Talk:Prince Gustaf, Duke of Uppland

Biography: Musicians / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Re: recent move edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I would have rather seen a discussion. Yes, the man is probably more well known in English as Gustaf but his official royal name, due to the fact that he died long before 1900, was Gustav, which has commonly been misspelled since Gustaf became the official dynastic spelling already after 1907 through the accession to the throne of his nephew Gustaf V of Sweden. I've added Gustav to the lede. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SergeWoodzing: Sorry if I shouldn't have made the move unilaterally, but I didn't know about such spelling differences through time and thought it was no big deal. So do you want to revert the move or keep it this way? Thanks for your attention. The Replicator (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in principle, because that would be correct (that in fact was his name).

No, because I'm pretty sure it would fly in the face of WP:s ever-lovin' most frequent use policy.

I see no problem with the way it is now. Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SergeWoodzing: No problem! The Replicator (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic