Talk:Hereditary Prince of Portugal

File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

This new more confusing version should be reverted in favor of the older and less confusing version. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

???? The older is far less confusing!? The older is erroneous, messy, and not at all "less confusing"! The new version is clear, concise, and organized! Let us be logical, that I beg of you! Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this change is confusing and needs better clarification in English -- or disuse. FactStraight (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One cannot state that my edits are more confusing with out evidence, so I ask you to tell me what about my cleaner and more informative edits is confusing? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk)

Since the burden of proof for retaining something on Wikipedia always rests with the editor who has added new, unsourced wording, and not with challengers, advising you that a change does not seem like an improvement is a courteous way of inviting you to be the first to make further improvements. Since two of us have expressed concern that your changes appear "less clean, less informative" than before, you may want to re-examine that wording. But of course you are under no obligation to consider such feedback: others will make the edits they consider improvements. Examples of what I found confusing are: "dablink|For the title given to all children of the Portuguese monarch, see Infante of Portugal". Dablinks should be referential, not explanatory; "Prince of Portugal (Portuguese: Príncipe de Portugal), officially Prince Hereditary of Portugal (Príncipe Herdeiro de Portugal), was the title held by the heir-apparent to the Kingdom of Portugal, from 1433 to 1645." If the official title is Principe Herdeiro de Portugal, the use of Principe de Portugal instead should be explained, but isn't. More importantly, "Prince Hereditary of Portugal" is a nonsense in English, and looks like an error because the adjective follows the noun whereas the customary English usage is the reverse; "The title differs from the title Infante of Portugal, which is the title given to all, non-heir, children of the monarch, and often erroneously translated into English as prince." Aside from the facts that "title" is used 3 times in one sentence and "non-heir" is not an adjective in English, the phrasing is curious and makes me wonder, "why not just say 'title borne by all children of the monarch except the heir apparent'? Also, why is it any more "erroneous" to translate both infante and principe from Portuguese into English as "prince" than it is to translate both Fürst and Prinz from German into English as "prince"? This assertion raises more questions than it answers, and is therefore confusing; In the History section, "Due to external influence during the reign of father, John I of Portugal, Duarte sought to create a princely title for the heir-apparent, as to distinguish him from his siblings, which were Infantes of Portugal", has been deleted, leaving no explanation for the change from "Hereditary Infante" to "Hereditary Prince". So if that wasn't the reason I am confused: what is? Those are examples of what I find confusing, but which you may have the knowledge to improve. Hope this helps. FactStraight (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no such title as "Hereditary Infante"; the pt wiki makes it clear that heir before 1433 were just Infante like all other sons of the monarch and the change came about because of the English wife of John I not John I, himself. Prince Hereditary is not any inaccurate than Prince Royal or Prince Imperial; although it is less used in sources [1]. The difference between a Principe and an infante is stressed in history and the present day in the Spanish monarchy; in my opinion it should remain.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The question asked -- and which I sought to answer -- was what is confusing in the edits made to the article and why. So, in English, "prince royal" and "royal prince" have established meanings which differ, as do "prince imperial" and "imperial prince". But there is no established distinction, in English, between "hereditary prince" and "prince hereditary" because the latter term is largely unknown -- therefore it is confusing. I did not argue that the distinction between principe and infante is not established -- I agree that it is. But for the article to state, definitively, that infante is "often erroneously translated into English as prince" requires either sourcing or explanation. Without either, it is, at best, confusing and, at worst, unjustified. FactStraight (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I just don't agree with the formatting of the table. There is also the double language names, pleasing that you brought over from the Portuguese monarch list. Just use the name the English wikipedia has decided to call them. Why is the image on the right? You added more dates but don't repeat like the previous version, the reader has to look at Ferdinand's second time dates and other similar cases to find the chronological order of the list. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"why is the image on the right?" I do beg your pardon on what type of question that is! Concerning the tenure dating, we here in wikipedia must be efficient. If we can consolidate the information under one personality column, then should we not? By doing this we maximize on our efficieny. A little looking around is not such a terrible trouble. I do ask you to look at the efficieny here. The old setup was all over the place, illogical, and erroneous as it simply listed heirs to the Portuguese throne at the time and not just those who were, in fact, designated as prince of Portugal. For a list of heirs, we do have this helpful article. I will tinker in my sandbox if efficiency and logic can be maximized to a further extent, but I will leave all of you with this: I edit for the sake of helping these portuguese articles that have been ever so disregarded and I do hope you see that that is what I strive to work for. If I come off improper or rude, I do ask you to pardon me for it is simply my, unwarrented, passion for these articles. I do hope we may agree on the most logicial and organized formatting so that our encyclopedia can be informative, neat, and eye pleasing all at the same time. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Portrait of John II of Portugal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)