Template talk:Swedish royal family

Re: fiancés
Jonas has not yet been granted any titles related to his forthcoming marriage to Princess Madeleine, therefore his inclusion in the template is a trifle premature. In fact, even had he married Princess Madeleine already, he would still not be eligible for inclusion in the official Royal Family as he would not automatically receive any titular recognition.

In addition to all that, Mr. Westling, although what he WILL be titled (in other words, implying he is not currently titled) has been released, he only gets the HRH upon married to the Crown Princess, so his inclusion in the template is also too soon.

Indentations
The layout of this template is very confusing. The indentations and demarcations make the Duchess of Hallandia look as high-ranking as the King himself (is she the Queen Mother?) and Birgitta look like a former Queen or such. Would somebody who is good at formatting please fix this? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to fix this, so I'm trying a help tag to see I we can attract somebody who does. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the indentations are used to mark generations, not rank. The Duchess of Halland is the King's aunt and thus belongs to the oldest generation. The King, the Queen and Princess Birgitta belong to the middle generation, while the Duchess and Duke of Västergötland, the Duke of Värmland and the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland belong to the youngest generation. How should the template look like, in your opinion? Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much less confusing (to non-experts) if the indentations were arranged according to rank: i.e. everyone but the King and Queen indented one step. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (Responding to help request) There's not much helpers can do here; we can answer questions about how to do stuff, but not really about what to do, in this specific instance. A discussion right here, to seek input, is entirely appropriate - you just need to get more answers. I suggest asking people on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden, and other relevant project groups that you can find, to look in on this page &mdash; ie create a new section on that talk page, making a brief mention of the issue, and a link here, Template talk:Swedish Royal Family . To find other wikiprojects, look on the talk page of articles that make use of the template; for example, on the top of Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden it mentions WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (and others), so ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (and others).


 * In doing so, I hope you will find people to suggest, discuss, reach a consensus, and get the template improved. Best of luck with it,  Chzz  ► 17:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold now, and make the template less confusing in the only way I know how. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I always say put the monarch at the top and indent his descendants below. After that, put his brothers, their descendants, etc, in the same fashion. Cousins, etc, if it extends that far go below a horizontal line or collapse to be hidden. Seven Letters 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC notification
A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect now
As has been discussed at length at Talk:Swedish Royal Family, it is definitely not correct to include the Hohenzollern prince, Baron Silfverschiöld and Mr. Magnuson while excluding Mr. O'Neill. Either or! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Better with image
Since when and why are we w/o discussion removing coats of arms from templates such as this? Aren't we supposed to add relevant and interesting info to WP, not remove it for vague, personal POV reasons like "serves no purpose"? Is it another my-personal-power-over-royalty thing? Sorry! I just don't get it. Will the editor who has done this twice now, please use this talk page and explain h-self? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, those templates look plain boring now.The pages for these royal families are now deprived of the coats of arms too. --Killuminator (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What shall we do about it, just revert this again or make it a larger issue concerning all such templates on English WP, where the images also seem to have been removed without discussion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would vote making it a bigger deal since all of the English WP templates have been altered in such a way with absolutely no discussion. Psunshine87 (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD applies. If the edits removing them are considered objectionable (which seems apparent) then those edits should be reverted, and the issue discussed either on the individual talk pages, or, since it is a 'wider' issue, at a 'central location' such as WP:VP, with notification of the 'central location' on the individual talk pages.. Personally, I would think that removing such content on a widespread, unilateral basis (I would assume it from this that it was all done by a single editor) is unreasonable, but that does not affect the proper way to deal with the issue. Revert, and then discuss. If the editor in question has removed the content repeatedly (if it's becoming an edit war) then a request for admin intervention might become appropriate, but that should be done after is has become apparent that the editor is unwilling to discuss the issue, or if they are continuing to remove the material after being reverted by multiple editors. In either case, when a dispute about the removal of content that does not violate a 'core' content policy is being discussed, per WP:BRD that discussion should take place with the content restored, and reversion of the removal by multiple editors in response to removal by a single person can be taken as evidence of a consensus that the content belongs in the absence of a discussion indicating otherwise, and can be a justification for a request for administrator intervention. Hopefully this is a 'helpful' response to this help request, otherwise feel free to ping me, or ask with the template again. Revent talk 09:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking closer, I have warned the editor and reverted all 50-odd removals, as the fact that the editor removed them all without edit summaries or discussion after advocating that the same type of image be kept at Template:British Royal Family makes it apparent that the editor in question was 'disrupting Wikipedia to make a point'. Revent talk 10:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (talking to myself, lol) FYI, the issue with the 'mass removal' was after an edit war at a particular template, and after some discussion seems to have been resolved amicably (other than at that specific location). As it stands, the 'coats of arms' should all be back in, and should remain unless the person who started the issue at that one particular template himself tries to start removing them. Revent talk 12:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The royal coat of arms of Sweden, which is the exact same as the monarch's coat of arms, is very representative of the whole reason why this particular family is royalty in this particular country. Without this monarch, and thus without this specific coat of arms, the Bernadottes would not be a royal family. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

British format for all royalty?
An edit such as this seems to tell us that one young editor thinks we should use British format for all royalty on Wikipedia. I do not agree. In this case, it is well established what the Swedish royals officially call themselves in English. That is what we should use on English WP, in my opinion, not British format. People are meant to find info here from which they can learn what is established and correct in communicating in English on all subjects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, how old are you? 30? 40? Because I'm 17 years old it doesn't mean that I don't know anything. Age isn't important. Also, the format that you're talking about isn't just used in British Royal Family's template, but also in Spanish Royal Family's template and many other royal templates. People can find the info that they want easily. For example, I didn't know anything about Swedish Royals four years ago, but now I know about them. If someone becomes interested in something, there's no difference for him/her how the names' formats are! Keivan.f  Talk 20:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm 69 and have worked with Swedish royalty issues, as a hobby and professionally, since 1964. I apologize sincerely if my mentioning your age offended you. I got it from your user page, but now I see that you have been contributing since you were 14. That's impressive. No matter, let's try to stick to the issue, not discuss each other's persons! The only thing that matters here is what the Swedish royals normally go by in English, according to their own publications. That's how Wikipedia users will be able to communicate about them correctly and efectively, and being correct matters to this project. Whether or not Wikipedia users have invented something else for other royal familes, modelled om British usage, is not relevant, in my opinion. Whatever the Spanish royals call themselves in English is what we should use for them on WP, and so on. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

People should be referred to in the style that is used in the preponderance of English-language reliable sources, not in some 'preferred' or 'standardized' manner. Please avoid the 'ad-hominem' statements, on both sides, we should not care 'who' an editor is, but about the content and justification of the particular edits. "Arguments from authority", such as saying that you have years of experience with the issue, are not appropriate or acceptable on Wikipedia. Revent talk 10:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @SergeWoodzing. OK! If it is common in English, I won't change the formats again. I'll be happy to use your knowledge about Swedish royals in the future. Keivan.f  Talk 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And you are most welcome to do so. I'm not always right, but I try very hard not to act unless I feel sure of what I'm doing, and also never to get personal to start, and to apologize sincerely if anyone ever takes it that way. All the best to you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Revent talk: 1) Having experience is OK, and working from it, but not mentioning it or expecting it to be appreciated - is that what you mean? (I may need to learn something new.) 2) Isn't there a risk that format used in Britain is likely to dominate any and all English renditions of everbody's royal name formats, and are you saying we should completely disregard what e.g. Swedish royalty officially call themselves in English? Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean about an 'argument from authority' is not that you can't mention it, or use the knowledge given by experience... editors with a clue about a subject are a good thing. You just need to be really careful about not 'implying' that your arguments should be given more weight or that people should simply accept your opinion on the basis of your stated experience... you might want to dig up the (old) discussions about Essjay, a editor who created a massive amount of drama several years back over his use of a fake PhD (in some historical field, I don't remember which one offhand) to claim 'authority' in a large number of content disputes. Arguments should be judged on the validity of the points made, not who makes them... we really have no idea who you are, after all.
 * As far as what I said about the names, the 'default setting' should be to use the 'official' English names, unless it can be shown that the majority of sources don't refer to a person in that manner. From what I have always seen in news coverage of people holding 'political offices' (vaguely including royalty in that description) it seems pretty clear to me that in such cases it is 'standard' in the media to use the official English language version of that person's title... the point is really more relevant in cases where someone has some kind of 'official title' that the world uniformly disregards, such as a cult leader who is "Lord of Man" or similar foolishness. My point was, really, that you can't impose some kind of 'uniformity' on such things that doesn't exist in the real world, not that you personally were trying to do so. Revent talk
 * Thank you and thank you! I fully agree on both issues. What I wrote last about my experience was in answer to a specific question about my age and that. Your last point is just the one I was trying to make, about it being inappropriate to use British format uniformly without being sensitive to what these people (i.e. their governments) officially call themselves in English. Thank you also for all your assistance in these matters. No less than three of us learned good things, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Fake excellency
An IP keeps adding fake "HE" to the listing for 4 people who are not Excellencies and also other name formats that are not in use at all. Reversing again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your source of Princess Christina having the title "HE"? I cannot find anything about that in any other place than her English Wikipedia page. The Swedish Royal Court website doesn't mention it, neither in Swedish nor in English. In any case, I think the Excellency title shall be removed from the template since it is a title that is not given to royals only (like HM or HRH). --Marbe166 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Marianne Bernadotte listing
It is commonly known in Sweden today that Bernadotte prefers not to use only her comital title, but either both of her titles, or the princely title her late husband used, or no title at all. A recent biography Stilicon & filantrop / Style Icon & Philanthropist Marianne Bernadotte mainly by respected journalist Carl Otto Werkelid (Arvinius+Orfeus, Stockholm 2017 ISBN 978-91-87543-83-8) can be considered the main source about the woman since last year, and in the main body of that work no title is mentioned. I would like to change her listing here to correspond with the name of our article, unless anyone objects. That would be more appropriate and accurate (and courteous to a living person) than sourcing to any online listing of her name by the Swedish royal court which has not been updated since that website was created and contains such errors as "Bernadotte af Wisborg", a name which is completely irrelevant here and has never been used by her or her late husband. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)