Talk:Swedish royal family/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Mr."

The Swedish language version of the Royal Court's website, which is the only reliable source we can cite, makes a point of listing one of the people concerned in this article as Herr Chistopher O'Neill. In Swedish that title is never used in text unless it is being stressed for some reason, and the title is never capitalized when not at the head of a sentence (which it is not in the source) unless even more stress is intended.

It was also specifcally mentioned in the media releases when O'Neill married his royal wife, that he would be called Herr. This, too, was very unusual, even unprecedented.

Thus, I think the article, in citing the source correctly, should refer to O'Neill with the English equivalent as "Mr." (including quotation marks) since this particular case is not covered by what generally is recommended at WP:HONORIFICS. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I also cannot see why we should keep a reader wondering about why O'Neill doesn't have any title, when we have such a good excuse even here to answer such a question with the Royal Court's special efforts (described above) to specify the fact that he does not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

None of that makes it an exception to the Manual of Style. WP:HONORIFICS clearly states exceptions to the rule. This situation does not fall under any of those exceptions. Using the honorific to him does not make more sense than describing the King and Queen as "Majesties". In fact, referring to them as "Majesties" would be more sensible than referring to him as "Mr." The honorific "Mr." is absolutely implied. Whether or not he has a title concerns the article about him. Besides, being merely a "Mr." is not the same as having no title; see Mr. Michael Beaumont. Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFICS starts with the key word generally which you do not seem willing to acknowledge. This situation does not sort under generally.

"Majesty" is irrelevant to our talk here because it is not in the source. "King", "Queen", "Crown Princess" and "Prince" are, etc. As I'm sure you'd see if you stopped to think a moment, that leads the reader to wonder why O'Neill is the only person in these listings with no such title before his name, a problem which the Royal Court has solved for us by being exceptionally specific, if you'd only let it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Serge, your points are well taken but in my opinion none of your arguments are sufficient to warrant an exception to WP:HONORIFICS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

One more

Sweden has a new, let´s say princess for short. How royal she will be is for the king to say, and he hasn´t yet. Our beloved source will probably get around to mentioning her in the fullness of time. I suggest we don´t put her in until the king says something. [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably for the best. Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Another source: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That source is wrong about her citizenship since the law in Sweden says she is (also) a Swedish citizen from birth because her mother is a Swedish citizen. But I agree, we should not add the baby here yet. So far, our "beloved source" (I like that) has gotten around to announcing that there will be an official meeting chaired by the King "regarding the birth of Princess Madelein'es daughter" one of these days but nothing about whether or not any titles will be anounced there and then or when. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adhering to source

As I think a few of us have agreed before, we only have one reliable source to adhere to re: name formats & listings here, in Swedish (for the formats) and in English (corresponding). Would indeed be fine if we all could stick to that, and not Anglicize anything beyond recognition. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have a bias for swedish spelling. Names like Westrogothia have a certian ring to them, though... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant personal names and titles. For the Swedish provinces, on English WP I personally would prefer West Gothland (and such), but that was more common in English 5-6 decades ago. Only Scania and to a lesser degree Dalecarlia are common today in English. We have to keeping trying to work with as much phonetic empathy as possible, however. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Listing only family since 1818 is undue weight

I am pleased about rm this again. Undue weight is given that part of the story if they are all listed like that, and the list dominates the article in an inappropriate way. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now reverted this again, I think it's the 4-5th time we've done that, and have written to the IP to engage here. Have also moved the list to the House of Bernadotte article where it could be considered appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother. This person has used several accounts and IP addresses to avoid the indefinite block she or he received for never using edit summaries and for never responding to anyone. She or he returns over and over again, pestering dozens of users like an indestructive weed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)