Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Old post

In 1632, Sweden had not yet adopted the Gregorian Calendar, so his death is memorized on November 6. Since 1928, this is done by eating a special pastry topped with his portrait in marsipan, called Gustav Adolf-bakelse. This tradition is especially popular in Gothenburg, the city he founded. In Finland, the Swedish-speaking community celebrates November 6 as "the Swedish day".

This is just not encyclopedic (although oddly interesting). If included, it needs to go somewhere other than the middle of GA's career. JHK

Appearance in Fiction

Gustavus is a major character in the alternate history book 1632 by Eric Flint and its sequel 1633 (with more to follow). The books mention his "secret" person Captain Gars, which would appear to have a historical basis (AltaVista failed to find any mention but Google came up trumps). Is this the sort of information which should appear for such a major historical figure? Actually I would assume that the Captain Gars nugget should be added Phil 10:54, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC) Added April 3, 2005 by JohnMc

Naming conventions for Swedish monarchs

Gustavus Adolphus is the name under which the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf generally is known to an English speaking audience. The discussion regarding the English, or Wikipedia names, of the Swedish monarchs is kept under Talk:List of Swedish monarchs. -- Mic 16:35, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:List of Swedish monarchs the name in English is "Gustav II Adolph", and this is an English encyclopedia. Also, it should use the correct title of the monarch. See also: Sky 08:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
see also: [User_talk:Mic#Gustav_II_Adolph_of_Sweden] Sky 15:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Gustavus Adolphus there are several in different forms in use which are widely accepted, and not even the Swedish language convenstions are consistent on the issue. Currently there are a number of unresolved issues regarding the naming of Swedish monarchs. See Unresolved naming issues for the Swedish monarchs for a discussion on this. (See also: User talk:Sky#Regarding your editing style)-- Mic 12:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gustav II Adolph

The Microsoft Encyclopedia lists the guy under "Gustav II Adolph (of Sweden)" and also two other encyclopedias I have looked at. The Encyclopedia Britannica even lists him under the Swedish name Gustav II Adolf (which I think is even better). I do not understand your point of view. Please have a look at User talk:Sky. Sky 08:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS: Since this is the English wikipedia, different Swedish forms of the name really don't matter. Sky 08:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1626 Campaign in PLC

This article has no mention at all of pre-1630 Gustav fights. See Stanislaw_Koniecpolski#War_against_the_Swedes for some of his earlier campaigns info that you coul easily add here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus?

Shouldn't this be at something like Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden? The current name is not the most commonly used name in English, by far... john k 20:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If "Gustavus Adolphus" is how he's best known, then yes, it should be. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a case where there is indeed a traditional English form of a Swedish name (as opposed to the mere stripping of diacritics from a name), and I have long had the urge to move him to Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden. However, the title should be consistent with all other Swedish monarchs with the names Gustav or Adolf, so they will have to be moved as well, and all redirects then need to be fixed. / up◦land 15:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it should not be consistent, because usage changes over time. We already have Charles XII of Sweden and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, for instance. We could keep Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden (which is already weird, with the "v" ending Gustav and the "f" ending Adolf) and move this one to Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden. The list of Swedish monarchs should attempt to be consistent, I think, but there's no need for the article titles to. john k 03:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's prudent to point out that "Gustavus Adolphus" is Latin, not English. That Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Gustav II Adolf" is a very good reason not to use the Latin name. That my fellow Swedes have a disturbing tendency to believe the latinized names are acually English "translations" is a different matter altogether. This just seems to be some kind of insecurity about using the Swedish terms among Swedes themselves, despite the major encyclopedias like EB favoring the Swedish names.
And why the quirky spelling? Is it somehow more English to use "ph" rather than just "f"...?
Peter Isotalo 20:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Peter, you are welcome to erase the offensive comment above and replace it with something worthy of a reply. up◦land 08:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Considering the extreme silliness that I've experienced with the naming of articles like Gotlandia and Medelpadia, I think I'll keep the comment, though I did not intend to single out this discusssion as representative of this trait and apologize if it was perceived as insulting. How do you comment the fact that major English language encyclopedias don't use "Gustavus Adolphus"?
Peter Isotalo 23:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Peter, I think it would be better if you kept to one issue at the time, and I would like to suggest that you join the Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board, and create a subpage there on naming standards for Swedish topics. I don't see your annoyment with User:Mic as quite justified, as this is a very difficult issue. Some of his choices may be questioned, but if it hadn't been for the work he put into it, a lot of things would have to be done from scratch, rather than by just moving a few pages.
As for GIIA, current usage is probably influenced by the Swedish form, but Gustavus and Gustavus Adolphus, Latin endings and all, is indeed traditional English usage; it was still used, for instance, for Gustavus III and Gustavus IV Adolphus by their contemporaries, as witnessed by a search of the full-text database of The Times from that period. The name of the Swedish-American Gustavus Adolphus College is another witness to this usage, and the arguably most significant English-language author on Swedish history, Michael Roberts used this form in titles of his influential books on the king, published in 1958 and 1973 (the latter republished in 1992). If you check Libris, you will find other, even more recent, book titles which use Gustavus Adolphus. There is no doubt that this is the name under which English-speakers of, say, the 19th century would have known him and the name many still prefer. The situation today is more ambiguous, but I think there is still a fair case for using it today. However, basing conclusions on a faulty Google search is not useful, here or anywhere else.
BTW, the EB is not a good model, considering it uses Charles VIII Knutsson (with the fake, anachronistic numbering) for the king known in Swedish as Karl Knutsson (Bonde) (and in Wikipedia as Charles VIII of Sweden). I don't know whether there is any English usage to speak of in that case; It just seems like an arbitrary choice.
In any case, I still think the issue of how to name other kings historically referred to by the name of Gustavus has to be part of the discussion. Although usage has clearly changed from the late 19th century towards favouring the Swedish forms for contemporary monarchs (as opposed to historic ones), I think a move of Gustav II Adolph to Gustavus Adolphus (or some similar version) would need a consideration of other kings from the period when this was contemporary usage, i.e. GIII and GIVA. up◦land 15:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
This is very relevant to the other Swedish goegraphy non-sequitur, Uppland, because this not the first time I've encountered a peculiar tendency among Swedes to choose article titles that are either "correct translations" or that appear to sound as non-Swedish as possible (whether they are actually English or notable seems irrelevant). I think this is pretty consistent with the attitude that a lot of Swedes have about their own history and language. It's not as much anti-nationalist as it is simply anti-Swedish; anything that somehow differs from Swedish terms or from what Swedes themselves use seems to be treated as consistently more objective, correct and favorable, and a lot of the time a great deal of Swenglish is involved. To keep this discussion among Swedes is really the worst solution and quite contrary to Wikipedia purposes, since it's obvious that the opinions of non-Swedes is as relevant and important in these discussions. It's hardly just the business of Swedes to describe their own history...
As for GA, contemporary usage of titles, names and the likes is simply never relevant as a motivation for choosing encyclopedic article ttiles for the very reason that I stated before; Latin being a major lingua franca. The relevant usage is, and should always be, the current usage. That one of the alternatives coincides with the historical usage is not the issue and should, if anything, used as a reason why not to use it.
When pointing out that EB (and Encarta) are using the Swedish name, I'm certainly not trying to promote an "EB model", but rather trying to point out that other encyclopedias, which seem to me as being among the most relevant for our purposes, have chosen the Swedish name. I'm really surprised that you because of this actually object to the very idea of being influenced by the Swedish name. It would, if anything be logical to do just that, especially when choosing between a Latinized and a Swedish name. Since both names are obviously used in English contexts to a reasonable degree and with encyclopedias choosing the Swedish form, it seems very odd that the Latin one would all of a sudden be deemed the most appropriate.
But I suppose a poll is the only way to really settle this, so could someone set one up? And could we try to avoid "correct" or "consistent" naming, because the names of kings seldom seem to be in real-world texts or even encyclopedias. "Gustavus Adolphus" or "Gustav II Adolf" seem to me as the only really relevant alternatives.
Peter Isotalo 12:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
It might be "more English" to use the -ph ending rather than the -f ending in Adolph. But jsut because the -f ending may be more common in modern Swedish, that does not mean that the -ph ending is not a historically correct Swedish spelling as well. Gene Nygaard 14:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
We don't use "historical spelling" for any other monarchs, no matter if they're Swedish or not, and neither do Swedes or Swedish dictionaries. They use "Gustav II Adolf" without exception and I'm not even sure the historical spelling was ever "Adolph". Moreover Swedish orthography was not in the least bit consistent until the late 19th century and the latest spelling reform wasn't fully realized until the early 20th century (consistently spelling /v/ with "v"). In fact, there was more consistency in the 16th century than there was in the 17th. And what's "more English" about -ph? Sounds like a matter of taste to me (e.i. we go by the more common Swedish and English spelling).
Peter Isotalo 14:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
So, where do you end up if you enter Carl von Linne or Carl von Linné? Gene Nygaard 15:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Google returns about 212,000 hits for "Gustavus Adolphus" and only about about 1,100 for "Gustav II Adolph of Sweden". Limiting the search to English, it finds about 170,000 English pages for "Gustavus Adolphus" and only 1,070 English pages for "Gustav II Adolph of Sweden". NoAccount 16:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, searching for "Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden" results in 663 hits, and the proper search for the other names is around 3700 (English sites). There seems to be a lot of colleges, buildings, churches and the likes named after GA that show up in searches for the Latin name, btw. Despite this, I would like to insist on that the choice made by several major encyclopedias should be given more importance than just Google searches.
Peter Isotalo 00:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
"...a lot of colleges, buildings, churches and the likes named after Gustavus Adolphus" under that name. Doesn't that tell you something about which one is the most well known? NoAccount 00:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it just tells us that a college and a couple of churches in Minnesota happen to bear the name "Gustavus Adolphus". If you make a search with "-college" the amount of hits drops to 41k. Add "-Minnesota" and your down to 37k and add "-church" and it goes down to 28k. And once again: please give me a good explanation why major English-language encyclopedias use the Swedish name instead of the Latin one.
Peter Isotalo 11:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the change in name but to follow common policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Historical names and titles the didget and the country should be in there eg:

Although as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles says:

Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain.

So I think that or Gustavus II of Sweden or Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden or Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden would be better than just Gustavus Adolphus --Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

He was to the best of my knowledge never refered to as "Gustavus II Adolphus". The Swedes called him "Gustav II Adolf" and the rest of Europe apparantly called him "Gustavus Adolphus" because Latin was still a widely used lingua franca. Though I just can't fathom the reasons for rendering either "Gustav" or "Adolf" into Latin in modern English. It simply smacks of Swenglish...
Peter Isotalo 11:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you, however this gets us no where nearer to deciding if this article should be renamed, and if so to what name. So I propose that we vote on it. By using Approval voting and listing the options. One can vote for as many or as few options as one wishes too. Philip Baird Shearer

Requested moves

Discussion (old)

Add any additional names which you may think are appropriate to the list above. Support or Oppose any of the listed proposals. Voting more than once is encouraged with Approval voting. Philip Baird Shearer 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What's is the point of counter-opposing everything you're not supporting! It's one vote per alternative or no one will ever understand what the actual outcome will be. Please check out Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party for how to design a proper vote.
Peter Isotalo 14:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Since the request was for the moving to Gustavus Adolphus, the vote should be about that. I've reformated the vote to how it's usually done, but if you feel you need the other alternatives, at least format it properly, and not with this chaotic second option-system. It's one vote per option. Period. ::Peter Isotalo 14:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Did you read a single word of what I wrote? This vote is not interpretable. It's messy, utterly oblique and completley obscures what this issue is about. This is about using either the Latin or the Swedish name. Not irrelevant arguments of spelling, whether to add "of Sweden" and especially not about non-notable alternatives like "Gustavus II Adolphus". That's just the same mistake as is commonly seen here; making up your own terminology because it seems more "correct". That's nothing but original research on a micro-level.
Peter Isotalo 15:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

What is the real point of the suggested move. if it is to assit people in finding the article, why won't redirects from all the likely forms of the name do the job? The form "Gustavus Adolphus" with no number is probably the best known in english, but is neither unambiguious, nor does it follow the usual naming conventions for articles on monarchs. The form "Gustavus II Adolphus" is not likley to help those knowing only the form without an inserted number (most english speakers with limited knowledge of the history involved) nor is it "correct". DES 16:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the request was for the moving to Gustavus Adolphus, the vote should be about that. I've reformated the vote to how it's usually done, but if you feel you need the other alternatives, at least format it properly, and not with this chaotic second option-system. It's one vote per option. Period.
Peter Isotalo 14:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

After Peter deleted the existing votes, we have even more of a mess than before. Note that, once a request for move is listed on WP:RFM, we are not normally limited to the actual wording proposed. Changes and other alternatives are often considered, and implemented, are they not?

But note further that the change by Philip Baird Shearer was also done without discussion here, and it was wrongly implemented. As the article approval voting explains, the set of available options there are {+1,0}. In other words, opposing votes have no meaning. So it is quite misleading to call for opposing votes, at the same time the claim is made that the results will be interpreted as being "approval voting" which doesn't count them.

So I guess the first order of business is to redefine the voting process. Gene Nygaard 14:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common to use approval voting for where there is more than one alternative. After five days of discussing the name it is quite clear that no one alternative around which a consensus was forming. Including the leaving it where it was option. WP:RM recommends that approval voting is used. If you want to remove the Oppose votes I have no problem with that but as we are not using single transferable voting it is a way that opposition to a proposal can be shown. Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 29 May 2005 (UCT)
With the call for opposing votes, it is not approval voting. That's quite significant. Don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes by trying to give the impression that an opposing vote is going to have some meaning, if it isn't going to do so. And don't call it "approval voting" if it is going to have some meaning. Because it is screwed up now, I think we need to throw out all of these votes, clarify exactly what we are doing, and ask everyone to reenter votes on that basis. Gene Nygaard 15:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Putting in an Oppose vote works because on some name one may not have a strong opinion. This my be flawed (I do not think so), but even so it is clear that some options are more popular than others, which is more clarity than we got with a week of talking about it. Philip Baird Shearer
I personally think that opposing votes should count for something. A choice with the most support, but also with strong opposition, is probably not as good a choice as one with nearly as much support, but with little opposition. However, my point remains, that if we do it that way, it is not approval voting and we should not be calling it "approval voting". If it is going to have some meaning, we should be a little bit clearer about how it is going to factor into any final decision. Maybe we need to use that process to narrow down the choices, then have a runoff, an up or down vote on one option or a choice from at most three options (perhaps by true approval voting). Gene Nygaard 15:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

As for the statment that it is "This is about using either the Latin or the Swedish name. Not irrelevant arguments of spelling, whether to add "of Sweden" and especially not about non-notable alternatives like "Gustavus II Adolphus". That's just the same mistake as is commonly seen here; making up your own terminology because it seems more "correct". That's nothing but original research on a micro-level." I disagree because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Historical names and titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. These are Wikipedia guidelines for how to name a monarch Philip Baird Shearer 15:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

They are general guidelines, yes, but can obviously cause some disagreements on intepretation. In this particular case it seems to me as if the general rule is complicated by the enyclopedic usage. And as for the the super-detail of the what you have decided to call "approval voting" is completely irrelevant by your own argumantation. The addition "of Sweden" would be applied to whatever alternative that is seen as the most favorable, and the spelling is really only an issue if you're more interested in petty bureaucracy than an reasonable decision.
I have mentioned this problem on the RfC page, section for article title disputes. By supporting this extremly messy and complicated system of multiple votes on the same issue, you're definetly ruining any chance for outsiders to understand what this is about, let alone what the Hell you've actually voted for.
Peter Isotalo 16:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Gustavus II Adolphus is not a wikipedism. See here for the google results. john k 18:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
647 hits? Are you kidding me? I searched for that myself before, but since everyone considered "Gustav II Adolf" with over 5,000 hits (with Swedish pages, 28k) non-notable enough I figured no one would be silly enough to refer to such a non-notable search. But I guess this really is about choosing the "correct name" according to personal taste rather than going by what's both notable and reasonable.
Peter Isotalo 18:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say it was common, I said it was not a wikipedism, which was, I thought, the accusation - that we were making up a name never used. At any rate, I prefer Gustavus II Adolphus because it includes two of the more common English usages - "Gustavus II," which is the usage, for instance, of Columbia encyclopedia, and "Gustavus Adolphus," the most common usage overall. Furthermore, it is non-ambiguous, and follows the official guidelines for titles of articles on monarchs. At any rate, as I said, I would not object to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, since I think he is sufficiently more famous under that name than Gustav IV and Gustav VI as to be relatively unambiguous. john k 22:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Let me add that, while, indeed, the number of hits for "Gustavus II Adolphus" is not high, the quality of those hits is fairly high - a more than hundred year old organization of Swedish-Americans, a Houghton-Mifflin textbook, the 1911 Britannica...I also wonder about the personal attacks from Karmosin here. This is surely not a subject to which we are all so emotionally committed that we have to get nasty, is it? john k 22:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The 1911 EB is not a particularly good source in this context. Close to 100-year-old sources are generally considered to be irrelevant, especially if they happen to be changed in later editions. And since you completely ignore the quality of the sources when it comes to "Gustav II Adolf", why should you all of a sudden take it into consideration now?
Peter Isotalo 04:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

    • Gustavus IV Adolphus and Gustavus VI Adolphus also bore the byname. This title would thus be mildly confusing. That said, Those two are always "Gustavus IV Adolphus" and "Gustaf VI Adolf" (or some such), not usually just "Gustavus Adolphus," so I think this would be okay. john k 13:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you show some sources that refer to Gustav IV and Gustav VI as "Gustavus Adolphus"? / Peter Isotalo 19:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this usage does not seem to be prevalent. However, their names are, in fact, the same as that of the more famous Gustavus Adolphus, so they might be called this. As I said, I don't think this is a serious enough objection to warrant objecting to this version. john k 23:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If this article is moved, then you should seriously consider moving these articles also:

If these aren't moved, then this shouldn't be either, if you wan't to be somewhat consistent. /Jebur 06:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting style and results interpretation

In true approval voting there is no need for oppose votes, hence the name - people only state which of the presented options they find acceptable. People expressing opposition to an option can be helpful if it is qualified, but that's what the discussion section is for. When it comes to interpreting the results I'm sure it will be clear which option(s) have the most support. As it stands it's clearly between Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden, with the latter being favoured most.

Unless there are any objections I will move the article to Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden tomorrow. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You'd damn sure better not be doing anything "tomorrow" when WP:RM said the voting was extended to June 2.
Futhermore, it is not "approval voting" when the voters have been asked to record votes in opposition. The process is tainted; it stinks worse than week-old fish. Gene Nygaard 02:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't jump on me when I'm trying to help. Who do you think extended the deadline? I chose the 2nd of June as an arbitrary date as there was very little discussion going on; since the extension it has progressed greatly. I suggested closing it if everyone was happy - not everyone was. I said it wasn't approval voting and never claimed it was. You may also wish to read my comment at the bottom of this page. violet/riga (t) 10:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
So why are you having difficulty understanding that the process is tainted, if you said it isn't approval voting, and it isn't approval voting. You have shown your acquiescence in the change by Philip Baird Shearer to a multiple choice, so you presumably acquiesced in his declaration of "approval voting" at the same time, especially since he explicitly tied the two together. Therefore, even saying that that presumption was wrong here isn't enough; the change needs to be made in the explanatory information before the voting. And in either case, neither you nor he have plenary power to make that determination on your own. The vote needs to be redone. Gene Nygaard 12:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
This is silly. I don't even understand what you are so concerned about. Why is the fact that this is not proper "approval voting" so important? Furthermore, again, a requested move just isn't a formal process. There is no need to have a vote over a requested move, if some consensus can be arrived at. From the current votes, it appears that the vast majority think the name should be Latinized, one way or the other. There's no reason to get lost in process here. john k 13:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I oppose such a move. Please not that "Gustavus II Adolphus" gets a measly 647 hits on Google. "Gustav II Adolf/Adolph" results in over 7,000 hits when filtered for only English pages and is used by both Encarta and EB. The relevant alternatives are clearly the current page name (with -f or -ph is really beside the point) or Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. The added numeral is just an extrapolation of a historical name that bears absolutely no relevance and is clearly to be considered a form of original research.
Why is it so hard to just set up a properly formatted vote about what the RM originally was about?
Peter Isotalo 19:27, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
The title used in the 1911 Britannica is original research? Don't be absurd. john k 22:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
They obviosuly considered it absurd enough themselves to simply change it to Gustav II Addolf in the current edition.
Peter Isotalo 22:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur. You are saying that "Gustavus II Adolphus" has never been used by anyone, and that those of us in favor of it are making it up. But that is very clearly not the case, since the standard repository of knowledge in the English-language of a century ago used the same title. That they have since stopped has nothing to do with the question of "original research". john k 23:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want to argue that the usage is archaic, feel free, but don't argue that it's original research, as that claim is clearly nonsense. john k 23:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The 1911 edition, of course, was the last British edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. It is a United States encyclopedia now, and has been for all editions after that 11th edition. Still keeps a few British spelling for that archaic flavor, but that's about it. Gene Nygaard 02:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
For whatever it is worth, here is the usage of the 1971 Encyclopædia Britannica
Gene Nygaard 09:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Peter. The most reliable source here should be the latest version of Britannica which says "Gustav II Adolf". /Jebur 16:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is the second choice of many here and is acceptable to Peter. Should we agree that we move the article there? I've said on WP:RM that this discussion is extended until 2 June 2005 and I'm not in any rush to do it before then seeing as the talks are ongoing. violet/riga (t) 23:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I was just trying to get someone to stop the absurd vote above and just make a proper vote, like I tried to do earlier [1] (with notices on the talkpages of those who had voted). I am still in favor of keeping the current title and I think it's a lot more relevant than the pseudo-English Latinized name, which does not seem to be used for any Gustav either before (Gustav Vasa) or after. It just strikes me as coming off like being an equivalent of the Sun King or something like it and I want a proper vote (without double, triple or quadruple votes) on this, not informal decisions when there is no clear consensus.
Peter Isotalo 14:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
But I think it is quite clear. Two people support (and four oppose) the current title. Six people support Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. That, to me, shows that the latter is favoured much more than the current title. violet/riga (t) 14:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I actually nurtured the illusion that we were going to set up a proper vote that would be understandable to outsiders, with a proper time limit and all, just like any other RM procedure. I guess I was wrong about that.
Peter Isotalo 15:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think the vote is totally clear and understandable and does in fact have a time limit of a 2 June cut-off. As is usual WP:RM procedure the move can be performed earlier at an admins discetion - it just happens that I suggested the move be done rather than just going ahead and doing it. violet/riga (t) 15:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested moves is not nearly as formal as, say, deletion, and I'd suggest that it's not even as formal as a content poll would be. It seems fairly clear that Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden would be an appropriate title that would be acceptable to most people, at least. I don't see why we should over-bureaucratize this. As to the other Gustav's, I'd suggest that the first four should all be at latinized versions of the names, as they are more commonly known by that in English. If you want to propose a new standard of using names in the language of the country (which would leave us with Felipe II of Spain), go ahead, although you tell me what we should do with Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. john k 16:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Please verify claims before making them. Here are the Google searches, filtered for English pages:
Gustav Vasa 21k — Gustavus Vasa 5,5k
Gustav III 14,8k — Gustavus III 5k
Gustav IV 4,4k — Gustav IV 1k
And, of course, both Encarta and EB list them under their Swedish names. Why this insistance on a rather archaic use of Latinized names?
Peter Isotalo 19:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Google searches are worthless for determining much of anything, since most sources on, say, Swedish history are not going to be online, so this only gives us a fairly narrow sample of things. At any rate, using google clearly works against you on Gustavus Adolphus - "Gustav II Adolph" gets 2,370 google hits while "Gustavus Adolphus" gets 124,000, and even when you take out references to "College" to try to exclude discussion of Gustavus Adolphus College, you get 37,900. This is a far more convincing google test than the ones you've been doing on the other kings, since it suggests an overwhelming superiority - only in such instances, I think (as opposed to ones where the two are within fairly narrow range of each other), can the google test have any value. john k 21:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Considering that it's more prominent as well as supported by modern encyclopedias, I'd say it's perfeclty valid. And I'm very skeptical to your assessment of what "prominent enough" actually would be. By the way, how many people outside of the US (or Minnesota, even) do you think have ever heard of GA College? It was also named during a period when Latin was still considered to be the most prestiguous language, an opinion that has changed considerably in the last century. And keeping in mind that the vast majority of English speakers (though as a second language) are not American that would be a pretty good reason to consider it unrelated to the historical figure.
Peter Isotalo 17:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

As the number needs to be part of the name to more clearly disambiguate from King G IV A in categories. Gustavus Adolphus and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden should nevertheless redirect to Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden, with a link to Gustavus Adolphus (disambiguation) at the top of the article. The dab page should mention something about the change in English usage, and the Swedish form should be used for Gustav V and Gustav VI Adolf. (We will still have to discuss whether the proper Swedish form ought to be Gustav or Gustaf for the modern kings, but that could be done somewhere else.) (This construction is part of the explanation of my vote, so please don't move the comment, but copy it and reply to it elsewhere if you like.) up◦land 07:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't have sufficient documentation to claim any "change in English usage". Gene Nygaard 08:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And what change, I might add? From Latin to Swedish or vice versa? And would everyone please note that "Gustavus II Adolphus" is a very rare name form and bring back fewer than 1000 hits on Google.
And, Uppland, I know from experience that disambigs at Swedish Wikipedia are often quite misunderstood. Are you sure that you've understood what disambigs are for? The other Gustav Adolfs were to my knowledge seldom, if ever known as "Gustavus Adolphus", so creating a disambig for it seems very superfluous. Could you at least show someone actually using this form for, Gustav VI Adolf and Gustav IV Adolf?
Peter Isotalo 18:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the variants Gustavus, Adolphus and Gustavus Adolphus are not the Latin forms of the name when used in English. They are variants identical to and derived from the Latin forms, but once incorporated into English, they are actually English forms of the names in question. Gustavus Adolphus is just as Latin and as English as, say, the word campus. It is all is a matter of usage, not etymology. In addition, names of rulers (and a few other categories, such as saints, classical authors etc.) are for various reasons treated differently from those of most other people, as somebody pointed out by referring you to Emperor Charles V. This case is no exception.
Secondly, as for Gustav(us) (II) Adolph(us), we may discuss how common Gustavus Adolphus is in English today compared to some version of the Swedish form, and if and when usage changed. The EB 2004 is evidence of a shift, but as any encyclopedia editor has to chose one or the other, it does not in itself reduce the legitimacy of the other point of view. As many respectable English-language authors (and Swedish authors writing in English) have long used and still use the form Gustavus Adolphus, the issue can not just be brushed away. And as we are not writing 17th century history, but are making an encyclopaedia, we have to deal with issues of consistency and disambiguating between different Swedish rulers of the same name, thus with the issue of whether to use the number (II) in the name rather than plain Gustavus Adolphus. In writing about the Thirty Years War, using Gustavus Adolphus, without a number, would be fine, but in an article title it is more problematic.
Thirdly, as for Gustav(us) III and Gustav(us) IV Adolph(us), I already pointed you to a source for Gustavus (Adolphus) actually being the form used at least by contemporary English writers: The Times from the late 18th and early 19th century, as revealed by a search of the full-text database of that newspaper 1785-1985, (available online with a subscription[2] – you probably have access to it through some library). Unless you can point to some source showing this usage suddenly stopping at some early point after that and being completely replaced with the Swedish form, you will have acknowledge that this is indeed legitimate and historically correct well-attested English usage.
As for contemporary Swedish kings from the late 19th century and later, usage indeed seems to have changed (I am still relying on The Times here), with the Swedish forms being more common. Although I would prefer uniformity in the rendering of the same Swedish name, I am afraid reality is not so consistent and Gustav VI Adolf should probably be referred to under the Swedish form rather than as Gustavus Adolphus (although the reference on this page to the EB 1971 indicates this form being used there). But as already mentioned, we need a discussion of the issue of consistency and disambiguating, and if a move takes place in the case of G II A, the question of other kings of the same Swedish name has to be dealt with and the issue of different English usage for different kings with the same Swedish name needs to be explained somewhere.
Finally, I don't see where the Swedish Wikipedia comes into the picture. I have been editing the English Wikipedia longer than you have, and understand perfectly well what disambigs are for. I urge you to consider reforming your debating style. I think you are generally a competent editor, but your behaviour on discussion pages is less than satisfactory; you come through as much more aggressive than you possibly intend, and I think you should have realized that by now. In this particular case, your unwillingness to even accept the legitimacy of the other POV only leads to further polarization over the issue, rather than that of arriving at a reasonable consensus, which should be the goal. up◦land 09:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That you keep insisting on "uniformity" and "historical usage" as argumentation is probably the reason for why I'm being fairly aggressive (I'd call it "very insistent"). Both are entirely irrelevnt, since neither are applicable to article titles. We're supposed to reflect current usage. That's either "Gustavus Adolphus" or "Gustav II Adolf/ph". Anything else is really just floating off into theories of what's "correct". And the reason that I don't accept your POV is because I believe it is based on very flawed argumentation.
And seriously... You want to blame me merely for not wanting to reach consensus because I think the decision is wrong? Try to cut down on the "debating style"-comments just a tad if you're so eager about harmonious debates.
Peter Isotalo 12:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
If you think I am arguing for historical correctness in any kind of absolute sense, you are mistaking me for someone else. I have delved so much on attested usage mainly to counter your previous claims that the "Latin" form is not at all current or even any kind of English usage, or, when you were proven wrong on that point, that it wasn't used for any other kings than GIIA. It was and it is. As for uniformity, that seems to be what the EB editors had in mind when consistently changing the form of the name between the 1971 and the 2004 editions, and it is usually considered a good thing for organization of information, but in my previous comment I actually pointed out the difficulty in striving for uniformity if actual English usage is inconsistent. up◦land 08:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move to Gustavus Adolphus

Is anyone actually proposing a move to this specific location? It is really sloppy that this is the "official" version we are discussing, when nobody actually wants such a move. john k 16:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone did propose it, but when it was pointed out that "of Sweden" should be added to be consistant with nearly every other monarch of a country, that was widely agreed to. As was said above, move requests do evolve with discussion. Jonathunder 18:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I must protest

I came here at the somewhat desperate plea of Peter Isotalo, to take a look at the vote, and I must protest. I agree with Peter and Gene Nygaard that there is no interpreting the vote as it stands at present. I don't mean to sound harsh, I'm sure everybody's been doing their best, but Philip Baird Shearer's interpretation of Approval voting contradicts the article he links to, and contradicts itself internally also. It really won't do to have one instruction above the vote (Add **Support followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote) and the opposite instruction below it (Support or Oppose any of the listed proposals)! The first is approval voting, the second is not, and as Gene Nygaard says, the difference is significant. But let's try ignoring the specifics of approval voting for now, and just look at the fact that there is no telling which of the instructions voters have gone by, or have even noticed. Perhaps they've rolled their own compromise, or shut their eyes and pointed, I think that's what I would have done. How can we count oppose votes, when people didn't know whether to submit them or not? But how can we not count oppose votes, when people have submitted them and meant them to stand for something? Violet, you know how much I respect your work, but I suggest you too may easily have missed (in the general mess above) the contradictory instructions. Please don't move the article yet.

At the same time, Peter, while I understand your original call for a two-alternative vote, and reference to the vote at Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party, the time for that is past, it can only confuse the issue further. I know that a coherent voting procedure is what you want, with alternatives the voters can understand and an outcome that can be interpreted, and by now approval voting offers the best chance of that. Five alternative names have been suggested now, not two. Even if the "of Sweden" is broken out because it will be added to any alternative chosen, it's still more than two. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


After the trouble the voters have put in, I'm very sorry to suggest this, but it does have the virtue of being simple: set up an approval voting process with support votes only. Peter, perhaps you could do it, if Violet approves? Separate out the "of Sweden" business if there is consensus for doing that. And you and everybody else else should stop worrying about some of the proposed alternatives being in your view absurd. If they are absurd, they won't win the vote, surely. The arguments already made for and against the various alternatives may be consulted above, and need not in my view be repeated below: I suggest that new points only, and the approval vote itself, need be added below this line. (Please note btw that alternative 5 on the vote above has become doubled, and the voting on 5 and its ghost 6 is forking.) (No it hadn't, it was Gustav/Gustaf!) Bishonen | talk 23:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll present my interpretations, breaking it down by option:
  • Gustav II Adolph of Sweden
The current title, has some support
  • Gustavus Adolphus
The actual suggested title at WP:RM, has no support
  • Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden
Favoured support from many people
  • Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
Support from many people
  • Gustav II Adolf of Sweden
A little support
  • Gustaf II Adolf of Sweden
No support
My suggestion would therefore be to have a proper approval vote between the following:
  • Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden
  • Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
  • No rename
This would reflect the voting that has gone in, taking it to more of a run-off and having fewer options to complicate matters. violet/riga (t) 00:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That sounds acceptable to me. Note that if the meaning of the earlier vote had merely been somewhat vague and unclear, I would not have protested as much as I did when it had mutually contradictory instructions.
I agree that the "of Sweden" issue be set aside, since once it was raised and explained, there didn't seem to me much objection to it. Maybe "Gustav II Adolf of Sweden" should remain an alternative, too? I don't really care either way, but that appeared to be the primary preference of our one participant who did not fully take part in the voting as it was set up before, limiting himself to what he insisted were the only two options available, the one proposed on requests for moves and the status quo.
This is unlike the other argument I'm having with you about inappropriate use of approval voting to set policy, in a situation where you do not have discrete options. Here we are choosing one candidate from a few of them to fill the one available slot for a title of this article—and even the losers should get nearly as much, with a redirect and the ability to be linked here using that name.
This time, I hope Peter joins us in indicating those that we each find acceptable. Gene Nygaard 03:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think violet's proposal above is very good. Please use it for the second, proper vote.
Peter Isotalo 04:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

And I think it is a waste of time. Peter can you realy not tell which option is the most popular from the votes cast above? Bishonen who seems to be a disenterested party (as he/she has not cast a vote) can interpret the results, as can Gene Nygaard, violetriga and I. So why can't you? We can go throught the motions of another vote but why bother? This proposed re-vote reminds me of being on the first flight out of London to Frankfurt on a Monday morning. The flight is always full with the same people commuting, and if anyone does not know how to put on their seat belt by now they really should not be flying, the announcement explaining how to do it, although a requirement, is a waste of everyone's time. Philip Baird Shearer 15:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't count me among those willing to come to a conclusion based on a flawed procedure. Just join us in doing it better this time around. Gene Nygaard 15:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a revote, although, again, the obsession with a "flawed procedure" seems counterproductive. The winner of this vote (Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, which is, I will note, not my preferred option), seems fairly clear. But, whatever. I would add, though, that while I think the name should be latinized/anglicized, if we decide it should not be, I cannot see why it should be at the location it is now. Why shouldn't it be consistent with Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden and Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden? Gustav II Adolf of Sweden has also been demonstrated to be much more common than Gustav II Adolph of Sweden. The "f" variant should definitely be included, I think. john k 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Philip, I must subtract myself, as Gene does, from your list of people willing to interpret the old vote with its contradictory instructions. I agree with John about including the Gustav II Adolf of Sweden alternative, especially as it's the standard spelling in Sweden, compare its use in Swedish Wikipedia. That wouldn't matter if there was an English preference for Gustav II Adolph of Sweden (a spelling so extravagantly unfamiliar to Swedes that it's not even a redirect in, but as John points out, the opposite is the case. With a figure this familiar to Swedes, and this "Who..?" to anglophones, it seems likely the straight-up Swedish spelling is influencing English usage already, "incorrectly" or not. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gustavus Adolphus is "Who...?" to Anglophones? On what basis do you say this? He is almost certainly the most famous Swede to most Anglophones. Surely more famous than Charles XII of Sweden, who is nevertheless at an anglicized form of the name, and who is never referred to as "Carl XII" in my experience. More famous than his daughter, who is, so far as I am aware, never referred to as "Kristina". Obviously, any figure from European history isn't familiar to most Americans, and probably most continental figures aren't terribly familiar to most Anglophones in general, but Gustavus Adolphus is surely among the best known continental personages of the seventeenth century (Other than Richelieu and Louis XIV, he is probably the most famous political figure of the century) john k 00:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, sorry if I sounded flippant. I only meant that anglophones are having a fairly good day if they can name any 17th-century continental personage. I didn't mean to electioneer for the Gustav II Adolf of Sweden alternative, merely to endorse your own suggestion that it be included in the vote. Bishonen | talk 06:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This a project to write an encyclopaedia, not a project to create a European constitution. What ever my thoughts on this issue obviously there are a number of people who think style is more important than substance, so I will participate in another vote but it is a waste of everyone's time when there are better things to be doing on this project. BTW the best known C17th continental in the English speaking world is almost certainly William of Orange seeing as he has been in the news every July 12 for the last 30 years. Philip Baird Shearer 11:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus

The actual usual form in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions suggests using nationality for disambiguation, which will not be necessary here, unless some non-Swedish Gustavus Adolphus can be found. Compare Alexander the Great. (As a native Anglophone, I add that GA is probably the best known of the Swedish monarchs, with Christina of Sweden as runner-up). The 1911 Britannica uses Gustavus and Gustavus Adolphus alternatively in its text. Septentrionalis 17:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is Gustavus Adolphus a choice here? Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 18:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this was the suggested form for the original renaming proposal. I think it should be an option, and it would be my second choice, after no change.DES 20:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specifically: Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". This would suggest Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden or Gustav II Adolf of Sweden as the appropriate title. john k 18:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree and have removed the addition of that option (added after the vote commenced). While we are able to vote on the name we still need to stick with naming conventions. violet/riga (t) 18:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the naming conventions also say: If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion. It is at least arguable that GA is a case that fits this rule, and so "of sweden" shold be ommitted. At least it is arguable enough that such an alternative should be allowed on the list for voting. Last I heard, it was permitted to add choices to a rename list while the vote is in progress.DES 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you know what a cognomen is? "Adolphus" isn't one - it is part of his name. john k 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes I do. I was arguing that this came under the provision "...or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above...". Sorry if that wasn't clear. DES 02:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this rename? If the object is to have the most common possible search term be the actual title of the article, without a redirect, then the choice should be Gustavus Adolphus with no number, and no "of sweden". If the object is to have the most correct form, then it should be either Gustav II Adolph or Gustav II Adolf (I don't have a strong view on "ph" vs "f"). In any case Gustavus II Adolphus is a form not used historically, (by which I mean, in this case, at the time this monarch was alive, or not much thereafter) nor commonly used in modern accounts. DES

It was certainly used historically - as recently as the 1971 Britannica, for instance. As to "of Sweden" that is mandated by our naming conventions. john k 23:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1971 isn't "historically" and is still completely pointless to quote when EB has changed the naming. At least try finding something that confirms the use within a century of his death if you want to claim historical usage. / Peter Isotalo 00:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Is that what "historically" means? I would suggest "contemporary" is the meaning you're looking for. I would have thought that "used historically" means "used at some point in the past." john k 00:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, the name is also still in some modern use, at least. I don't have many of my books anymore, having passed my exams and discarded them all as quickly as possible, but my Harper Encyclopedia of Military History from 1993 calls him "Gustavus II (Adolphus)". I don't have much else that is both recent and would cover old Gustavus Adolphus, but I'll try to look later this week and provide some references. john k 00:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Used historically" isn't the only factor (and the ordinal is not unused historically). We don't name the article Theo van Gogh (art dealer) because the "(art dealer)" part was used historically.
In this case, the ordinal also serves another purpose, in indicating how the Swedes count when they use these ordinals, and fills in the gap when looking at a category listing. It is different, for example, from papal practice, where we had Pope John Paul I rather than John XXIV Paul or John XXIV Paul VII. Gene Nygaard 10:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, redircts from all forms suggested should be made to which ever form is chosen, and a dab page for other swedish monarchs of similar names should be created. This should remove the actual problems whatever choice is made here.DES 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The actual usual form in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions suggests using nationality for disambiguation, which will not be necessary here, unless some non-Swedish Gustavus Adolphus can be found. Compare Alexander the Great. (As a native Anglophone, I add that GA is probably the best known of the Swedish monarchs, with Christina of Sweden as runner-up). The 1911 Britannica uses Gustavus and Gustavus Adolphus alternatively in its text. Septentrionalis 17:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions suggests that one looks at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles for more details and that page says: "the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}"." It does not say that this is for disambiguation. Your example of "Alexander the Great" is not a good one because he is a king from the classical period (not king of a modern country). A better example would be Peter the Great which is a redirect to Peter I of Russia which is his name as known in English (not in Russian (Pyotr Pyervyi)). Philip Baird Shearer 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do we really have to quote naming conventions to grasp that the nationalities are for disambiguation? Alexander the Great could just as well be "Alexander III of Macedonia". I think it's safe to say that "nationality" in this context includes classical kingdoms as well as more modern nation-states.
By the way, "Pyotr pervyi" simply means Peter I; the info in our article seems mistaken. Пётр Великий (Peter the Great, of course) is what Russians use most commonly as far as I know.
Peter Isotalo 00:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Alexander III of Macedon, surely. At any rate, the nationalities are explicitly, not for disambiguation. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for instance, despite there not being any other monarch called "Elizabeth II." Pope Benedict XVI, although there has not been any non-pope that I am aware of called Benedict XVI. And so forth. If you think this is a bad convention, go there and argue about it, but it is the convention. john k 00:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The wording is for modern countries Alexander was not king of a modern country. Nor for that matter was Alfred the Great. William I of England is better known as William the Conqueror but as the entry follows the naming conventions it is under William I as the first king of modern England. The disambiguation is for ordinal not country Philip Baird Shearer 01:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you notice the example given next to the "modern countries" quote? One of them is Cleoopatra VII of Egypt. I don't know what you mean by "for ordinal not country", but I suspect you're trying to go into more detail that is justified. Just check out Alexander II for a perfectly good example of a disambiguation by both ancient kingdom and fairly modern nation states. Alexander III is even better.
Peter Isotalo 09:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
The next point (two) explains it:
Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain.
There is no suggestion that as in the case of Elizabeth II that the country should be dropped just because there is no other country with an ERII Philip Baird Shearer 16:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to follow your train of thought here, but whatever you're trying to say I think you need to be aware that just because the naming policies (which are not rules) don't mention or suggest a specific course of action it does not mean that this course of action is explicitly discouraged from or outright forbidden. We're not lawyers debating legislation here.
Peter Isotalo 19:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

-us -phus endings feel so artificial. The English actually joked about such already almost two centuries ago - Ernest, a younger son of George III potentially becoming monarch (before Victoria was born) was hailed by some sarcasts by featuring caricature names HM Ernestus Augustus I, possibly even Ernestulus Augustulus I. 20:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second vote

For reference, the original vote is here. The results of that were protested, hence this new vote.

This vote has now closed and a decision has been made. Further votes will not be counted.

Please indicate which of the proposed names you support – you can vote for as many as you like but please do not oppose any of them. Results will be interpreted by violet/riga (t) towards the end of 7 June 2005 using normal approval voting practices.

Is there any good reason for casting more than one support vote? Is it really that hard to decide on one alternative?
Peter Isotalo 21:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
As proven below some people don't mind which it is between two alternatives. It's usually the best way when there's more than one choice. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden
  1. Support Gene Nygaard 12:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support john k 18:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. First choice. Philip Baird Shearer 22:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Proteus (Talk) 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Nunh-huh 23:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Gustavus Adolphus, or a name based on that, is more widely used in English, as a Google search will show. Longboat 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Although usage is clearly not stable at this point, Gustavus Adolphus is the traditional English name for this king, still used by many contemporary or recent authors including in the titles of major works by Michael Roberts (1908-1997), arguably the most significant English-language historian of Sweden and a specialist on this particular king, and in John P. McKay et al., A History of World Societies (I'm looking at an edition from 2000), an up-to-date American history textbook actually used at Swedish universities. It might be added that at least a couple of relevant Swedish institutions, the Vasa Museum[3] and the Royal Armoury[4] call him "Gustavus Adolphus". (That he at least at some point signed his own name with the Latin form Gustavus Adolphus, according to the illustration, is not really relevant to the issue - Charles XII always signed documents as Carolus - only that this Latin form was borrowed into the English language.) up◦land 07:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Edited. up◦land 20:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC))
All up◦land's reasoning seems to support Gustavus Adolphus. but is there any comperable historical or scholarly support for the form Gustavus II Adolphus? I have seen usage with the latinized forms in english. I have seen usage with the non-latinized forms and the inserted number. I have never seen the latinized forms used with the inserted number. Is there any evidence for this form? No one seems to have cited any in this discussion. Have I mised where this form (Gustavus II Adolphus) is used? DES 19:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree on the unnumbered form being more usual; numbering would mostly serve the purpose of disambiguating him in categories, but is perhaps unnecessary. As no other Swedish king of the same name was anywhere close to him in time, there is usually no need to do so in historical narrative or discussions; the situation in an encyclopedia is somewhat different. up◦land 20:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
  1. Support the most common name in English, and the winner of the vote last time. No Account
  2. Support but do not prefer. Septentrionalis
  3. Support the winner of the last vote. Strongly oppose all others. Very strongly object to the practice of running the vote again until someone gets a desired result. CDThieme 18:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mild support DES 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support the outcome of the last vote, on principle, even though it was not my first choice last time. Jonathunder 23:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
    Support, albeit reluctantly. john k 20:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. This is how he is best known worldwide, and it is a name he used himself. Note the origin of Capt. GARS - "Gustavus Adolphus Rex Sueciae". (Sherlocking the History, I have figured out that this unsigned vote comes from User:Quintusdecimus. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  7. Gustavus Adolphus, or a name based on that, is more widely used in English, as a Google search will show. Longboat 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. I support this one. Krugs 04:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support per reasoning in my vote above for Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden. up◦land 07:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Second choice. Philip Baird Shearer 20:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Dan | Talk 20:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I agree with this move. !Tree&Leaf 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gustavus Adolphus
  1. Support The actual usual form in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions suggests using nationality for disambiguation, which will not be necessary here, unless some non-Swedish Gustavus Adolphus can be found . Compare Alexander the Great. (As a native Anglophone, I add that GA is probably the best known of the Swedish monarchs, with Christina of Sweden as runner-up). The 1911 Britannica uses Gustavus and Gustavus Adolphus alternatively in its text. Septentrionalis 17:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I would give some weight to "disambiguation" in pre-emptive disambiguation. Wikipedia is far more likely to find another Edward I than another Gustavus Adolphus Septentrionalis 23:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support If the name is to change at all, this is the best known form to english speakers with limited knowledge of the period. DES 20:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Gustavus Adolphus, or a name based on that, is more widely used in English, as a Google search will show. Longboat 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gustav II Adolf of Sweden
  1. Support Gene Nygaard 12:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support DES 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong support Jebur 20:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. I don't see the point of keeping "Adolph" seperate, though. The title with "-f" is certainly better, but either is acceptable (and is certainly nothing worth voting on). And no matter which alternative gets the most votes, it should not be seen as a vote on "consistent naming" of other kings (least of all Gustav Vasa). This vote is about this article. Period. / Peter Isotalo 00:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong support The article should be located in this consistent place 10:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support - This debate is a symptom of a broader problem. The Swedish Wiki entries (king names & province names) are a pastiche of Latinate forms, Anglicized Swedish forms, and Swedish forms. Just like Karl XII?s (also known as Charles XII) decision that Sweden should make a confused on-again, off-again transition from the Julian calendar, this pastiche makes correlations with the rest of the world very difficult. Be proud ? use honest Swedish names rather than pretentious Latin versions ? it?s actually okay to be Swedish. Williamborg 15:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support -- Elisson | Talk 20:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support -- Joolz 20:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Sjostrom 22:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gustav II Adolph of Sweden (no rename)
  1. Support Gene Nygaard 12:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Williamborg 14:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC
  3. Strong support This is the most correct form. Redirects from other forms ought to handle those who know a different form better. That's what redirects are for. DES 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Reluctantly, though. / Peter Isotalo 20:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Joolz 20:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Williamborg: this is an English language wikipedia, and most of us are not Swedish. The question of whether or not anyone should be "proud to be Swedish" should, in any event, be irrelevant to the question of what we call him. The reason we are calling for the Latinized name is not because anyone is ashamed of Swedishness, which is absurd. It is because this is how that king is largely known in English. john k 20:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Swedes insist on using Henrik, Karl, Jakob and Vilhelm for English (and Scottish) kings named Henry, Charles, James and William. But is is actually okay to be English anyway. :-) up◦land 09:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Swedish is not my language, and I cannot care less of "pride in Swedishness". However, my feeling says that Gustav II Adolf is the good version of the name for English Wikipedia. English language actually does not have any non-artificial version of the name. I want to avoid artificial creatures. 20:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the votes of

Gustav II Adolf of Sweden-->#Strong support The article should be located in this consistent place 10:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/ -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you suspecting sock puppeteering, Philip? If you are, please share your suspicions with the rest of us. If not, please let violet decide which votes to disregard from.
Peter Isotalo 17:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Better these things are discussed now and not at the end of the voting process, so that any disagreements can be settled before the votes are counted. It does not matter if it is a sock puppet vote, it might be. Do you think it reasonable for an IP address with no edit history to vote on this issue? Philip Baird Shearer 18:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You call unilaterally deciding which votes to remove a discussion? Considering the level of argumentation and bureaucratic chaos you've managed to accomplish so far, I consider it more reasonable to remove your vote than that of this anonymous user. Dig up some policy to support your decision or let violet decide.
Peter Isotalo 19:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do tend to look on IP addresses with apprehension and doubt but left it there in the hope that the decision could be made without that vote being counted/discounted – in other words it I would ignore it if it wouldn't have a bearing on the result. We'll see how it goes. violet/riga (t) 19:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not like that my vote has been removed by that arbitrary and disgusting operation, apparently made by Mr Shearer. - You all can see some of my contributions, mostly to royalty articles. Many more of my contributions can be found under my Net-provider beginning 62.78. - such as to Danish royalty Louise of Hesse, and a couple of Danish-Norwegian generations surrounding her, as well as with kings of Jeusalem and issues related to those. I greatly doubt that you can find any other who has participated this vote and has interests (and contributions) in articles of issues I just mentioned. This is just clearly only an attempt of Shearer to liquidate some of opposition to his artificial names, as I detest those -us -phus endings. May I name Shearer as Philippus Bairdulus Shearurctus?? 21:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your comments, but may I suggest that you register? It's free and would avoid this problem. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


For reference, the vote will be closing shortly. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The chosen name is Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. It has 11 votes compared to the nearest rival of Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, which has 10 (two of which could be arguably discounted. This does not mean that naming discussion have to end, but it should not be changed hastily and I think this should really be the end of it. violet/riga (t) 00:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: I will move it when possible, but for now the move is being blocked by server response problems. violet/riga (t) 00:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What? All of you are letting the discussion lapse so quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Surely we should give both Julian and Gregorian dates for his death (and probably birth as well)? After all, Lützen was fought in Germany, and its date is usually given in the Gregorian. Whatever calendar Sweden may have used, it makes sense to at least give the Gregorian date in addition to the Julian. john k 08:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just disambiguated by adding O.S. when somebody changed a Gregorian death date to Julian (not noticing the first time that there were two of them, in infobox and in opening paragraph). That, at least, is necessary. Both is a possibility, but adding a Gregorian date at a time when that calendar had a fairly small usage base isn't as necessary. As far as I have seen, most English Wikipedia articles don't do so for dates of events in Britain or its colonies even a century later. Your pointing out that his death happened at a event whose date is often stated on the Gregorian calendar (a battle in which participants on each side were then using different calendars) is indeed one thing making it more desirable to include both here. But in any case, it is certainly something which requires that if only one date is used, that date must be specifically identified. Gene Nygaard 10:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I’d suggest the minimum standard is to identify which calendar you use. As a non-Swede who finds other Scandinavian & Baltic history hard to correlate with the Swedish version, I'd encourage you to provide both dates and append the designation [Old Style and New Style dates|O.S.]. And it gets truly confusing to the rest of the world when, under Karl XII, Sweden elected to use transitional Gregorian calendar. So when you read histories of the Battle of Poltava you find it occurred by the Gregorian calendar in Russian history, by the Julian in Danish history, and by yet a third transitional Gregorian/Julian date in Swedish history. It is enough to make those of us not steeped in Swedish history appreciative of those courteous enough to include both dates. Williamborg 16:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) <<<john's note below is the appropriate correction, of course... Written in haste - repented in leisure - but a strong argument for including both for those of us easily confused.>>>
Surely you mean the Julian in Russian history and (maybe?) the Gregorian in Danish history? john k 17:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somebody changed the death date from Julian (Nov. 6) to Gregorian (Nov. 16), and I just reverted that. Both dates were already in the infobox. The present solution, specifying the calendar used, is undoubtedly the best one. In Sweden, the king's death has been continuously commemorated on Nov. 6, despite later changes of the calendar. It is probably one of the few historical dates most Swedes can recall without thinking. up◦land 19:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I actually don't know the date without thinking, but what the heck do you expect from a person who went to school in Trelleborg? Well anyways, we actually have no reason to give a date just because the King is celebrated that day in Sweden.
We could create a template at the top of the page, saying "the dates on this page are in New Style" (or O.S. respectively) "See '[Swedish calendar]' for an explaination". On that page we would give all dirrences between O.S (Swedish) and N.S. This seems to be easiest, as some contributors prefer to write O.S. and others N.S, and furthermore I suspect many both readers and editors don't know the difference. I personally think N.S. should be preferred, but with this template at the top of the page. --Fred-Chess 11:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's no good reason to prefer N.S. in this time period, when the Julian calendar remained in widespread use, more commn than the Gregorian calendar. The only dates for which you need to be sure to distinguish the Swedish calendar version are in the twelve-year range 1 March 1700 to 30 February 1712, at other times just "O.S." or "Julian" are sufficient, including the period from 1712 to the 1 March 1753 start of the Gregorian calendar in Sweden. Even the first Swedish stumbling attempts to change their calendar to the Gregorian calendar were nearly 70 years in the future when this king died, and the actual Swedish changeover was over 120 years after his death, a few months after England and its colonies changed. Gene Nygaard 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was so hasty in assuming all of you had run out of issues to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lion of the North, GA the Great

User:Tree&Leaf took out the phrase "and in Protestant propaganda as the Lion of the North" from the Lead and put in the sentence "He is sometimes called Gustavus Adolphus the Great". No edit summary, so I don't know why. I'm sorry, but I've changed it back. I'm Swedish, I was taught a lot of nationalist stuff about Gustav II Adolf at school, and I've just never heard that "the Great". Sometimes..? When? Please give a reference if you want to put it back. The Lion of the North, now, that I've heard, many times. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

But he is called Gustavus Adolphus the Great. "In February 1633...the Swedish Riksdag of the Estates decided that his name would be accompanied by an accolade and that his name was to be styled Gustav Adolph the Great (or Gustav Adolf den Store in Swedish). Such an honor has not been bestowed on anyone else since." As for the "Lion of the North" bit, that is described in more detail in the second paragraph. But if you want to have it in the first paragraph, too, that's fine with me.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you removed the Lion of the North bit because it was there twice—I didn't see it. I'm putting it back and taking out the second mention instead, which seems to me not so much more detailed, as more POV: "the Thirty Years' War where he was styled as 'The Lion of the North—Savior of Protestants'" sounds like a claim that that was some kind of universally applied "style" for him. To describe it as protestant propaganda (as of course it was) gives a more encyclopedic perspective, IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Is calling it "propaganda" NPOV?
Certainly. Do you call it not propaganda when the two different sides in a war invent and propagate flattering styles for their leaders? Bishonen | talk 18:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
A declaration of 1633 should be summarized as "was called", unless it is in current use; and it should not be in the intro. Searches appear to indicate that Gustavus Adolphus the Great is used in English in mirrors of this article and in direct translations from the Swedish. Perhaps it would be used more often if English-speakers felt a need to disambiguate him. Septentrionalis 18:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact that he was the only Swedish king to be officially styled "the great" is significant enough to go in the first paragraph. Tree&Leaf 18:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus, as such, is already part of the English language. Yes, this spelling, owes its origin to the Latin, but its script owes itself to the English. He has been known by this for centuries in our script. It is his anglicized name, which in this case, incidentally, is the same as his Latinate name. This is my opinion ... The epitaph, Great, can be added if you will ...

Oemb1905 06:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While my German is far from fluent, isn't it "Lion of midnight"? Bruce Wayne 03:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (And at the risk of starting another Great Northern War, "G.A. of Sweden"? As opposed to what, of Mexico?)

Battles of Rain and Lech

Both of them lead to the same article, "Battle of Rain". Were they same battle and if they were, why are there two different names in this page for it (and even different times)?

Ulm Münster

There is a statue of Gustavus Adolphus standing next to the altar in Ulm Cathedral in southern Germany. (Right next to the border of the Roman Catholic Bavaria). An image of the statue would add to the article, and the understanding of the German view of Gustavus Adolphus. -- Petri Krohn 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

unclear sentence

The following appears in the second paragraph of the "Military Commander" section :

"His character both in consistency of purpose and of amity with all his troops from commanding officers right down to the rank and file with whom he mixed easily as if another commoner, earned him unassailably documented fame which most commanders in chief would gladly accept as mere joking anecdotes."

I'm not sure what the last section is trying to say. For this reason i don't want to edit the sentence - could the author perhaps reword it?

Trugster 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a high style of writing. One could re-write it like this, even if I did not coin the original, ... "He was friendly with all his troops like a commoner, and there were plenty of stories about him that most people would regard as tall-tales."

Oemb1905 06:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I added this:

"Thanks to his army reforms, Gustaf's was the first that Alexander III would not have been able to defeat."

I base this on Dupuy, Evolution of Weapons & Warfare. Trekphiler 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation; and there is equally good speculation that it was just as well Alexander did not attack Rome; to say nothing of the argument that he was very lucky against Porus. Have you got a quote from Dupuy? Septentrionalis 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Serves me right for relying on memory, rather than making sure I've got it in front of me.
Gustav II "set out in 1611 to remedy Sweden's military problems by tactical innovation--and created the first army Alexander the Great would not have known how to command". (Gwynn Dyer, War, p.61)
Ah, for a reliable memory... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tartu University

He singed the founding of University of Tartu, the oldest University in Estonia. I think this should be noted somewhere, I don't where would it be the most appropriate place to add this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

War crimes?

I've heard that he is (or has to be) considered to be one of the worst war criminals ever before the times of the World Wars ? Is that true ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gustav II Adolf was no more a war criminal than anyone else in human history, one could say he was less of a war criminal than mordern day war mongers, there was no Geneive Convention to break at the time. 21 Nov. 2008 Rytter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talkcontribs) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (expired)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be Gustav II Adolph

I'm still flabergasted as to why this title was rejected 2 yrs ago. Particularly when seeing how the other Swedish monarch biographies are titled. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion. He's normally called Gustavus Adolphus in English; anything with Gustav is a Swedicism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with PMA, but why the redundant "of Sweden"? Looks messy, in my opinion. Srnec (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It don't look good, Gustav I, Gustavus Adolphus, Gustav III, Gustav IV Adolf, Gustav V & Gustav VI Adolf? One of these things is not like the others? GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey (expired)

I propose a move to Gustavus Adolphus. The current title already avoids using his regnal ordinal and his Swedish name (Gustav Adolf), so there is hardly a reason to enforce consistency with other Swedish monarchs by the redundant "of Sweden". This figure is famous enough in the English-speaking world that he needs no disambiguation, especially not he inconsistent and rather arbitrary one he now has. Srnec (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose as this article should be moved to Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, to line up with the other Swedish monarchs of that name. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as far above. No reason for pre-emptive disambiguation. Oppose any form of Gustav, as not being common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The removal of the territorial designation does not say anything. Absence of a well-known cognomen is a case for including the territorial designation, in my opinion. It's basically a standard we have. Charles 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The point was that "Gustavus Adolphus" is well known enough. Why does the current title lack an ordinal to show that he was a ruler of Sweden and not just e.g. a botanist? Why is it in Latin if other Swedish monarchs are in Swedish? The current name is just silly: either call him simply "Gustavus Adolphus" or call him "Gustav II Adolf of Sweden". You know what I prefer. Srnec (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In terms of my absolute preference, I would prefer Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden. All encyclopedias I believe follow their own style guide. We have ours and it is treated as absolute as it allows. It supports using "of Sweden". Charles 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The style guide is just a guideline. "There are no rules" is a policy. That said, I don't have much of a beef with your proposal as long as the other Gustavs and Gustavuses are put in line with it. And that said, I still think that "Gustav Adolf" is rare for this fellow and since using Latinisations elsewhere may be rare (I don't know), it might be wisest to just treat the most famous Swedish monarch (of all time) as a unique case (i.e. an exception to the non-binding rule). Srnec (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I still say, line up the Swedish monarchs articles - Gustav II Adolf of Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My only question, then, is this (and I don't know the answer): is it unusual and hence a little surprising and/or pedantic-looking to see a figure famous (as far as I know) as "Gustavus Adolphus" with the name "Gustav Adolf"? Srnec (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In any encyclopedia that's I've gazed, he's usually given the title Gustav II. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removing "of Sweden" implies he was never a King. Which is not true. Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Howso? It merely removes inconsistent redundancy. If he isn't Gustav Adolf or Gustav II, why does he need "of Sweden"? He has to be moved, in my opinion, to some other title. I proposed what I thought to be the most obvious English one. Srnec (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We use Alfred the Great. How does that implu that Alfred was no king? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gustav II Adolf was no more a war criminal than any other military or political leader in the history of mankind, perhaps less than our modern day war criminals, there was no Geneiva Convention at the time to break. Nov. 21, 2008 Rytter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talkcontribs) 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move at this time. Discussion has ceased for two weeks now, with no consensus forming for any of the naming options recommended. Continued discussion of this matter is encouraged and, in the event that a consensus does emerge, feel free to relist at WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I requested this move for the sake of consistency with other Swedish monarchs. The current title has no form: it adopts the "common" Latinised form sans ordinal and attaches "of Sweden" as if that were needed. Either we use a "common" form that is easily recognisable, like Gustavus Adolphus, or we use the standardised form: the "middle" option which is current is a joke. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support as nom. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose Gustavus Adolphus is English usage, as is documented above; WT:NCNT contains comments that the forms to which we seek to normalize are not even conventional usage in Sweden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose regretfully, as neither name is satisfactory. Would strongly prefer Gustavus Adolphus, but using the most common names for the titles of "national monarchs" appears to fail to achieve consensus whenever it goes beyond the guideline talk pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of territorial designation. Charles 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • On the grounds that I don't want the territorial designation removed. As I have said before, I support names with cognomens but all others with territorial designations. Charles 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • But since there is no other "Gustavus Adolphus" but "of Sweden", the title is redundant. It could even be ambiguous if the other "Gustav Adolfs" are referred to by their Latin names (I don't know if they ever are). Srnec (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • That's fine and all to say but my opinion on the matter has been consistent. Charles 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I respect your opinion, but I'd be more impressed by your reasons. Srnec (talk)
              • My reason and belief is that every encyclopedia should naturally have its own style guide (most do) that reflects a general form. We have that for royals, WP:NC(NT). That being said, some degree of consistency is in order and I am not swayed to strip that away with creating more and more exceptions. I support well-known cognomens but not bare names for European monarchs on that basis. Charles 05:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Do you support 'Gustav II Adolf of Sweden'? Srnec (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move to 'Gustav II Adolf of Sweden'. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: discussion down to this point refers to the proposed move to Gustav II Adolph of Sweden. Please be specific which names you support or oppose hereafter.


If this must be moved (and I agree with the proposer that there is a certain mild awkwardness to the current title) I would definately be in favor of Gustavus Adolphus. An analogy would be with Charlemagne which is at neither "Charles I of France" or "Charlemagne of France".Erudy (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The previous move request (also mine) was closed on 17 February. Perhaps if enough people agree with us this time around, we can reopen the request. Srnec (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I will still support Gustavus Adolphus, as before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think an administrator should re-open the earlier move request, if that can be done. Or is it legitimate to simply open a new request when the same one was closed so recently? Srnec (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was closed no consensus, so there should be no problem, especially if you ask Vassyana first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted per request and active discussion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So far Dimadick, Charles, and GoodDay oppose a move to Gustavus Adolphus and Deacon of Pndapetzim, Erudy, Septentrionalis, and Srnec (myself) support one. Sebisthlm has supported a move to Gustav II Adolf of Sweden without commenting on Gustavus Adolphus. Only GoodDay of those who oppose the latter move has come out in support of the move to Gustav II Adolf of Sweden. The "vote" at present is split, but Gustavus Adolphus has a "lead". Srnec (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is no doubt that he was a revolutionary commander who pioneered innovative tactics, but I think this is taking it too far:

In a Gustavus' army, the units were extensively cross trained. Both cavalry and infantry could service the artillery— as his heavy cavalry did when turning captured artillery on the opposing Catholic Tercios at First Breitenfeld; pikemen could shoot—if not as accurately as those designated muskateers so a valuable firearm could be kept in the firing line, and his infantrymen and gunners were taught to ride, if needed. Napoleon thought highly of the achievement, and copied the tactics.

This has not been achieved by any army since so the idea of it occuring in the 17th century (indeed this was a time when military maneuvers were a lot more complicated) is dubious. It's not helped by the fact it is completely unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Passage

In the section on his legacy as a general this sentence is unclear: "These grouped in batteries, supported his more linearly deployed formations, the whole in his armies replaced the cumbersome and unmaneuverable traditional deep squares up to 50 ranks deep (Spanish Tercios), used in other pike and shot armies of the day." It isn't clear what "the whole" is referring to or even the what word "these" at the beginning of the sentence referring to. Artillery? In general, several of the paragraphs in the area are either clumsy or unclear. Johnor (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of References

First off, this is a great article. The problem is that it that it only provides two minor references. Most of the material could therefore be seen as original research - which can be deleted! Please provide references and sources for this material(which is very interesting) to meet wiki standards.Jambo-numba1 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To add to this problem one the main source is a fiction book, while it does do it's best to be historically "accurate" it is not an appropriate source for this article.--Arrowcomics (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Death - Battle of Lützen

˝Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the Battle of Lützen, when, at a crucial point in the battle, he became separated from his troops while leading a cavalry charge into a dense smog of mist and gunpowder smoke.˝

Wasn't he killed by croatian light cavalry known as kyrissers?

Check out this quote ˝The first recorded cuirassiers were formed as 100-strong regiments of Austrian kyrissers recruited from Croatia in 1484 to serve the future Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian. They fought the Swedes and their allies in 1632 in Lützen and killed the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus.˝

From Cuirassier article. (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction with Battle of Breitenfeld (1631): Plunder forbidden?

According to this article

In his first military action when a new king, he attacked eastern Denmark (now southern Sweden) and let his soldiers plunder towns and villages as was customary in contemporary warfare, but later strictly prohibited in his campaigns

However according to Battle of Breitenfeld (1631):

At the same time, the Protestant princes showed little interest in attaching themselves to the Swedish cause; Gustavus opted for “rough wooing.” In the ensuing months, his troops moved south into Brandenburg, taking and sacking the towns of Küstin and Frankfurt an der Oder

Apparently this happened later than the landing at Peenemünde in 1630 and thus no more than two years before his death in the Battle of Lützen. Thus it should certainly qualify for "later".

Top.Squark (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be that the sacking of these towns was an early form of total war and not so much the plundering that one allows to appease his troops. He was trying to persuade by force the protestant princes to his cause and not rewarding his men for a victory, there is a distinct difference. So one could say that he strictly forbid plundering but not persuading he may not have even seen the sacking of these towns as plundering but instead as a necessary action to win support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe not. Someone must check this issue in the sources and clarify the article(s) accordingly. Top.Squark (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are correct, since apparently the plunder paragraph was introduced to the Kriegsartikel'/krigsartikeln only after the sack of Frankfurt (where the soldiers were granted the right to plunder) and Küstrin:

"After excesses of Swedish soldiers in the margraviate of Brandenburg in 1631 the war articles were amended by regulations against marauding and plundering. This became necessary because in the cause of the war the Swedish army more and more brutalized, which in turn resulted from the Swedish system of contributions, that is the feeding of the army from territories it had occupied [bellum se ipsum alet]. With increasing duration of the war and accordingly the increasing exploitation of the occupied territories, this system became less efficient. As a result, acts of violence to gain food increased." translated from Prinz, Oliver C. (2005). Der Einfluss von Heeresverfassung und Soldatenbild auf die Entwicklung des Militärstrafrechts. Osnabrücker Schriften zur Rechtsgeschichte (in German). 7. Osnabrück: V&R unipress. pp. 40–41. ISBN 3899711297. , referring to Kroener, Bernhard R. (1993). "Militärgeschichte des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit bis 1648. Vom Lehnskrieger zum Söldner". In Neugebauer, Karl-Volker. Grundzüge der deutschen Militärgeschichte (in German). 1. Freiburg: Rombach. p. 32. . Skäpperöd (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, then the phrasing in this article that plunder was forbidden "later in his campaigns" is inaccurate or at least misleading. Plunder was actually forbidden only in 1631, a year before Gustavus' death. I corrected the article accordingly. I suggest that, since you have access to the source, you place the appropriate citation there (I marked it with "citation needed"). Top.Squark (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing to add. Having a cite in German may make it difficult for all those monoglot Americans to find out more about this. So here's a recent academic book that does touch on this same subject written in English, and it was well reviewed if I remember correctly. the book also has info on the King's domestic reform of the major issue of the era: how to pay for your army.

Frost, Robert I. The Northern Wars, 1558-1721. Harlow: Longman, 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gustav Adolphus Day in Finland

A short note: The Swedish and English translations don't match up (English equivalent of the Swedish would be "Swedish Day"). However, since I assume that the Finnish should be taken as the correct one and I don't speak said language, anyone who does should look at whether a small mistake has been made in either translation. --Osquar F (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)