Jump to content

Talk:Johan Sverkersson

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walrasiad (talk | contribs) at 09:57, 7 July 2024 (→‎Requested move 4 July 2024). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Halldórr skvaldri

"Skáldatal gives Einarr Skúlason and Halldórr skvaldri as two of John's court skalds."

Skáldatal also gives Halldórr as one of Magnus Barefoot's skalds. Since Magnus died in 1103 and Jón was born in 1201, Halldórr must have lived to a very old age... Sigo 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jarl was probably not John I of Sweden (born 1201), but this does not really solve the chronology of Skaldatal. /Pieter Kuiper 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Jarl was probably Sörkvir Kolsson's eldest son. I don't see any other problem with the chronology of Skáldatal. Sigo 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2024

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. Both share the same name, but the king is the primary topic.

  1. The Google Books search for "Johan Sverkersson" returns much more results than for "John I" Sweden 1222, and the results also include good-quality books from Brill and Cambridge University Press.
  2. The article about the son of Sverker the Elder was originally created as Johan Sverkersson the elder and moved to current title without discussion. Per WP:UE the name should not be anglicized since the anglicized name is not used in the literature. In fact, there is not much English literature about him at all; I only found two mentions: Philip Line refers to him as Johan Sverkersson and Lars O. Lagerqvist as Johan (jarl Jon). The title could also be Johan (son of Sverker the Elder), Johan Sverkersson (12th century) or Johan Sverkersson the Elder, although the last one is not attested in English literature.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Not an improvement & practically impossible to pronounce for non-Swedes. Fine as is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "Prince" is misleading, as Sweden was an elective monarchy. Andejons (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google books returns double the hits for "John I of Sweden" & Crusades than "Johan Sverkersson" & Crusades. The latter name seems used only in narrow specialized sources which use nativized spellings exclusively, whereas John I is used on wider general works (the Wikipedia criteria). Walrasiad (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute this finding. Here's the two searches on GBooks: John I and Johan Sverkersson. I have restricted the range of years to start from 1970, since 19th century literature did prefer the anglicized spellings, but the modern literature generally prefers native names. I do not know how Google counts the number of results on the upper right corner, but that number does not seem to be very reliable, as it varies when one changes from one page of results to another. Books also returns spurious hits, and one has to search the individual books to actually confirm that the term occurs there. For example, the search for "John I" gives the book Cambridge History of Scandinavia, but the term "John I" does not occur in that book at all. Unless there is another way, one has to resort to eyeballing the results, and I believe this shows that Johan Sverkersson is more common in modern literature. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. You have to go to the end of the hit list to get an accurate count. "John I of Sweden" had clearly fewer hits: 24 as compared to 69 (and among the 24, several are from Wikipedia or mirror sites, but I saw only one such hit among the 69). Andejons (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with your date restrictions, "John I of Sweden" still heavily outweighs "Johan Sverderkersson". And that's only a very specific phrase (there are other alternative phrasings like "John I, King of Sweden" or "Swedish king John I" and the like, which are not being measured.) Eyeballing the results you are hitting specialized academic works, which have recently taken the fashion of always nativizing spellings of everything. Which is fine in that narrow context. But Wikipedia is not written for specialists nor academics, but for the general public. So I will weigh general works more heavily. The current title is the best way to make sure this article reaches our readers. The proposal is not an improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]