This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John of Austria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on the arguments presented below, the honourific "Don" needs to be removed from the title in order to be consistent with Wikipedia rules. Gryffindor 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it "de Austria" and not "d'Austria"?
This article's name seems wrong. I have never heard of "Don John of Austria" (sounds strange too). Did a google search for "Don Juan de Austria" and there are much more hits than this one. If English is to be used, it should be "John of Austria", the "Don" would have to go as honourifics are not normally used in Wikipedia articles. I would propose either "John of Austria", "Don Juan de Austria" or "Juan de Austria", but not a combination of English-Spanish... Gryffindor 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"John of Austria" is an oxymoron. No one know of such person. It is "Don Juan of Austria (or de Austria)"! If you call him John why do not translate his title as well. We'd get a "Honorable John of Austria" instead of Don Juan. One more John on English Wilkipedia pages. Vitoldus44 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If wikipedia naming conventions mean we can't include "Don" in the title of this article, then Wikipedia naming conventions are wrong. john k ( talk) 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians, sorry for again raising this issue, but IMHO the article's name should be Don Juan de Austria (in spanish, the most frequently found online for this spanish person), and then there should be redirects from the english translated name (as this is the english wikipedia). I've just seen in the Main Page other names of spaniards, in spanish (as I could expect to see). As an example,please bear in mind the following cases:
José de San Martín,
Pedro de Mendoza,
Juan de Garay,
Domingo Sarmiento,
Juan Manuel de Rosas, just to mention a few.
Unless there is a reasonable cause for not doing so, I'll move this page to the accepted spanish name (mentioned above) before end of this month.
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"Don" is a sort of style, is it not? I don't think it should be included in the article title any more than "HRH". I believe that he was John of Austria but not being any sort of title "of Austria". Seven Letters 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Something in the formatting of this page makes it almost illegible. The emblazoning is on the left and a bunch of other stuff. In my years of reading Wikipedia I've never seen a page look this bad. 4.249.63.207 ( talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a poor indirect way to indicate he was born out of wedlock. As with in-wedlock (marital) and out-of-wedlock (extramarital?) children, their societal status depends on the attitude of various groups, some of which are going to be more influenced by their birth status than others. But the birth status seems the key issue, and "illegitimate" seems just kind of a weasel word. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 15:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The latest version of this article showed, that Juan d'Austria was allegedly married with Hillegonda van Veen. This is based on only one source and highly disputed. Experts like Charles Petrie, Austrian and Spanish Historians never pursued this theory. Neither german nor spanish Wikipedia versions have any entry on this behalf. The only source for this allegation comes from a book by G. Eschausier: "Het Leidsche Geslacht van Veen" (1912). If Hillegonda van Veen, daughter of the famous Cornelis van Veen and sister of the even more famous Otto van Veen was married to him and they had a son, this would be better documented than in Eschauziers family chronicles. Additionally, all the entries regarding this dubious offspring come from the same source, which probably also spreads this theory via his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.125.4.110 ( talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
After checking the Eschausier source (found the booklet at a Dutch Antiques Bookshoop), even there is no information about a possible marriage between Hillegonda and Juan. The previous entry therefore is complete invention and the User HiddenHistoryBuff should be blocked from faking historical facts. All faked details have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.4.242 ( talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it went south the next year, but it still seems a fairly major accomplishment that should at least be mentioned in the guy's bio. — LlywelynII 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
From the introductory section: "Charles V met his son only once...." From the "Early life" section: "Charles resided nearby at the Monastery of Yuste, and until his own death in September of that year, he saw his son several times."
This inconsistency should be cleared up by someone who knows about the subject or is willing to learn about it. If "he saw his son" means looked out the window and glimpsed him without meeting him, that should be explained. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
While working on fixing links to disambiguation pages, I came across this article, which links twice to John's position as Vicar of Spanish Italy (once in the infobox, once in the political offices template at the bottom). The "Spanish Italy" link is to a disambiguation page ( Spanish Italy (disambiguation)), but I am unsure which entity from that is correct.
Additionally, there is no mention of this office or what it consisted of in the text of the article. I feel like an office like that should probably be explained (with a citation of some sort). I am no expert on John or the general time period, so I thought that I would mention it here. It looks like @ Muwatallis II has been doing a lot of work here recently and added this office, so I figured I would notify them of this discussion. Thanks, Cleancutkid ( talk) 09:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John of Austria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on the arguments presented below, the honourific "Don" needs to be removed from the title in order to be consistent with Wikipedia rules. Gryffindor 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it "de Austria" and not "d'Austria"?
This article's name seems wrong. I have never heard of "Don John of Austria" (sounds strange too). Did a google search for "Don Juan de Austria" and there are much more hits than this one. If English is to be used, it should be "John of Austria", the "Don" would have to go as honourifics are not normally used in Wikipedia articles. I would propose either "John of Austria", "Don Juan de Austria" or "Juan de Austria", but not a combination of English-Spanish... Gryffindor 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"John of Austria" is an oxymoron. No one know of such person. It is "Don Juan of Austria (or de Austria)"! If you call him John why do not translate his title as well. We'd get a "Honorable John of Austria" instead of Don Juan. One more John on English Wilkipedia pages. Vitoldus44 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If wikipedia naming conventions mean we can't include "Don" in the title of this article, then Wikipedia naming conventions are wrong. john k ( talk) 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians, sorry for again raising this issue, but IMHO the article's name should be Don Juan de Austria (in spanish, the most frequently found online for this spanish person), and then there should be redirects from the english translated name (as this is the english wikipedia). I've just seen in the Main Page other names of spaniards, in spanish (as I could expect to see). As an example,please bear in mind the following cases:
José de San Martín,
Pedro de Mendoza,
Juan de Garay,
Domingo Sarmiento,
Juan Manuel de Rosas, just to mention a few.
Unless there is a reasonable cause for not doing so, I'll move this page to the accepted spanish name (mentioned above) before end of this month.
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"Don" is a sort of style, is it not? I don't think it should be included in the article title any more than "HRH". I believe that he was John of Austria but not being any sort of title "of Austria". Seven Letters 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Something in the formatting of this page makes it almost illegible. The emblazoning is on the left and a bunch of other stuff. In my years of reading Wikipedia I've never seen a page look this bad. 4.249.63.207 ( talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a poor indirect way to indicate he was born out of wedlock. As with in-wedlock (marital) and out-of-wedlock (extramarital?) children, their societal status depends on the attitude of various groups, some of which are going to be more influenced by their birth status than others. But the birth status seems the key issue, and "illegitimate" seems just kind of a weasel word. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 15:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The latest version of this article showed, that Juan d'Austria was allegedly married with Hillegonda van Veen. This is based on only one source and highly disputed. Experts like Charles Petrie, Austrian and Spanish Historians never pursued this theory. Neither german nor spanish Wikipedia versions have any entry on this behalf. The only source for this allegation comes from a book by G. Eschausier: "Het Leidsche Geslacht van Veen" (1912). If Hillegonda van Veen, daughter of the famous Cornelis van Veen and sister of the even more famous Otto van Veen was married to him and they had a son, this would be better documented than in Eschauziers family chronicles. Additionally, all the entries regarding this dubious offspring come from the same source, which probably also spreads this theory via his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.125.4.110 ( talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
After checking the Eschausier source (found the booklet at a Dutch Antiques Bookshoop), even there is no information about a possible marriage between Hillegonda and Juan. The previous entry therefore is complete invention and the User HiddenHistoryBuff should be blocked from faking historical facts. All faked details have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.4.242 ( talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it went south the next year, but it still seems a fairly major accomplishment that should at least be mentioned in the guy's bio. — LlywelynII 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
From the introductory section: "Charles V met his son only once...." From the "Early life" section: "Charles resided nearby at the Monastery of Yuste, and until his own death in September of that year, he saw his son several times."
This inconsistency should be cleared up by someone who knows about the subject or is willing to learn about it. If "he saw his son" means looked out the window and glimpsed him without meeting him, that should be explained. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
While working on fixing links to disambiguation pages, I came across this article, which links twice to John's position as Vicar of Spanish Italy (once in the infobox, once in the political offices template at the bottom). The "Spanish Italy" link is to a disambiguation page ( Spanish Italy (disambiguation)), but I am unsure which entity from that is correct.
Additionally, there is no mention of this office or what it consisted of in the text of the article. I feel like an office like that should probably be explained (with a citation of some sort). I am no expert on John or the general time period, so I thought that I would mention it here. It looks like @ Muwatallis II has been doing a lot of work here recently and added this office, so I figured I would notify them of this discussion. Thanks, Cleancutkid ( talk) 09:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)