View source for Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf/Archive 2

{{aan}}

==<s>Swedish p</s> <u>P</u>ronunciation 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 name]]s. This was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_XVI_Gustaf_of_Sweden&diff=858815863&oldid=858808738 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''. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|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, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
::{{u|IvanScrooge98}} I would like to reverse your reversal on this, and I hope you don't mind, after you've read this. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 22:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

:::{{reply|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. [[File:Italy.png]] [[User:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:#009246;">イヴァン</span><span style="color:#DCDCDC;">スクルージ</span><span style="color:#CE2B37;">九十八</span>]][[User talk:IvanScrooge98|<sub>（会話）</sub>]][[File:Italy.png]] 07:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::In any case, do what you want. Some other editor with common sense will certainly remove it. [[File:Italy.png]] [[User:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:#009246;">イヴァン</span><span style="color:#DCDCDC;">スクルージ</span><span style="color:#CE2B37;">九十八</span>]][[User talk:IvanScrooge98|<sub>（会話）</sub>]][[File:Italy.png]] 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. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Thank you [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] - that's exactly what I meant. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 10:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply|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 {{lang|sv|den sextonde}}, but definitely not adding English "the Sixteenth" or cutting the whole Swedish pronunciation off. [[File:Italy.png]] [[User:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:#009246;">イヴァン</span><span style="color:#DCDCDC;">スクルージ</span><span style="color:#CE2B37;">九十八</span>]][[User talk:IvanScrooge98|<sub>（会話）</sub>]][[File:Italy.png]] 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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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'' (<small>there is many a bust of Gustav</small>), I don't think we need an English pronnciation thingy. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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). {{reply|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. [[File:Italy.png]] [[User:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:#009246;">イヴァン</span><span style="color:#DCDCDC;">スクルージ</span><span style="color:#CE2B37;">九十八</span>]][[User talk:IvanScrooge98|<sub>（会話）</sub>]][[File:Italy.png]] 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 {{u|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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0WthvZtzM4], [https://forvo.com/word/carl_xvi_gustaf/], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXHAvDKYbis]). What this tells me is that we probably ''do'' need an English punctuation guide. :) [[User:Cthomas3|'''''<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: larger; color: black;"><span style="color: brown;">C</span>Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3</sup></span>''''']] ([[User talk: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"). [[User:FactStraight|FactStraight]] ([[User talk:FactStraight|talk]]) 21:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply|Cthomas3|FactStraight}} I think there has been a little misunderstanding; probably what SergeWoodzing meant to type was ''Swedish'' (not English), because in any case [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/gustaf 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. ;) [[File:Italy.png]] [[User:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:#009246;">イヴァン</span><span style="color:#DCDCDC;">スクルージ</span><span style="color:#CE2B37;">九十八</span>]][[User talk:IvanScrooge98|<sub>（会話）</sub>]][[File:Italy.png]] 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 [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wooss wooss]-tahv in English. No goose in there either. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 13:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od|8}} Currently, all evidence (as little as it may be) seems in favor of {{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɡ|ʊ|s|t|ɑː|v}} {{respell|GUUS|tahv}} in English; moreover, this transcription has been present on [[Gustav (name)]] since {{oldid|Gustav (name)|240543224|this old revision}} by {{user|Slarre}} and it does not seem to have been challenged ever since. {{reply|SergeWoodzing}} can you find sources in favor of {{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɡ|ʌ|s|t|ə|v}} {{respell|GUSS|təv}}? [[File:Italy.png]] [[User:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:#009246;">イヴァン</span><span style="color:#DCDCDC;">スクルージ</span><span style="color:#CE2B37;">九十八</span>]][[User talk:IvanScrooge98|<sub>（会話）</sub>]][[File:Italy.png]] 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? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:FactStraight|FactStraight]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzDrjQLupBw], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSKz1kEBQHI], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96yhbEUn0TQ], and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=67&v=cdocibejyJQ](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". [[User:Cthomas3|'''''<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: larger; color: black;"><span style="color: brown;">C</span>Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3</sup></span>''''']] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 22:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC) --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Cthomas3|'''''<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: larger; color: black;"><span style="color: brown;">C</span>Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3</sup></span>''''']] ([[User talk: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. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUKg8tAyoYk&t] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlqloowZvDc] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUpnXWFdnA&t] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGfzj18OzhM] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1gkCvH59tA], 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. --[[User:Domdeparis|Dom from Paris]] ([[User talk:Domdeparis|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.[[Special:Contributions/104.244.157.100|104.244.157.100]] ([[User talk: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'. [[User:ScarletRibbons|ScarletRibbons]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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 [https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_XVI_Gustaf&diff=26831856&oldid=26598598 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")? [[User:Adville|Adville]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk:EditorInTheRye|talk]]) 09:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

==[[King of Sweden]] with a capital k==
Please see and discuss the principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Margrethe_II_of_Denmark#Queen_of_Denmark here]. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
:Reference [[WP:JOBTITLES]]. [[User:Mechanical Keyboarder|Mechanical Keyboarder]] ([[User talk:Mechanical Keyboarder|talk]]) 19:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::He is referencing JOBTITLES & thus in this article's case, we go with capitalization. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 19:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
::::The [[:sv:Gunnar Bramstång|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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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!!! [[User:PurpleChez|PurpleChez]] ([[User talk: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 [[Anund Jacob|Anwynd James]] in the 11th century. When the first [[Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden|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 [[exonym]]s in this reply. The second name, your William, is by no means a surname. Thank you for asking! --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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 [[Charles XIV John|Karl XIV Johan]], except for the ones who were the first ones of their first given name, such as [[Adolf Frederick|Adolf Fredrik]] and [[Ulrika Eleonora]].
:::Right Marbe (you forgot to sign your entry), not a patronymic or any other kind of surname. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. [[Charles XIV John of Sweden|Carl XIV John]] had 4 even after his adoption, as clearly stated in the Swedish Constitution. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: Indeed, correct you are on all counts, and I apologise for the missing signature. --[[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== Shortening the article title ==

=== Requested move 9 June 2020 ===
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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. {{RMpmc}}  [[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757|talk]]) 16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
----



* [[:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Carl XVI Gustaf}}
* [[:Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Gustaf VI Adolf}}
* [[:Gustaf V of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Gustaf V}}
* [[:Oscar II of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Oscar II}}
* [[:Charles XV of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Charles XV}}
* [[:Charles XIII of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Charles XIII}}
* [[:Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|Gustav IV Adolf}}
* [[:Gustav III of Sweden]] → {{no redirect|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 [[WP:Primary meaning|primary meaning]] of [[Oscar I]]. I thought that should be handled by a separate discussion if the community agrees to these changes. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Allan Rice|Allan Rice]] ([[User talk:Allan Rice|talk]]) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::Indeed. Britannica has the present king under [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-XVI-Gustaf Carl XVI Gustaf]. Thank you for citing a policy. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per explanations and norms[[User:Amkgp| ~ Amkgp]] [[User talk:Amkgp#top|<big>💬</big>]] 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.  [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - any moves that favour removing the 'country' from a monarch's article title. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::You are contributing nothing to the discussion if you do not provide arguments. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk: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! --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 14:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

::There used to be consistency in this area, with '''Monarch of country''' as the standard. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

*'''Support''' per WP:CONCISE.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:301:4360:F4DB:3E2B:899F:3848|2601:241:301:4360:F4DB:3E2B:899F:3848]] ([[User talk:2601:241:301:4360:F4DB:3E2B:899F:3848#top|talk]]) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Support''' all. Not really much I can add to what Surtsicna has already said, except my agreement. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk:Opera hat|talk]]) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''', shorter is better when possible.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Sam Sailor|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|Sailor]]''' 13:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Nonsense? ==
Could someone please explain what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_XVI_Gustaf&oldid=prev&diff=996410600&markasread=207163218&markasreadwiki=enwiki 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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Sweden&oldid=1018078563#Monarch]. This article says "15 September 1973"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_XVI_Gustaf&oldid=1023025466#Titles,_styles,_honours_and_arms]. SergeWoodzing says 1974[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_XVI_Gustaf&diff=1023275990&oldid=1023273403]. 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: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_Swedish_Krona_(obverse).jpg] and here's one from 1906: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enkrona_1906_fram.jpg].) [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk: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: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sveriges,+G%C3%B6tes+och+Vendes+Konung%22&tbm=bks&ei=nuWfYL2aN4e7UIqXk8gE&start=100&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi94e-r_cvwAhWHHRQKHYrLBEk4jAEQ8tMDCNsB&biw=1463&bih=923&dpr=2 "Sveriges, Götes och Vendes Konung"] - 100+ times
*English title currently in the article - refers to peoples: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22King+of+the+Swedes,+the+Goths,+and+the+Wends%22&tbm=bks&ei=M-KfYJCcNoCGjLsPhPaG8AI&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjQgdGK-svwAhUAA2MBHQS7AS4Q8tMDCNAB&biw=1463&bih=923&dpr=2 "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): [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22King+of+Sweden%2C+Gothia%2C+and+Wendia%22&biw=1463&bih=923&tbm=bks&ei=JOifYKjrJ4-kgweHvqroAg&oq=%22King+of+Sweden%2C+Gothia%2C+and+Wendia%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2124.2124.0.2288.1.1.0.0.0.0.96.96.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.kWRkQPgW9Wo "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? [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk:EditorInTheRye|talk]]) 15:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
:*How many hits do you get for "King of Sweden, of the Goths and Vandals"? [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.saob.se/artikel/?seek=Vender&pz=6 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 [https://www.saob.se/artikel/?unik=G_1565-0208.95cR#M_G1565_206886 Göt] in SAOB might be good sources for that 1973 thing as well...) 
:*:What a rabbit hole this is [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk: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).<br>
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). [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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]] ([http://runeberg.org/nfbj/0502.html]). "Vendes konung" was "rex vandalorum" in Latin, but it is originally from the titles of the Danish kings [http://runeberg.org/nfaq/0269.html]. 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. 
::[[User:Andejons|Andejons]] ([[User talk: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.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.16.105.20|108.16.105.20]] ([[User talk:108.16.105.20#top|talk]]) 18:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 02:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
==Utterance re: Covid==
I do not agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_XVI_Gustaf&diff=1096918694&oldid=1096888036 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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
'''Anyone else?''' --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 14:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

:I reinstated it because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_XVI_Gustaf&diff=1096885446&oldid=1096482491 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. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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. ;) [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 07:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

== "[[:Tjabbe]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tjabbe&redirect=no Tjabbe]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30#Tjabbe}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 01:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

== RfC of interest ==

<small>(non-automated message)</small> 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 [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 11#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?|here]]! '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

== Requested move 13 January 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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: '''not moved.''' [[WP:SNOWCLOSE]]. Don't see any reason for this to waste any more time than it already has. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
----

* [[:Carl XVI Gustaf]] → {{no redirect|Carl XVI}}
* [[:Gustaf VI Adolf]] → {{no redirect|Gustaf VI}}
– No Carl XVIs and Gustaf VIs outside of Sweden per [[Talk:Charles XI of Sweden#Requested move 13 January 2024]]. [[Special:Contributions/176.33.241.125|176.33.241.125]] ([[User talk:176.33.241.125|talk]]) 18:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

* '''Strong oppose''' They are/were called Carl Gustaf and Gustaf Adolf, respectively, and hence their regnal names are Carl XVI Gustaf and Gustaf VI Adolf. This move request can be closed immediately. --[[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 19:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability|WikiProject Disability]] has been notified of this discussion. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity|WikiProject Christianity]] has been notified of this discussion. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism|WikiProject Lutheranism]] has been notified of this discussion. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting|WikiProject Scouting]] has been notified of this discussion. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden|WikiProject Sweden]] has been notified of this discussion. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Clarification for amateurs, apparently ==

So, the long (and partly fictional, as I learned) list of the kings of Sweden uses a peculiar naming system with double given names (but only numbering the first given name)... however, the name of '''Carl''' XVI Gustaf has one further peculiar feature: he is the first listed here, in English text as Carl -- instead of Charles.
I wonder why?
Also, I understand that the names Karl/Carl/Charles are cognates -- but the missing explanation why he is addressed like this (opposed to the approx 15 previous gentlemen named Charles) is striking. Please note, of course, that I might very well be a moron not knowing this but the Internet (google-wise) seems to be not really bothered by the conundrum.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.65.37.74|62.65.37.74]] ([[User talk:62.65.37.74#top|talk]]) 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It is generally accepted that we do not translate royal names (using English [[exonym]]s) after the year 1900, because people then began to gave legally registered names with legal spellings which it no longer would be appropriate to translate. What you may have misunderstood is that none of these men were ''named'' Charles but their names were translated in English and French usage. Re: Swedish kings, what also can be confusing is that, in Swedish, they have often been spelled ''Carl'' while living, but traditionally ''Karl'' after death. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 12:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
::Many thanks for the extra info! I knew that none of them was named Charles "at home", and the 20th century boundary for non-translation also makes sense, it was just hard to put together the pieces since he seems to be the first in this line to whom all the aforementioned criteria applies. Also, fun fact: in my native language, both the wiki-guideline and the common understanding is that kings and queens are "entitled" to have traditional (and thus, translated) names for continuity sake. [[Special:Contributions/62.65.37.74|62.65.37.74]] ([[User talk:62.65.37.74|talk]]) 15:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

== Top image ==

There hase been some back.and-forth action recently on the to image here. Seems to me rather obviously that a photo from 2023 should be preferred to one from 2018. What am I missing? [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 09:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

:The new photo looks worse because it...
:* has worse lighting (sunlight, casts shadow on his face, old photo was evenly lit)
:* is blurry
:* has something yellow out of focus covering part of the photo
:He hasn't changed that much over the years, so I think the only advantage of the new photo is that it's newer. [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::I agree with Paditor's points. Also the facial expression in the older photo is more neutral. In the 2023 photo he has furrowed brows and looks somewhat grumpy. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 04:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't really have a strong opinion on what photo is used but if choosing between these two I think the current one in use is superior to the one that has been repeatedly added by IP editors in every aspect other than date, since his appearance has not really changed noticeably I don't see the point of using a poorer quality image just for the sake of when it was taken. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 22:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

== Pronunciation in Swedish ==

Re: recent reverts - Wikipedia is not a foreign language school. There is no need to clutter up the opening of any article text with pronunciation that is not relevant to an article in English. How to say ''Kawhl denn sextohndeh Guhstahf'' is certainly not relevant. [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 14:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:I think the pronunciation of his name is useful and other articles include it (See [[Xi Jinping]] which has both English and Chinese pronunciation). To not clutter the article, I've put it in a footnote (similar to [[Barack Obama]]). [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::Pronunciations are not exempt from [[WP:VERIFY]], not only does inserting an unsourced IPA not allow readers to check the pronunciation comes from a reliable source, but it invites bickering between editors and their own [[WP:OR]] interpretations on how the pronunciation should be written. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm just a little confused because references for IPA aren't really consistent across Wikipedia. For example, [[Xi Jinping]] doesn't have any sources, [[Barack Obama]] has a link to a YouTube video of Obama saying his own name, and [[Nelson Mandela]] has a link to a dictionary (with IPA) for the English pronunciation but no source for the Xhosa pronunciation.
:::Would it be enough to reference a recording from [https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/844793 when he got married], and the priest said his name? [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 07:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::No, it would not. And until someone explains how it could be ''useful'' to include Swedish pronunciation of these names for non-Swedish readers of English Wikipedia, the pronunciation should be removed as irrelevant clutter. Useful for what exactly? Wikipedia is not a language school with a duty to teach foreign words and pronunciation just for the sake of teaching them. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 09:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't understand why [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] should be treated differently from every other Biography article. Most of [https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Biography/articles?quality=FA-Class&importance=Core%20biography%20articles Biography Featured Articles] include IPA, and if they're not English then they often have an IPA in a foreign language.
:::::The arguments you've given are:
:::::# '''It clutters the lead.''' Fixed by using a footnote, like many other Biography articles do.
:::::# '''It needs sources.''' I've provided a source.
:::::# '''It's not useful.''' It's useful in the same manner as all other information on Wikipedia: to provide knowledge to those who seek it, regardless of their intended purpose. Of course not all knowledge about a person is relevant to be included on Wikipedia, but I personally think it's relevant to include how a persons name is pronounced in their native language. That most high quality biography articles include IPA seems to me to show that there's a consensus for including IPA for names in Biography articles.
:::::Am I missing something? [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 12:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, '''relevance'''. Pronunciation should be provided when it is relevant, that is the reader may need it to be able to talk about the item. That is not the case when it comes to the names of world-famous persons whose names are already established in English, using English phonetics. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 10:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Paditor|Paditor]] No, you are right. It is information, Wikipedia is a source of information. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::'''Relevant''' encyclopedic information. Not random language lessons of no use to anyone. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 10:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]], your attitude in this matter is despicable. @[[User:Paditor|Paditor]] has already provided more than enough arguments for inclusion. Your argument "of no use to anyone" is completely wrong, it is of use to everyone who wants to know how it should be pronounced. You do not have sole authority to judge the relevance of sourced information. This is a collaborative platform. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 11:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think "despicable" is a little harsh, but I also don't find @[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]]'s argument very convincing. Calling foreign IPA for a persons name "not relevant" just because there are English pronunciations doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to bring up [[WP:OTHERCONTENT|other content]] too much, but this argument could be used to remove pretty much every foreign IPA in biographies. [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 12:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have the task of informing readers of English how something ''should be pronounced'' unless the words cannot reasonably be pronounced using English phonetics. I am '''not''' against pronunciation being given in such cases. This is not one of them. That's what "not relevant" means. And what is not relevant in an article is of no use to anyone there.

Each of us has the right to h honest opinion about article content, including I.

When we start getting into attacks about despicable attitudes and accusations of "sole authority" we are not using this page for its intended purpose. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 09:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree it definitely needs citing, since the insertion said his name was pronounced Gestaf rather than Gustaf. If his name is pronounced Gustaf and not Gestaf, then I agree that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. We don't need a pronunciation guide when it is pronounced the same in Swedish and English. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::The insertion was {{IPA|sv|ˈɡɵstɑːf|}}. So not like Gestaf, more like Gustaf, which is still wrong as it's pronounced more like Gustav. So it should be {{IPA|sv|ˈɡɵstɑːv|}}. (See [https://web.archive.org/web/20240730211755/https://lyssna-cdn.sr.se/isidor/p1/2010/04/16_sr_minnen_sthlm_kung_carl_xvi_gustaf_och_p1-072004a3f_31326f51_a32.m4a?_h_publicationId=844793 source] at 0:10)
::I agree that it probably isn't worth it to include a Swedish pronunciation when it's the same as the English pronunciation but I think it should be included in this case because:
::# We don't have any English IPA, and I'm not sure how "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" is pronounced in English.
::# I'm pretty sure they are pronounced differently
::[[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Including a footnote with his name in IPA is consistent with common WP practice, but the main problem here is that the IPA here seems to have been done by someone with limited knowledge of Swedish. For example, the letter F is almost always [f] in Swedish, but in the name Gustaf it is [v]. There are other errors as well. This underlines why a reference is needed. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 09:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:Would you consider it sufficient to reference an audio recording from [https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/844793 when the King was married] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20240730211755/https://lyssna-cdn.sr.se/isidor/p1/2010/04/16_sr_minnen_sthlm_kung_carl_xvi_gustaf_och_p1-072004a3f_31326f51_a32.m4a?_h_publicationId=844793 audio file], at 0:10)? Assuming someone who knew Swedish and IPA transcribed from the recording. [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 10:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::No. It's unnecessary, intrusive and original research. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 11:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Not really original research, it's [[WP:TRANSCRIPTION|transcription]]. [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 13:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::My opinion remains unchanged from 2018 ([[Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf/Archive 2#Swedish p Pronunciation of whole official name]] and the more you say here ("it's pronounced more like Gustav") the more I am convinced that the pronunciation is identical and therefore pointless. English speakers do not need to be told how to pronounce something they already say. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 13:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::With all due respect, Celia Homeford, your opinion is flat out wrong. The Swedish pronunciation is very different from the English and even contains several phonemes that don't exist in English. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 20:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I've listened to the recording and seen the IPA, so I know that I am right. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 09:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You're free to believe that, but it doesn't change a thing. Insisting one is right is not an argument. This is not a forum and [[WP:COMPETENCE]] is needed on WP; anyone with competence in IPA and phonetics can confirm that several of the phonemes in his name don't even exist in English. That's just a fact, bot an opinion. Whether you understand that fact or not doesn't change a thing. As your POV is just based on your misunderstanding, it should be disregarded. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"Insisting one is right is not an argument." That statement applies equally to everything you've said here. Furthermore, adding incivility to your argument is unpersuasive and damages your case instead of strengthening it. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Nobody is an expert on everything and there's nothing insulting in that. Obviously I stand by my comment that competence in phonology and IPA is beneficial to commenting on those topics. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 14:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The only topic area I'm unfamiliar with is Swedish, since I do not speak that language. I am conversant with IPA; I simply mistook ɵ for e since it is not easy to note the difference when aged over 50 and not wearing your reading glasses. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 14:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*Based on the discussion above, I'd recommend re-inserting the IPA. The only real objection comes from a user who, it must be said, argues out of ignorance (misunderstanding [[WP:OR]] and not knowing IPA). If there are no actual arguments including the footnote, I suggest it be reinserted. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:*Insulting other users is not an argument. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::*Nothing even slightly insulting. Nobody is qn expert on everything. If I were to comment on advanced physics, I'd also lack compentence in that area and someone saying so would not be insulting. ''Your own'' statement already made it clear you don't know IPA, I merely pointed out that your comment is based on that lack of knowledge and hence not valid. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 14:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the proposal is to add something that cannot be adequately sourced and that English speakers already know well enough to be understood by anyone, Swede or not. I would rather not see IPA creep into where it is not needed. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Pronounciation is probably best left to the [[Gustav (name)]] article, IMO. Interestingly, an editor on the talk page found a source (a pronounciation guide) where both -v and -f appear as English pronounciations. Unfortunately, the entries in the guide do not seem to include any Swedish people with the name. [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk:EditorInTheRye|talk]]) 20:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:This discussion isn't just about including IPA for "Gustaf", it's about including the Swedish IPA for the full name "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" (transcribed from [https://web.archive.org/web/20240730211755/https://lyssna-cdn.sr.se/isidor/p1/2010/04/16_sr_minnen_sthlm_kung_carl_xvi_gustaf_och_p1-072004a3f_31326f51_a32.m4a?_h_publicationId=844793 audio file], 0:10). I don't think the Swedish IPA for "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" should be at [[Gustav (name)]]. Just as there should be Swedish IPA for "Gustav" in [[Gustav (name)]], I think there should be Swedish IPA for "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" in the article about "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" (this article). [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Gustaf is the only part of the name that's even remotely uncertain. I thought it was obvious that's what's being discussed.
::Oh well, carry on as you were. [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk:EditorInTheRye|talk]]) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Quite incorrect. English speakers would not use or expect the retroflex lateral in Carl nor the retroflex plosive in Hubertus, nor any of the three vowel sounds in Hubertus. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 07:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Allow me to question the pertinence of noting the ''retroflex lateral'' in a general Wikipedia biography written for a general, non-linguist audience. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 10:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::*sigh* Nobody suggested "noting tje retroflex lateral". The question is whether to include a footnote (not even visible unless readers click on it) to show the correct pronunciation. Looking at the discussion, it seems as if pretty much everyone with a knowledge of Swedish is in favour. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 10:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::*:You are not writing this article for people with a knowledge of Swedish. On the contrary, you are writing it for English speakers who are unlikely to have any knowledge of Swedish or any wish to be instructed in the ''retroflex lateral''. It remains doubtful that the IPA can be adequately sourced or even understood by the general audience. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 13:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::*::How can you possibly have any knowledge about the wishes of the readers of Wikipedia articles (except yourself)? [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*:Very simply, actually: this is a biography and people do not go to biographies for non-biographical minutiae that cannot even be properly sourced. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*::Two questions:
:::::::*::# Would you consider it "properly sourced" if we referenced a recording of Carl XVI Gustaf's wedding, where the priest said "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus"? If not, why not?
:::::::*::# The wikipedia biographies of [[Nelson Mandela]], [[Xi Jinping]], [[Angela Merkel]] and [[Vincent van Gogh]] all have non-English IPA (first two without reference). Is the inclusion of non-English IPA in biographies always "non-biographical minutiae"?
::::::::*::Thank you, [[User:Paditor|Paditor]]. You are the only one on your side of the debate trying to be constructive.<br>1) I am not certain on that. It would be a reliable source for the claim that the priest pronounced it that way but not necessarily for the claim that it is the correct pronunciation. I am reminded of the mistake Diana Spencer made at her wedding when she said Charles's name wrong.<br>2) No, I would not say that the inclusion of IPA is always wrong. In fact, this matter is covered by the Manual of Style (oddly enough, not cited here yet), [[MOS:LEADPRON]]: {{green|If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling...}}  Wikipedia has a problem with [[WP:Template creep|creep]] and I imagine that is how some of the articles you cited ended up having IPA against the Manual of Style. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::*::[[WP:MOS]] could also be interpreted as saying that Swedish IPA should be included.
::::::::*::[[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate_use|It states]]: {{green|Normally, pronunciation is given only for the subject of the article in its lead section. For non-English words and names, use the pronunciation key for the appropriate language.}} "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" is a Swedish name, so it should have Swedish IPA.
::::::::*::But what about if the pronunciation is "apparent from its spelling"? Well I interpret that as meaning "apparent [to English speakers] from its spelling", which the Swedish pronunciation isn't. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation|It states]]: {{green|If the name of the article is more than one word, include pronunciation only for the words that need it unless all are in other languages (all of Jean van Heijenoort but only Cholmondeley in Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley).}}
::::::::*::In this case, "all are in other languages", just like "Jean van Heijenoort", so it should be included. [[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 09:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*::[[User:Paditor|Paditor]] ([[User talk:Paditor|talk]]) 20:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*::YOU might not "go to biographies for non-biographical minutiae". You are not a spokesperson for the world. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please do not cry. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]], you have already twice deliberately misrepresented my comments to try to make some cheap point. I suggest you stop, as your behaviour is disruptive. Nobody has suggested adding information about retroflex laterals here, but to harmonise the article with other articles on Scandinavian royalty which present their names in IPA. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 21:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:You are now insulting a second editor here, and most brazenly too given that your statement of intention is evidently false. Not a single editor here mentioned other articles on Scandinavian royals. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Personally, I'm not against including the IPA as a footnote as long as it's properly sourced. After all [[Margrethe II]], [[Frederik X]] and [[Harald V]]'s names are also presented in IPA. But overall this is not a matter worthy of a lengthy/heated debate. If there is no consensus for its inclusion stick to [[WP:STATUSQUO]] and move on. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 05:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:They only include pronunciation of the regnal name not middle names that are never used. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::Yes I'm aware of that. In this case it would be "Carl XVI Gustaf". I agree that we don't need his full name presented in IPA. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::This whole thread is a great example of the mess that IPA's bring, people arguing about their own [[WP:OR]] as self proclaimed linguists. It's quite simple, if a reliable source can be found that supports the added IPA text, then go for it. If no such thing exists, then it's probably not a must include on the article no matter how passionate some editors may be about this sort of thing. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== Just unfair, that's all ==

People should stop vandalizing this article by replacing Carl Gustaf's name with the names of various regular Swedes like ''Magnus Johansson'' etc etc. Several such infractions recently, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyBPG8lTiOg it's just not fair]. [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 13:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Probably schoolkids and the like adding their own names so it looks like they're the king of Sweden for the few seconds (well, the vandalism most recently remained for almost an hour) it takes to revert.
:Semi-protection would solve the issue but there is the odd constructive IP edit now and then. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 22:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::Did you listen to the mood music? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 09:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::His name is Carl Gustav, not Carl Gustaf [[Special:Contributions/176.72.100.220|176.72.100.220]] ([[User talk:176.72.100.220|talk]]) 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 11:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

== Wording of old title ==

Lots of changes back & forth (without a word of discussion here) re "... of Sweden ... King" etc , which is the correct succession of words in that particulkar usage. [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 11:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I didn't know that was an issue, but since you raise it ... I think it is unnecessariy pedantic to translate ''Sveriges konung'' as ''of Sweden king'' even if that is the original Swedish word order. An English-speaker would usually say ''King of Sweden''. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Sveriges konung'' is literally translated as ''Sweden's King'', but you are right, the correct translation is ''King of Sweden''. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 14:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The old title was "[Name], of Sweden [etc] King." as in "Charles III, of England King". That is grammatically correct, though unusual, even in English. No reason to mistranslate it arbitrarily and falsely. Like updating Shakespeare! --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 22:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Allow me to doubt that it has been used. I have never seen or heard of a title of a Swedish king being expressed like that, neither in Swedish nor in English. ''Vi Gustaf, av Guds nåde Sveriges, Götes och Vendes konung'' is literally translated to ''We Gustaf, by the grace of God, Sweden's, Gothia's and Wendia's King''. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 23:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)