Jump to content

Talk:Pedro V of Portugal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

There's a theatre in Macau Dom Pedro V. Its probably named after him?

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. It appears, from the discussion below, that English sources largely use Pedro over Peter and by English sources we must try to go! --rgpk (comment) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter V of Portugal → Pedro V of Portugal — Reason 1: Frequency 21,700 results vs 1,770 results. Reason 2: Consistency with all the Portuguese monarchs after Pedro I of Brazil who are under their Portuguese names rather than their English names. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ferdinand II of Portugal is an exception but that's because he was born a German prince.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were personally up to me? I'd have that article moved to John Charles I of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder you got so many friends around here. --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you don't rule wikipedia, so it's not up to you.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I haven't claimed otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is the most common form used in English. Paulista01 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is customary to anglicise the names of old kings. Peter's contemporaries Alexander II of Russia, Isabella II of Spain and Napoleon III all have anglicised names. The Encyclopaedia Britannica uses "Peter V" for its article and our other articles on the earlier four Portuguese monarchs who share his name are at "Peter __". —Srnec (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most common name in English. Srnec, btw, the immediately previous monarch who shares his name is at Pedro I of Brazil. I'd add that Pedro V's near contemporaries Carol I of Romania, Louis Philippe I, Ludwig II of Bavaria, Pedro II of Brazil, and Amadeo I of Spain all do not have anglicized names; cherry picking names that are anglicized doesn't seem particularly enlightening. Our guidelines wisely don't make general rules about this; we use the form that is most commonly used for each individual. john k (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Exactly what I was thinking. It seems that English sources tend to leave the names of 19th-20th century monarchs in their own language.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with the Brazilian monarch's title, and I could stomach moving all the Portuguese monarchs to their Portuguese names (including Duarte and Sebastião) even though it wouldn't be my preference. If we must change from anglicisations to modern Portuguese forms somewhere in the succession I outlined below, then I'd like it to be based on more than just where English usage generally changes (since it does not universally change anywhere, and respectable sources can be found using Charles and Michael). In other words, I don't favour using the "form that is most commonly used for each individual", since I don't think figures whose significance derives in part from their place in a line of succession (as monarchs) shoud be treated only individually.
    As to "cherrypicking", I'd point out that the kingdoms of Romania and Bavaria and the empire of Brazil are very recent creations compared to Russia, Spain and France. Thus, they present no issues of consistency with predecessors. "Louis Philippe I" is an exception to the custom, which I don't mind (and his double-name is unique), as is Amadeo. Although I wouldn't mind Amadeus, I guess that neither is more "English" than the other, really. The only point I was trying to make was that anglicisation is not used for contemporary monarchs today (Juan Carlos, Baudouin), but it is still commonly used for some relatively recent monarchs. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Pedro has become more commonly used then Peter, for Portugese monarchs, in the english literature. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raw list of Portuguese monarchs as titled at Wikipedia, for reference

[edit]
Ferdinand was a consort. Beatrice was never Queen. There is no "Peter IV", only Pedro I. Please, do not try to fool us. P.S.: I only kept Peter III because this article is about Pedro V (Peter V).
There are 18 monarchs with their names in Portuguese and 15 are anglicized. --Lecen (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of trying to fool anybody. I re-added Beatrice (possible claimant) and Ferdinand II (what's wrong with consorts?), and I notice that you retained António (Anthony) and when you corrected my oversight about Pedro I of Brazil, you made sure to call him "Pedro IV of Portugal" despite the fact that no other Portuguese monarch is named Pedro as of now. I've now also added the kings of Spain I originally omitted. Who's trying to fool whom?
The point of this list was for reference, and, as I suggested in my edit summary, so that maybe we could devise a naming standard for Portuguese monarchs: either using only English forms, only modern Portuguese forms, or a mix of both, determined by "counting noses" via Google or by some other method, such as an arbitrary cut-off date monarchs before which would be English- and monarchs after Portuguese-named. I won't be crying in my beer any way we go, although I obviously have a preference.
Currently, "Afonso" and "Sancho" are Portuguese forms, but there are arguably no English forms of these names. ("Alphonse" is French, and the kings of Spain are universally called Alfonso in English sources.) Denis, Edward, Sebastian, Ferdinand, Henry, John, Peter and Joseph are all English forms with different Portuguese ones. Miguel, Luís, Carlos, Maria and Manuel are all Portuguese names with different English forms (albeit Manuel has entered into the English language via the adjetival form "Manueline" for his architecture). Beatrice is English, but she was never monarch, only a claimant. António is Portuguese, but he was not widely recognised. Philip is English, but they are more remembered as rulers of Spain and Peter IV of Portugal is more important as Emperor of Brazil, so I think both are irrelevant to how we name Portuguese monarchs. Currently only Henry has "King" in his article title, while Joseph, Luís and Carlos, but not Denis, Edward, Sebastian and Miguel, have a numeral "I", although were the only ones of their name to rule. Clearly there are inconsistencies to be smoothed out. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at article Pedro I of Brazil, Peter IV of Portugal used to be in the intro & in the infobox heading, along with Pedro I of Brazil. Not sure when it was changed. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes very little sense to call him "Pedro" in Brazil and "Peter" in Portugal when both countries speak the same language. That is like if we said that King William I of Prussia was German Emperor as Wilhelm II. It's not, strictly speaking, false, and it might be true that he's more likely to be called "Wilhelm I" when referring to his time as emperor than for the earlier period, but it's still wildly misleading.
On the issue of ordinals, my sense is that the earlier monarchs (Denis, Edward, Sebastian) wouldn't have used them, but that the later ones did, even though they weren't followed by later monarchs of the same name. Miguel should probably be moved to Miguel I of Portugal, and the rest left where they are. john k (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have no problem with the way Sebastian and Henry are titled as of now? Just asking. I find that sort of inconsistency baffling, and I suspect it confuses readers. If Miguel should be moved, by all means, go ahead.
I note that it is obvious that Peter V and John VI, in light of earlier monarchs of the same name, present problems of consistency that the Marias, Carlos and Luís do not. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish this RM involved the other 3 Peter # of Portugal articles. That way if a consensus is reached for moving to Pedro # of Portugal, all of them will be moved. GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For more than obvious reasons, the Spanish Kings shouldn't be in this list, since they follow the stardard name usage of... the Spanish Kings, not Portuguese. Unlike Beatrice, Antonio was actually a King but was defeated and expelled from the country after Phillip II's conquest in 1580. Miguel is already Miguel I of Portugal, not Michael. And spelling "ão" is not that hard as you claim. "Sebastião" has the same pronunciation as "Sebastian" (the only difference is that you should put a stronger tone in "ão" insted of in "bas"). "João" has the same pronunciation as in the French "Jean" (While in the Spanish, "j" is pronunced with a strong "rrrrr" as in "Jose" or "Juan"). You make a big deal out of too little. --Lecen (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should expand this RM to Peter I of Portugal, Peter II of Portugal & Peter III of Portugal. That way, I'd support a move from 'Peter' to 'Pedro' for all of them (and thus making my edit at John VI of Portugal & Pedro I of Brazil, moot). GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to fall on this trap. The first thing you'll do once a move like that is requested is to point that there are more "Peter I", "Peter II" and "Peter III" than "Pedros". --Lecen (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not, consistency among monarchial articles are important to me. I'd rather Portugese monarch as Pedro I, Pedro II, Pedro III & Pedro V, rather then Peter I, Peter II, Peter III & Pedro V. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried hard asking editors to discuss the lack of consistency in John VI of Portugal's talk page. You were among the editors who ignored it. Now you want to talk about it? --Lecen (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of diacritics in article titles, but I'll support the next 'John' RM. -- If the RM is expanded to all 6 of those Portugese monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. Are you the same person who also opposed my (quite reasonable) suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#An exception to the rule?? A change of heart now? P.S.: It was not I the one who requested the move of this article. --Lecen (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A comment that I've just deleted (at the convention page-in-question). I think you can 'expand' the RM, though it wasn't you who started this current RM. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of doing it. I was planning to expand and improve the article about King João/John VI and bring it to Featured status. The result was a lot of bashing and mockery and little discussion (no, saying "this is the English Wikipedia" does not help much). And I got more upset once I saw that the editors who opposed the move had no interest in the article, nor in anything related to it. Once the move request was over, they moved on and the article (as well as the others) continue as it is. Another MR would seem that I'm simplying trying to push my view toward the subject regardless of everyone else's opinion. I'm not like that. The MR ended with no consensus (although I tried, and a lot, to discuss). Another MR wouldn't be more successful than the first. The issue must be debated and there aren't people enough to seriously discuss it. --Lecen (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a 6 to 1 ratio, this article will likely be 'moved'. You'll have to wait awhile (not sure how long) before posting another RM at John VI (including, John I to John V) though. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How? On Talk:John VI of Portugal#List with Wikipedians who support or oppose the move nine editors supported and nine opposed the move. I can't see a consensus here. --Lecen (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec, we're getting 2 RMs mixed up. Peter-to-Pedro will get a consensus. Not too many people will argue to have Peter Martin for the former Baseball player (for example). GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be "Martinson"? "Henriques", "Rodrigues" (or "Rodriguez" in Spanish), "Fernandes", "Cortês" (or "Cortez" in Spanish), "Nunes", "Peres" (or "Perez" in Spanish), "Alvares" means "Son of Henrique", "Son of Rodrigo", "Son of Fernando", "Son of Corto", "Son of Nuno", "Son of Pero" and "Son of Álvaro", respectively. It has the same purpose as in the English "Harrison", "Johnson", "Wilson", "Carlsson", and others. Anyway, this is not important. I'm busy improving Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. When I begin working on Pedro I of Brazil I'll try to discuss the "John/João" and "Pedro/Peter" issue. --Lecen (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coburg

[edit]

I believe the infobox should inform us that this monarch was technically a Coburg besides being a Braganza, He belonged to both Houses even if he is considered a member of the H of Braganca by Portuguese law. I reverted moving the Coburg title from the infobox. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you dont mind, Ive created a larger discussion, as this pertains to more than just Pedro V.it is here. thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedro_V_of_Portugal&oldid=1204567535"