Talk:Katarina Eriksdotter

Why "Katarina" in this case only?
I see no reason to use Katarina in Swedish, as per the recent move made without any discussion, to name this princess while every other one is called Catherine using an exonym that has been established in the English language for hundreds of years for all women of royalty. Unless a good reason can be given to make an exception in this case only, I'll be moving it again and refer to this talk. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Katarina Eriksdotter → Catherine Eriksdotter – The move should have been considered controversial and discussed before it was done, since this now became the only woman of Swedish royalty ever to be primarily called Katarina in English. (I do not know how these moves were made "over redirect" etc. How can a non-administrator do that?) The fact that she is unknown to English literature does not warrant abandoning an English exonym that has been used for royalty for centuries. Also see previous talk section. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Are there are sources supporting the idea that Catherine should always be used instead of Katarina? Because otherwise Katarina is correct as there is no dominant English form. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The "dominant English form" is Catherine in English historical literature. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Catherine Eriksdotter" yields no hits in Google scholar, and only strange hits in Swedish books in Google books , likely from some sort of translation feature (searching the individual books did not yield any hits). Unless sources for "Catherine Eriksdotter" are found, we should follow Article titles and use the Swedish spelling. Andejons (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification WP:UE: "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name [there is in this case], translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." That's pretty clear to me. Everyone knows how to pronounce Catherine, and that royal women always are called Catherine in English. I'm sure there are no "hits" anywhere for Katarina Eriksdotter either, in English literature. The woman is virtually unknown to it. The move should not have been done (twice!) without discussion.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We might also want to consider if we should move the article for her sister Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway to a Swedish pronunciation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support my own nom, even more so now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Striked vote by nominator. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move without discussion
Though rather obviously controversial, the article was moved without discussion to create (1) the only article on English Wikipedia where a Swedish princess is not called Catherine and (2) without regard to the fact that her brother's and her sister's names are in English and (3) without Catherine being changed in the other articles where she's mentioned including this one. I tried to get it moved back to Catherine. See above how that came out, with the discussionless mover's vote counted, and the nominator's stricken by the closer! Since when do we do work like this here? Flabberghastly! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently since 2010.
 * Andejons (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is quite a difference in the handling and results. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. For starters, the present name is not ahistoric nonsense.
 * Andejons (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * More importantly than rude personal opinions:
 * #The handling "over redirect" is something I have yet to understand (have asked elsewhere for that to be explained to me).
 * The intentional handling of an obviously controversial move without discussion differs from moving a page without anyone objecting to it for years.
 * Leaving the old name all over after having moved an article to a new name is highly extraordinary (to put it politely).
 * Naming this virtually unknown woman with a given name in Swedish while her siblings are named with normal historical English exonyms is an oddity and a misuse of guideline. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A move over a redirect is a move which automatically deletes a redirect page pointing to the page being moved to make way for the move, the redirect must not have more than one revision. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I just had that explained to me elswehere also, so I am no longer confused about it. One down & 3 to go. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)