Talk:Gustavus Adolphus

GAW

In regard to the formation of the Gustav Adolf-werk, while I understand the need for circumspection when dealing with controversial topics, what does this refer to: " The lack of political correctness received some criticism;"? Based on the main article for GAW, this was back in the 1840s, so "political incorrectness" wasn't a thing, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3020:EB:0:540D:BCCD:7AD3:2154 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Tsar of Russia

It is sufficient to mention in the article's text that he briefly considered himself tsar of Russia, but that should not be given in the info box as his actual title. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Aren't his titles meant to be shown in that section even if he wasn't *literally* the Tsar? Gvssy (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No, not there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not? I've seen it in other articles, and the section where you add them is called "titles", so I still don't see the issue with adding a title he had Gvssy (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

He held a lot of titles during his lifetime. The tag in the code might be "title", but that is not displayed in the infobox, and there is no qualifying remark like in the text, so the reader will see "Gustavus Adolphus - Tsar of Russia", giving a very misleading impression. The title is not even given for actual Tsars, and not for Władysław IV Vasa who were in a similar position as Gustavus. I see no reason for why it should be displayed in such a prominent fashion.

Andejons (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Then we can do it like with Wladyslaw, adding "de-jure" or "claimed" next to the title, I will remain in saying that the infobox section quite obviously says "titles" and that is usually where they're supposed to go. If not. what is its purpose? Gvssy (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The page for the template has a useage guide: it says it's for "Principal substantive title(s) in use (omit this field if any one "succession(X)" field would be identical to it)". "Tsar of Russia" is hardly a principal title. A possible useage would be for Magnus Eriksson's: "King of Sweden, Norway and Scania"

Andejons (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you answer my other suggestion? Gvssy (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I can. It's not acceptable. The text mention I added is quite sufficient. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why, English is not my first language and I have no idea of what a "principal substantive title" is, couldn't find much on Google either. It was one of the titles he had and I don't know why it shouldn't be included. Gvssy (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A substantive title is essentially one that is not given simply as a courtesy. It's not an issue here. The issue is "principal", meaning most important. Gustavus Adolphus seems to have used "Tsar of Russia" only for a brief period, and it's thus not as important as "King of Sweden", or the adjoining titles of "Duke of Estonia" or "Lord of Ingria". The text Serge Woodzing wrote is fine as it makes clear that he styled himself "Tsar of Russia" only for a brief time and does not imply that this is something he is widely recognized as.

Andejons (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh alright, well, I don't think i'm in a position to argue. Thanks for the explanation. Gvssy (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fake arms

This was not a constructive reversal. The arms are fake (no matter what barnstars have been assigned). No 16th-17th-18th-century Swedish king has ever been a member of the British Order of the Garter ("Honi soit qui mal y pense") except as per unreliable sources; the crown has never been used that way in heraldry; the design is patently inappropriate. I will soon remove this fake again, and again, unless someone can defend it as a modern fantasy and caption it thus. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)