This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and 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.
I'm asking mostly out of curiousity, but why does the artcle use the version "Isabella" of the name? The Portuguese version is "Isabel" and anglicizing gives "Elizabeth" (the Portuguese news calls the current British queen "Isabel"). Has "Isabella" been commonly used in English history texts? A Geek Tragedy 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think because that is the way she is often referred to in many history books. In fact, if you look around, you'll see that Isabella, rather than Elisabeth, is generally used as an 'Anglicisation', so to speak, of Isabel or Isabelle - look at Isabella of France, or Isabella I of Castile. I think it's just one of the many eccentricities of this remarkably inconsistent language of ours (or mine, anyway). Michaelsanders 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png Nominated for Deletion
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.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Support- Easier title and logical. Like anyone searchs Isabella of Portugal (1397-1471), they will search for her and her title. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Support It is widely accepted that dates are the last resort for disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why is there so much obvious flowery personal opinion in this history article? It is history right? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Because royalty fans tend to confuse fairytales with history. You should see articles about 18th-century royalty. Anyway, if you can fix it, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
What are you referring to with the words tabloid history, more precisely? If it is about the stories about her husband's adultary and her own reaction to it, it is relevant to her position and should stay in the article. Her personality, the stories which were known in her time and affected attitudes toward her, and her relation to her consort, are relevant. It should not be regarded simply as fairy tales and gossip. Such things are indeed history as well. It becomes somewhat arrogant if we disregard things that are not to our taste as history. Of course, by all means edit, but if you remove such things relevant, you will be reverted.--Aciram (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a good biography about her and will source what's currently in the article. If the biography supports the bits that were deleted, they can be re-added and cited. Victoria (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
That's great, Victoria. I don't think the information is the problem; I think it's the way it's presented, i.e. the writing style. It is certainly not encyclopedic, and resembles an historical romance novel. For example, saying that her husband's mistresses "would periodically present him with illegitimate children, of whom he had a great deal", makes it sound as if those children were puppies he received as gifts. Surtsicna (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It's easily fixed. He did have a lot of bastards & I have good sources. I had noticed how poorly this was written and ironically it's been on my list of articles to clean up. I have bought the book so that's a start. Will take a bit of time. Victoria (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As it happens, not easily fixed: I've worked through the first section but finding quite a lot of WP:Close paraphrasing verging on copyvio, so it won't be a matter of simply plugging in sources. It requires a sentence by sentence rewrite and more heavy lifting than a single biography, so will take a bit of time. I've removed the tags for now, because adding refs to potential copyvio isn't what we want. Victoria (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh my. From tablod history to plagiarism! I knew there was something odd about the style. Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)