Talk:John VI of Portugal

RFC

This is the biography of a king of Portugal. Should the name be in Portuguese or in English? Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography in English of a king of Portugal who did not have a modern legal name with a determined spelling (after 1900). The name should be in English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is already being dealt with below, and the discussion should be there, not here, or else there will be two parallel, overlapping and confusing threads of argument. Alarbus (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this RfC also be listed at 'History and Geography'? Walrasiad (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone cares, this is why I believe all monarchs should have their names in their original tongue. Obviously, I'm talking about monarchs that use the Latin Alphabet, not Arabic, Chinese, etc... --Lecen (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So medieval monarchs would be given in Latin? Kauffner (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. This close matches the other one done this week. If someone wants to try a rename, they need to do all of these articles in one nomination. One by one is not going to work. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

João VI of Portugal → John VI of Portugal – First note to closing admins and new users: This is not really a request to move the article, but to restore it to its long used name, recently moved As it can be seen earlier in the talk page, there was a move request some months ago, from "John VI of Portugal" (the article name by then) to "João VI of Portugal", which received 9 supports and 9 rejections, and was closed as no consensus for the move. A new request made shortly ago had basically the same supporters and less discussion (but it was still discussed), and it was closed by ed17 moving the article. This closing led to several other threads, discussions at user talk pages, ANI reports, appeals to Jimbo, etc. Oddly enough, Ed17 mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal that it would be needed to open a RFC (meaning that the discussion had not ended), but did not reopen the discussion or move the article back to the original name to held it. So, here we are, here's the new move request and RFC, but I remind the closing admin that the closing should consider both this discussion and the one had some days ago (and, obviously, the different meaning of "support" and "oppose" at each one), and if a "No consensus" closing is needed, it should restore the article to the original and long used name.

I did not take part in the previous discussion, but I did on the one of months ago. My username was "MBelgrano" by then, I had renamed my account since then.

As for the actual reasons to use "John VI of Portugal" over "João VI of Portugal", see #Number, numbers (for Google books results) and "#Wikipedia/en wants to compete with Wikipedia/pt? (for language reasons). Of course, those threads can be used as starting points, and develop or continue the ideas detailed there if needed.

Of course, The ed17 is welcomed to join the discussion, but considering the discussions raised by his closing, I think he should abstain from closing this discussion, and let someone else do it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note that I will not be closing this for obvious reasons, but will be monitoring it for overly personalized comments and removing them so that this RfC does not go the way of the ANIs and other various discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I might close this, though it would be fine for someone else to as well. I'll reiterate that warning about ensuring your comment addresses the page, not other editors. Prodego ^talk 21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on procedural as well as substantive grounds:
  • The normal periood for discussion of AFD, CFD, RM, etc is seven days. We have just had an RM discussion, which ran from 22 December to 7 January. That is not a premature closure.
  • I take the view that the names of monarches should normally be in their native tongue (at least where that is in Latin script), and the article is thus Wilhelm II, German Emperor, not William II of Germany or Kaiser Bill. Hwever, there should always be redirects from other likely search terms, including the English form of the name and the unacceented form (where diacriticals are involved). Since redirects operate automatically, the result of searching against the English or unaccented form will be that the the article appears. Older historians tended to translate regnal names into England, but this is an old-fashioned practice, not followed by most recent ones. Since newer works tend to be subject to copyright and older ones may be out of copyright, a Ghits count is liable not wholly to reflect this practice, but newer works are generally to be preferred as WP:RS to older ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I support your idea about native tongue only when it comes to legal names with legally determined spellings re: persons alive after the year 1900. Such names cannot reasonably be translated. Before about 1900, you could spell anybody's name however you pleased, so exonyms were justifianly used for personal names. Phonetic empathy should be our main sentiment and guide. Wilhelm (your example) passes fine. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Even Portuguese does not permit king names in their native language, as noted earlier. See thread below: "#Wait Portuguese rejects English for Kings of England" for how "Henry VIII" is not allowed in Portuguese. -Wikid77 21:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment to be clear on the current Wiki policy on the names of sovereigns for new commentators who might not know or miss it above, let me reproduce the quote from WP:SOVEREIGN here once again:

"Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above." (bolding mine)

Walrasiad (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Restore long standing title per policy on using English names. If there is substantial evidence for using the English form of the name, as appears the case from numbers cited in above discussions, then give preference to the English form. - dwc lr (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SOVEREIGN, WP:USENGLISH and WP:COMMONAME. I'm truly (not) sorry (at all), but I simply don't agree "that the names of monarches should normally be in their native tongue". Quite the contrary, such names should normally use the common English name unless the native name is commonly used by English-speakers. And such cases have to proven beyond reasonable doubt or question. Flamarande (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. João is the proper name. This is simply a matter of proper spelling. We're not in ASCII anymore. Alarbus (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. --Lecen (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Please ensure your comment explains why the page should be titled Joao if you want it to be considered when the RM is closed. Prodego ^talk 23:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

See your talk page. It's all there. Ow, I'm sorry, you ignored it. My bad. --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per Dwc LR. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I would expect English wikipedia to use anglicised names via a global consensus applying to all non-English languages, much as I would expect pt.wikipedia to use Portuguese names such as pt:Jorge VI do Reino Unido, pt:Carlos, Príncipe de Gales and pt:Margarida do Reino Unido (George VI, Prince Charles and Princess Margaret). (I would also anticipate local consensuses objecting to the global one.) Occuli (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have left a message on the the talk page of Ed asking for clarification. If Ed has not sanctioned the re-opening of this RM so soon after the last one I will close it on procedural grounds. So I suggest that there is a moratorium on further comments here until Ed makes her/his opinion clear. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I encouraged this, I think it is quite needed to have this again with the RfC (which wasn't present that last time). Please do not close this. Prodego ^talk 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No one will bother to comment the RfC. Quite obvious, since no one will even pay attention with a big move request next to it. Also, you encouraged this to the other side only. I don't remember having seen you talk to me. On the contrary. --Lecen (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is directing outside editors to the RM. I posted to this talk page - not to any particular editor that an RfC would likely be the best way to resolve what to do with this page. Is there something in particular you are looking for from me? I haven't talked to you that much because I wasn't aware there was anything I could do for you. Prodego ^talk 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with it. I've been asking for an RfC here, and I wouldn't try to stifle debate by closing this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - By chance, Ed closed the discussion at the precise moment that I was entering. As I brought some particular vews, and as the continuation of the investigation clarified many things about the numbers and the wikipedia rules, showing this move was wrong, I think Ed will agree with my proposition of re-opening the matter. I think this is the correct procedure. For the argument that rest, «João is the proper name», well, it's not very well like that, for example, «João» was writen on 1735 Joaõ, on century XVI «Joham». I think no one will contest that, today, their names will be writen on comtemporary portuguese, and not on their proper ortography of the time. And finally, I keep insisting that what is important is a sound translator, Jorge alo (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Names should be in English on the English Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We being en wiki, and WP:SOVEREIGN, it's John VI of Portugal for me. Moriori (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• oppose:The last move was passed by an imparticial editor who found the move in favor of Joao. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Please ensure your comment explains why the page should be titled Joao, not why you think the page shouldn't be moved, if you want it to be considered when the RM is closed. Prodego ^talk 23:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, I am sorry, alright. The article should be name Joao because it is the mans name. Sources refer to him as Joao. It is the mans name for goodness sake. We should not rewrite history just for convinience of the tongue. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: It "is" not the man's name. The man is dead. So we can discuss what his name was. In his time his official name was probably in Latin or some other local spelling (I do not know, does anyone?). There is no evidence to support the POV that his name is or was João. In English, the name we use for him is John, because since he lived, and up until about 1900 when people got legal names with legal spellings, long-established exonyms are used, primarily for phonetic reasons; in modern Portuguese his name is João, in French, Jean, in German Johann, in Spanish Juan, in Italian Giovanni, in Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish Johan, in Finnish Juhana, in Russian Ivan, and so forth. Those are his names, depending on what language we are using. If he were a modern person with a registered legal name spelled João (in other words living after the year 1900), his name would not reasonably be able to be translated to any other language. Only then would the use of an exonym not be appropriate. That is not the case here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know from where you got this "pre-1900" idea but I know that in Portugal and in Brazil it never existed. As a lawyer I can pretty much tell you that there was no law in 1900 that established names for anyone neither in Portugal nor in Brazil. Names were always spelled exactly the same, although it is true that other words (but not names) weren't until the 1945 Ortographic Accord between Brazil and Portugal. And no, his name was not given in Latin, but in Portuguese. Birth certificates were written in Portuguese, not Latin. You may not know Portuguese and Brazilian history, but I do. So stop saying nonsense. Give another excuse, but not this one, which is completely wrong. Simple like that. --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1900 (no earlier) is a figurative cut-off year by which just about everyone in the world, who might be mentioned in historical accounts, had registered legal names. Of course this does not apply precisely, but it is helpful to have a cut-off to determine when it is and isn't appropriate to continue to use personal name exonyms. Don't get hung up on that "nonsense" detail too much, though! The basic gist of my experience, as a linguist and lifelong reader of history in many languages, is that exonyms are most effectively used in cases such as this one, especially for readability aloud. Intelligent people invented them for that purpose long long ago.

I am always willing to learn. Do you have access to King John's birth certificate? If so, please tell us what the name is on it and how that name is spelled! Not that it would have any direct bearing on this discussion, but his "real" name has been used so much as an argument here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:Consistency. Article should not have been moved counter to other articles in category:Portuguese monarchs. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support move back to John. It is what is commonly used. [1] Also, Encyclopedia Britannica uses John. And, this just follows the common practice on Wikipedia, for example John II of France. FurrySings (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support move back to John. The recent move close seems like it was a simple error (in good faith) on the part of the closing admin. It should go back to where it was stable at the name common in English sources. (in response to the remark below that there are lots of inputs from editors who don't normally work on this topic area: Yes, I watch WP:RM, and don't normally comment on name-language issues; but this one blew up and attracted a lot of extra attention, and obviously needed input from the wider community, so I and others took a look and rendered an opinion. Isn't this what was called for?) – Dicklyon (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. On a separate note, seems to be a very dominant and divisive theme of "us-versus-them", which is wholly destructive to consensus building. Bunston (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Johns should certainly have a consistent naming scheme. John I got 39,000 page views in 2010, John II 37,000, John IV 29,000, and John VI 51,000. So the earlier Johns should not be treated as an afterthought in this process. We can't have John IV succeeded by João V, which is the current nomenclature. Giving a medieval monarch a name in a modern non-English language would also be a strikingly odd solution. Are we going to write that Columbus was rejected by João II? After all, I assume the primary sources on this incident use Latin and not Portuguese. Biographies can call the subject "Joao", but they don't have to deal with the broad sweep of history. This is presumably why both Britannica and Columbia call the subject "John VI", and why we should too. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:SOVEREIGN guideline upheld since 2002. If any editor argues that the common-English title guideline wp:SOVEREIGN is too new, or thinks it is questionable for monarchs to have the commonly-used English name, then I would remind them to check the original guideline from August 2002 (this version: rev-4412), which has directed editors to use the common-English form as: first name, with ordinal, and "of Country" (for almost 10 years). That is why the title had been "John VI of Portugal" for the past 10 years. -Wikid77 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. There seems to be some confusion among some here. There has been no substitution of a Portuguese word for an English word. Instead, this proposal is arguing for the return to an obsolete and unnecessary anglicization of a Portuguese proper name. At one time, foreign names were regularly, though inconsistently, anglicized. That is not the practice in modern scholarship. If it were, we'd still be referring to "Lewis XIV" instead of "Louis XIV" (and yes, that is the spelling in old references), would be using "Peking" instead of "Beijing", would refer to "John Charles" instead of "Juan Carlos", etc. João VI is not a medieval monarch, where such anglicizations are still widely used (though even that is changing). He was the father of Pedro IV and grandfather of Pedro II of Brazil, both of which still have modern writers who persist in using "Peter I" and "Peter II" spellings, though the use of "Peter" has been supplanted by "Pedro" in scholarship. João VI also has the benefit of being instantly recognizable as referring to a Portuguese monarch, rather than one of a bewildering array of other people lumped together under "John VI", and the advantage of matching the spelling used in source materials for those readers of the article who decide to delve deeper into the subject. This anglicization mess is a problem in many other articles as well (e.g., a "John" might be the father of a "Willem" or an "Albrecht" cousin to a "Johann Albert") and it would be better were Wikipedia consistent across its articles, however the existing mishmash of anglicized and non-anglicizatized names is no reason to return to an anachronistic spelling. • Astynax ^talk 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Pedro IV and Pedro II of Brazil are listed in Wikipedia article titles as rulers "of Brazil", and not "of Portugal", whereas this king, John VI, is "of Portugal", and is numbered by the line of previous Johns "of Portugal", which are quite medieval & anglicized. The norm here should be backward-looking, to the rulers of the same country, not forward-looking to rulers of a different country. Walrasiad (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Astynax is correct, very well said. Paulista01 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is NOT what name will be commonly-used some day, for John VI of Portugal, in the future (as a wp:CRYSTALball prediction), but instead, we must name the article now as "John VI" and consider renaming in 10 years when the world changes to another name, whether that will be "Joao VI" (2nd common) or "João VI" (rare) or "Joaon VI" (perhaps) or "John 6" (maybe), etc. -Wikid77 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Break for small browsers

(was split to allow edit by telephone browsers)

Comments entirely regarding other editors collapsed, please ensure to comment on content, not the contributor

I see a lot of editors that never contributed to articles regarding the subject, this is very strange, the timing of the vote is also strange, canvassing may be a real issue here, they should have waited 6 months for the voting to restart. This is becoming a vendetta. Paulista01 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Not strange really, I believe the RFC was so people who were not involved in the initial discussion would comment. But on this specific subject (King John VI of Portugal) you have a grand total of two edits to this article, one more than me. Everyone has an equal right to comment. - dwc lr (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous, I have been editing articles on the subject for a long time. Well, the truth is out there for everybody to see. I never directed my comment towards you, the fact that you made it personal says a lot about why you are here. Paulista01 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I earnestly urge editors to focus their comments on the topic at hand, and not at other editors. Walrasiad (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I was just making the point on this specific subject, John VI, this article, you only made two edits.[2] - dwc lr (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC) That is not about the question at hand. Please leave it be. There is no "ownership" of articles here. Everyone has the right to comment. Walrasiad (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Yes as I said my first reply everyone has an equal right to comment. - dwc lr (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Paulista, many of us arrive at pages new to us by following our noses. The rational for this proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves caught my attention because the proposer said it wasn't a move request at all, but a restoration of name. I clicked through to have a look. I don't do IRC or e-mail, so haven't been canvassed or you would have seen it on my talk page. Now, I realise you didn't specify me personally, but I would say there are others like me who have voted on this page, so your inference of conspiracy is awry. Moriori (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Can we please put an end to this line of discussion right now? No good is going to come of derailing this thread with personal accusations and counter-accusations. Please focus on the topic at hand, and not other editors. If you must comment on the editors, please refer those comments to the admins User:The ed17 and User:Prodego, who are monitoring this discussion for personalized comments. Walrasiad (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Unlike any of you, Paulista is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empire of Brazil task force and has always helped (and a lot) with articles related to 19th century Portuguese/Brazilian history. Astynax, thanks for your comment. Just perfect. I wouldn't have done better. --Lecen (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support to rename back. Restore article as "John VI of Portugal" as the wp:COMMONNAME form, after the controversial move-over-redirect (on 7 January 2012) to the rare form "João VI of Portugal". Search of Google Books confirms widespread (65%+) English use as "John VI of Portugal" dating back over 150 years, to at least 1823. (check Google Books: search 'John VI of Portugal'). Although other king names commonly use the Portuguese, such as King Pedro II, the common form for over 3-to-150 years has been "John VI" (not "João"). It is not the role of Wikipedia to overrule world usage and force every name into Portuguese when most books have stated "John VI" all these years. -Wikid77 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"King" Pedro II? "Joaon"? "Joao 6" At least try to pretend you know something about Portuguese/Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the term should be Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I was holding this back in order not to clutter the page, but since there were questions raised as to how the kings John were originally spelled in Portuguese, I thought it might be interesting. All these are Portuguese, I've omitted Latin & foreign sources; from documents I already had at hand (I haven't bothered searching for later ones):

• from a book published during the lifetime of John VI, (1792), we have the title: Collecção de livros ineditos de historia portugueza, dos reinados de D. Joaõ I., D. Duarte, D. Affonso V., e D. Joaõ II. [3]. Note that diacritic is on the 'o', not 'a'.

From older documents (since this is relevant to older kings):

• chancellary letters from John I, 1410s, from Monumenta Henricina, spells himself as "Dom Joham", [4]
• chancellary letters from John II, 1490s: spells himself as "Dom Ioham" or "Dom Joham", [5] (note later letter of John III, as "Dom Johã")
• letter from John III in 1529 "Dom Joam" [6]
• letter from John III in 1534: "Dom Johão" [7]
• official chronicler Fernão Lopes (1400s, 1644 ed.) spells the king as "D.Ioam" [8]
• official chronicler Gomes Eanes de Zurara (1453, 1841 ed.) spells "dom Joham" [9]
• chronicler Cristóvão Rodrigues Acenheiro (1535), spells it "Dom Joam" [10]
• letters of Afonso de Albuquerque (early 1500s, 1774 ed.): "dom joham" [11],
• official chronicler Damião de Góis (1567): "Dom Ioam" [12]
• unofficial chronicler Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1550s, 1833 ed.): "dom Ioão" [13]
• anononymous chronicle, Breve Summario dos Reys (1555, 1570 ed.): "dom Joan" [14]
• chronicler Duarte Nunes de Leão (1643) "Dõ Joam" [15]
• chronicler Manuel de Faria e Sousa (1666) "D. Juan" [16]
• historian Carvalho da Costa (1708) "D. Joaõ" [17],
• historian Caetano de Sousa (1748, 1744) "D. Joaõ" [18], [19]

These variant spellings are, of couse, no surprise. This is presented here as a curiosity. Walrasiad (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know, but neither Portuguese, not English, nor German, nor French were written in the 15th and 16th centuries (as your sources) as they were later in the 19th century. Why don't you let João VI speak for himself? See his signature here. "João". Source: Taken from the archives of the House of Braganza. One of the good things of actually knowing the subject which is being debated. --Lecen (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I merely posted that as a curiosity about variant spellings. Since this debate is relevant for six Portuguese kings, they all count. As for your signature, that is pretty indeterminate - the diacratic flies flourishingly above. Some documents place it on "o", others on "a", e.g. a document in a Wellington collection, dated as late as 1813 [20], chose to reproduce the orthography as "Joaõ", as is commonly enough found in the 18th C. Anyway, this is not particularly relevant. Just curiosities. Walrasiad (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Other languages use the translated name, not João VI. The avoidance of "João VI" is not an English "bias". Instead consider how the other languages use translated forms of the name John, as German "Johann" or French "Jean" or Italian "Giovanni" or Spanish "Juan" (etc.). Hence, the other-language Wikipedias use those translated names: German WP has "de:Johann VI. (Portugal)", French "fr:Jean VI de Portugal", Danish "da:Johan 6. af Portugal", Italian: "it:Giovanni VI del Portogallo", Polish "pl:Jan VI (król Portugalii)", Finnish: "fi:Juhana VI (Portugali)", Swedish "sv:Johan VI av Portugal", and even Spain as a neighbor of Portugal uses "es:Juan VI de Portugal". None of them use "João VI" but instead use their version of "John VI" as in historical sources. -Wikid77 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Britannica 1911 & 2011 have John VI. Just in case anyone thinks the major general reference books have changed to "João VI" then compare these editions:

• John VI Of Portugal - 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - Free Online

• John VI (king of Portugal) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

For over 100 years, Britannica has listed John VI not João VI. -Wikid77 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment «Spelling» it's a curious word because it means two different things: the oral system and the writing system, on ortography. About ortography, beyond the timing variation, we have also the space variation. For example, I really don't say «João», but «Juon», and even, if I'm really amused, «Juonhe». The padron, on the writing portuguese, it's the portuguese of the centre, more particularly, from the region of Coimbra, and there are a lot of ways of speaking by all the country. So, «João», on the time and on space, it's the portuguese convention of our days to write this name.

The historiographic convention about write the foreign names (when possible) on the native language wants to easy the life of readers and, particularly, of students. The «Johns» of France, Portugal, etc, are more easy to memorize and more easy to write. What really cares, to a History student is that one day, for example, he can be a good historian, and not a kind of "parrot" that can say, with the write spelling, «John» on all the languages. The trend referred to us by Peterkingiron and Anastinax can, by the moment, have a lot of fans, but in the futur will surely collapse, because is an needless "gongorism". So, Wikid77 can begin a new linear calculation to let us know when this trend will may collaps. and, by the way, Pedro I will be write, on the futur, in english, Peter, Juan Carlos, John Charles, etc, because it's the easiest way to refer them. And, for example, 50 years from now one, "their problem" will to be alive on the memory of people.

Anyway, a trend it's a trend and a rule it's a rule, and, for more "bad names" that we call it, and more adjectives we put on it, the rule still is the rule and the trend, the trend. To confuse, it's to call the trend the rule and to call the rule a trend. And also, speaking of confusion, now on the oral matter, «João» don't gives the oral spelling because an anglophone, in general, don't know how to spell a tilde, «Joao» also don't gives the oral spelling, but something like «Juau», so, how to give to our readers the correct oral spelling? Easy, with a phono tool, like this. But we can do even more, and now on the ortographic matter. On the monarch's boarder on the right, we can put for the parents, etc, their portuguese names on the links to their english articles with english titles. As this, we will have both the portuguese and english name presents on that border, and will be enough, for the reader, to pass the cursor on the link to read the corresponding english name (of the article). Doing this, I think we correctly will pursue something Astynax said and I think it's very important: to give our readers that care for this spelling questions a lot more of correct information. But, doing like this, we also don't put on danger one very old and ruthless law of language: to speak and write by the more easiest way, a kind of Occam's razor on language. Jorge alo (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The general rule is to "translate" the names of kings and popes. So "Jonh VI" is the wright title for this article.Japf (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:SOVEREIGN. His Portuguese name should, I think, be bolded in the article's first sentence. Miniapolis (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support the move back to John. The point of WP:TITLE is to put articles where the readership (who by and large have English as their first or only language) would reasonably expect to find it. The demand for "correctness" is met perfectly adequately (and simply) by the opening sentence "John VI (13 May 1767 – 10 March 1826) (Portuguese João)" (or, rather less simply, by "John VI (full name: João Maria José Francisco Xavier de Paula Luís António Domingos Rafael; (13 May 1767 – 10 March 1826)", which is what the article said up until about 10 days ago). Moonraker12 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 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.

Expect Joao VI to be common as John VI in 18 years

I have calculated when "Joao VI" might become as common as "John VI" of Portugal. Because some editors have emphasized to look at the growing trend among scholars to shift from the common name "John VI" to the Portuguese name "João VI", then I have calculated the algebraic equations to predict how many years before they might have similar usage counts. The historical split has been 65% John VI versus 35% Joao VI, as seen in the Google Books Ngram during 1900-2008: Ngram John/Joao of Portugal.

There are 3 scenarios here: Scenario 1 is a best-case where the whole world switches to writing "Joao VI" tomorrow, and after 6 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage spanning 26 years. Scenario 2 is a less zealous case, where only 66% of sources start writing "Joao VI" tomorrow, and in 18.75 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage (with "John VI" also 50%). I am counting the spelling as "Joao VI" (rather than precise Portuguese "João VI") as the most optimistic hope to move away from "John VI" using qwerty keyboards. In reality, the spelling with tilde "~" is very rare compared to "Joao VI" without the tilde. Scenario 3 maintains a 50-50 standoff, where it would not be obvious that either name was used more often in future years.

The equations are solved below.

Scenario 1

In this case, for x years, the world switches 100% to writing "Joao VI" (no one would use "John VI"), and after 6 years, the historical usage would be even for the past 26 years.

20 years * 35% + x years * 100% = (20+x years) * 50%
20 * 35% + x * 100% = 10 + (x * 50%)
     x * 100% - (x * 50%) = 10 - (20 * 35%)
     x * 0.5  = 10 - 7
           x  = (10 - 7) * 2 = 6 years

Scenario 2

In this case, for x years, the world switches 66% to writing "Joao VI" (1/3 would still use "John VI"), and after 18.75 years, the historical usage would be even for the past ~38 years.

20 years * 35% + x years * 60% = (20+x years) * 50%
20 * 35% + x * 66% = 10 + (x * 50%)
     x * 66% - (x * 50%) = 10 - (20 * 35%)
     x * 0.16  = 10 - 7
           x  = (10 - 7) * 6.25 = 18.75 years

Scenario 3

In this case, for x years, the English sources split 50% to writing "Joao VI" (and half still use "John VI"), and after 280 years, the historical usage would be 49% Joao VI for the past ~300 years.

20 years * 35% + x years * 50% = (20+x years) * 49%
20 * 35% + x * 50% = 9.8 + (x * 49%)
     x * 50% - (x * 49%) = 9.8 - (20 * 35%)
     x * 0.01  = 9.8 - 7
           x  = (9.8 - 7) * 100 = 280 years

As noted, Scenario 1 is a best-case dream where all English sources switch to writing "Joao VI" soon, and after 6 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage spanning 26 years. Scenario 2 is a more-realistic case, where only 66% of most sources start writing "Joao VI" tomorrow, and in 18.75 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage (with "John VI" also 50%). In Scenario 3, with future usage split 50-50, then "Joao VI" would reach 49% in 280 years, or just consider as 50% usage for only 30 years. Perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica would switch to "Joao VI" mid-way during the time period, such as after 9 years, before year 2021. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012, revised 17:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Showing English and Portuguese names near top of 6 articles

I would like to ask everyone to try to put both of the John/João names near the top of all 6 articles: "John I of Portugal" and "John II of Portugal" ... "John VI of Portugal". Perhaps each article should also have a footnote that explains although spelling "Joao" is much more common, the Portuguese name is "João" with the tilde. Many, many sources omit the tilde and simply show "Joao VI" and such. -Wikid77 00:12, 14 January 2012, revised Wikid77 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this question come up in other articles and it was the opinion of many editors to put both names in the articles. Here are some relevant guidelines from the Wiki naming convention policy WP:Article titles that might be useful. "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural... Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters...In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia"."Coaster92 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Preceding comment added by Coaster92 (talk •05:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone against having both names in the lead of those articles as per normal usage? Or do we mean the article name by "top" here, such as John VI (João) of Portugal? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea! Except with the ordinal after, so like John (João) VI of Portugal. Very good, I would support that if that was a move request. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with it in the lead. But not in the title. That's just awkward and unnecessary. Walrasiad (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of John VI of Portugal (João VI de Portugal). Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Still awkward, still unnecessary. Most people who will be searching for this king here, will probably just enter "John VI" in the search box and hone in on the simpler title immediately. And those few who enter "Joao VI" will probably have no problem realizing it is "John VI of Portugal". Parentheses should be reserved for disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me at all what this section is about.

1. The original language name should be mentioned at top of the lede of the article?
2. The original language name should be included in this article's name?

Could somebody please clarify?

I'm sure everyone agrees with #1.

I would not support #2 (as per my example above or any other format). SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• By "top" I mean "in the first sentence" of each article. -Wikid77 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait Portuguese rejects English for Kings of England

Now wait a minute here. Despite all this "scholarly talk" of how modern international sources embrace the native-language for Portuguese kings, supposedly as "João VI" (no longer "John VI"), look at the facts noted above. Let's remind people, again, that meanwhile, Portuguese has rejected the use of English names even for Kings of England. Note well: "William the Conqueror" is Portuguese "Guilherme I de Inglaterra" and Henry VIII of England is Portuguese "Henrique VIII de Inglaterra". But that's not all. Even the uber-famous French name "Marie Antoinette" (accepted in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, etc.) is Portuguese "Maria Antonieta". The Portuguese style also translates the names of kings of Sweden or Germany. That is what the French call a "double standard" (or "el doble moral"?). It is difficult to accept this talk of renaming John VI when even "Henry VIII" is not allowed in Portuguese. -Wikid77 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to make this point several times above. If we are to see the Wikimedia projects as some kind of a comprehensive, consistent whole, I think the point is a valid one, though indirect. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For years (partially on the basis of how other language Wikipedia's handle english), I've been promoting english usage on English Wikipedia. I have taken alot of 'sh-t' for it. It's partially why I've taken on a gnome editing style. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute please!!! You are offending portuguese wikipedia and its editors. Except for some few exceptions, it is agreed that the names of kings should be in portuguese in the portuguese wikipedia, in english in the english wikipedia and so on. There is not a double standard here. You are just being fooled by handfull of language purists, that don't represent the lusophone comunity. What I really don't understand is why this discussion is being so long. It is usual to translate the names of kings and popes- the only possible title for this article is JOHN VI, leave "João VI" for the portuguese wikipedia.Japf (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work GoodDay, and more power to ya! I will always support that, except for modern people (after 1900) who had/have legal names that cannot be translated, such as Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Margrethe II of Denmark.

Japf, I'm sure no offense is intended, and as far as I can see Portuguese Wikipdeia is wonderful. The three of us are just reacting quite naturally to a double-standard on the part of a few Portuguese and Brazilian editors, who have demanded (not suggested cordially) that their kings be named in their languuage here while not even English kings are named in English on their own (so to speak figuratively, of course) project. One of them even says he never works on ptWP, only wants to do (that kind of) work here on enWP. Please try to understand how flabbergasting all that seems to us! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The great worker of all this, Lumastan/A minha pátria é a língua portuguesa/etc., etc., now as on his page a spanish adress. As Japf said, Wikipedia po don't have nothing to do with this. More, I have put on our Esplanada (general discussion page of Wikipedia po), a notice so all that want to participate here could come. I think Japf came because of that notice. As I have much work to do now, personally, but I also love Wikipedia, before I'm leaving, I want to call Wikid77 attention to this: Long-term cross wiki vandalism against Portuguese history. And as you can read om my report, is not only against Portuguese history. I didn't liked Ed behavior, as sysop, here, and now I'm not liking Teles behavior on Meta and Wikipedia po about my report and me. I ask Wikid77 to investigate all this matter, because it smells very bad. Now, I am Portuguese, on Wikipedia po work Brasilians, Portuguese, guys from Angola, Mozambique and a lot of other (more little) countries. We are trying to do our best. I have tried also to do my best here and on Meta. Walrasiad has already call these guys (Lecen/Alarbus and Cristiano Tomás), or who was before Cristiano Tomás on the same page/talk page where he is now, a gang, of bad style. I hope Wikipedia on general, and Meta on particular, will take measures against this gang, that looks like to be very spread. Now I must go to my proper work, that is a little late because of all this mess. A great salute to all you that make Wikipedia, Jorge alo (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The great work of all of this? You mean having tried to make an article about someone be titled their actual name? You are right, I am a vilan, hang me now. -_- Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe, Christiano; but we must assume good faith, must we not? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Following the example of pt:Isabel II do Reino Unido? (Others: es:Isabel_II_del_Reino_Unido, cs:Alžběta II., it:Elisabetta II del Regno Unito.) Oculi (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, you are not a vilan, you are an hijo dalgo. Jorge alo (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As in Hijo de algo, a hidaldo?? Well no, I would be a fidalgo, I am not Spanish, I am Portuguese, and sadly any title I would inherit or bear would be meaningless, as we are a republic now. If you meant something else, disregard the above. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But sure. On the Portuguese of Fernão Lopes it was writen on the lower case, not with capital letter, for example: «grão casa de donas e de donzelas filhas dalgo e de linhagem (edition of Livraria Civilização, page 154, of the Chronicle of King Ferdinand). On that time the rope to hang was guarded for the vilans, no? Jorge alo (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, I no longer care, Good bye all, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this battling a strawman? There is obviously a massive, massive consensus in favor of anglicizing the names of monarchs whose names are always anglicized in English. Has anyone ever argued for Nikolai II of Russia or Konstantinos I of Greece? The dispute here is based on the fact that there's a decent number of English language sources that use the Portuguese form for this monarch. john k (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A difficult passage

Rather than bicker over the name, I've been focusing on translating the far more extensive Portuguese article. However, I've hit one very difficult passage, and my Portuguese, while decent, is not by any means fluent. (Portuguese would not rank among my four strongest languages.)

In the Portuguese article, there is a quotation from José Acúrsio das Neves: "Queria falar e não podia; queria mover-se e, convulso, não acertava a dar um passo; caminhava sobre um abismo, e apresentava-se-lhe à imaginação um futuro tenebroso e tão incerto como o oceano a que ia entregar-se. Pátria, capital, reino, vassalos, tudo ia abandonar repentinamente, com poucas esperanças de tornar a pôr-lhes os olhos, e tudo eram espinhos que lhe atravessavam o coração." My best rendering of this is "He wanted to speak and could not; wanted to move and, convulsed, did not succeed in taking a step; he walked over an abyss, and envisioned a future dark and as uncertain as the ocean to which he was about to submit himself. Country, capital, kingdom, vassals, he was about to leave all of these suddenly, with little hope of setting eyes on them again, and all were thorns that passed through his heart." While I believe the gist of this is correct, I strongly suspect that somewhere in here I have missed a nuance. If anyone believes they can do better, please do have at it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Splendid translation! If I was to nitpick, it'd only be if on some minor points where it may sound awkward in English, e.g. "He wanted to speak and could not; he wanted to move", as the he pronoun is kinda expected in English. Perhaps also: "as the ocean to which he was about to submit himself" might be better "about to deliver himself". Also, "all were thorns" is a bit ambiguous. Maybe "all these were thorns"? Walrasiad (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, and the same to the two first suggestions of Walrasiad. About the last, «tudo era», the idea is more or less «and everithing were spines that crossed his heart», or «crossing on his heart». Jorge alo (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly adopt most of Walrasiad's suggestions. Walrasiad and Jorge: is one of you by any chance native or near-native in Portuguese? I just couldn't judge whether tudo here meant "all these" or "Everything [in the world]". If it is clearer to a native speaker, I'd want to know. It reads to me as ambiguous. Jorge: I'm pretty sure espinhos que lhe atravessavam o coração is a reference to the thorns piercing the Sacred Heart of Jesus; come to think of it I should probably switch to "pierced". "All" vs. "Everything" is really not a difference of meaning, I think the former is more poetic in a poetic passage if we are going to keep that meaning rather than "all these." - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. Your translation is good. Some minor points: "over" could sound that he is going over the abyss, whereas he walking along/ towards it, but not over; you switched noun and adjective in "futuro tenebroso". However, the biggest issue is "Pátria" for which there is no ready equivalent in English. Fatherland/ motherland/ homeland would convey the sense of partiotism/ nationalism of "pátria", but which one?

He wanted to speak and could not; he wanted to move and, convulsed, could not get one step right; he walked above an abyss, and [2 OPTIONS: 1.a dark future stared him in the face/ 2.was met by a dark future] and as uncertain as the ocean to which he was about to surrender. Patria, capital, kingdom, vassals, he would be abandoning all of these abruptly, with little hope of setting eyes on them again, and all [2 OPTIONS: 1.these things/ 2.of these] were thorns that pierced his heart Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit accordingly, except for patria, which pretty much does not exist in English (no native speaker would use the word in this context). I realize "country" is not quite literal, but it is certainly the word a native English speaker would use. (e.g. "For God and country", "My country right or wrong".) - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Another one: "O clima político se mostrava indeciso, e com isso mesmo os mais firmes defensores do liberalismo recearam se comprometer em demasia." This seems pretty straightforward, and I've rendered it as, "The political climate was undecided, and even the staunchest defenders of liberalism feared to compromise too much." I realize I have not been literal on "com isso"; unless I'm missing something, it didn't add much. But this doesn't make much sense in context. It is precisely "the staunchest defenders" ("os mais firmes defensores") who would be least likely to compromise, so why does it make sense to say that even the staunchest defenders … feared to compromise." - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right - it would make no sense for "even the staunchest to fear". But "comprometer" also means to commit oneself/ to expose oneself (to a cause) So, they might have been staunch, but did not necessarily want to be seen to be so.

The political climate was uncertain, and as a result, even the staunchest defenders of liberalism feared [OPTIONS: 1.over committing themselves/ 2.exposing themselves too much/ 3.getting overly involved/ getting too involved]. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll edit accordingly. Actually, English does have "compromising oneself" with a similar sense, but I think it would not be the clearest choice here, given that it is not a quotation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And another. O rei "…compreendia que a Igreja, com seu corpo de tradições e sua disciplina moral, só lhe podia ser útil para o bom governo a seu modo, paternal e exclusivo, de populações cujo domínio herdara com o cetro. Por isso foi repetidamente hóspede de frades e mecenas de compositores sacros, sem que nessas manifestações epicuristas ou artísticas se comprometesse seu livre pensar ou se desnaturasse sua tolerância cética. … Aprazia-lhe o refeitório mais do que o capítulo do mosteiro, porque neste se tratava de observância e naquele se cogitava de gastronomia, e para observância lhe bastava a da pragmática. Na Capela Real mais gozava com os sentidos do que rezava com o espírito: os andantes substituíam as meditações." My rendering: "The king "…understood that the Church, with its body of traditions and its moral discipline, could only be useful for a good government in his manner, paternal and exclusive, of populations whose dominion was inherited with the scepter. Because of this, he was repeatedly host to monks and patron to composers of sacred music, but none of these Epicurean or artistic demonstrations compromised his free thought or denatured his skeptical tolerance. … He made more use of the refectory of the monastery than of its chapel, because the one was observance and the other was no question of gastronomy, and for observance he was pragmatic enough. In the Royal Chapel he more took pleasure with the senses than he prayed with the spirit: andantes took the place of meditations." In this case I am sure I have the general sense correct, some of the rhetoric throws me a little, especially Aprazia-lhe o refeitório mais do que o capítulo do mosteiro, porque neste se tratava de observância e naquele se cogitava de gastronomia, e para observância lhe bastava a da pragmática.. - Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion: "The king "…understood that he only stood to gain (1) from the Church, with its body of traditions and its moral discipline, for the good governance, in his own paternal and exclusive way, of people over whom he inherited the rule with the sceptre. Because of this, he was repeatedly the guest of monks and patrons of composers of sacred music, without at any of these Epicurean or artistic presentations having his free thought compromised or his sceptical tolerance denatured. … He derived more pleasure from the dining hall of the monastery than from its chapel, because in the latter it was about observance and in the other one thought of gastronomy, and in terms of observance, the pragmatic one was enough for him. In the Royal Chapel he took more pleasure with the senses than he prayed with the spirit: andantes took the place of meditations."

(1) in the same sense as “a good walk can only be good for you”; i.e. it won’t harm/ do any harm.; you have nothing to lose; only gain. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• (1) "he only stood to gain" is a bit non-literal, given that this is a quotation. (2) So hóspede in Portuguese is "guest," not "host? My bad. (3) "the pragmatic one was enough for him" is good. - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another phrase I'm not sure I understood: não oferece conhecimento histórico novo ao espectador, nem que se considere que a mesma concebe a História como um Romance… I've rendered this as "[I]t does not offer new historical knowledge to the viewer, but treats history as a romance," but I suspect I'm not quite on the mark there. If someone can do better, please do. - Jmabel | Talk 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nem que se" = even if one were to Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the little colloquial phrases like that which always are the hardest for me in Portuguese. - Jmabel | Talk 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another. For the first time in a while I had some time this evening to work on this. "o príncipe regente tem sido várias vezes acusado de apatia; a mim, pareceu-me ele possuir maior sensibilidade e energia de caráter do que em geral tanto amigos como adversários costumam atribuir-lhe. Achava-se colocado dentro de circunstâncias novas e próprias para pô-lo à prova, curvando-se ante elas com paciência; se incitado, agia com vigor e presteza." I translated this as "The prince regent has been various times accused of apathy; to me, he seemed to have greater sensitivity and strength of character than was generally attributed to him by both friends and opponents. He was placed in new circumstances by which he was tested, bowing before them with patience; if incited, he acted with vigor and promptness". I think that is largely correct, but I was thrown by the latter part of "...Achava-se colocado dentro de circunstâncias novas e próprias para pô-lo à prova..." I doubt it changes the overall sense, but I seem to be missing some subtlety. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is awful

As I feared, this article has been left to dust and it's still awful. What a pity. --Lecen (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)