Talk:John VI of Portugal

Name

It was decided some time ago that most Portuguese monarchs are better known by their names in Portuguese than by the anglicisations. Why have you moved it? john k 20:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Should mention of Dom Joao VI, a play about his life, be listed on this page? http://www.ensaioaberto.com/djoao/index.htm Just an idea Dawn22 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we start a revert war...

Why I'm changing this? The table is messy and has too much information. This article is about John VI of Portugal, not about his children (apart for the imprescindible bits). We don't need his children's full dates or bios here. That's better suited for their individual pages, specially when all of them have individual pages. It's done that way with lots of other royalty articles and I do think it's best. --Andromeda 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I don't think the table is messy, and his children's bios are not in the table. If you observe better some of the British monarchs' articles you'll find out that they all have a table with the monarch's issue. I'll revert again, sorry. Thanks anyway for your efforts. Gameiro 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The children full dates are in the table, while years suffice. If you look at lots of others royalty articles, you'll find children lists with years only when the children have their own pages. Also, too much information makes it messy. I really think it's a lot easier to read and to interpret as a list with years only. I'm reverting again, I'm sorry. --Andromeda 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory Father/Son Relationship?

In the article for Dom Pedro, or Dom Peter, it says that Dom John "advised Pedro to declare Brazil independent and take the throne for himself rather than allow a usurper to take over the country. This way there would still be a Portuguese king in power in Brazil" which implies that the father wanted the son to break away. However, in Dom John's article is says that John refused to recognize Brazilian independence.

Isn't that a bit misleading?

-Actually, it sounds contradicting because it was a clever political move by John VI. Let me explain: Before Pedro declared independance, Brazil was already a United Kingdom to Portugal, and the Algarves, under John VI. This was very good for Brazils economy and political prominence, because not only did it cease to be a colony and become a co-kingdom with Portugal, Rio de Janeiro was now the Capital of the Portuguese Empire. Brazil was the centre of the Portuguese world. So you can imagine how god that was for Brazilians, especially rich Brazilians. When Napoleon was defeated, Portugal was in shambles... they needed to rebuild the economy, so they decided that they had to revert Brazil back to the state of colony in order to explore its riches. During John VI's absense from Portugal, a revolution took place that would make Portugal a constitutional monarchy, instead of an absolutist one. Therefore remaining King of Brazil, and King IN Brazil, would be far better than returning to Portugal, and having to obey a constitution. But if he did not return, John would be deposed under the new laws. So, in other words, John wanted to maintain the status quo, and keep all 3 Kingdoms United.

So, in order to save his throne in Portugal, he decided to return, but he left his son, Pedro, to rule as Prince of Brazil. But he also new that Brazilians were becoming more and more inclined to the idea of independance that it was inevitable by that point. So the only way out of the situation would be for Pedro, to declare independance... because the Brazilian throne, and the Portuguese throne would be united by the same Royal Family, and because of this, he predicted they would eventually re-unite.

Now remeber, Portugal was now a constitutional monarchy, ruled more by the courts, than by the king, and courts did NOT want Brazilian independance in any way, shape, or form.

And of course, what John instructed Pedro to do was never his oficial position. He had to make it seem as though the proclamation of independance was all Pedro's idea in order to save face with the courts.

Anyway, as history shows, Johns briliant plan failed because after his death, Pedro was barred from asuming the Portuguese throne, so he abdicated the Brazilian throne in favour of his 5-year old son, and after he secured Portugal his daughter became Queen, which meant Brazil and POortugal would follow different paths.

~User:Wikidan7

Removed

I removed the reference to John VI as a monarch of Brazil, since the Brazilian monarchy started officially with independence (1822). Prior to that, all rulers were Portuguese monarchs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abueno97 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglicized name

Echoing the earlier and unanswered question near the top of this page, this article should be put back under the title of either "João VI of Portugal" or "Joao VI of Portugal", and not "John VI". According to WP:MOS, if RS, English-language sources exist which prefer the original, non-anglicized spelling, it may be used. A quick search shows that there are many English-language references which use either João VI or Joao VI. Moreover, contemporaries (at least Americans during that era) used "Joao" when referring to this monarch. Perhaps there was some compelling reason to anglicize the name, and if so, please explain why it must be "John" (as an English-speaker, I wouldn't search under that for a Portuguese king). • Astynax ^talk 08:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Even among English language sources published after 1990, John VI of Portugal[1] is much more common than Joao VI of Portugal.[2] Modern English language literature refers to him as John. Therefore, per common name policy, this is the correct name. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I have found (compare John VI to João VI). Perhaps there is difference based upon the regional English variation. There was a ridiculous penchant at the beginning of the 20th century for anglicizing foreign names (you can find Alphonso anglicized to "Alphonse", Manuel anglicized to "Emmanuel", Louis anglicized to "Lewis", Wilhelm anglicized as "William", etc. if you want to go through old books). That doesn't mean this confusing situation need be perpetuated on Wikipedia when there is a substantial body of references which do not anglicize. • Astynax ^talk 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What you have found is hundreds of books in Portuguese. Of course, English language literature is more authoritative on how an English language encyclopaedia refers to someone. It's not our job to decide whether to anglicise or not. If historians anglicise the name of a person, so should we. If they don't, we shouldn't either. Anglicisation wasn't invented in the 20th century and it did not cease to be used in the 20th century. As you can see, modern (post-1990) English language literature refers to him as John. Anyway, Wilhelm is still usually anglicised, while Louis is an Anglicised version of Ludovicus. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the link includes many books in English, both recent and older. Perhaps "John", "Peter", etc. are more used in Britain, but that usage is very far from universal in English-language sources. By simply adding the English word "king" to the search to eliminate most, if not all, Portuguese-language sources, Google yields over 6,500 book results in which Joao is used. • Astynax ^talk 10:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The link includes many books in Portuguese in addition to books in English. While Google yields 6,500 book results for "Joao VI" king, it yields 41,000 book results for "John VI" king and 12,700 book results for "John VI" king Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think book results won't help much. We have to see case by case. British historian Roderick J. Barman wrote three books: "Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852", "Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891" and "Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century", published in 1988, 1999 and 2002, respectively. All of them adress Dom João VI as "João VI". See here, here and here. American historian Neill Macaulay wrote the book "Dom Pedro: the struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834" published in 1986. Dom João VI is called "Dom João VI". See here. The British historian John Armitage wrote "The history of Brazil: from the period of the arrival of the Braganza Family in 1831..." which was published in 1836 (two years after Pedro I's death). Dom João VI is called "Don João VI". See here. Historian Robert M. Levine wrote "The history of Brazil" published in 1999. Dom João VI is called "Dom João VI". See here. The book "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves" written by James McMurtry Longo and published in 2008 treats Dom João VI as "João VI". See here. The book "The Brazil reader: history, culture, politics" written by Robert M. Levine and John J. Crocitti and published in 1999 calls Dom João VI "D. João VI". See here. The historian Colin M. MacLachlan wrote "A history of modern Brazil: the past against the future", published in 2003, calls Dom João VI "João VI". See here. Historian Leslie Bethell wrote "Brazil: empire and republic, 1822-1930", published in 1989, calls Dom João VI "João VI". See here. Marshall C. Eakin wrote "Brazil: The Once and Future Country", published in 1998, calls Dom João VI "João VI". See here. As you can see, there is no reason to keep the article as "John VI". --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to John VI as "John VI"; there is no doubt that other versions do. Of the sources you mention, the 19th century one refers to John VI as "John VI" as well, which you failed to note. Peter J. Bakewell refers to John VI as "John VI" in A history of Latin America: c. 1450 to the present (published in 1989). The Cambridge modern history (1969, University of Cambridge) refers to John VI as "John VI". Jonathan Hart refers to John VI as "John VI" in Empires and colonies (2008). So does A concise history of Portugal (2003) by David Birmingham. The royal house of Portugal (published in 1970) and Carlota Joaquina, queen of Portugal (published in 1970) refer to John as "John VI". The epic of Latin America is one of many books that refer to John as "John VI".

There is also the issue of consistency; why have João VI of Portugal with John V of Portugal, John IV of Portugal, John III of Portugal, John II of Portugal and John I of Portugal? Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I suggest requesting a move. That way you'll get more support and more opposition, so consensus will be clearer. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The pattern here seems to be the specialist works tend towards João, while more general works use John. My comments seven years ago notwithstanding, I don't have a very strong opinion on this one. Both forms are commonly used in English, and which one we use is ultimately a matter of taste. john k (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move January 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for the proposed move. Ruslik_Zero 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

---

John VI of Portugal → João VI of Portugal — There are several reasons to why the name of this article should be changed from "John" to "João": -Lecen (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1) First reason: Searching for "John VI" at Google books you will find 168,000 results (here: [3]), but they are misleading, since the vast majority refer to the Bible ("John, VI") or to the Byzantine Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos. Now, if you try to look after "John VI of Portugal", you'll find 1,960 results (Here: [4]). The problem is that the vast majority of these results are 19th century books, some early 20th century books and very, very few late 20th century books. And if you look carefully at the 20th century books, you'll notice that they are not specialist works on either Portugal's or Brazil's history.

2) Second reason: The vast majority of the most recent books (that is, late 1980s to present-day) written in English focused on either Portuguese or Brazilian history use the name "João VI". Here are the examples:

1. Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852, by Roderick J. Barman (1988). [5]
2. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891, by Roderick J. Barman (1999). [6]
3. Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century, by Roderick J. Barman (2002). [7]
4. Dom Pedro: the struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834. by Neill Macaulay (1986). [8]
5. The history of Brazil, by Robert M. Levine (1999). [9]
6. Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves, by James McMurtry Longo (2008). [10]
7. The Brazil reader: history, culture, politics, by Robert M. Levine and John J. Crocitti (1999). [11]
8. A history of modern Brazil: the past against the future, by Colin M. MacLachlan (2003). [12]
9. Brazil: empire and republic, 1822-1930, by Leslie Bethell (1989). [13]
10. Brazil: The Once and Future Country, by Marshall C. Eakin (1998). [14]
11. Brazil, by Errol Lincoln Uys (2000). [15]
12. Brazil, by Jane Ladle (1999). [16]
13. A reference guide to Latin American history, by James D. Henderson (2000). [17]
14. Tropical Versailles: empire, monarchy, and the Portuguese royal court in Rio de Janeiro, 1808-1821, by Kirsten Schultz (2001). [18]
15. The Portuguese empire, 1415-1808: a world on the move, by A. J. R. Russell-Wood (1998). [19]
16. The history of Portugal, by James Maxwell Anderson (2000). [20]
17. The Independence of Latin America, by Leslie Bethell (1987). [21]
18. Empires and colonies, by Jonathan Hart (2008). [22]
19. Americanos: Latin America's struggle for independence, by John Charles Chasteen (2008). [23]
20. Exotic nations: literature and cultural identity in the United States and Brazil, 1830-1930, by Renata Ruth Mautner Wasserman (1994). [24]
21. Brazil, by Harry Greenbaum (2003). [25]
22. Etc, etc, etc...

3) Third reason: Consistency. We have an article about Pedro I of Brazil (also Pedro IV of Portugal) and Pedro II of Brazil. It makes no sense to have "John VI", father of "Pedro IV".

4) Fourth reason: Again: consistency. All articles about the Portuguese monarchs are in is original form in Portuguese: Afonso Henriques to Afonso VI of Portugal, as well as Manuel I of Portugal and Manuel II of Portugal, and also Maria I of Portugal and Maria II of Portugal. They are not in English, or else, the names should be "Alphonse", "Emmanuel" and "Marie". Only the article about Kings named "João" are in English. And, as anyone can see at the top of this talk page, editor John K complained that someone changed from "João VI" to "John VI" with a reason and when there was already a consensus in keeping its Portuguese names.

As you all can see, specialist works use "João", not "John". Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support As per reasons stated above. --Lecen (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support – The historians provided above could be described as the “who is who” of modern Brazilian and Portuguese history. Most are English speaking authors. Paulista01 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Most? All of them are English speaking authors... --Lecen (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I taught Renata was not, good to know, thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Neutral - There appears to be a strong usage for both. General histories appear to employ John VI more extensively (My search produced about 20,000 google book hits for sources produced after 1990[26]) than the more academically centric books cited above. So I guess it largely comes down to approach, academic/specialist vs general. Not that this is a significant factor but the number of incoming links into the article via João VI redirects is extremely low.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, forgive me, but what is an "weak oppose"? Also, looking at the link you provided with search results, there aren't 20,000 google book hits for sources that uses "John VI of Portugal". Many are results like these:

"CASTILE NAVARRE Henry II (1369-1379) John I (1379-1390) Henry III (1390-1406) Charles III (1387-1425) Ferdinand ... Table 1 (continued) GRANADA ARAGON PORTUGAL Muhammad VI (1360-1362) Muhammad V (1362-1391) YusufII John I (1391- 1392)"[27]

"Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have both visited here. A small chapel marks the spot where the apparition occurred and, at almost any hour, you will witness the faithful on their knees, traversing the broad esplanade which fronts it. ..."[28]

"A Commander of Portugal ; Vice-Chancellor : nominated Bailli of Aquila by papal brief, dated Rome, 22 nd March, 1755. 35. ... Commander of Erding, of the Anglo- Bavarian Language ; named Bailli of Aquila by brief of Pope Pius VI." [29]

"The interest was centred in Spain and Portugal. There it was intense and awakened fierce heart-burnings. Though John II. had not given his consent to the proposal for murdering Columbus, he appears to have seriously entertained the ..." [30]

"Percussion includes drum set, xylophone, and tympani. Stevens, John. Adagio. Editions BIM. Four euphoniums and four tubas. 1991. 9:00. IV. Part I: g–b♭'; Part II: g–a'; Part III: d–d'; Part IV: c–d'; PartV: E–c'; Part VI: C–c'; ..." [31]

"Meanwhile, John had to fight the 'war of restoration' against Spain. Within a few days of his accession he ... when John died in 1656, his young successor, Alfonso VI, continued the war. The greatest danger to Portugal came after the ..." [32]

All of the examples above came from one page only of the link you provided. Which means that out of 10 results given, 6 have no relation to João VI of Portugal. This is precisely what I meant in my request to move: search results at Google books are misleading. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There will certainly be false hits, no disagreement there. I conducted a revised search, under the terms of "John VI" of Portugal -wikipedia -"Icon Group International" -"Books llc" which produced 1,850 hits [33]. However a comparable search employing "João VI" of Portugal -wikipedia -"Icon Group International" -"Books llc" produced 11,000 hits[34]. GoodDay's comments regarding consistency , my own regarding regarding incoming links and Uxbona's regarding the tilde are still concerns I have (There appear to be more than enough sources that abandon the tilde), but not enough to oppose. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, but all the other articles on Portuguese monarchs have their names in the original form. Maria II of Portugal (Not Marie II), Manuel II of Portugal (not Emmanuel II) and Afonso VI of Portugal (not Alphonse). As you can see at the top of this talk page, JohnK complained that someone changed the name of this articles as it was before ("João") to the present form without a reason, even though there was a previous consensus on keeping it as "João". If you're taling about consensus, then it should be reverted to João, since all ther other articles have their names in Portuguese. But that's not the most important: historians who wrote books on João's reign use his name in Portuguese, not Anglicized. We can not have "John VI" of Portugal, son and successor of Maria I of Portugal and father of Pedro I of Brazil (Pedro IV of Portugal). Why only his name is in English? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The move to the article's present location took place on 2004, it's been stable in the present location for six and a half years. I don't think there is a legitimate argument to be made that the current title went against a consensus. Arguing that it should be moved based on their not having been an open discussion back in 2004 is preposterous. This being said, I will retract my suggestion of considering abandoning the tilde. Although some general sources seems to sometimes abandon the tilde, it's consistently employed in wikipedia article titles for individuals named João. Of the 500 or so articles titles I looked at, only Joao Fernando Salazar e Bragança fails to employ the tilde.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, if you look carefully, you'll notice that the article isn't stable for 6 and a half years, but instead, it's abandoned. Neglected. I was planning to work on this article with the goal of nominating it to Featured category. I did the same with Pedro Álvares Cabral, the Discoverer of Brazil, whose article looked like this before I began improving in it. But I see no reason to call it "John", when all books I have call him "João". Also, it is odd to see that his mother and antecessor in the Portuguese throne has her name as Maria I of Portugal (not Marie II) and his son and sucessor is called Pedro I of Brazil (not Peter I). The reasons to why I want this article renamed are simply two: because that's how he is called in English-written books that focus on Portuguese and Brazilian history; and for consistency, since both the name of his antecessor and successor is in its original form, as used by historians. Wilhelm II, German Emperor isn't called "William II", but Wilhelm because that's how historians call him. Nonetheless, I respect your vote, although I believe (if you allow me to be sincere) it's a mistake. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Many historians call him "William," actually, although Wilhelm is probably more common. john k (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the archives of Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor, you will see that that is an extremely contentious example; it is not precedent; there is no consensus on it, despite a strong case for English adoption of the German name; the case here is weaker. The less said about the folly of John Kantakouzenos instead of the English John Cantacuzene the better - although even that error does not replace English John with Ioannes, as would be the analogy here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

True that that is contentious. You are making much stronger claims about English usage than the evidence actually warrants. Actually looking at sources, you'll find that many English language use João rather than John. Even the stupid world history textbook I'm teaching from this seemster (The Earth and Its Peoples, 5th ed.) uses "João III" - and 19th century monarchs are generally far more likely to be left unanglicized than 16th century ones. The idea that we should have a general preference for the anglicized form is simply wrong - anglicized forms are used less and less in English, and this particular case is very clearly one where both forms are in sufficient usage that it is very, very difficult to determine which is more frequently used. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Portugese. Also, we've got John I of Portugal through John V of Portugal. Let's be consistant, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, we are not talking about ENglish wikipedia or Portuguese wikipedia, but the name used by historians who work on books about Portuguese and Brazilian history. Yes, there is John I of Portugal, but there is also Manuel I of Portugal, Afonso V of Portugal and Afonso VI of Portugal, etc... not "Emmanuel I of Portugal" and "Alphonse VI of Portugal". Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If yas wanna move this article, yas have to move all 6 John of Portugal articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a small detail, after all, we would have to move all 6 "Afonso of Portugal" as well as 2 "Manuel of Portugal". I've been working now for 2 years on articles related to Portugal and Brazil history (Pedro Álvares Cabral, Pedro II of Brazil, etc...) and I know what I'm talking about. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing this article & not the other 5, will disrupt consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, it wouldn't make any sense at all in requesting five moves at the same time. If, for example, this discussion ends in favor of the move, the other 5 would follow it as a consequence. As you can see at the very beginning of this talk page, editor John K complained about someone having moved the name of this article (which was at first "João VI") without a reason. Now the articles about Portuguese monarchs are a mess. Most (Like Manuel II of Portugal [English: Emmanuel], Maria II of Portugal [English: Marie II] and Afonso VI of Portugal [Alphonse VI]) are in Portuguese and the ones about all Portuguese "Joãos" (like this one) are in English. There are 2 Marias, 6 Afonsos and 2 Manueis. There are 6 "Johns". And as I told you, I've been working on this articles for over 2 years and I know that historians prefer to use the name in its original form. --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I still oppose the move. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Emmanuel" went out of fashion because, at this point, it's not actually a better known name in English than "Manuel" - it's an archaic anglicization, like "Lewis" for the kings of France. "Alphonse," similarly, is so rare in English that it is no longer used as an anglicization for monarchs of that name. I'm not sure about your claim that "Marie" is the english version of "Maria". Surely that is "Mary"? But, at any rate, "Maria" is actually a perfectly legitimate English name, and is rarely anglicized for anybody. For monarchs whose names have clear options between a decidedly English name and a decidedly Portuguese one, it's a lot less clearer which we should use. I definitely see "Joseph" far more than "José", but much more even splits for "Edward" vs. "Duarte." There's no real rhyme or reason to any of it. The best thing is probably just to figure out which is more common in any given case, rather than trying to work out general rules. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry Lecen, but I agree: this is the English language Wikipedia, it is consistent (remember "Magellan", a well established translation for Magalhães) there's no strong need to it. Google books search shows about 129,000 results (0.26 seconds) for John VI of Portugal and 112,000 for João VI of Portugal, its a small gap, but John wins. Regards --Uxbona (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Uxbona, did you read the reasons I stated above for the move? Google books results are misleading. There aren't 129,000 books about John VI nor 112,000 about João VI. Historians who wrote books about Portuguese/Brazilian history prefer the names in its original form. Also, all the other articles about Portuguese kings are in Portuguese: Maria II of Portugal, Afonso VI of Portugal and Manuel I of Portugal. Just take a look at the top of this talk page: the name was changed from portuguese to English without a reason, when there was already a consensus about it. And your example of Magellan can not be used. That's how is known in English. Pedro Álvares Cabral is not Peter Cabral. --Lecen (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, João is always of difficult use in English because of the tilde. I will go with encyclopedic references: Britannica as John IV of Portugal. Sorry --Uxbona (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My God, that makes no sense at all... All other Portuguese monarchs' articles with their names in Portuguese and this one in English. It doesn't matter if João VI is the name used by historians who write books about Braziliand and Portuguese history. What it matters in the end is... "this is English Wikipedia". Well, if it is, it should be using the name according to historians, not to what editors prefer. --Lecen (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lecen, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I have re-read your points and was ready to change my mind - after all, I had never thought thoroughly about this before. Remembering to have used a difficult tild name for "António Galvão" article, was ready to change it to Galvano: once more went to Google Books search. There, although Antonio Galvano is an ancient English translation, António Galvão got much more results. So I let it as is. About "our" kings John, Google books goes for John - and really it is good if it gets results for books of all ages, XVI to XXI century, not only recent ones.

Encyclopedias are places were people from all backgrounds search info, mainly a first introduction about a given subject. It is not a reference guide for scholars and academics: those have wider sources, so one should stick with the broadest view, surely linked to specialized sources. One can Change to João, but would have o do it for all Joões, and then in the body of the articles should it remain John? Best regards--Uxbona (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm II, German Emperor. This is a fine example. If our goal was to keep it simple, the article should be renamed to "William II". They kept it like this because that's how historians call him. As I told Labattblueboy, João VI's mother and antecessor Maria I of Portugal (not Marie II) has her name in its original form. João VI's son and successor is called Pedro I of Brazil, not Peter I. You saw my work back there at Pedro Álvares Cabral and you know that I'm not an editor who appears out of nowhere saying "I think that's better...". I wouldn't dare to point a direction if I wasn't 100% sure that it's the correct one. For the last 3 decades historians have used João, not John and that's important. All sources I was planning to use in this article call him "João", why should he be called John in here? To keep it simple? To whom? Because reading John VI, son of Maria I and father of Pedro I isn't more simple, but confuse. We are not helping anyone, only making things worse. This article, as well as the others on Portuguese monarchs are abandoned for years. Years. Keeping them in this state only will only further damage the articles related to Portuguese and Brazilian history. And this is something I want to change. However, if this is your vote, I'll respect it. I don't agree, for obvious reasons, but I won't bother you anymore. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I also wish to point out the naming consistency of the following articles: John I of Portugal, John II of Portugal, John III of Portugal, John IV of Portugal and John V of Portugal. We either change them all (towards João ? of Portugal) or we change none of them. We certainly shouldn't change only one of them. Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Flamarande, did you read the reasons stated for the change, including that English-speaking historians prefer "João" not "John"? --Lecen (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But of course we do this all the time. We have William I, German Emperor and then Wilhelm II, German Emperor, on the grounds that the grandfather is more frequently known by the anglicized name, and the grandson by the unanglicized one. We talk about Louis Philippe I, even though the various other kings named "Philippe" are at Philip VI of France and so forth. Charles XV of Sweden is followed by Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. And so it goes. Most common usage is always decided on a case by case basis. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your list of selected authors. It's also my duty to point out that you choose the authors of said list. I have little doubt that someone could provide a similar list of authors of recent books who use 'John'. I also took a look at the article from the Encyclopedia Britannica [35]. It uses the name 'John'. It also uses translated name for the other kings Johns/João of Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought it would be unreasonable to open several moves at the same time. I thought that one move and one discussion would be far easier and simpler. Once one was settled, the others would automatically follow it. As you can see in the examples given above or below, the Portuguese kings do not have their names anglicized:

1. The Portuguese empire, 1415-1808: a world on the move, by A. J. R. Russell-Wood (1998). [36]
2. The history of Portugal, by James Maxwell Anderson (2000). [37]

Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You simply can't propose the move of a single article and theoretically win it and afterwards move all other similar articles (using the previous move as a precedent). You need to make a multiple move-request. The move of all concerned articles will then be debated in a single place/talkpage. Flamarande (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, please, give me a list of 21 books about Brazilian and Portuguese history that call him "John" from the late 1980s to the present-day. --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't have to spend a considerable portion my little free time in a search for a list of 21 books about Brazilian and Portuguese history that call him "John" from the late 1980s to the present-day. I already voted according to the best of my knowledge and according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is quite a formidable source on its own. You provided a selected list of books, I provided a very respected encyclopaedia. Flamarande (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words: you can not prove that historians prefer to use John instead of João and prefer to stick to a single source?

Oh, I believe that I can and I have presented my evidence below. Flamarande (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote the articles on Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil I used 34 books and 53 books, respectively, as sources. None one book only, but 34 and 53. It's very sad seeing editors sticking to one view regardless of the opinion of professional historians. In fact, it's frustrating. There is not a single desire to be reasonable and I have to deal with people (some quite rude, in fact, but thankfully, not all) who won't listen. That's sad and very frustrating. I'm trying to improve articles, not make them worse.

Could someone give me a list of 21 books published since the late 1980s that focus on Brazilian and Portuguese history that use "John" instead of "João"? Please? --Lecen (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). While there is an argument that historians specializing in Portugues history have in recent years started calling him (and his predecessors) by their Portuguese name, it is neither the common convention in general works, nor the commonly understood name in the English-speaking world. It would be confusing to many readers if João VI were referred to in articles, and they do not realise that the person being referred to is the one commonly known as John VI. The fact that his son is commonly known as Pedro I is irrelevant; what matters is the Anglophone convention: Pedro I is commonly known as Pedro I, João VI is commonly known as John VI. There may arrive a day when he is commonly known as João VI in the English-speaking world, but it is not here yet. Cripipper (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support

I am influenced in part by the current academic literature cited above, which does seem convincing to me. I've also done some basic Google pulls, designed to filter out non-Brazilian Joaos and Johns:

• brazil + "João VI" (exact phrase) produces 70,400 results in total; looking at the volume published over the last 30 years, the total results are 24,100.
• brazil + "John VI" (exact phrase) produces 10,500 results in total; looking at the volume published over the last 30 years, the total results are 1,680.

Because this does catch both Portuguese and English language versions, I double checked by doing the same pull in against English volumes only:

• brazil + "João VI": 13,200. Last 30 years only, 6,410.
• brazil + "John VI" 9,920. Last 30 years only, 1,650.

On this basis (and I agree its not scientific), I'd be inclined to go with João VI as the most commonly used English term, particularly with the modern literature base. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

He was King of Portugal...Cripipper (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

portugal + "João VI": 68,600

portugal + "John VI": 14,700

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Consistency between articles in the same category is one of our desiderata; it should have weight whatever the search results - and unfortunately Google searches are not scientific. I suspect Hchc2009 has been finding books in Portuguese; changing the search terms to King "John VI" and Portugal makes John VI more common; it increases the likelihood the text found is actually in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are some figures for a couple of different spellings of John. King "Joao" VI Portugal and

King "João" VI Portugal. I have not given it a thorough check to count the books written in English. John Hendo (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone give me 21 books about Brazilian or Portuguese history that has "John" instead of João? Looking at google books is useless. Unless, of course, someone will check all 1,000 results given to each name. Books about Brazilian and Portuguese history do not use "King John VI", father of "King Pedro IV". I've been working with all these article for years and I know what I'm taking about. --Lecen (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

More books with "João" instead of "John":

1) Global History, Volume Two: The Industrial Revolution to the Age of Globalization, by Jerry Weiner (2008). [38]

2) Frommer's Brazil, by Shawn Blore (2010) [39]

3) Brazil: politics in a patrimonial society, by Riordan Roett (1999). [40]

4) A reference guide to Latin American history, by James D. Henderson (2000). [41]

5) Frommer's South America, by Nicholas Gill (2010). [42]

6) Fear & memory in the Brazilian army and society, 1889-1954, by Shawn C. Smallman (2002) [43]

7) Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899, by Robert L. Scheina (2003). [44]

8) South American independence: gender, politics, text, by Catherine Davies (2006) [45]

9) The party of order: the conservatives, the state, and slavery in the Brazilian monarchy, 1831-1871, by Jeffrey D. Needell (2006). [46]

10) Brazil handbook, by Ben Box (2002). [47]

11) Brazil in Pictures, by Thomas Streissguth (2003). [48]

12) Blacks of the Rosary: Memory and History in Minas Gerais, Brazil, by Elizabeth W. Kidd (2007). [49]

13) A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present, by Teresa A. Meade (2007). [50]

14) The human tradition in modern Brazil, by Peter M. Beattie (2004). [51]

15) The realities of images: imperial Brazil and the great drought, by American Philosophical Society (2001). [52]

16) South America on a shoestring, by Danny Palmerlee (2007). [53]

17) Iberia and the Americas: culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia, Volume 1, by John Michael Francis (2006).[54]

18) A Companion to Latin American History, by Thomas H. Holloway (2011). [55]

19) Brazil, by Regis St. Louis (2005). [56]

20) Imperial skirmishes: war and gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, by Andrew Graham-Yooll (2002). [57]

Books about Brazilian and Portugal history use "João", not "John". It's simple. Stop looking at numbers. There aren't 1,000 books about John nor about João. Could someone show me a list of books about Brazil and Portugal where he is called "John"? --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Portuguese Kings according to Google books:

1. Afonso Henriques: 3,270 results [58]; Afonso I: 1,410 results [59]; Alphonse I: 71 results [60]
2. Sancho I: 3,300 results [61]; ??? [English??]
3. Afonso II: 604 results [62]; Alphonse II: 53 results [63]
4. Sancho II: 2,730 results [64]; ??? [English??]
5. Afonso III: 1,220 results [65]; Alphonse III: 81 results [66]
6. Dinis: 6,340 results [67]; Denis: 13,800 results [68]
7. Afonso IV: 843 results [69]; Alphonse IV: 65 results [70]
8. Pedro I: 8,370 results [71]; Peter I: 3,150 results [72]
9. Fernando I: 203 results [73]; Ferdinand I: 642 results [74]
10. Joao I: 823 results [75]; John I: 2,170 results [76]
11. Duarte: 1,060 results [77]; Edward: 1,550 results [78]
12. Afonso V: 3,090 results [79]; Alphonse V: 188 results [80]
13. Joao II: 851 results [81]; John II: 2,330 results [82]
14. Manuel I: 7,630 results [83]; Emmanuel I: 969 results [84]
15. Joao III: 5,870 results [85]; John III: 16,700 results [86]
16. Sebastiao: 928 results [87]; Sebastian: 6,600 results[88]
17. Henrique: 547 results [89]; Henry: 2,390 results [90]
18. Joao IV: 971 results [91]; John IV: 11,900 results [92]
19. Afonso VI: 985 results [93]; Alphonse: 229 results [94]
20. Pedro II: 741 results [95]; Peter II: 314 results [96]
21. Joao V: 535 results [97]; John V: 1,600 results results [98]
22. Jose I: 2,010 results [99]; Joseph I: 6,090 results [100]
23. Pedro III: 222 results [101]; Peter III: 165 results [102]
24. Maria I: 3,310 results results [103]; Mary I: 1,680 results [104]
25. João VI: 1,170 results [105]; John VI: 1,790 results [106]
26. Pedro IV: 3,890 results [107]; Peter IV: 1,140 results [108]
27. Maria II: 4,360 results [109]; Mary II: 852 results [110]
28. Pedro V: 5,000 results [111]; Peter V: 407 results [112]
29. Luis I: 1,620 results [113]; Louis I: 2,520 results [114]
30. Carlos I: 1,310 results [115]; Charles I: 770 [116]
31. Manuel II: 2,940 results [117]; Emmanuel II: 1,340 results [118]

Out of 31 Kings, 18 have their names in Portuguese and 13 in English. --Lecen (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd wanna move those to their english version, I'd support it easily. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian humor, eh! Paulista01 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was a very helpful comment. Lecen, all your links go to the UK Google search page which are blank and show no information. What should we be seeing? John Hendo (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello John, the links are working for me here in Canada. Maybe it is your browser, see if this will work: 1- Go to the google website and click on google.com at the bottom of the front page. Your browser will save the new address and not direct you to Google UK. I had the same problem once, it directed all my links to google.ca. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Paulista. I'm getting the google results now. I thought it was a bit strange. :) John Hendo (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Take a look at John VI of Portugal#Marriages and descendants. Notice that there is a 'John' and a 'Michael' in that list, mixed in with lot of other people with Portuguese names. Doesn't that look like a motley collection? In the 'succession' box at the bottom of that page, John VI is the only one whose name is in an English style. His predecessor and successor are in Portuguese style. The problem of the variation of name styles first started to bother me when I was trying to read about the descendants of João I. If you want a surreal experience, try to read the first paragraph of Isabella of Portugal (1397–1471). You will never be able to figure out that her real given name was 'Isabel' in Portuguese. The conflicting name styles completely fog the issue. (If your patience runs out, click the interwiki link for the Portuguese wikipedia and you can find out people's real names). EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Have to say I find Lecen's numbers compelling, and as he says, looking at the searches from the Google books comparison of names, the vast majority of "John VI" references are from 19th century or early 20th century books. I think the point made about making a multiple move-request is valid though and that this should be done in one sweep rather than piecemeal. Arthur Holland (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I'm forced to expend some of my free time in answering your concerns. Jecen's "compelling numbers" are doubtful and his search parameters are poor. If you're truly trusting them let's take a closer look:

• 1. Joao I: 823 results [119]; John I: 2,170 results [120]
  2. Joao II: 851 results [121]; John II: 2,330 results [122]
  3. Joao III: 5,870 results [123]; John III: 16,700 results [124]
  4. Joao IV: 971 results [125]; John IV: 11,900 results [126]
  5. Joao V: 535 results [127]; John V: 1,600 results results [128]
  6. João VI: 1,170 results [129]; John VI: 1,790 results [130]

Don't ask me why Jecen had to include all the other names in the list above. The other names simply don't matter because the pronunciation of the name 'João' causes some difficulty to English-speakers (simple statement of fact). That's why they commonly translate João into 'John' (which they prefer). The other names are largely irrelevant and this is the English wiki.

Using Google scholar (and restricting the search from 1980 till 2011) I received 19 hits for John VI of Portugal against 17 hits for João VI of Portugal. One may argue that is a tiny difference but remember that older material will clearly favour John. This also seems to be confirmed by Encyclopaedia Britannica which uses John I, John II, John III, John IV, John V and John VI. Flamarande (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First, my name is Lecen. Your lack of respect from not even bothering to spell correctly my user name tells much about you. I've been trying to be polite so far, but I'm quite tired of your rudeness and mockery. This is simply a move request. Not a war. Think about it.

Second, the pronounce of "ão" is the same as "an" as in "Sebastian" or "Joan". So, as you can see, isn't that hard.

Third, the list with the other Portuguese monarchs is important because we must have a certain consistency in the name of all of them. You're not making the life of a reader easier when you show him "John VI", son of "Maria I" and father of "Pedro I". On the contrary, you make his life harder by mixing names and making it all more confuse. Since I know that you have no interest in articles related to Portuguese and Brazilian history (but I do), you couldn't have noticed that. If you had spent some time actualy writing and improving these articles (which you did not, but I did) you would know all that.

Fourth, historians who publish books about Brazilian and Portuguese histoy call him "João" (try to say "Joan" when you read it). Someone who read a book about Portugal or Brazil won't understand why in here he is "John". --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake and I wish to make clear that it was never my intention to be rude or mock you (it was a simple honest mistake). If you wish I will correct my mistake in the post above. However:

I'm able to speak Portuguese thank you very much, but most English-speakers don't know how to pronounciate the name João; that's why they use John and that's a simple fact.

The other names are not that important. Notice that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the other names but uses John.

How do you explain the Google scholar results for João/John?. How do you explain your own results for João/John which you presented in your own list above? How do you explain Encyclopaedia Britannica?

Your contributions are respected, but you don't own the articles. Flamarande (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said: I'm tired of your rudeness. From all of you (GoodDay and Cripipper too), in fact. "This in the English Wikipedia, dude!". Sorry, but I'm not trying to create a war between a language and the other. This is simply a move request. That's all. If the move is opposed, I won't die because of it. But you behavior (and the other two users) is reprehensible. You're clearly not trying to discuss the matter. To accuse me now of article ownership is too much for me. I'll simply ignore you since I'm not in the mood for all this. Have a nice day and I hope you may learn some manners in the near future. --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So you refuse to accept my apology for my simple mistake? Very well, that's certainly within your rights. Just don't complain about rudeness: Aqueles que têm telhados de vidro não deviam mandar pedras (those who have glass roofs shouldn't cast stones). Flamarande (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I can understand why you are a little frustrated when you know that modern scholary books on Portugal and Brazil use João. It does though seem to be leaning towards John in all the google searches. Would it be possible to further restrict the parameters of a google scholar search to books published specifically about Portugal and Brazil? John Hendo (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

John, what I'm trying to discuss in here is not simply the name of this article, or even of all "Joãos" that were Portuguese monarchs. The names of the Portuguese kings are lacking consistency and this is something that must be dealt with. It makes no sense to have "Afonso" (Portuguese), then "Edward" (English), then "Manuel" (Portuguese), then "John" (English), etc... The three most famous Portuguese monarchs are Afonso Henriques (the first Portuguese king), Manuel I (who was king during Vasco da Gama's famous voyage to India) and Pedro IV (better known as Emperor Pedro I of Brazil). And certainly, the most famous of all is Pedro II of Brazil, who would have been Pedro V of Portugal if history had followed a different course. All of them are far better known in their Portuguese names. Why they aren't translated to English ("Emmanuel", "Alphonse", "Peter", etc...) I don't know. Why there are historians who mix English and Portuguese names? I don't know.

What I do know is that specialized books (when I say "specialized" I'm not talking about books for few, I'm talking about books on Brazilian and Portuguese history) prefer to call João VI as João, not John. However, I did notice that more generalist works, such as books on World history, or European history seems to prefer his name as "John". Seems. I'm not sure on this one. The question is: which one should we pick? And why? --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The English wiki should pick the name most commonly used in the English language. Per WP:Commonname. Flamarande (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lecen that it looks a little odd mixing the English and Portuguese names. I'm not sure that WP:Commonname really covers this. I would be much happier if there were some guidelines that cover a specific scenario such as this. John Hendo (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The odd mixing may look a bit odd, but Encyclopaedia Britannica has no problem with it (why should the English wiki?). Another guideline is WP:Use English. Flamarande (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I still find it odd whether Encyclopaedia Britannica use it or not. While I have a lot of sympathy for Lecan and his point that most modern scholars writing of Portugal and Brazil use João, I can't ignore the fact that google search tells us that John is most commonly used throughout all types of literature. I do however think that there should be a guideline that covers this in a more specific way. John Hendo (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were up to me, all of'em would be in the english form. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though if it were up to you everyone would be forced to speak only English. I hope that's not a touch of xenophobia you're showing. John Hendo (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the first comment was a little funny, now, it is just bad taste and a little offensive to tell you the truth. I respect your opinion, you don't like the idea, but please be kind to others. After all we Canadians have a reputation to uphold, right? Regards. Paulista01 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the english language Wikipedia, not the multiple language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know, this discussion started here: Empire of Brazil Thanks, Paulista01 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with "John VI" in a parenthetic note. Recent English-language scholarship dealing with Portuguese and Brazilian subjects does not predominately use anachronistic anglicized forms of names. It is too simplistic to just list results of a Google search. Narrowing it down to recent works produces a better picture. Then filtering out reprints of old books, ebooks, reprinted Wiki content gives an even clearer idea. Finally, one must consider the context in which anglicizations have been utilized—are they quoting older documents, are they dealing with primarily with Portuguese or non-Portuguese subject matter (if dealing with a bunch of old English sources regarding England's foreign policy, it is sometimes easier to use the form in the sources), does the work use multiple spellings (some do), etc.? This isn't a black vs. white issue, but I am supporting based on this being an article about a Portuguese subject. When there is doubt (as there might be if the article's subject was naval power in the 19th century and where you had English and Portuguese perspectives and references) policy requires that articles reflect the preponderance of their sources, and that trumps style guidelines. • Astynax ^talk 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

About 1980-2010 book searches in History books:

* "João IV of Portugal" subject:"History"

Jan 1, 1980–Dec 31, 2010› Search English pages

About 85 results (0.22 seconds)

• "John IV of Portugal" subject:"History"

Jan 1, 1980–Dec 31, 2010› Search English pages

About 209 results (0.19 seconds)

Please compare: List of French monarchs all have English names, even when most are similar to French ones; List of Spanish monarchs most have English names, few not (Juan Carlos I); List of Italian monarchs most have English names; List of German monarchs most, if not all, are listed by their English names. But List of Portuguese monarchs all have Portuguese names (!), even when it leads to the most popular English names (according to the rules) such as Denis of Portugal. So, about all this drama, one must ask: are you making an effort to better serve your readers or your ego? Regards --Uxbona (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder myself what is the reason to why all the editors who oppose the move have the need to be so rude. Through direct or indirect ways, such as insinuations, it looks like they need to demoralize a simple move request. Again: this is not a war, but a mere move request. If I knew this would cause this kind of behavior in some people I wouldn't have done anything. And we are talking of an article that no one really cares about, and that has been neglected for years. All this passion for an article like this one?! What happened with Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette? --Lecen (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I give up.--Uxbona (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose multiple names is one thing, English vs. original language name is another. Regardless on whenever some authors may prefer to use a name in another language, if there is an established and recognized English usage (and in this case, there is) that's the one that should be used. As for consistency, if there are Portuguese monarchs with their name in English and others in Portuguese, we may very well consider consistency in the other way, translating the Portuguese monarchs to their English forms; that would be consistent with the French, Spanish and German monarchs as pointed by Uxbona. The mere usage of Portuguese names within Portuguese monarchs articles right now does not mean a consensus on the topic, same as the long usage of the English name here did not mean so either; as Lecen pointed, we talk about neglected articles. MBelgrano (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I believe we're going to stick to John VI, son of Maria I, father of Pedro I, whose brother is Michael I. What family is that?! --Lecen (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

His brother is Miguel, as well he should be. I would tend to prefer the Portuguese form for all monarchs from Maria I onwards, but is it really that big a deal? I'd certainly rather leave it inconsistent than move the others to the English version. john k (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Take a look at John VI of Portugal#Marriages and descendants. Notice that there is a 'John' and a 'Michael' in that list, mixed in with lot of other people with Portuguese names. Doesn't that look like a motley collection? In the 'succession' box at the bottom of that page, John VI is the only one whose name is in an English style. His predecessor and successor are in Portuguese style. The problem of the variation of name styles first started to bother me when I was trying to read about the descendants of João I. If you want a surreal experience, try to read the first paragraph of Isabella of Portugal (1397–1471). You will never be able to figure out that her real given name was 'Isabel' in Portuguese. The conflicting name styles completely fog the issue. (If your patience runs out, click the interwiki link for the Portuguese wikipedia and you can find out people's real names)." Editor EdJohnston's remark about how confuse is having mixed Portuguese/English is simply perfect. As is the one made by • Astynax:

"...with "John VI" in a parenthetic note. Recent English-language scholarship dealing with Portuguese and Brazilian subjects does not predominately use anachronistic anglicized forms of names. It is too simplistic to just list results of a Google search. Narrowing it down to recent works produces a better picture. Then filtering out reprints of old books, ebooks, reprinted Wiki content gives an even clearer idea. Finally, one must consider the context in which anglicizations have been utilized—are they quoting older documents, are they dealing with primarily with Portuguese or non-Portuguese subject matter (if dealing with a bunch of old English sources regarding England's foreign policy, it is sometimes easier to use the form in the sources), does the work use multiple spellings (some do), etc.? This isn't a black vs. white issue, but I am supporting based on this being an article about a Portuguese subject. When there is doubt (as there might be if the article's subject was naval power in the 19th century and where you had English and Portuguese perspectives and references) policy requires that articles reflect the preponderance of their sources, and that trumps style guidelines."

So, John K, if you don't mind if I'm sincere, yes, it is really that big a deal. Probably not for the users who opposed since none of them were ever interest in the subject. Or to MBlegrano who voted against simply because he dislikes me. But it is a big deal for us who have been trying to write good articles about Portuguese/Brazilian history. But as I can see, since there is presently at as stalemate, the article will stay as it is. It certainly won't harm the editors who opposed the move, since, as I said before, they don't care about the subject. But it will be said to of all who have been trying to improve these articles and see this mess. Regards,--Lecen (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How on earth is "John VI" anachronistic? That name was used in English during his lifetime. Beyond that, a couple of points. One is that both sides here seem to be largely motivated by the fact that both you and your opponents would rather have different naming conventions, rather than differing interpretations of the ones we have. This is most clear of the many opponents of the move who seem to uncritically think that an anglicized form is the same thing as the most commonly used name in English. This is clearly wrong to me, and I've argued against it here and elsewhere, although it seems to be a common view. On the other hand, your position certainly comes perilously close to the view that we need to use these monarchs' "real names," regardless of common usage in English. You also seem to view consistency as more important than English usage. As to the particular case, as I said it before, it seems to come down to the question of whether we should emulate more general sources, which tend to use the anglicized form, or more specialized ones, which tend to use the Portuguese. I'd probably slightly prefer the Portuguese form in this case, but only if that doesn't mean we have to move all the other kings named John, who are less commonly referred to by the Portuguese name. But both forms are commonly used in English. This is neither a case like, say Carol I of Romania, where it was totally obscene when, many years ago, wikipedia had decided to call him "Charles I". Nor is it a case like, say, Philip II of Spain, where the anglicized form is orders of magnitude more common than the Spanish name. Both names are commonly used, and, as such, I don't think the naming guidelines give us any real preference. Worrying about "real names" in other articles seems like a good reason to, you know, fix the other articles and make them clearer. There's no reason you can't use Portuguese names to link to articles about people at anglicized names - I personally like very much List of Portuguese monarchs, which has one column for the Portuguese name and another for the anglicized name, and always links using the Portuguese name, even when the article itself isn't there. That can be a model for other articles. And be careful of anachronism - in the Middle Ages, the modern Portuguese names are often going to be just as anachronistic as the English ones. Latinized names, in such cases, are often going to be the name most commonly used in the sources, and one might see a variety of spellings of Portuguese names in such Portuguese language documents as there are. john k (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A small note: the move request applies only to this article, not to all Portuguese named "João". However, I also pointed the need to discuss the general view, not only this article. --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a small note: this article is in my watchlist because I edited it a year ago. It's not among the topics I usually work with (I was just following links related to Carlota Joaquina, who is among them because of her ambitions over Buenos Aires), but as this ongoing talk page kept raising in my watchlist, I finally decided to see what was going on, and so I gave my opinion. It is not my fault if the FAC for Empire of Brazil (from where all this seems to have come) is not going very well, as you can see I have not made a single comment, as it isn't a topic I'm interested in.

As for Lecen's last comment, I will remind Lecen that working hard over an article or topic does not provide ownership over them, nor does having national ties with it shared by few others, nor turn the user who worked on it into some kind of "moderator". Policies and guidelines apply anyway, and certainly none of us really need to know the full life and work of John VI in order to discuss how should the naming policies be applied. MBelgrano (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't find general English usage to be particularly useful in deciding cases like this. John VI is simply unknown to the educated, reading Anglophone public. No shock will be caused to anybody I don't believe by favouring the pronounceable English form of his name. I personally wouldn't mind anglicising all Portuguese monarchs' articles, as I proposed some months ago, for similar reasons and because of my tastes, but it's no big deal to me. I don't mind João VI in specialist works of history, but I find its use here a bit pretentious, the same as if we used Magellan's "real" name. Srnec (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely the point of naming policies is not what the "educated, reading Anglophone public" expects, but, as our naming policy says, what those familiar with, but not expert in, the topic would expect to see. I don't like the idea that we can call articles on obscure topics whatever we want because nobody knows anything about them, anyway. The issue in this case is that both names are frequently used in English, and at that point it becomes a waste of time to try to figure out which is more used when both are common. john k (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I never said we could "call articles on obscure topics whatever we want because nobody knows anything about them". I have already fixed many articles with invented names, like "Nanda War" and "Portuguese–Mamluk War". I agree with your final sentence, but I would happily remove the word "frequently". In this case, given the alternatives, I prefer John VI merely if it is available—and it is because some reliable English sources have used it. This is why I would have no problem with Michael of Portugal, although I won't stubbornly insist on it because (a) Miguel is not hard and (b) the vast majority of English sources do prefer Miguel. I just prefer consistency of English and believe that we should be allowed to decide between the available options based on what reliable English sources (have) use(d). We should not slavishly count noses, although I know you are not trying to do that in this case. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. My view has not changed since June, when I discussed this in the preceding section. Srnec and John K make a great point about "real" names, which is what all of this seems to be about. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If it is the most frequent name and just because this is English wikipedia doesn't mean we have to use English names. One Joao and five John is fine with William I and Wilhelm II, German Emperor, we can see that we don't have to have consistent names.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course, if I'm writing a book about the First World War, I can call Willie II whatever I want, say, Wilhelm, and I don't have to worry whether the guy who wrote a biography of his grandfather called him (Willie I) William. Neither of us will need to mention the other William/Wilhelm. But this is neither a biography of Wilhelm I nor work on the First World War, and I for one find the difference between the two kaisers here bizarre. I wonder if my editor would allow me to talk about Wilhelm II's grandfather William I? Srnec (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it makes far more sense to have a king called "John" VI who is the successor of Maria I of Portugal (not Mary I) and father of Pedro I of Brazil (not Peter I) and Miguel I of Portugal (not Michael I) and grandfather of Maria II of Portugal (not Mary II). Now that's what I call consistency! And it would make even more sense if this article was improved and expanded and to see our "John" VI, this oddly English-named Portuguese monarch among his family (Maria, Pedro, Miguel, etc...) and figures like José Bonifácio de Andrada, António de Araújo e Azevedo, 1st Count of Barca, etc... It will certainly make the life of readers who do know know much about João VI far more easier. --Lecen (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Srnec, I can't tell if you are asking a honest question or being sarcastic, but if you are writing your own book you can call him Wilhelm or William since both version are exceptable; but lets say you call him Guillaume, you're reader might go "huh". But wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all the sources out there, and we should use the most common name. Also my bringing up William I and Wilhelm II is not bizarre because we are talking about monarch styles, aren't we? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You said it yourself: we should use the most common name. It isn't 'João'. Flamarande (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have always supported the consistent use of people's real names in English Wikipedia. Its not nationalism, its just: I think the world has gone beyond the anglo-centric universe that I grew-up in, and most accept those real valid names. I don't think its pretentious to be recognized by your real name. If anything, names like "John" or "Peter" should be relegated to fanciful nicknames, and not titles about real people. It is likely that if you were to tell anyone that their name was to be substituted for a "user-friendly" variation, it would not sit well with anyone. Maybe if people (in general) were a little more open in the past (historically), then there would still be a Fernão de Magalhães or Cristoforo Colombo, rather then the Ferdinand Magellan or Christopher Columbus. If the lingua franca was anything but English, would we still have this discussion: probably. But, I would still support the real names. Regardless, I support all of Lecen's points, and whatever decision that is consistent for all names.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Real names? Are you serious? Christopher Columbus' real name was Christoffa Corombo in his native 15th-century Genoese language, not Cristoforo Colombo in modern Italian language. Nobody uses his "real name", Christoffa Corombo, anymore; no historian certainly. Joan of Arc, for example, was baptised Ioanna and called Jehanne during her lifetime so nobody can argue that Jeanne was her "real name". And what was the real name of an Italian ruler born to an Austrian and a Spaniard in the Netherlands? What matters is how these people are referred to by scholars. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that he did not mean the name as it was spelled then. He is talking about keeping the name in their original languages. Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil was called "Affonso" in 19th century Portuguese. The Brazilian city of Niterói was spelled "Nichteroy" in 19th Century. --Lecen (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious at all. He said "real names". The real name of Columbus was Christoffa Corombo and calling him Cristoforo Colombo would not be "keeping the name in their original languages" because 15th-century Genoese is not nearly the same as 21st-century Italian. The Prince Imperial is called Afonso because that's how modern English language sources call him. Saying that the article should be moved simply because this man is called João in modern Portuguese is like saying that Lisbon should be moved to Lisboa simply because that's how it's called in Portuguese. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change São Paulo to "Saint Paul", Rio de Janeiro to "January River" and Fortaleza to "Fortress" too? Relax, we don't want to change the world, only the name of this article. And if it fails, life goes on. No reason to bother. --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to translate. The point is to use the name used by English language sources. That's why I reacted when it was suggested that calling Columbus Cristoforo Colombo would be more just. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

May I note that I said "Maybe if people (in general) were a little more open in the past (historically), then there would still be a Fernão de Magalhães or Cristoforo Colombo, rather then the Ferdinand Magellan or Christopher Columbus." I never implied we should change either of those names. While we can not correct the mistakes of the past (that are etched almost in stone in the English lexicon), we can, on the other hand, avert modern conflicts (like this one) by accepting them now, as Lecen indicated. I believe that Lecen has made good points that support revising Portuguese biographical naming convention titles, but, I wonder if this will go beyond debate, without causing an edit-war. I still support the proposal. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per Queen Elizabeth II little spy and Lecens comment under her support. Spongie555 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

John Hendo notes above that I tend to agree with Lecen that it looks a little odd mixing the English and Portuguese names. I'm not sure that WP:Commonname really covers this. I would be much happier if there were some guidelines that cover a specific scenario such as this. There are: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Sovereigns:

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.

It seems fairly clear to me what the policy is. Cripipper (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per my opinions here SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List with Wikipedians who support or oppose the move

Support:

• Support. --Lecen (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Paulista01 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Arthur Holland (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. -- • Astynax ^talk 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Spongie555 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Oppose. --GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Uxbona (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Cripipper (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --MBelgrano (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Srnec (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pipelinking of Pedro I of Brazil

I see no harm in pipelinkg that article-link as Peter IV of Portugal in this article. It's educational & helps readers place this Portugese monarch name in line with Peter I, Peter II, Peter III & Peter V. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no preference either way, but changing it to Peter from Pedro when his article names him as Pedro makes no sense, and doing so (twice) without discussion seems a little too bold. If you think his article title should be changed it should be discussed there. John Hendo (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeking an RM. My concern is about his Portugese monarchial title, which is out of sync with the other 4 Portugese kings named Peter. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether he is called Pedro or Peter is no skin off my nose, but you should discuss these things first when you know that there have been discussions surrounding Portuguese and English names on wiki. Note that he is also named as Pedro IV of Portugal in his infobox. If you want that changed then his article is the place to go and discuss it. John Hendo (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm already doing that. Note, I didn't pipelink the Brazilian monarchial title as Peter I of Brazil. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You're crossing the line, GoodDay. Pedro I is known as Pedro IV, not Peter IV. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't comment on contributor, please. Anyways, let's relax & allow others to respond. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I really liked "Don't comment on contributor, please.". Wish it were offial WP policy. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro has also become an English name over time (João has not). SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss the naming of that other article at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil? MBelgrano (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to RM that article (note that I didn't pipelink as Peter I of Brazil). GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you should at least leave a notice. This discussion is more about that other article than about this one MBelgrano (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I got a discussion going on there. Also, I'm currently haggling with Lecen about expanding the RM at Peter V of Portugal to include all the Peter # of Portugal articles. If all are changed to 'Pedro'? this 'pipe-link' push would become moot. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think that all the Peters of Portugal are incongruous and out of line with convention and should all be moved to Pedro of Portugal. Cripipper (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro is okay, but not João? What...? --Lecen (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of being okay or not, but of what is in common usage in the English-speaking world. Pedro is in common usage, João is not. Cripipper (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2011-2012)

The following discussion is an archived 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 The result of the discussion was move to João VI of Portugal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

John VI of Portugal → João VI of Portugal –The majority of other João kings of Portugal have a higher search result when João is looked up in comparison to John, not to mention that João is the king's name.{Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}

• Has anything changed since the previous discussion earlier this year? —  AjaxSmack  04:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope so, so that the name of this Portuguese king may be in Portuguese as it should be. Names are names, some change in their respective language over time, but the name of the person should not be an alterable item. {Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}
    • Are you going to rename Moammar Ghaddaffi to Arabic script then (our article certainly is an alterable page name for his article)? Or move Mark Antony to MARCUS ANTONIUS (remember, there was no lowercase in Latin at that time) ? Or move various kings from their posthumous name to their name while alive? 70.24.244.248 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • For people who lived a sufficiently long time ago, it's actually pretty common to use different names different languages. Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan etc. are much more commonly used in English than their original variants. The convention works the other way around as well: for example, Elizabeth I of England is called Isabel I de Inglaterra in Portuguese. Columbus is called Cristóvão Colombo. John, King of England is known as João I de Inglaterra, which actually is a nice parallel to this one. You may of course argue that names should not be used in this way, but the fact remains that it's how they are used in English. As an encyclopedia we follow common English usage by policy. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)." This is from Wikipedia:EN. How would that apply here? Alden Loveshade (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• After qualifying to screen for English, I get 1,150 post-1980 Google Book results for king Portugal Brazil "John VI", 1,600 for king Portugal Brazil "João VI". This ngram suggests that English-language usage during the last 20 years has been about equal. Britannica gives the subject as "John VI". Kauffner (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• My views are recorded in the long discussions above when this was discussed before, but I'm not sure its very useful to have this debate again so soon. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose: English please for anyone who died before 1900. Nobody in the world had a legal name or legal spelling before that time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Serge, but if that was the case, we would have Peter II and not Pedro II of Brazil. Also, as you can see below, the results are higher for "João VI" (pronouce it as in the French name "Jean") and it is the name used on books focused either on Brazilian or Portuguese history. More generalist works may use John VI. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry"? ?? I would support a move Pedro>Peter anytime. I don't give a hoot about frequency, just common sense; smooth, pronounceable English and phonetic empathy. You have a right to your opinion, I to mine. Have no idea what you mean by " sorry". SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: There are 60,000 results for "John VI"+ Portugal and 283,000 results for "Joao VI"+ Portugal. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

These "Joao VI" results are mostly non-English. Kauffner (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? This is page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6, page 7, page 8, page 9, page 10, page 11, page 12, page 13, page 14, page 15, page 16, page 17, page 18, page 19, page 20, page 21 etc... I don't remember ever seeing you contributing to articles about Portugal or Brazil. What is your interest here? I hope not to imply that I am a liar by giving false results. --Lecen (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Important: if the "English only" setting is on, we'll get 57,000 results for "John VI"+ Portugal and 83,000 results for "Joao VI" + Portugal. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Support The results show that Joao VI is more common, besides the fact that it is the man's name. Why is it that the article Isabella I of Castile uses the name Isabella and not Elizabeth I of Castille? Elizabeth is the English translation, but Isabella is kept because it is the more commonly used name for the queen, correct? So, for that matter, Joao VI of Portugal should be the name of the article, being the more commonly used name for the king. {Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)}

Support -- I think we now name foreign monarch in their native tongue, but keep the redirect. The target could in fact be João VI since this is probably unique, but the nom target should also be kept as a redirect. The precedent for this is the long debate over the article title for Elizabeth II, which went on for ever. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I still support it, it would be the best since most modern sources use João VI. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. It is is the commonly used English name of a Portuguese monarch. Just like "Elizabeth I of England" is "Isabel" in the Portuguese wiki. Walrasiad (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the Google books results? His name in Portuguese is the one most used on English shources. --Lecen (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I am unimpressed. The criterion here is common name. That some specialists may opt for indigenous names may be fashionable in a narrow literature but it is hardly common. Check out the list for John VI - all of them listed in English, not in their native tongues- not Jean, nor Giovanni, nor Johan, nor Juan, nor Ioannes. I see no reason to depart from the standard wiki norm. Walrasiad (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment There is also the issue of the other John of Portugal. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. User Cristiano Tomás tried to move the others by himself but Walrasiad undid it. Let's wait how this move will end so that we can do the same to the others. In fact, we should include the King Pedro too. We have Pedro V (after you asked for its move), Pedro IV (or Pedro I of Brazil), but the other three are Peter. Some princes have their name in English too, I have no idea why. It seems that there are a few Portuguese editors here who really like the English language I think... P.S.: Good to see you, Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy. I thought you were gone. --Lecen (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you "have no idea why" I just thought I would mention, cordially, that this is English Wikipedia. Thus: English is quite normal. The use of English actually shouldn't surprise anybody here. As I wrote above, you have a right to your opinion, and you and your supporters may very well succeed in pushing more and more phonetically unwieldy foreign words into the English here. Despite the fact that you would probably prefer to call e.g. Ulrica Leonor da Suécia or Carlos XIV da Suécia just that when reading Portuguese to Portuguese children or blind people, rather than having them need to learn to pronounce Ulrika Eleonora av Sverige or Karl XIV Johan av Sverige och Norge. Whatever, I just didn't want you to be so clueless as to be able to say that you "have no idea why" we use English on English WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Flamarande (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Except for medieval rulers, there has been a strong trend in English references over the last several decades to move toward spellings that more closely reflect original spellings and/or pronunciations. Insistence on anglicizing foreign person and place names is ultimately a losing proposition which is needlessly confusing to readers, especially as older references are gradually superceded. • Astynax ^talk 18:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If, in your opinion, the word João would be less confusing to readers of English than the word John, I am at a total loss to understand any such standpoint. If we are to assume that all WP texts, in every language, should be able to be read aloud without unreasonable difficulty, we can agree that that is exactly why English (and all other) exonyms have been created in the first place. As long as John is well known to history as John in English, and as long as the Portuguese monarchy isn't reinstated with royals named João in our time (legal spellings all over, as of about 1900), I see no reason here why we in English should have to take a stab at pronouncing that lovely Portuguese-language name when reading these English texts - probably thus ending up with something atrocious like King Oh-Wow or King Who-ay-oh. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What trend? Specialist academic literature may try to make it precise, in order to help researchers follow it up in original documents. But this is about common usage. Most people reading the English Wiki have no idea how to pronounce it, nor are they likely know how to find a "tilde" on a keyboard. Using local spellings is needlessly pedantic, uninformative, clutters communication and is practically useless. Moreover, it is outside of customary usage on Wiki, an anomaly for this rule to apply only to Portuguese kings. I oppose it in the strongest terms possible. I have written dozens upon dozens of articles on Portuguese history here, and haved used the common English names for kings and well-known princes throughout the text (just as most of my sources do). It works quite well - flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings. If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names, as I have done thus far. If this creates a contradiction, so be it. Walrasiad (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors who opposed the move have insisted on ignoring a few points. Most important of all: the name João VI (83,000 results) is far more used in English than "John VI" (57,000 results). Just as important: the pronunciation of the name "João VI" is not hard at all. Try to speak out loud the French name "Jean" and that's it. You got the name "João". Both have very similar pronunciation. We shouldn't consider readers a bunch of stupid people simply because some editors for some reason believe that the "~" is unpronounceable. The "~" is used to give a sound similar to the English "an" like in the female name Joan. Speak the English name "Joan" with the "J" like in the French "Jean" and you'll get "João". --Lecen (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Frequency is not supposed to outshadow what is reasonable according to WP policy as long as what is reasonable is sufficiently frequent, as it is in this case.

Most readers of English are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures, just like most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you! In any language, we don't read an article like this for distracting language lessons, but to find out about King John in the least confusing manner possible. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that "most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures". Did you ever talked to every and each Brazilian and Portuguese out there? Because as far as I know (since I'm Brazilian), Brazilians usually learn English as children and is widely expected nowdays to know how to speak the language (and recently, also Spanish). So, please, do not try to make my people look like a buch of xenophobics. And you shouldn't to the same to Americans, British, Australians, etc... Don't claim as a universal true what is clearly your personal xenophobia. --Lecen (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You quoted, but still seem to have selectively missed, the determinative words forced upon them and then you began with personal insults - something far less tolerated on WP than POV-variations of royal names. I strongly suggest you stop that, at least.

Being expected to learn a language, for example by a school system, is hardly the same thing as having it forced upon you. I believe learning another language is everybody's free choice, except if you are forced to learn unneccessary words that pop up, or else you won't be able to understand something you were reading in your own language.

I'd like to add that I too strongly oppose this move, and I've changed that above, as I agree wholheartedly with everything Walrasiad wrote above except the word "ugly". SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On Portuguese language lessons: Lecen, I don't know about how many native English-speakers you know. But trust me on this: the vast majority of native English speakers, even with the best of intentions, cannot pronounce "João" nor "Henrique". Not even academics who might spell it regularly. It involves nasal sounds and guttural rolling that are wholly without counterpart in spoken English. Walrasiad (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"... flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings." After this comment, you should have remained silent. --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, if you're not capable of remaining civil and not resort to personal attacks, perhaps you should take a break from this discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support. João is the proper name. This is simply a matter of proper spelling. We're not in ASCII anymore. Alarbus (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I find that the fact that there must be a discussion to change the name of an article to the name of the man it is about absurd. But I do see why it is so, I find that it is because of a lack of care. I know since I have started living here in the U.S. (I am from Portugal), everyone is quite quick to know about the Spanish, the French, and the English and yet not even know anything about the Portuguese. It is this lack of recognition that leads to no one giving "a hoot" about the names of our kings or our history. A clear example is the fact that the article Isabella I of Castile is not Elizabeth I of Castille. I know I use this example many times, but it is because it confounds me. Is Isabella deserving the right to be called by her own, Spanish, name simply because of her and her nations fame? Does this fame allow her to break free from your wiki policy? Is she any better than the D. João VI? No, and for that, D. João VI deserves the same right that Isabella the Catholic has been granted. Everyone deserves that right, for it is they we write about, they deserve to be written about correctly. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• the Catholic Queen is always called Isabella in English texts. I have never seen her referred to as "Elizabeth". (although, contrarily, Elizabeth of England is called "Isabel" in the Portuguese wiki.)

Also, you might find you get less blank stares from Americans if you simply use "Henry the Navigator" rather than insisting on "Infante Dom Henrique" ;).

@ all of you: evidently this is running up against nationalist sensitivities, and the discussion is in danger of losing touch with earnest efforts to improve WP. Walrasiad (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be insulted, Cristiano! I'm sure there are lots and lots of things that Portuguese men and women don't give "a hoot" about too, and many of them justifiably so. You and yours have written and pronounced the names of most non-Portuguese royalty in Portuguese, that is using phonetics that would make you succeed in using them in Portuguese. If there were a king of Finland named John, your history writers would have called them João not Juhana. It's natural, and quite forgiveable. All we are all trying to do is communicate as easily and effectively as possible, each in h. own language. Everybody cares about that, or most everybody.

Lecen! Dont' tell people to shut up! That's not nice either, in English or any other language. When Walrasiad wrote "... flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, low recognition Portuguese spellings" he hit the nail right on the head. Perfect!

Alarbus! So you know what King John's "proper name" was? Wasn't it actually in Latin? How did he spell it? Did he spell it different every other time like almost everyone did before about 1900 when we got legal names and spellings? ~ And your comment about Kansas is unfathomable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

does wikt:not in Kansas anymore help you with your depth perception? At least you're funny in a self-defecating sort of way. Alarbus (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

People, please, cool a little. Fernão Lopes, the first portuguese historian, put on portuguese castilian names (and french, and english, etc), for example Fe(i)olhosa instead of Hinojosa (Enojosa; tranlation: «that is ugly»). He called the Mendozas (in that time Mendoças, in Castile) Mendonças, etc, etc, etc. López de Ayala, the castilian historian (yes, already a historian, and a good one, even if a lot partial against Pedro I of Castile), did the same on castilian, for example, Bertrand du Guesclin était Beltran de Claquin. So, why the people that speak english can't do the same with portuguese names?. More, our names Duarte, Jorge, etc, etc, came (the second from the latin) via the english. Do you know someone named Jorge in Portugal before 1400? (this is really a question, because I'm personally interested). Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Waste of time

Why do people on wikipedia waste all their time on these stupid discussions? Instead of fighting and bickering over a four to five letter name, why aren't efforts put into improving these articles with translation of the vast amount of information on their articles on the Portugeuese wikipedia.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you say this is a waste? What is the point of translations if something as simple as names are not correct? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss the validity of this move or his name. I am merely pointing out to editors that there are much more pressing issues like the article's content. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because people, as a species, are a failure? Never forget that half of all people are of below average intelligence. Alarbus (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Exvollo vae

It is hardly encouraging of writing content if there are no norms about names, and article titles get changed arbitrarily back & forth, leaving names inconsistent, within pages and across pages. There's more to the article title than just the title, or even just this article. The name of a monarch appears across many pages related to the history of Portugal - dozens upon dozens of pages written over the years, using the long-established titles used in Wikipedia. Only to suddenly become all inconsistent.

As mentioned in the discussion, I've written a fair share of content of such articles and taken great care to make them consistent, clear and understandable to English-speaking audiences who are not familiar with Portuguese history. Then titles abruptly gets changed, and everything is suddenly inconsistent and clumsy. It is immensely discouraging.

@The ed17: I too have "pet projects" - Portuguese maritime history, India armadas, the Henrican discoveries, etc. - all of which are rendered inconsistent because of this.

Goethe once made the observation that most people who write books don't seek to actually inform or educate anyone, but merely to announce to the world that the author is not a dolt, i.e. that he is something or has read something. I suppose that kind of applies here. Some people dedicate their time to constructing content, to communicate and inform about Portuguese history, others simply want everyone to know they love Portugal and can read Portuguese.

I guess that is forgivable in youth. But for us tired old men, fighting against such fervors is a losing and exhausting battle. It is time to hang up the spurs. I am suspending my contributions to topics in Portuguese history. Walrasiad (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgivable? You say that as if there is something that deserves forgiving. What does it matter if articles become inconsistent suddenly? Now that the correct name has been agreed on, we, as wikipedians, must take action to make them consistent with the correct name. What does it matter to have consistency in errror? It may be some work, but what matters is that correct information is out there. For consistency to matter, correct information must consistent. Everyone wants things to be simple, but correct and right things are never simple. Now that this name change has been accomplished, the reform for the articles can continue. We must uphold what is true, not what is simple because of Anglicization. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be forgiven. Because clarity and consistency are virtues in communication, informing and teaching. And to expend your energies on superficial window-dressing, to the detriment of actual content, rendering it unclear and inconsistent, is counter-productive. The name "John VI" is perfectly correct. It may not satisfy the blustery chauvinism of overblown nationalism, but it satisfies the criteria of accuracy, clarity and communication, which is what Wikipedia is about - informing, not declaring. WP is not the place for "Righting Great Wrongs" WP:RGW, the motivation which you repeatedly cited in the discussion above, and which seems to be the force behind your ever-changing signature. Walrasiad (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You speak of nationalism in such a manner that one would believe nationalism to be wrong. Is there something wrong in having pride in one's country and defending its history and such? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to pursue that. Walrasiad (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an arc of knowledge and I find it my duty, as I'm sure many others do as well, to defend the knowlegde of my fatherland. This defense is nationalistic, yes, but also makes sure that the articles are kept true in all of their aspects, including a name. A name may not mean much to you, but to me, a name is a man. It is his front page, and, to me, it is extremely important, not that I mean to bother you with my over poetic reasoning. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Focus less on defending knowledge, and more on supplying it. Knowledge can defend itself. If you want foreigners to learn about your country, then all the more reason to emphasize clarity, communication and recognizability, rather than spewing out a cascade of unreadable, unpronounceable, uncommon names at them. There is more to the history of Portugal than pronouncing a list of kings in the native tongue. Walrasiad (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If knowledge could defend itself, the world would be a haven, but sadly knowledge cannot defend itself. What is the point of supplying knowledge if something as simple as a name is not correct? What is the point of filling a room when their is no door to it? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* The name was correct before. And you know that. Walrasiad (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If the name before was correct, I do no know that. I do know that nosso senhor, João's name is now correct. How would you have liked it if you were the king of "Walrasiadland" 500 years ago and your name was, for the lack of the real thing, Jose, and Wikipedia wanted to call you Joseph? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less, frankly. My deeds matter more than my name. Which is why I edit on Wikipedia under a pseudonym. :) Walrasiad (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then think not of yourself, think of a great man in history. Would you not pay him the respect of addresing him by his true name? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I am not a great man in history? I have revealed nothing to you of who I am, or where I am from, what I do, etc. That said, I would never deal with him by name, but only by title, rank and/or courtesy, ("Your Excellency", "Your Grace", "Your Honor", etc.) And might call him a whole bunch of other names behind his back....  ;) Walrasiad (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the most important things to me in writing in any language, and I have done a lot of that for over 50 years, is trying always to remember phonetic empathy as well as trying to convince other writers to be as phonetically empathetic as possible. A move like this from John to Jowayyoh (or something like that in English), totally unnecessary and thus unreasonable in my opinion, is nothing less than disastrous to everything I hold dear in that regard.

Some demonstratively persistent, not to say headstrong, POV-pushers, who seem not to respect the absolutely crucial linguistic Englishness of English Wikipedia, should learn what exonyms are and how vital they have been for centuries to enable all of us to communicate smoothly all over the world, especially when speaking/reading aloud in our own languages.

Of course, I respect WP policies on consensus, though I reserve the right to strongly object on occasion. This is one such occasion - the worst thing I've see since this utter silliness over two years ago. It's another sad day for me and for the entire project as I see it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: Woops! Why not Johan III here; John here; Karl XIV Johan here; Jean II here; Giovanni da Montecorvino here etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc... In case anyone got huffy about my using the term POV-pushers. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's so frustrating, to have non-english titles forced on English (language) Wikipedia. It's not much better seeing names inconsistant, aswell. With got the Peter/Pedro titles confused & now it's the John/Joao titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If it weren't just nationality/foreign language-pushing, you'd think all these unusually vehemant and conscientious Portuguese and Brazilians and real name fantasts would show a little interest in Portuguese WP first. Check the links out in my last entry above! Never-ending Jowayyo's! The hypocrisy is maddening!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, remain cool. I have appealed to the administrator ed17 who undertook the move for reconsideration. (Alas, I started off on the wrong foot, but hopefully he'll realize the move was premature and without consensus.) Failing that, we should initiate a general request for comment, to allow others to weigh into this tiring matter, and submit a request for a new requested moved. Walrasiad (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanx! I needed that. Nap time, zmadderofact. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

João VI?

Would anyone object to the title as, João VI? "Of Portugal" is not part of the subject's common name, and I don't think there is a João VI from any country other than Portugal. Kauffner (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is me just quickly replying, so I do not know for sure, but perhaps there is a João VI of Kongo? After all, they were an incorperated kingdom in the Portuguese empire and their local monarchs used Portuguese names. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I rather the article be moved back to John VI of Portugal, actually. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So would I. But I am afraid submitting a requested move only hours after an administrator changed it the other way would be seen as wp:pointy. Since I raised immediate and not-so-corteous protest with that administrator, I guess I am risking some sort of bad thing happening to me. So I am not sure what steps to take. This is all very unfortunate and very chilling. Walrasiad (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad, eis-vo-lo vai, eis-vo-lo vem, and not from Lisbon to Santarém. What is important is always, if possible, a phono translator so we can ear the name spelled in portuguese, and, for example, the boarder of monarch, on the right, can have all the names on portuguese, if the links are in english. It's enough to pass the arrow to read them "translated". Jorge alo (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I was half-expecting you to catch that. ;) Walrasiad (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I obviously agree with GoodDay (see previous section). SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. IMHO this is a case in which a couple of self-declared champions of the Portuguese language and culture managed to impose the Portuguese name upon the English wiki at the expense of the English name thanks the misuse and manipulation of notions like 'respect other languages' and 'original name'. I have seen similar things happen here and there and quite frankly I don't agree. Forgive my bluntness. Flamarande (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as frustrating, we've now got Portugese monarch articles named Peter & Pedro aswell as John & Joao. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't miss my many Jowayyo-links above in the previous section! Here's another one. Haven't found a German Johann, Swedish-Norwegian Johan, French Jean, Italian Giovanni or Englsh John yet. There are probably hundreds of jowayyo's on ptWP that shouldn't be according to the important principles for this ghastly move. Earnest concern about names? Mm-hmmm. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI: Premature closure

I've opened an ANI regarding the premature closure of the RM discussion above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal. Walrasiad (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that the request was not premature, as the gentleman on your link said. A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was - supporters seem to have been acting together. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- The discussion appears to have run for the usual period. As a matter of clarification, I do not vote in any particular way because I am asked to. However, I will sometimes look at a topic because I am asked. Every one is getting far too worked up about this issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to defend English Wikipedia articles against unreasonable phonetic disasters is worth getting worked up about, in my opinion. This is nothing less. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning

People, you must be conscious that you may be dealing with the «dark side of the force», and, possibly, with an ancient sysop of WP po named in that time Andreas Herzog (at least one, because they can be two or more, and not all ancients, and not only of one Wiki). If is the case, he know very well the rules to manipulate all the matter. These "things" leave a rast of destruction any where they go. So, perhaps, their objective, if they are here, and I think they are, is really to destroy your project. You must judge this. Ask control of sock-puppets and also special intervention of the Administrators. And more, this "things" must be "cured" with intervention of Metawiki, because they attack in many Wikis. These are reel accusations made by me, so, call also an Administrator to ear what I have to say, because I'm going to ask also the intervention of Meta and, possibly, of a Steward to deal with these guys on all the Wikis. Abraço, obliged by the Wikipedia rules, even for the "things", Jorge alo (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand. Too many riddles. What do you mean? Walrasiad (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they are the same guys that are creating, for example, kings and queens and reigns everywhere, based on their own teories, historiographic minoritary currents and tertiary (and bad) historic or genealogic sources. They have created, for example, Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal, trying to spread the "thing" by wikiscam. This guys know enough the rules to escape, till now, the accusation of vandalism on each Wiki, but we, on wikipedia po, have already something to take them to Meta. They are attacking the list of portuguese kings and Beatrice of Portugal pages, at least, since 2007, and we have blocked several times one of their sock-puppets. So, actually, we can begin by there on Meta, asking the verificability of a lot of names. Jorge alo (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont mean to but in, but are you saying that the request to change the name of the article was an "attack"? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A) A example is enough: Grand Atlas Historique, de Georges Duby, in letter J there are no John nor João, seulement des Jean. Em P il ny a pas de Pedros, Peters, nor nothing, only Pierres. What you proposed violates all the conventions between historians in all the times. B) If you are not Borgatya/Peadar, or Andreas Herzog/Trasamundo (same very, very personal theory defended in 2007, WP po, and in 2011, WP es), you have not to be worry with attacks. Jorge alo (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying my actions resemble these past offenders? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I spoke of identity, not of actions, and I don't know if they were in the past offenders or not. The only avatar till the moment that was blocked, on WP po, was the avatar Peadar, that the avatar Borgatya identified with himself. But all identitary questions will be solved very soon on Meta. All I have to say about your move proposition is already said, "upstairs", on A). And all I have to say about your portuguese coat of arms is also said, with the indication of the pages in Anselmo Brancaamp Freire where the coat is descrived. So, for the moment, I don't have nothing more to say about your actions. Salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have really wondered myself where all the mysterious support came from that led to this destructive move. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia/en wants to compete with Wikipedia/pt?

It's a universal rule on Historiography to change the names to the native language of each country . If you look to any Universal History or Atlas is what you see. in France, Pierre I, in England, Peter I, on Portugal, Pedro I. This rule aims to facilitate the lecture to the "natives" of the land. It has been always like this. So, why to "invent" on Wikipedia/en, one of the bests if not the best Wikpedia, such rule of the real nacional name, and not the english translation on the titles? Because the portuguese like to see their kings, etc, with their proper names? Y'm going to tell you what will happen. When a portuguese student of the secundary school will search, for example, for Pedro I, I bet he will have on first place, on the search Google page, the text of Wikipedia/en. And if you do the same with the italian, french, spanish, etc. names, the same thing will happen. This is stupid. And why only the portuguese names must be conserved, and note translated on english, it's to compete with Wikipedia/po? Someone here is angry with us? Well, it seems that we have blocked some undesirable in the late times. If you see the general page of our Esplanada you will be laughing, because you will see a lot of times: «O texto que estava aqui foi removido, pois foi inserido por boneco de meia ilícito, conforme demonstrado aqui. O comentário seguinte pode estar descontextualizado.»

Translation: «The text that was here was removed because it was entered by illegal dummy half, as shown here. The following comment can be decontextualized.»

So, I can not say that this is the real motivation behind such proposition, but I can wonder about the coincidence. Wikipedia/en is a very good encyclopledia, you dont' have necessity of take us, Wikipedia/po, any readers. I hope you soon return to the consensual rule about names: in general, translation of the names. What I would ask you is to put always a phono translator on the first line, where you put the portuguese name of the individual, and, if you want, on the borders on the right you can write the portuguese names on the links to the english titles of the respective articles. And, only for this last reason, I'm not going to say that this discussion was totally counterproductive. Salutations to all, Jorge alo (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is Pedro I of Brazil, Miguel I of Portugal, Maria II of Portugal, Pedro V of Portugal, Franz Joseph I of Austria, etc... The idea here is simply to use the name most used by English speaking historians. In this case: the name João VI, not John VI. I would really appreciate if someone start actually improving this article, and not lose time with this discussion. --Lecen (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not work on all these serious name problems on Portuguese WP? Should be Johan III here; John I here; Karl XIV Johan here; Jean II here; Giovanni da Montecorvino here. And here's another one, should be Johann! I'm sure there is a lot of work for you folks there on these serious problems - why not do a bit of work on all that and leave instead of English alone for a while? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"leave English alone for a while?" Appalling. Do you have any idea how hostile that comes off as? See Foundation:Resolution:Openness. Alarbus (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No hostility intended, sorry! And no violation of "openness" either. Are you misinterpreting me intentionally? I just thought people who really care about (1) Portuguese and (2) "correct" names might want to look at Portuguese Wikipedia a while. There's a huge amount of work to be done there to get "correct" names!!! I don't know if I find the total silence on that issue "appalling", but it certainly is alarming. How much hypocrisy are we expected to ignore without being at least alarmed? Decimeters of overbearing arguments in English to get the name of one of their kings changed to something virtually nobody will bother to learn how to say. Rather than attacking me and accusing me personally of hostility, stick to the subject matter and answer my question: why don't they "correct" all those names on Portuguese WP, where they probably have unusual expertise, instead of showing so much interest in article naming here?! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it's still appallingly hostile. It amounts telling native Portuguese speakers to go away. That's anti-openness, and you should be ashamed. Maybe those who also speak Portuguese, also edit there? I've no idea, didn't look. If they edit both projects (or more), great. I for one welcome their participation in ENWP and would prefer *they* stay (if anyone's going). Alarbus (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You choose to continue to misread me and attack me personally. That's not nice.

Here's what I'm saying, as clearly as possible, since it looks to me like you didn't bother to even try to understand:

• Of course everyone who can write comprehensible English is welcome to edit here as long as they don't break important rules and get blocked for it.
• A number of Portuguese and Brazilian users have ganged up, as it looks to me, to get us to have an article about one of their major kings entitled João in their language, not John in English.
• On Portuguese Wikipedia the biography of every single historical person by the name of John in English (Johann in German, Jean in French, Giovanni in Italian, etc.), no matter where they are from or what language their original "correct[sic]" names are in, is titled João in Portugese.
• I am suggesting that those editors whose expertise probably is Portuguese might spend some time on that, since they see it as a problem serious enough on English WP to write decimeter after decimeter and argue and argue that João is the "correct" name on English Wikipedia, and there is a lot of work on that exact same "big problem", as they apparently see it, that would need to be done there om Portuguese WP.

Get it now?

I edited my previous comment so that even you would not be able to find it "appalling".

Now please stop attacking me! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not impressed and my opinion stands. Man's name was João, not John. Your view is us-vs-them. Alarbus (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, are we all here to impress you?!?

You are wrong, in my opinion. We do not know what that Portuguese king called himself. You don't and I don't. So in English we use John.

My view is more like do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you. In other words

1. I'm not going to be condescending toward you;
2. I'm not going to attack you personally ~ and most importantly
3. I'm not going to have one of my Portuguese friends or Brazilian relatives go on Portuguese WP and demand that they refer to King John of England as John, not João, or King John III of Sweden as Johan, not João etc etc etc etc etc . SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's put the "thing" right, about numbers: [131], [132]. Jorge alo (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Experience. Let´s put the "thing" right, second attempt: [133] [134] Jorge alo (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) It's ok, now I have the numbers I saw first: John VI wins for more of 9.000.

As I mentioned at ANI -- Heck help us, if a movement begins to change Japanese monarch articles to Japanese. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment If I might I comment something small. It has been stated many times (only by the users that opposed the move of the article) that those who care so much about have correct names here on en.wikipedia should care about the fact that pt.wikipedia has all names in Portuguese. My comment is that what does pt.wikipedia have to do with what we are talking about here? Because I am Portuguese, does that mean that I should edit on pt.wikipedia and care about pt.wikipedia? No, so stop bringing in pt.wikipedia because we are talking about en.wikipedia. Who is saying that pt.wiki is any better? Nobody, so stop referencing it for goodness sake. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It means, if you don't or wouldn't push 'english usage' at Portugese language Wikipedia, then you shouldn't be pushing 'portugese usage' at English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the push on pt.wiki, but why is that my responsability? I do not wish to work on pt.wiki, but here. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard your pátria is the língua portuguesa. Wouldn't that be a natural place for you to be editing? Walrasiad (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's offensive: Foundation:Resolution:Openness. Alarbus (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he shouldn't be editing here. I said I am surprised he isn't editing there. Walrasiad (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to confuse 'english only' readers? GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My "expertise" (or interest for that matter) is in the articles of Portugal, not of other countries. On pt.wiki, most of the Portuguese history articles are exemplary and I find them quite well done. This being said, the same is not true with the Portuguese history articles on en.wiki, thus that is why I work on en.wiki. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, just stop changing 'english' to 'portuguese' & all will be fine. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Might someone enlighten me on the procedure of filing some sort of report against, lets say, just plain rudeness. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI. Walrasiad (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And now I have my own ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Walrasiad Walrasiad (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

O yes, might any one else wish to join in the conversation in the link above. It would be greatly appreciated, thank you. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to tone down this discussion a bit. Please let's just discuss the naming, rather than each other. I believe that Lecen is correct in saying to "use the name most used by English speaking historians." That seems in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Are there any objections to this? Prodego ^talk 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy is more precise: WP: SOVEREIGN: "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.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrasiad (talk • contribs)

Ok, that sounds good. It should be the same, general reference works about historical figures are usually written by historians. :) So seems like all we need to do is identify how he is usually presented in history books, and we will hopefully have an answer! Prodego ^talk 08:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeterminate, as seen in the numbers below. Ergo default to anglicized form.

(And to add a reminder: there have been six Johns, so any norm on this page is likey to cascade across the other five pages, so an eye needs to be kept on consistency (if the names are not consistent, people will likely (they will) intermittently revert because it John in one, Joao in another, and that can be quite disruptive.) And John I, II, III, IV & V dominate commonly in anglicized form. Walrasiad (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we will work on all the Portuguese kings. But I'm not willing to declare 'indeterminate' yet. I'd like to redo those numbers below with a more formal methodology, and possibly then get some data from other sources. I've posted below. Prodego ^talk 08:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we please change this article title back to (John VI of Portugal) something we english-only readers can understand? What's next? changing the article title to read João VI de Portugal? GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Double standard (surprise, surprise): At the Portuguese language Wikipedia, Elizabeth II is called Isabel II. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but what does it matter what is on Pt.wiki? Just because this article is on Portuguese history, that doesnt mean that Pt.Wiki is an example of how things should be!Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, it gives the name change 'here' a bad taste. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Might you explain to me how it gives a "bad taste"? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you see me over at that Project, trying to push english usage? GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That project?

Portuguese language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your pint being? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, I don't believe Cristiano Tomás has anything to do with ptwiki, so how is this relevant? Prodego ^talk 07:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I collected another attempt by Lecen to get me blocked: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Walrasiad reported by User:Lecen (Result: ). Walrasiad (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this page? This message is just adding to the clutter here. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is an interesting article. And it has everything to do with this page and the phonetically disastrous results it has produced in principle for English Wikipedia, if you ask me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please let's restrict our comments here to the content of the page. Discussing other editors is just going to set things up for personal attacks, and will result in blocks. Prodego ^talk 07:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I see plenty of comments here about the content of the page. Mine above certainly is. "...the phonetically disastrous results ...". How that happened is relevant isn't it? What do you think about the content of the page, Prodego? Why not comment on that too? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment gave the impression of being directed to yours, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your comment. Some of the other editors here have made less acceptable ones, but hopefully we can put that all behind us. As for my personal opinion, I am undecided. I might lean slightly towards the Joao spelling, as that's generally how I've seen it spelled, but I don't have much of a preference. Prodego ^talk 04:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Number, numbers

This was a good attempt, and a good idea. But it got sidetracked in to personal attacks. I'd like to try starting over

I think you did the same link twice there Jorge. That said, I am not a fan of google runs - being largely out of context, numbers can be interpreted in many ways and should not be decisive. But since Lecen seem to have based his case entirely on numbers, it is worthwhile to see how selective he has been in his choices. He has made a huge fuss about the fact that "Joao VI" edges out "John VI" on google book searches. But when the full phrase "Joao VI of Portugal" is run agains "John VI of Portugal", the English spelling is twice as common. Now, Lecen waved his hands when I brought this up. So let's be fair and run both on EVERY Portuguese king by that name. Guess what? John X beats out Joao X every time - both without phrasing (plain "John X") and overwhelmingly when phrased ("John X of Portugal"). John I - 68,700, Joao I 31,900, John I of Portugal 37,300, Joao I of Portugal 4,790 John II - 110,000, Joao II 37,400, John II of Portugal 63,300, Joao II of Portugal 7300 John III 65,200, Joao III 37,800, John III of Portugal 37,300, Joao III of Portugal 5,770 John IV 37,200, Joao IV 22,900, John IV of Portugal 19,200, Joao IV of Portugal 4,250 John V 58,800, Joao V 29,700, John V of Portugal 12,100, Joao V of Portugal 2,150 John VI 40,800, Joao VI 53,300, John VI of Portugal 16,000, Joao VI of Portugal 8000 You're welcome. Walrasiad (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Meaningless WP:GHITS. Mostly that would be *us* and mirrors of us. Alarbus (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Nope. Its Googlebooks, not Google. Explicitly excluding wikipedia changes the numbers by less than 100. Although I do agree this should not be decisive, the point it flushes Lecen's arguments out of consideration. Walrasiad (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Bat guano, it does. Mirrors everywhere. Alarbus (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Nope. Do it yourself, then. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) These is no mirror issue with Google Books. But these are overwhelmingly ghost hits. After I deghosted "Joao VI of Portugal," I got 233 results (compared to 8,000 above). I wonder if 53,300 books, the number that supposedly mention "Joao VI", would fit in Lisbon. This kind of thing should be done with ngram. Kauffner (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC) How do you exclude ghosts? Walrasiad (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) First you need qualify the search because these numbers are too big to handle. For example, you can specify books published after 1980. After you've done the search, you'll see numbers 1 to 10 on the bottom of the page. Click the number furthest to the right. Do this repeatedly until you get to the end of the sequence. Ngram deghosts automatically, so you can make one up like this or this. Ngram counts the number of times a phrase is mentioned in the corpus and provides relative numbers. The deghosted result is a number of books. I get 347 post-1980 deghosted English-language Google Book hits for king Portugal Brazil "John VI", 370 for king Portugal Brazil "Joao VI". Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC) PS I assume that the "X of Portugal" form is more common in generalist material, whereas "Joao" is more likely to appear in works that are Portugal specific. In the title, "of Portugal" is a disambigutor. So it does not need to be supported by sources. Kauffner (talk) Just found another curious property of the misleading numbers used by Lecen for John VI/Joao VI: if you simply reverse the ordering in which the search terms are entered, it turns out the opposite: John VI: [40,700] beats out Joao VI [34,500]. Tsk, tsk. Walrasiad (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I really find unnecessary to place my honesty at stake here, but I'm not surprised after what I saw here. If we chose "English only" we'll get 194,000 results for João VI and 43,400 for John VI. --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Cool! You just found 150,000 new books on John VI that didn't show up in English settings on Googlebooks! What a treasure trove! *sarcasm* I just used the same English settings you used when making your original argument. I'm sure you can find other tricks to manipulate numbers. Frankly, I couldn't care less about numbers. But you seem to put a great importance on them. My task here has been merely to point out where your all-important numbers have been quite misleading. Walrasiad (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Tip: Google show results that it believes relevant to whomever; based on where you are, who you are (anyone signed in? is anyone *at all* not profiled by Google?). Results vary a lot. This is all chimp shit flung about a cage in the zoo. (Try books) Alarbus (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I wasn't the one who brought the chimp shit into play and made it into a mountain to worship. Walrasiad (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Hint: you've no idea what I was referring to. Alarbus (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Walrasiad, I think you need an attitude adjustment. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC) see LART. Alarbus (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys, I'd love to get this data again. But a few rules for fairness. First, I'd like clean URLs, and google book searches. I'd like to agree upon the following search method, with URLs such as this: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&lr=lang_en&q=%22Joao+VI%22+Portugal, both with and without the lr=lang_en parameter. I'll create a template for this so we can easily check. Does this seem like a reasonable set of search options to you? I am not terribly familiar with the google books search options. Prodego ^talk 08:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not an expert, but apparently, that produces tons of ghosthits. Kauffner's method, described above, I believe, is the most accurate. Walrasiad (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly willing to add lots of complex parameters to the searches, we are going to need a compelling reason for that. I'm also not sure what you mean by ghost hits in this context. Duplicate hits are not something I consider a problem, if they are in their twice it likely means that source has more weight. Prodego ^talk 09:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. You'll have to ask Kauffner. But a quick scroll to the end of the books pages shows that googlebooks searches seem to mis-estimate hits by tens of thousands. The little exercises above kinda proves how dramatatially sensitive results can be to simple things like word order. Walrasiad (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's WP:GOOGLE: "Note, however, that Google searches for exact quoted expressions may report vastly more hits than actually exist. For example, a Google search for "the green goldfish", with quotes, currently initially reports "About 14,400 results", yet on paging through the actual number of hits turns out to be 58." So it's official: we prefer deghosted results to ghosted ones. As far as what's going on here and why, I'll have to put my guru hat on for a minute. When you type a query into Google, it times out after it uses about 0.5 second of computing time. The algorithm is a trade secret. But presumably the focus is to create a page of results the user is likely to be interested in. The result numbers are barely an afterthought in this process. They are created, not by searching the database itself, but from an indexing system. For a search term like "Joao VI", we get the indexing for "Joao", plus the indexing for "VI". The algorithm grinds away on the matching problem, but when the query times out there are still a lot of possibilities that haven't been checked yet. These show up in the result numbers, although most of them are not actually relevant. Kauffner (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I should add that there is a limit of 400 deghosted Google Book hits. So a result of more than 350 deghosted hits or so is not meaningful. Which is why you have to restrict to a reasonable number before you deghost. Kauffner (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&lr=lang_en&q=%22Joao+VI%22+AND+Portugal. If not that, could you show me the form of URL you are proposing? As simple as possible please. Prodego ^talk 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Case of the Johns OK, new attempt, in earnest this time. In order forestall abuse with colorful language, I've rejigged it as much against my position as possible, restricting results merely to 1980-2012 (so maximizing exposure to the recent academic transition towards indigenous names). I've also deghosted the results and explicitly excluded wikipedia to avoid mirrors.

I've done both "John" and "Joao" alone, and "John of Portugal" and "Joao of Portugal". The former will likelier hit in specialist works, the latter likelier in generalist works. I've also included ngrams, with two ranges (century-long and recent (1980-now)).

• John I 398, Joao I 430, John I of Portugal 377, Joao I of Portugal 120, ngram (1900-), ngram (1980-)

• John II 408, Joao II 425, John II of Portugal 441, Joao II of Portugal 220, ngram (1900-), ngram (1980-)

• John III 406, Joao III 456, John III of Portugal 454, Joao III of Portugal 199, ngram (1900-), ngram (1980-)

• John IV 396, Joao IV 446, John IV of Portugal 227, Joao IV of Portugal 94, ngram (1900-), ngram (1980-)

• John V 401, Joao V 418, John V of Portugal 205, Joao V of Portugal 66, ngram (1900-), ngram (1980-)

• John VI - 366, Joao VI - 433, "John VI of Portugal" 197, "Joao VI of Portugal" 111, ngram (1900-2008)ngram (1980-on)

As can be seen, the tendency is for "Joao" to only edge out "John" by a small margin, whereas "John of Portugal" overwhelms "Joao of Portugal". These are the results I expected. I don't think the margins on the first case are significant - they reflect use in specialist academic works focused on Portugal alone, not generalist works - and even some generalist works are likely to supply a brief translation in the native name, although using the anglicized John through the text (e.g. John VI ('Joao VI' in Portuguese) was a king bla, bla") whereas that is highly unlikely to happen the other way, and moreover they might also have bibliographic references to articles and books written in Portuguese, with the native spelling in their title. The native spelling is also likelier be used in cheap, mass-translated tourist guides as the name supplied by Portuguese travel agencies. So given these considerations, I believe it is safe to conclude the common generalist use is the anglicized "John". Anglicized John is used in works of general reference such as Encyclopedia Britannica ([135]).

The ngrams, whether century-long or recent (1980-), show again, "John of Portugal" preponderant over "Joao of Portugal" (I don't know how to rejig it to remove the phrasing).

So, as far as numerical results go - and, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think they should be made into a totem or decisive - the conclusion falls in favor of the anglicized "John". It greatly dominates when phrased, and is only edged out when unphrased, a difference which I believe captures differing use in generalist and specialist sources. Even if that is not convincing, then at least we have a indeterminate conflict. And indeterminacy defaults to the anglicized form by policy. As WP: SOVEREIGN 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 the name should remain in anglicized form.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate consistency in Wikipedia. "John" is the preponderant form of name used for the kings of Spanish, French, etc. origin. Now, Lecen tends to only write biographical hagiographies of a few 19th C. kings & princesses, where the name is isolated, and thus might not be troubled. But I write wider substantial articles on Portuguese history, over many centuries, where many names appear. And my articles (unlike narrow biographies) are probably likelier to be read by wider audiences which are not prepared for, or "tuned in", to strange Portuguese language spellings, pronunciations and unusual diacritics. Moreover, rulers of many nations frequently appear together in the text, and to talk about the diplomacy between John II of France, John I of Aragon, John I of Castile and "João I of Portugal" is inconsistent and jarring to a reader, and might be perceived as insulting to other nations - if João, why not Jean, Joan and Juan? It is also anomalous to end up talking about famous family members, which are necessarily anglicized, like "Henry the Navigator", dealing with his father "João I".

Sovereign names should be consistent on Wikipedia. It should be consistent within articles, and across articles. And if a wide and preponderant norm established for rulers named John for practically all nations is in anglicized form (the only exception that comes to mind is the Russian tsars "Ivan", but that follows overwhelming usage in English texts), that norm needs to be followed here. I don't see a case for "Portuguese exceptionalism". The use of the anglicized "John" is correct by accuracy, correct by numbers, correct by WP policy, correct by consistency, correct by clarity and correct by common sense.

In short, the case for abandoning the long-standing stable name "John VI" and moving to "Joao VI", is simply not there. The evidence simply does not support "common usage" in general English texts. Moreover, it is disruptive across many pages, it mars clarity and communication, it introduces egregious inconsistencies. Case not made, by Wikipedia policy, it should remain where it was - "John VI of Portugal". Walrasiad (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this table, it is very useful to see (though of course not the end all of the story). Since this discussion will affect several pages, at this point I think we should start an RfC, and post to all the relevant article talk pages, as well as the discussion on Jimbo's page, AN/I, etc. This way we can centralize the discussion, and settle this more completely. Would someone mind starting that? Prodego ^talk 07:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, I can't. Being one of the more vocal participants of this discussion, I am not sure my write-up would be seen as impartial. Although I do urge that whomever does write it up, to please carefully read my presentation above, to at least get an idea of the position of one side of this debate. It is, I believe, one of the clearer and more sober pieces of writing on this talk page. Walrasiad (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the necessary question here is if the kings are commonly known in literature as "John/Joao __ of Portugal" or just "John/Joao __". I have the feeling that "Joao __ of Portugal" is going to be uncommon simply because the Portuguese name is enough of a disambiguator, but this isn't my normal topic area, so I'm not sure about that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how constrained the and specialized the work is. In a work of general reference, or any work not narrowly constrained to Portugal, e.g. a work on, say, the general History of Western Europe, or the Napoleonic Wars, or American Diplomacy in the 18th C., where multiple rulers of many nations are discussed in parallel, I expect "_of Portugal" to be a common and necessary disambiguator. Less so in specialized works narrowly focused on Portugal. Walrasiad (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that "John of Portugal" will be used because there were other King Johns, whereas "Joao of Portugal" would not because there were no other European King Joaos. Those were just my thoughts while looking at the numbers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. But my point remains in reference to generalist works. Disambiguation will still be necessary, even if there are no other Joaos. In a generalist work, you're likely to see the phrasing even if it uses native names, e.g. in discussing, say, French diplomacy during the Hundred Years War, phrases will be like "To detach England from her allies, Jean II dispatched an embassy to Joao I of Portugal", and not merely, "To detach England from her allies, Jean II dispatched an embassy to Joao I", period. Who is this Joao I who hasn't come up before? And since the point here is use in generalist works, not specialist works, then it is important. Walrasiad (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: to revert all the changes of name, in this article and in the others, to its primitive forms, on english

Anyone is opposed? Jorge alo (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If the proposal is to to revert all the changes of name, in this article and in the others now named João, to their previous forms, in English (John) , I support that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 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. Walrasiad (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I still think Jorge's proposal should have been replied to, not ignored, I agree about confusing threads. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

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)

• 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. [136] 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. 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 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)

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)

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

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.[137] - 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)