Denis of Portugal is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
User 219 -- please look at some other articles on Royalty and adopt the same format. It makes a more consistent wikipedia. Also, these Portugal articles seem very encyclopedic. If you are taking the text from somewhere else, it needs to be noted. Finally, birth and death dates are good. It's really cool to have someone working on POrtuguese rulers, BTW. Boots
In my defence, I need to add that these articles are written from a combination of memory and the few English reference books I have at my command here in Japan. The major texts involved in all of these are the latest Encyclopaedia Britannica (I don't know the year of publication off the top of my head), D.H Livermore's authoratative 'History of Portugal' (1972 I think), the Longmans Chronicle of the World and S.H Steinberg's 'Historical Tables' (1973). Where I have no facts to back up what I've written, I've chosen to omit the information altogether - this would explain the lack of birth and death dates in most cases (I prefer to know exact dates too) and also why I've not contributed to major rulers such as John I, John II and Manuel I - the info I have here is too scant. These articles are only supposed to be embryonic and I hope to improve upon them when I return to England and have better resources at hand. Thanks for your interest and comments, I appreciate that someone is reading my work. I intend to contribute to any gaps in political history as and where I can, with what I have available. Simon
PS - I can assure you that nothing I have written is plagiarised, and if my knowledge may be sometimes at fault, I take full credit for the narrative.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, if a better name is agreed upon as suggested in the discussion below, conduct another RM with the specific alternate title. Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the title Denis of Portugal implies kingship, though Denis I of Portugal would be the best title. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It seems like only a recommendation, rather than a convention. With many exceptions (e.g. Peter of Castile, etc.) And I don't really see the practical gain of the change of wording here. @ Cristiano, there is no other Denis, why the ordinal? Walrasiad (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
@ There was only 1 Luis, 1 Carlos, and they are Luis I and Carlos I, I just thought Denis would be the same? no? Thank you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Not in my experience. It even sounds strange, "Dom Dinis of primeiro", or "Dom Duarte o primeiro". Don't think I've ever read or heard them referred to as that. Walrasiad (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, Thank you, that was just a thought. But even withought an ordinal, should he not be Denis of Portugal? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think so. Can't really see the gain of the other way. Walrasiad (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. I believe that a son of a Portuguese monarch who did not have a title of his own would also be called "X of Portugal". Normally, the regnal number would indicate if a person is king or simply a prince, but in the absence of such a number, "X, King of Portugal" would clarify everything. This is the point of the recommendation in WP:NCROY. Reigen (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I modify my position in favor of Denis I of Portugal, following the convention used by the Portuguese wikipedia. 
Support. "Denis I of Portugal" would be even better.Kauffner (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If the choice boils down between Denis, K of P and Denis 1 of Portugal, then the former is preferable. There is no Denis II. And I've never seen him referred to, in any chronicle or book, as "Denis the First". This was done briefly for the Peter of Castile article here, and it was terribly confusing - marred a lot of the article writing. I'd still prefer "Denis of Portugal" for ease and simplicity. In this era, the crown heir was still referred to as "Infante" (e.g. "Infante Dom Duarte" , ) Walrasiad (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support -- I was not aware of the new convention, but I thoroughly support it. Denis of Portugal does not obviously refer to a king. In most European monarchies the first king (or queen) with the name does not use an ordinal, but later people would use it when the was a Denis II. As a precedent see John, King of England, with King John of England as a redirect to it. However, the articles on English queens regnant are at Queen Victoria and Queen Anne. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Our articles names don't "obviously refer to" any position held by anyone (except for the popes anomaly). There is also no need for them to do so. Bad naming convention, shouldn't be applied here or on other similar articles. Fram (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious reference to a position is necessary for some monarchs; otherwise, it may be difficult to distinguish them from other people. Reigen (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No. It isn't necessary or done for any other group of people (except the popes anomaly), there is no need to be clear that X is a king or queen from the name of the article, it needs to be clear from the actual article. You don't know from other article titles whether X is a boxer, painter, criminal, mayor, cardinal, ..., but for a king it suddenly is necessary to know this? Fram (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
To nullify your assertion, we have articles like Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Most royals do not use surnames, and most nobles are known by their territorial designation instead of their surnames. Thus, the designation is necessary. Separate naming conventions for separate groups. Reigen (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"Denis of Portugal" does have a "territorial designation", and no one is suggesting moving the page to "Denis"... Fram (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Convention dictates that monarchs or rulers be identified. A regnal number would serve this purpose. In the absence of the ordinal, stating the title itself becomes more important. Reigen (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Convention dictates, and I oppose the convention. Convention should reflect actual practice, and it seems from this and other discussions that it doesn't have such a firm consensus behind it as people may think. The small convention for rulers is in contradiction to the general convention used for the vast majority of biographical articles here, and I see no good reason for this. Fram (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Consistency is important, especially with an encyclopedia like this with so many editors. If you disagree with this convention, you could state it in the talkpage of WP:NCROY and wait for feedback from the community. Of course, conventions are not unbreakable; they don't stop any editor from making arbitrary preferences. But for the sake of consistency, I'd rather follow. Reigen (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point. I support consistency with the hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles, not with the small group of un-ordinaled royals articles which follow the NCROY convention (and note that many such articles don't follow that convention anyway). Fram (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, royals and nobles follow the NCROY convention, not the hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles. They are a class of their own, so a different convention had been designed for them. Just like the "Popes anomaly".Reigen (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, the convention encourages case-by-case decisions and I agree with the suggestion above that Dennis I of Portugal should be preferred in this case. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Preferable, if widespread usage exists. Reigen (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There is only one Denis. I have never seen numerals used. Walrasiad (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Curiously, the third-to-the-last and second-to-the-last Kings of Portugal (Luis I and Carlos I) use a numeral, even though there is no other Portuguese king named Luis or Carlos. Reigen (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
All that inbreeding must have confused them. :) Walrasiad (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And us too. :) But seriously, the practice of "single monarch = no ordinal" is not universal. For instance, the last Emperor of Austria was Charles I of Austria. Reigen (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
After Napoleon crowned himself "emperor" and start plopping his kids around on imaginary thrones, all the traditional rules of nobility were thrown out the window. It got pretty anarchic - "emperors" pop up everywhere, double-named kings, ordinals are skipped, titles handed out without office, etc. i.e. anything goes. The chaos of the 19th C. nomenclature shouldn't serve as a guide for anything prior. Walrasiad (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Now that I looked it up, even the Portuguese wikipedia uses Dinis I de Portugal. For this, I had modified my vote above in favor of Denis I of Portugal. Reigen (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Quick googlebooks check (numbers deghosted):
"Denis of Portugal" 230 results vs. "Denis I of Portugal" 9 results.
"Dinis de Portugal" 315 results vs. "Dinis I de Portugal" 5 results
Any more candidates? Walrasiad (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Still, the Portuguese seem to sanction the use of a regnal number even if there is only one monarch of a certain name, as with the aforementioned Luis I and Carlos I, as well as the consensus on the Portuguese wikipedia to use Dinis I. The name should reflect this convention. Reigen (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not a convention. It's an error. You'll notice that practically none of the handful of "Dinis I" usages listed above are Portuguese, (the few that make that mistake are foreigners and most of them are just typos anyway (e.g. google misinterpets a semi-colon (;) as a "i", or hits a volume or page number that starts with "i" or "1" in the index, e.g. "Maria, daughter of Denis, i, 109, 185, ii, 43."). Walrasiad (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That theory doesn't explain why they use Luis I or Carlos I, or why the Portuguese version of this article is Dinis I de Portugal. What is more plausible is that — this is a Portuguese convention. Reigen (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So you don't trust your own eyes? It is not a convention, it is not used in any Portuguese history source. The page on Portuguese Wiki is a mistake - it was Dinis for the greater part of its history. Some confused editor moved it only a couple of years ago without discussion, and nobody's bothered to move it back (although somebody did move Sebastiao back). That is all. It is an error. I can change it back myself, if you would like? Walrasiad (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
For the greater part of history, Queen Elizabeth I was known only as Elizabeth, until 1952. Some time in Portuguese history, the Portuguese monarchs started using "I" even if there is no "II" yet - Luis I, Carlos I. The question is when they did this. If this is relatively recent, is it correct to apply it retroactively? In the case of Elizabeth I, retroactive application was acceptable. Reigen (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
One cannot bring into the question Queen Elizabeth, as it matters not to the fact that there is a Queen Elizabeth II. We are discussing the application towards a monarch whose name was only used once. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I used the example of Elizabeth I to counter the value of "the name used for the greater part of history" - i.e., even a long-used name can be dropped in favor of a new convention. For the Portuguese monarchs, I rely upon the examples of Luis I and Carlos I. Reigen (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
When I said "greater part of its history", I meant the history of that page at pt.wiki. It was abruptly moved by one editor about two years ago, without any discussion. Many of the lists and related articles at pt.wiki remain plain Dinis. Convention hasn't changed. All decent Portuguese and English history books refer to him plainly as Dinis. Luis & Carlos are strange exceptions from a strange late period. Much like Louis Philippe or Napoleon III. (P.S. if you really want to know why D. Luis & D. Carlos use ordinal, the truth is that they really didn't and are not really referred to with their ordinal in Portugal as often as you imagine. It just happened that the mint masters at the time coined their currency with the label "I", and that's what others (mostly foreigners) took as their cue.)Walrasiad (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why were the mint masters allowed to do that? Must have been some convention. Reigen (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.