Talk:Oscar I of Sweden

Untitled

user:David Parker thinks it is necessary to postfix all royal names with of Country and so moved this page from Oscar I. I don't agree that this is necessary. Can anybody point me to anybody else named Oscar I? My point is that names should be as short as possible as long as they are not ambiguous. --user:LA2

The question is whether to use names as short as possible, or to use a consistent naming scheme that will reduce the odds of unanticipated ambiguity. I think I favor the longer " of country" form for this reason. Wesley

See naming standards. This has already been hashed over and over. --rmhermen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.152.155.207 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2002 (UTC)

sources on illegitimate children

Could someone provide sources on the names and existence of Oscar's supposed illegitimate children? john k 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Father name

I think there needs to be mention in the introductory paragraph that Charles XIV John and Marshal Bernadotte are indeed the same person. Otherwise it confuses the narrative. 166.82.48.137 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Union of Denmark, Norway and Sweden

"As early as 1850 Oscar I had conceived the plan of a dynastic union of the three Scandinavian kingdoms, but such difficulties presented themselves that the scheme had to be abandoned."

What kind of a plan was that? Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the words, the answer to your specific question seems clear: a "plan of a dynastic union of the three Scandinavian kingdoms". This is a well known fact, to those who know him, but I am adding a source to the text now. Thank you for bringing attention to this unsourced item! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no clear answer in that sentence. What did the author mean by "dynastic union"? Did Oscar want to create some sort of a personal union between the kingdoms? If so, how did he plan to do it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are questioning. He wanted to create a dynastic union. Do you mean that that should be deleted from the article because there is no further explanation of the details of the plan? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS If you mean it would be nice to have more info on this in the article, I agree. I'm sorry I have none to add right now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

Rather than deleting just removing his ancestry from the article, so that it will get lost eventually, I am moving it here for future reference, in case anyone is especally interested in it or finds anything notable there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

16. Jean Bernadotte

8. Jean Bernadotte

17. Marie de la Barrère-Bertandot

4. Jean Henri Bernadotte

18. Jacques du Pucheu dit de Laplace

9. Marie du Pucheu dite de La Place

19. Françoise de Labasseur

2. Charles XIV John of Sweden

10. Jean de Saint Vincent

5. Jeanne de Saint Vincent

22. Doumengé Habas d'Arrens

11. Marie d'Abbadie de Sireix

23. Marie d'Abbadie, Abbesse Laïque de Sireix

1. Oscar I of Sweden

24. Jacques Clary

12. Joseph Clary

25. Catherine Barosse

6. François Clary

26. François Ammoric

13. Françoise Agnes Ammoric

27. Jeanne Boisson

3. Désirée Clary

28. Jean Louis Somis

14. Joseph Ignace Somis

29. Françoise Bouchard

7. Françoise Rose Somis

30. François Soucheiron

15. Catherine Rose Soucheiron

31. Anne Cautier

Once something is added to Wikipedia, it can only be deleted if an administrator removes it from the page history. I doubt an administrator would do it in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for using "deleted" then! Maybe you actually know I meant?: lost to us in hard-to-investigate edit summaries. If you know a way of finding things that have been removed from article texts, and never have been discussed on article talk pages, without taking hours and hours to rummage through edit histories - please let me know. I have never figured out how to do it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to make collapsable? I think I have seen that on other pages. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems so, yes. I don't know how though. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Making it collapsable doesn't make it useful. Otherwise we could throw in all sorts of trivial information and justify it by making the section collapsable. Surtsicna (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Oscar I of Sweden → Oscar I of Sweden and Norway – This one king, alone among the others of his house, as such was unique for article naming purposes in that he (1) was king of both countriues for all of his reign and (2) had the same numeral in both countries. 85.194.1.37 (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all he is primarily remembered as a Swedish king as he became King of Norway because of the union of those two countries, and there's no connection or relation between him and the Norwegian royal houses, except that he is the great-great-great-grandfather of King Harald in maternal-line and royals inherit their surnames in male-line not female-line. Do not take my words for it, and check this NGram search which shows Oscar I of Sweden to be the WP:COMMONNAME and gives zero result for Oscar I of Sweden and Norway. A search in the Google Books also indicates that Oscar I of Sweden is his common name as it has more results than Oscar I of Sweden and Norway. Keivan.f^Talk 00:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Those searches probably do not include publications in Norwegian and Swedish. Oscar was known for substantial political involment in Norway and in Scandinavism. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear SergeWoodzing, as Celia Homeford has already pointed out in her comment, we should only look at the English sources and figure out what his common name has been in English references. Keivan.f^Talk 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I read and understood her reasons (English is my first language) and it was absolutely uncecessary to address me with this special personalized comment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should use the common name in English on the English wikipedia and article titles don't need to be any longer than necessary. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, Celias comment and I dubble checked the Swedish and Norwegian articles which are without any country after. Adville (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose See WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCROY. We only recolonize the main country they ruled over. CookieMonster755✉ 19:11, 3 February 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.

Rollback re: image

I rolled back some personal POV re: an image which went against the Commons description. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't think this is a photograph, but a photograph of a painting

Daguerreotype of Oscar I in 1844; this is the first known photograph of a Swedish monarch.

Similar to William Henry Harrison's alleged photograph. In my opinion, this isn't an actual photograph. The caption is even more redundant because of that. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree. Nothing painting-like about it. There were no paintings with bland/blank backdrops. Well-known in the country of origin as a Daguerreotype. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

PS I will say though that this restored version looks more like a painting, less life-like. Thus I have changed to the original now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 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: not moved. No consensus on moving other monarchs' pages to "X of Sweden", but that can be discussed in another RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 15:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Oscar I of Sweden → Oscar I
• Oscar I → Oscar I (disambiguation)

– Going by pageviews, the name Oscar I appears to be unambiguous. Векочел (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, such as Oscar I, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Oscar I → Oscar I (disambiguation)" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WP:ROYAL has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Oscar II doesn't have a country qualifier either. Killuminator (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Expanded reply. I was early for this discussion and now that it's gotten bigger, I'd also like to note that many of these joint Swedish and Norwegian monarchs follow a naming style that's closer to Oscar II than Oscar I, so leaving the name of the article as it is would make Oscar I a lonely exception. Consistency would favor moving the page. Many opposing editors would rather use this particular discussion to launch a bigger discussion on how to name pages on royalty but I feel this is outside the scope of requested moves and requires a discussion elsewhere. Killuminator (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: The nomination didn't include the pageviews of the third article linked at the disambiguation page, Oscar-class submarine, which is about Oscar I and Oscar II submarines. There is not enough data for WikiNav to show clickthrough from the DAB. I don't see a clear case for WP:PTOPIC. If this is moved, the disambiguation page should be moved to Oscar I (disambiguation). SilverLocust 💬 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • In the sources listed at the bottom of the article, the king is always called Oscar I, without it being specified that he was the king of Sweden. He was also the king of Norway, so I don't see why it's any better for him to be titled Oscar I of Sweden than Oscar I of Norway. Векочел (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per WP:NCROY and SilverLocust. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCROY. Even ignoring the submarine for a moment, this figure is fairly obscure (even if the "competition" for the name is also obscure). We should only break the NCROY standard of NAME of TERRITORY when there's a strong COMMONNAME argument, and this figure is too obscure to have an English common name. SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The later Swedish monarchs do not have of Sweden in their titles. If he is obscure, they have to be just as equally obscure. If Oscar's page is not to be moved, I suppose the country name should be added back for these monarchs. And who isn't to say Edmund I or Clovis I isn't obscure to the general reader? Векочел (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • That's correct, I would be in favor of moving most Swedish monarchs to "X of Sweden", with the possible exception of Carl XVI Gustaf. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:PRECISE, WP:NCROY and estar8006. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowFire. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support for 2 reasons: His son is called Oscar II so he obviously should have the same name format. He was king of Sweden and Norway, equal in importance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, which (as policy) trump WP:NCROY; the king is the primary meaning; and as already stated, he was not king of just Sweden. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - we should go back to the "Name # of country" style, for all monarch bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

And while we don't, it's a good idea to have his son as Oscar II? And Norway ignored? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

His son's page should be changed to Oscar II of Sweden. Indeed, Norway eventually broke away from the union in 1905, during the latter's reign. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oscar I was King of Sweden and Norway full term. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

He's better known as the Swedish monarch, rather than the Norwegian monarch. Sweden got Norway from Denmark, in 1814. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, he is not. Denmark irrelevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with GoodDay. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 20 August 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.

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)