Talk:Gustaf VI Adolf

Gustav VI Adolph to Gustaf VI Adolf

This page was moved (months ago) to its current title. Why? There wasn't any discussion or consent for such a page move. GoodDay 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this page back to 'Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden', for above reason. GoodDay 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be moved to 'Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden', Gustaf is the official spelling. See [1]

To complicate things somewhat: Swedish kings with the name Gustav have the named spelled Gustaf (old spelling) when they are alive. After their death the name will be spelled Gustav. That is the custom in modern Sweden. With regards from Gottfried Multe at the Swedish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.119.83 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

285 English language books (published after 1990) refer to him as Gustaf VI Adolf, while 325 books refer to him as Gustav VI Adolf. This article and the article about his predecessor should be consistent with the articles about their namesakes (Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden, Gustav III of Sweden, Gustav II Adolf of Sweden and Gustav I of Sweden). It is perfectly normal for some names to be translated; Gustav VI Adolf's British contemporary is known as Georg VI av Storbritannien in Swedish. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave this alone now - Only the last two 20th century kings had legal spellings Gustaf V of Sweden and this one, his son. Legal spellings cannot be translated. In English, the prevíous 4 should be spelled conventionally with the "v". Frequency of use is less important in this case. And what the Swedes call George is irrelevant. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the six articles-in-question, should be consistant (name wise). GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons explained quite clearly above, they should not. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

French descent?

How many people should we categorize as being of French descent? In this case, one pair of his great-great-grandparents and one great-grandfather were French born. Are we then setting an untenable precedent by saying he is of French descent? He and how many other tens of millions of folks? I invite additional comments/opinions. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed that category today. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone spot an error in the following somewhere?

He was born at the Royal Palace in Stockholm and at birth created Duke of Skåne. On 29 October 1950, he succeeded his father on the throne. His personal motto was Plikten framför allt, "Duty before all". He married, firstly, Princess Margaret of Connaught on 15 June 1905 in St. George's Chapel, at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.94.163 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, and Yes, he was Duke of Scania (in English), but that it has nothing to do with the section topic "French descent" either. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Representative info box portrait

The photo of Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf is not representative of the afrticle for use as the info box portrait. I am moving it below and reinstating the image of him as king which also is highly representative of the look he was very well known for, simple overcoat and hat, all over Sweden, from his ascension to the throne in 1950 till his death in 1973. Wikipedia's bios are not just showcases for glamourous uniformed official portraits which do not always give the reader a good picture of the person. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done! RicJac (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Link direct

I see no reason not to link direct on his sons' names in this context rather than through redirects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Scania

He and that title have generally been called Duke of Scania (not Skåne) in English. Scania is as much English, rather than Skåne, as Sweden is English, rather than Sverige. And he wasn't King of Sverige, in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, all provinces of ducal titles of Swedish royals are in Swedish, even though there are English names for the provinces. I see no reason to use Scania instead of Skåne in this one case, and in general at least not for the Swedish royals whose article names are in Swedish. Also, the English version of the Swedish royal court website uses Duke of Skåne. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no such policy. You are up against frequency of use in English literature, and that's what WP mainly goes by. The best reason of all is pronounceability for the non-Swedish reader of English. That's why exonyms exist and that's why the most established ones always are used for easily readable text. Scania has been as well established as Sweden (not Sverige) in English literature for hundreds of years. Our main task in working on WP is to provide accurate and easy-to-use information, not to force pronunciation lessons of words in other languages on our readers, when it definitely is not necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's Duke of Scania. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was a policy, I just highlighted the fact that it is the use in other WP articles, and, more importantly, the official use by the royal court in English. Also, this article has had Duke of Skåne for years without you changing it. As for the exonym Scania in modern use, it is more linked to the heavy vehicle manufacturer than to the province. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, all provinces of ducal titles of Swedish royals are in Swedish" that's claiming WP policy, as I see it, and it's just not correct. The Royal Court in Stockholm is not an expert on English literature, so if their press person decided to start calling Carl Gustaf King of Sverige, nobody would care. And "modern use" is not the only thing we go by. English literature for hundreds of years is at least as important. Hardly anyone outside of Sweden knows anything about the trucks. We also need to be consistent, and I can hardly see you changing Scania to Skåne all over enWP, on your own. Looking at your talk page, one might deduce that you can be a bit unreasonable - but I'd hate to think that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Hardly anyone outside of Sweden knows anything about the trucks." - You do make me laugh. Oh, and don't put words into something that isn't written. Claiming that there is a policy is not the same thing as pointing out consistency within an easily defined set of articles. As you say, consistency is important, and I advocate that in the case of ducal titles of Swedish royals, the form used by the Swedish royal court, in English, should prevail. This discussion is about the ducal title, not about the name of the province. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"You do make me laugh." That type of nasty sarcasm only pollutes a discussion. Please try to avoid that! Per capita hardly anyone outside Sweden knows anything about Scania trucks. Fact, not funny.

This article has now been brought into consistency with the other articles on enWP where a Duke or Duchess of Scania is mentioned. You are wrong in advocating that the Swedish Royal Court should prevail in making this article an exception, or definitily decide anything else on enWP for that matter, when it goes against what's established in English literature. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(going off-topic) Do you have a source for that "fact"? Just because Scania is a relatively unknown truck manufacturer in the US doesn't make it unknown in the rest of the world. In the rest of Europe and in South America Scania is one of the leading brands, and thus hardly unknown.

Regarding this whole discussion, I'd like to have input from someone else, if possible. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Category:Husbands of British princesses

If the category exists, it seems illogical and far from factual to exclude some of them. Better to subject the category's existence to scrutiny. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That category exists because it was created today; it's not something long standing or widely accepted. Articles should not contain categories, templates, images, and other content simply because the content exists. The inclusion of this article into that category is against the categorization guideline. Defining a king of Sweden as a husband of a British princess is preposterous, anglocentric and likely offensive to Swedes. See WP:CATDEFINING for further information about that. It is true that the category itself should not exist at all, but its present existence does not bound us to display it in articles. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: It may seem illogical to not use every category, but there are already 42 categories on the article and too much "category clutter" can make it difficult to find the more important categories. The guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization notes that not every applicable category should go on an article. The categories should note the subject's defining characteristics and only be assigned after careful assessment of the article's content – if categories could be added automatically then a bot would be doing it.
Category:Husbands of British princesses does not seem a particularly useful addition. I was surprised to not find anything about spouses (for or against) at Wikipedia:Categorization of people but an intitle category search had only one hit for "husband" (as a disambiguator) and "wife" only showed up as part of a proper noun. There are a number of "spouses" categories, which are almost exclusively for spouses of politicians.
I don't feel that the subject of this article is particularly defined by this 15-year marriage (17% of his lifespan). So I tend to agree that the category could be excluded from the article. Also, given the lack of other husband/wife categories (with the exception of political spouses) I suspect that the category may soon be at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That is my hope. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As the template has been cut, should the category be put up for deletion?

Gustaf VI Adolf as organizing president of the 1912 games and the person who opened the 1956 games

I have added the Olympic part for good reason due to the fact that everyone knows that was the organization president of the 1912 games and opened the Stockholm games in 1956 (for one event due to Australia's quarantine policies). Due to the recent removals, I had to dispute this. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this addition. Also, I've noticed you've made these additions to all the other world leader bios articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The other reason for Olympic part addition is for biographical reasons. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's just extra stuff in the succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Translation of motto

"Plikten framför allt" means "Duty before all". The change twice to "Duty above all" is not as accurate. There should not be such a change only because one user thinks it's "better", and never twice without discussion on this page. I will reverse it again soon, unless there is consensus to keep an inaccurate translation or a reliable souce is given for it.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

PS the king's motto was not "Högst av allt är plikten". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You are not entirely correct. The literal translation of "Plikten framför allt" is "The duty in front of everything", which makes little sense in English. "Duty before all" is a much better translation of the literal meaning, however "Duty above all" is slightly better. However, the official translation of the Royal Court is "Duty first", so one could argue to use that in the article. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The English of that royal court is not excellent, and they do not seem to strive for it to be. The word allt/all is too important to the motto for us to go with their clipped version.

There is no reason to translate, and no precedent for translating, framför with above, here or anywhere else. The word before is often used in English for Swedish framför as in they appeared before the judge or age before beauty or he put her needs before his own (which is exactly what is meant in this motto). It can also correspond with Swedish innan, but I think it's clear enough that that is not the case here. If Duty before all sounds a bit more poetic in some English ears, that still does not make it accurate in this particular context. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

descent from kings of Sweden

I have added an extra bit of information in the family section that Gustaf VI Adolf is descended from Erik Segersall, the first recorded king of Sweden, the first member of the House of Bernadotte to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.128.86 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Rolled back ...

... obvious copy vio image, wrote to uploader/adder & tagged image at Commons. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Caption of photo with English footballers

I have reduced the estimated year range from c1910-1915 to end in 1914, as the First World War precluded his making visits to a country then engaged as a belligerent while Sweden was neutral, and there would have been no British teams touring abroad either when many professional players were enlisting in the British forces.Cloptonson (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)