Talk:Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm

Requested move 29 January 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm. There is a consensus to move from the current title. There is also consensus on the alternative proposed title Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Gustaf Carlson, Count → Count Gustaf Carlson – Since in this case, "Count" is not a specific title like "Duke of X", "Earl of Y", etc. 2601:249:9301:D570:817B:1A72:7C85:B594 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

* Oppose Reason is not comprehensible. "Count" is a specific title. The article says so. Cumbersome for Wiki search. Not needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• (same poster as OP). What I meant was that the format {Name}, {Title} seems to be for holders of a title that can only be held by one living person at a time, i.e. Count of Foix, Count of Flanders. In this case, the title "Count" (without any modifier like "Count of Z") is not a title limited to only one person at a time, given that there were many Counts in Sweden at the time, plus all male members of many comital houses have the appellation "Count" in front of their names. The opening sentence of this article's lede refers to him as "Count Gustaf Carlson", not "Gustaf Carlson, Count of X". As a similar example of this format, admittedly a British example, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent holds a specific title that can only be held by one person at a time, but his younger son, who holds the courtesy title of "Lord", which many people hold at the same time, has his article at Lord Nicholas Windsor, not "Nicholas Windsor, Lord". Now, it appears that Gustaf Carlson was granted the county of Börringe and Lindholm, so perhaps instead, the article could be moved to Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm, in a similar vein to Axel Wachtmeister, Count of Mälsåker. 2601:249:9301:D570:5D40:26DF:D8C9:D869 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure Certainly current title is weird, and my first instinct is to support "Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm". But I don't know enough about this guy, and looking around that doesn't seem to be how he was referred to. In most sources, he is commonly referred to simply as "Gustaf Carlson", period, or (in Swedish texts) "Count Gustaf Carlson" but with no further specification (in one bio, he is even called "Gustaf Carlson, Count Carlson"). So it seems the Borringe & Lindholm, however accurate, is nonetheless rather obscure. So my second instinct is to drop the title, and just leave it "Gustaf Carlson", but that causes a disambiguation problem. So my preference order is (1) "Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm" then (2) "Count Gustaf Carlson" then (3) "Gustaf Carlson (count)". I'd prefer any of those to the current one, which leaves things hanging. Walrasiad (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is simply not how we title articles in English Wikipedia. So yes, it is entirely comprehensible. In English we might say "Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm", but not simply "Gustaf Carlson, Count". And we do not usually use "(count)" as a disambiguator. Gustaf Carlson, Count of Börringe and Lindholm or Gustaf Carlson (general) would also be acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I moved this as soon as I saw it, quickly to fix "Gustaf of Carlson" and to try to keep that from spreading and to disambiguate from the other article Gustaf Carlson the sportsman. Do what you wish with it, as long as there is no "of Carlson" involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.