Talk:Magnus II of Sweden

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page moved. —harej (T) 07:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Magnus (II) of Sweden → Magnus II of Sweden — Because the title of this article is confusing. For clarity the articles about the Sewdish monarchs called Magnus should be: Magnus I of Sweden, Magnus II of Sweden, Magnus III of Sweden, Magnus IV of Sweden. They are all included as reigning monarchs on the list on the official website of the Swedish King; [1] Tokle (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The current title does not conform to WP:TITLE, and I see no obvious and compelling reason for it to deviate from that guidance. The existance of similar articles using the "correct" naming style provides even more reason not to deviate from Wikipedia style conventions.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Always a good idea to use clear and correct numerals in English. These names then translate on to any other language just as effectively. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Magnus I of Sweden illustrates the problem with these invented numerals. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant here? Regardless, use of roman numeral discriminators is covered by WP:NCNT. That guideline is not made irrelevant simply because of an outlier instance (which is itself corrected through the use of a disambiguation page).
— V = I * R (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCNT should not be applied to medieval Scandinavian rulers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I see nothing in WP:NCNT which specifically exempts "medieval Scandinavian rulers" (unless I'm missing something). If you believe that there should be an exemption added, that's an issue which should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), not here.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed: "Monarchies which use a completely different namestock need not follow this convention." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... and I'm just supposed to be aware of the implication that "medieval Scandinavian rulers" meet the definition of "Monarchies which use a completely different namestock need not follow this convention."? Is there something, somewhere, that backs that up? If so, why isn't it then a part of the guideline? There are exceptions clearly drawn for Lituanians, Roman Emperors and their kind, and Greeks, but I don't see anything about "Scandinavians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohms law (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2009

Swedish monarchs don't fall under the definition "Monarchies which use a completely different namestock need not follow this convention.", but it could be argued that he is better known simply as Magnus Henriksson, in that case the article should be moved there. But then that would be the case of the three other Magnus' as well. The solution at Magnus I of Sweden is a poor compromise, I think the article about Magnus Nilsson should be moved there, with a dablink at the top to Magnus Ladulås (considering that the dab page says that it's an error that Ladulås is called Magnus I). --Tokle (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly sounds like there's something which should be discussed at Talk:Magnus I of Sweden. I still don't see what relevance that has to this discussion...
— V = I * R (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is due to the same discussion that this article has ended up here, as Magnus II of Sweden is a redirect page to Magnus IV. So the issues are related. We need to decide if want to use the cognomen or if we want to use the ordinals, these half-way compromises are just silly. --Tokle (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at better, now. I don't thing that either ignoring the guideline or making wholesale changes are acceptable solutions, though. In this instance, the resolution is simple enough: Move this article to Magnus II of Sweden (over the redirect page), and place a hatnote on the top of the article. That's fairly standard practive on Wikipedia, so it's not as through it will be overly confusing to readers.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tokle (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move & retitling

Well done! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Someone should translate this source and add it to the article.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)