Talk:Charles XV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of death[edit]

An anonymous editor changed the date of death. Can you cite a verifiable source for this information? Accurizer 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. A quick web search (excluding wiki and its clones) yields several dates : 18 Aug, 19 Aug, 18 Sep/18 Sep, 19 Sep. At least they agree on Malmö as the place. -- Abut 21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles XV of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: paternal grandson[edit]

Please see and use the talk page at Talk:Nils Bolander without removing this well-sourced fact again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a 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: Consensus to move to Charles XV. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Charles XV of Sweden → ? – Procedural nomination. I performed a move of this article from Charles XV of Sweden to Charles XV per this discussion, but that discussion did not consider the fact that Charles XV is also called Charles IV. Per a request on my talk, I am re-nominating this for further discussion. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Should not be moved, as per info now supplied by nom. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recommend this RM be merged with the RM at Charles XIV John of Sweden article. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot help raising an eyebrow about this, Mdaniels5757. A move discussion involving this article was held just days ago. SergeWoodzing took part in the discussion and had plenty of time to present his arguments there. But he did not; instead he asked you to reverse the consensus-based move after the discussion ended and you obliged? And now we are supposed to discuss something we already discussed in the past two weeks? That is bizarre. The consensus reached here was to use common names per policy. That means "Charles XV" for this man. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh ... this is not about me. It's about a king who reigned in 2 countries and is called a different thing in each; whether or not his article name in English Wikipedia more clearly than before only should reflect one of the 2 countries, only one of the two names. If we all stick to topic and deal with it, perhaps this can be constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it is about your actions. You took part in the move discussion and decided to abstain. After it ended, you interfered with the result by asking for an out-of-process reversion of the decision reached by consensus. The user most at fault, however, is the one who obliged. This topic was dealt with only this week. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see and try to respect WP:TPYES, all of it: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is your underhanded subversion of the community's decision and I am very much focusing on it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(The topic now became this crystal clear personal attack & whether or not I should take action against the user's behavior again and be more assertive this time. In any case, none of it belongs on this talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
We have a policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Surtsicna (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC of interest[edit]

(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) 19:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

On 22:00, 24 November 2023, I made an edit with the rationale, " copyedited lead, moved names info to Names section, per MOS:ALTNAME". MOS:ALTNAME states,

If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

Regardless, on 19:26, 25 November 2023, User:SergeWoodzing made a revert with the rationale, "not helpful; clearer before; incomplete sentence; bold text in wrong place".

It is to note that SergeWoodzing left the first sentence with the clutter of 5 alternative names in place. I don't see how that is clearer. There was an incomplete sentence in the move in the new section (Charles XV, also known as Carl (Carl Ludvig Eugen) and in Swedish: Karl XV.) with bold font. But that could have been easily fixed instead of bringing back the cluttering (which is not helpful and not more clear) to the first sentence against the advice of the aforementioned guideline. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussion of article content, not for commenting on other users, nor for pointless complaints.
A good idea is always to look at an article and see what has happened just after a revert. There are often additional improvements. There were, in this case, and seeing them would have made this section unnecessary. In other words, some of the reasons for the original action were good ones, which was addressed promptly in subsequent changes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing Yes, article talk pages are for discussion of article content. No idea why you mention it. Not for pointless complaints. Exactly, I can second that regarding your reply.
I discussed article content and I pointed out the shortcomings of your edit. Yes, I saw the latest version not just your revert, which is where I got the number of alternative names. Therefore, I am still wondering why you ignore the guideline I mentioned. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You/your" 5 times in one short comment! A classic example of personalizing a discussion on an article talk page. I have not mentioned anyone here at all. So, it can be done.
I have now edited the top of the article again, removing even more clutter. There should be no problem with MOS:ALTNAME now. A special section just to give his full birth name or his name in Swe/Nor or his numeral in Norway seems a worse choice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my first post it was appropriate to mention the editor's name for clarity. I still don't see how the current first sentence is agreeable with MOS:ALTNAME, as there are four alternative names there. Foreign alternative names are still alternative names. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of our WP rules and guidelines are carved in stone, and exceptions can be made as per WP:UCS. In this case I think the lead now is fine, and that a special section on his names should ot be added to the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "none of our WP rules and guidelines are carved in stone". I guess it's simply a matter of editorial preference we disagree with. I think your edit, or how was it before my edits, has too much clutter. You on the other hand think my edit is less clear and not helpful The caveat is that my preference is backed by the guideline although your preference, in contradiction with the guideline, seems to be tacitly supported by other editors who watch this page. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion: I think we should follow MOS and not have three or more alternative names in the first sentence. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! What wording would you suggest then? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. James II of England and have something like: Charles XV (Swedish and Norwegian: Karl Ludvig Eugen, ####-####) was King of Sweden as Charles XV and King of Norway as Charles IV" Furius (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a valid attempt! 2 problems: (1) I count more 4 names there, not less than three; (2) Carl is too significant to ignore, as he is often called that in modern English literature, as are all the Swedish royal Charleses. In other words, I do not think we can manage better than what's there now. And I do not find it cluttered, since recent adjustments were made. To me the guideline primarily wants us to avoid clutter. That has been accomplished as well as what's reasonable, in this case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Carl Ludvig Eugen"? The article currently seems to be presenting it as his full English name, but that would be "Carl Ludwig Eugene". Furius (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's his full birth name in Swedish. I see no point in trying to translate that with English exonyms; Ludvig e.g. could be Louis or Lewis in English. Better left alone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is his Swedish name Carl or Karl? Furius (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Carl, why are we claiming it's Karl later in the sentence? If it's Karl, why are we giving his full name on a mixture of English and Swedish (better: all in Swedish) Furius (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are good queastions. It's complicated, especially to the uninitiated. Swedish tradition holds that kings named & spelled Carl at birth after death always are referred to as Karl. Karl seems to have been the official regnal name, of sorts, of all those kings up until the current one, sort of like the fact that the same has been the case with Charles in English officialdom, until the 20th century.. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sort of bizarreness that I expect from a monarchy! And it might be worth a note, if there's a source explaining it? Furius (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's complicated, especially to the uninitiated. That's why I think best to move all the complication to a dedicated Names section instead of leaving it in the first sentence. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_XV&oldid=1208184790"