I mean, the concept is virtually unheard of outside of Swedish-speaking communities. This seems a bit like trying to popularize a term than following conventions.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say an attempt in English (to explain why this has a separate article at all) is better, as what one would much more readily expect to see here, than the Swedish name for something that I believe very feasibly could have remained "virtually unheard of outside of Swedish-speaking communities" (thank you!). A few lines about the existence of a pastry (without even naming it), in the main article about the day, is what I would have liked to see. But then the name Gustavus Adolphus is totally unheard of in any language (except now here) with reference to any day or any pastry, so what's the use of trying to make any sense of any of this at all now that it's gotten so fouled up? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's one thing that the person in question is best known in English as "Gustavus Adolphus", but it's quite different to incorporate that name into compounds and terms that don't even exist in the English-speaking world.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're with me, perhaps we can involve a few more Swedes who know what they are talking about and try again to name change ridiculous Gustavus Adolphus Day [sic] and merge what little there is of interest to say about a pastry named for that day into that article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a reference showing this is calles Gustavus Adolphus pastry in English. Haven't you seen that? What's ridiculous with the fact that Gustavus Adolphus is called Gustavus Adolphus in English? Bandy boy (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Only people whose own arguments are flawed resort to misquoting their opponents. What's ridiculous with [sic] the fact that Gustavus Adolphus is called Gustavus Adolphus in English? Why nothing, who said it is? I certainly didn't. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You said it is "ridiculous" to call the day when the memory of King Gustavus Adolphus is celebrated "Gustavus Adolphus Day". That must logically mean you find it ridiculous to call him Gustavus Adolphus. I can't interpret it any other way. Bandy boy (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That inaccurate inteterpretation of what I wrote is bending the truth a bit too far, only to suit your own interests, and I find such behavior offensive, whether it is done to me or anyone else. It is ridiculous to call what is an official nameday in Sweden anything else but Gustav Adolf Day. That's the name of it. Only alternative Swedish spellings like Gustaf Adolf or Gustav Adolph, which maintain the basic name format, would be acceptable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you find this offensive; this is my interpretation of what you wrote. The day celebrating the memory of Gustavus Adolphus is of course called Gustavus Adolphus Day. Your idea that the name could be spelled Gustaf Adolf or Gustav Adolph makes your view on the subject even harder to follow, since none of those spelling forms were used in his own times nor in the present. Bandy boy (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference you mentioned is anything but impressive - looks like an (amateur?) advertising site that does practically no business. The site tells us nothing about who runs it or whether or not anybody can enter any kind of non-reliable info there to promote personal POV. OK, so it uses an IP registered in California - big deal! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Noone who doesn't know Swedish would know what a "bakelse" is. Silly suggestion. Let it be Gustavus Adolphus pastry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.240.255.237 (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A pastry is a pastry. Noone in the English speaking world knows what a 'baklelse' is. Irony iron (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let it keep its name. No need to translate it to another language at English Wikipedia. Ove Raul (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, let it keep its English name in English Wikipedia.Cold as Gray (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the name in English. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 01:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the name. In English, this is a pastry, not a bakesle (did I spell it right?). 2A00:801:210:C179:9D2C:5B5D:FF51:43BF (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gustavus Adolphus pastry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106145527/http://www.brautigams.se/historik/ to http://www.brautigams.se/historik/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

2003 fluke with 15 seconds of fame

The mention and photo of a 2003 competition and its results, which were a complete failure and are otherwise unknown, is irrelevant trivia at best. I will be removing it unless someone can put a good reason here not to. Wikipedia's objective is to report on notable things. This is not at all notable and should not continue to be spread worldwide on the Internet only because of its inclusion here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)