Talk:Kol of Sweden

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Is he the same person as Charles VII of Sweden? Ardric47 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was his brother (or half-brother). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move again?

I'm still not 100% satisfied with recent moves, not even my own. Since our article on his brother or half-brother or nephew, his comrade in arms Boleslaw of Sweden, is thus named, can we agree on Kol of Sweden here, and fix that current page accordingly? Or why not Cole of Sweden since the man is unknown to English literature by any name, and that is his correct exonym in English? It seems to me, in any case, that this man obviously existed and that the likelihood is convincing, for all intents and purposes, that he was the son or grandson of one of the kings. There don't seem to be any sources which question that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. We're still not supposed to create our own names. If he is unknown in English literature, we should use the Swedish name.

2. I don't particularly care how he is disambiguated. "Kol of Sweden" is OK by me, as is the current solution.

3. I have never intended to imply that he was not historical, only that his exact relation to Sverker is not agreed upon, possibly even considered indeterminable.

Andejons (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. OK.

2. Good, I have asked for technical assistance to get this done.

3. I didn't think you implied that, and I agree.

Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging Kol of Sweden and Boleslaw of Sweden into Kol and Burislev.

These two people are always discussed together, and the content of these articles is largely redundant with each other.
Combining the pages would improve linking, as most of the links (e.g. [1]) are currently of the form "Kol and Burislev", or some variation of it.
The name Boleslaw is very rare in the literature, so Burislev is the natural choice to include in the title. See Google Books searches for post-1950 literature in English: Kol+Boleslaw and Kol+Burislev

— Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HHEHUM, Andejons, Anders.Warga, Ludde23, and SergeWoodzing:. Notifying main contributors. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - since some of us seem to recognize your actual agenda, to change as many names as possible that you've found in a certain book that you hate, why not come clean and propose a move from his grandfather's name Boleslaw to phoneticaklly cumbersome Burislev, and see how that does? Or why not abandon all the negativity and write a well-prefaced book of your own that the Library of Congress wants? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have proposed the move, and that would have been the path of least resistance if the only objective would be to move these articles from uncommon names to common names. But merging accomplishes the same with other benefits as argued above. Just look at the article about Kol and do a search for "Burislev", or vice versa to confirm that there's something very forky about this pair of articles. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal recommendation to you would be to just let go of those names. Most of them are too uncommon to belong to Wikipedia. Demitz has written many books, and he can be very proud of that. Even if we do not use them here as sources, there are many readers outside WP who can appreciate them better. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no common names in English for these two guys since hardly anyone has ever mentioned them anywhere in English literature.
The Swedish prince Boleslaw, as opposed to Cole (Kol) has been suspected by several historians to have been two different persons, which is well-sourced even in this article; that alone makes this proposal inappropriate.
The one who has been considered king is also suspected of having had a different tenure than Cole.
The well-known English exonym Boleslaw should be used, if for no other reason than that he was this named for his grandfather.
Will you be proposing a move for his grandfather also?
I will never "let go" of any possibilities where English text can be made less cumbersome and easier to pronounce, since we often have to try to figure out how to pronounce foreign words, which is why established English exonyms were established.
Will you be proposing a move for Copenhagen to København, so that that too will require English Wikipedia to try to teach Danish pronunciation?
Will you teach non-Swedes how to pronounce Burislev with a Swedish u that nobody else can handle?
You should let go of your anti-Demitz campaign before it gets even more unreasonable and does even more damage to easy oral reading. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The results in the above link [2] are enough to establish WP:COMMONNAME (if they were not, then WP:UE would apply, leading to the same outcome).

2–3. These issues with the identifications should be discussed in both of the current articles, and also in the merged one. I don't see this as a justification for not merging.

4. Not a valid reason. (but 'Boleslaw' should not be removed from the article either, since there are WP:RSs for it, e.g. [3]. Its just that those sources never use it as the primary name.)

5&7. Nope, those seem to be the common names.

8. Any pronounciation difficulty that might apply to Burislev also applies to Boleslaw, if one insists on the native pronounciation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boleslaw is an English exonym and I profess that it's much (much) easier to figure out how to pronounce that in English, using English phonetics, than Burislev is. This merger is not neccessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing to Burislev. The "exonym" seems like it could have been established by our article, which was created in 2005 - I found no hits on Google books prior to this [4]. Support also merging articles. There is very much overlap between the articles, but there is at least a little bit to differentiate them. Andejons (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]