Talk:Peter III of Portugal

According to this website: http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Brazil/brazil2.htm , Maria I and Pedro III had a stilborn son, Dom João de Bragança, on 20th October 1762. Should he also be listed? dawn22 19:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

No consensus to move. First, note that per WP:CONSENSUS, closures of discussions are not made based on the number of votes; rather, admins are required to measure the arguments presented, particularly with reference to relevant guidelines and policies. Obviously, there is a significant numerical majority in favor of moving this page. However, not a single person raised an argument that is compliant with WP:SOVEREIGN, or, alternatively, made a substantive argument as to why specifically the guideline does not apply here, particularly with reference to other pages of similar types (as, in fact, those opposing the move did). It is not sufficient to just come in and say "I agree per persons X and Y"--such comments hold little weight when determining a consensus, particular when neither X nor Y included a rationale compliant with our rules. If in a few weeks someone wants to re-open this discussion with actual arguments for moving it that show why the relevant guideline does not apply or why the counts provided are somehow not accurate (i.e., to substantiate the claims made that "Pedro" is the more common name, which no one showed any evidence for), feel free to do so. Alternatively, you may want to consider go to the guideline's talk page and seeing if there is a consensus to change the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Peter III of Portugal → Pedro III of Portugal
• Peter II of Portugal → Pedro II of Portugal
• Peter I of Portugal → Pedro I of Portugal

– Results in Google books for "Pedro III" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 647 results; for "Peter III": 478 results

• Results in Google books for "Pedro II" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 7,710 results; for "Peter II": 465 results

• Results in Google books for "Pedro I" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 8,900 results; for "Peter I": 1,340 results

Thank you. Lecen (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per results above. FactStraight (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Having re-considered my !vote based on revised data submitted by Walrasiad, below, I continue to support this move per the arguments, also below, of Necrothesp and P.T. Aufrette. FactStraight (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Above Googlebooks results show "ghosthits" (non-existent hits) and are misleading. The "de-ghosted" results are given below. I've restrited the range 1980-2012, doing both "Peter" and "Pedro" alone, and by the longer phrasing "Peter of Portugal" and "Pedro of Portugal" (The former will likelier hit in specialist works, the latter likelier in generalist works).

• Peter I 290, Pedro I 263, Peter I of Portugal 26, Pedro I of Portugal 23,
• Peter II 504, Pedro II 559, Peter II of Portugal 40, Pedro II of Portugal 24
• Peter III 262, Pedro III 199, Peter III of Portugal 23, Pedro III of Portugal 6

As can be seen it "Pedro" does not dominate "Peter. Moreover, looking at standard generalist works, e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica lists them as Peter I (King of Portugal), Peter II (King of Portugal) and Peter III (King of Portugal). Finally keep in mind the policy here is given at WP:SOVEREIGN, which states:

• "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."

So by Wikipedia policy, the name should remain in anglicized form, "Peter".

To add, the current standard in Wikipedia for "Peter" sovereigns of other nationalities is to name them "Peter", including all the Spanish "Pedros", (e.g. Peter of Castile, Peter I of Aragon, Peter II of Aragon, etc.), to say nothing of the myriad of other Peters of other nationalities. I see no reason for Portuguese exceptionalism.

Finally, in all other Wikipedias, all the Portuguese "Peters" are translated into their respective language rather than retained as "Pedro", e.g. French: fr: Pierre I de Portugal, German: de:Peter I (Portugal), Italian: it:Pietro I del Portogallo, Dutch: nl:Peter I van Portugal, etc. Again, I see no reason to make an exception here and break with common usage. Walrasiad (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Different languages have different conventions. For instance, French uses the francisized name fr:Léonard de Vinci while English retains the Italian spelling Leonardo da Vinci. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci is not a monarch or royal. The convention for royals before the 19th C. is to translate, unless common usage directs otherwise. So we have "Ivan the Terrible" (exception by common usage) but "Peter the Great" (not Pyotr). And common usage in English generalist works for the Peters I, II & III of Portugal, Castile, Aragon, etc. is "Peter", not Pedro. Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Pedro" is perfectly acceptable in English, and is widely cited. It also has the unique advantage of being their name. Archaic Anglicised forms are merely the Relic of Empires. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Not only is Pedro incredibly common in English, it is the commonly used name for the King. On a similar discussion on John VI, many argued that the move to João VI would be illogical because Anglophones would not be able to pronounce it (though there are hundreds of articles on English wiki that have accentations that are impossible to read), but on this Pedro is used in English all the time. This is a perfectly acceptable move. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Cristiano Tomás and Br'er Rabbit on this issue. Paulista01 (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support As was mentioned before, Pedro is a widely cited name in English, and from either result is nearly as common or more common that "Peter." Wikipedia as it stands now is in the strange situation of having Portuguese Pedros named "Peter" and Brazilian Pedros named "Pedro," despite being from the same ruling line. Not to mention the host of other monarchs (Ludwig II of Bavaria, say) whose names are inconsistently rendered in respect to English or their national languages. Absolutely support this move. Chiwara (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is about Portugal, not Brazil. And the proposed changes are being made primarily backwards, into the Medieval era where anglicization is and remains the norm, not forwards into the 19th C., where nationalists managed to foist a hodge-podge of nativist spellings. So the existence of "Ludwig II of Bavaria" in the 19th C. does not implicate that all prior Ludwigs (Bavarian, German and otherwise) are "Louis". The stark incongruity would be with their contemporaries - the myriad of Peters of Castile, Aragon, et al., which are commonly known and named as such in standard generalist works. If you wish WP:SOVEREIGN criteria to be changed, then perhaps a discussion can be opened up there and a new policy determined. Walrasiad (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • But one of the Pedros was emperor/king of both Brazil and Portugal. He is Pedro I of Brazil (never Peter), so you can't very well call him "Peter IV of Portugal". If he's Pedro IV of Portugal, then the first three should be Pedro I, Pedro II, Pedro III. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is not "never Peter". It is frequently Peter, but happens to fall in a period of transition in royal naming conventions in Europe so not that anomalous to find both and cases can be made for either. That said, Brazil is a different country without a Medieval past, so that has minimal disruptive backward implications. But imposing a 19th C. Brazilian nativist preference on earlier Portuguese, Castilian & Aragonese monarchs would be like imposing the commonly untranslated 19th C. Ludwig II of Bavaria on all prior German, Bavarian and Saxon monarchs named "Ludwig" but translated commonly to "Louis". As per WP policy, common usage should dictate and, where unclear, anglicize. If you feel the policy should be changed, then we can take up the discussion there. Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • To clarify: we never say "Emperor Peter I of Brazil", it is always Pedro in this context. —P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You forgot to mention Pedro V of Portugal, the grandson of Pedro IV (or Pedro I of Brazil). --Lecen (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Portuguese and Spanish kings are today usually referred to as "Pedro". They should actually all be moved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • They are? Do you have evidence for that? Because the figures above don't seem to support that contention. Certainly not generalist works (e.g. Britannica). If you are arguing for exceptionalism, I'd like a little more elaboration, particularly since any such changes would be highly disruptive to articles on Portuguese and Spanish history. If you are suggesting (as Chiwara seems to be above) that the criteria of WP:SOVEREIGN should be changed, shouldn't a discussion on that be opened up there rather than here? Walrasiad (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We already have Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, and common usage seems to be similar for Portugal. Indeed, it would be incongruous to say Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person. The first name "Pedro" is by now quite familiar to English speakers in general contexts, which probably drives the modern usage of "Pedro" rather than "Peter" for the sovereigns. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both names are correct. Neither is unusual. In this case, I think we have a right to decide what our editorial convention will be, and I am not convinced it is to just count, with difficulty, Google hits. Why should Portuguese medieval monarchs be treated differently from their French or Castilian counterparts? Srnec (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I should add that Walrasiad has ably put forward the basis in policy for opposing this move. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Cristiano Tomás and P.T. Aufrette. Joao Xavier (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Walrasiad and Srnec. Aerospace1 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Aerospace1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quite curious coming from an account whose sole purpose is to vote on move requests. See Aerospace1's contribution history. --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It's ironic the silence of the opposition compared to the past discussions on John VI of Portugal. At this time, I believe all the articles of the Portuguese monarchs can be moved without much contest.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be fairly solid support for these moves, but this local consensus is plainly against WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Regardless of how this is closed, we need to review the wording at the guideline.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. "Pedro" is fine and unlikely to be misinterpreted, but as noted the standard for European monarchs up until 1900 or so is to translate to the native language (note that French Wikipedia has Pierre III, Catalan Pere III, etc.). It's less of a concern with Portuguese monarchs than, say, Spanish ones (who frequently also ruled domains in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. and thus calling them "Carlos" as if Spain was their only domain is misleading), but there's some value to consistency. SnowFire (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how long it will take until someone closes this move request. It was opened almost a month ago. --Lecen (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In several places, his name appears to be Pedro, and not Peter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Cristiano Tomás and Lecen on this issue.Érico Wouters ^msg 03:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with what has been requested and explained above by Lecen. Carlos Luis M C da Cruz (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)