This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
What became of Carlos August, the child born in 1874 in Lisbon ? Any info available regarding his mother ? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Windemere (
talk •
contribs) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 35 days.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Luís I of Portugal →
Louis I of Portugal — Per
WP:UE. The Britannica uses the English form and we use English forms for the Portuguese kings named Peter, John, Sebastian, Henry, Ferdinand, Denis, Edward, Philip, Joseph and Beatrice. The only exceptions are Afonso and Sancho, since there are no real English counterparts, and Luís, Carlos, Miguel, Manuel and Maria. Now Maria and Manuel I can stomach, because Manuel is clearly used in English in preference to Emmanuel, and the same goes, I think, for Maria, though I'm less certain. What I can't figure out is the logic behind Luís, Carlos and Miguel. The English forms of their names are used at Britannica, so I am also proposing that Carlos and Miguel be moved:
John was moved because he doesn't have an ordinal; if we're using the ordinal "I" for Luis, the situation is different, as it's reasonably clear we're talking about a king.--
Kotniski (
talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Consistency. I find the system being used for Portuguese monarchs is archaic. In no other modern situation would people seriously rename or transliterate peoples names just to make it understandable or acceptable to other people (except with non-Roman languages, where pronunciation is difficult): it seems almost paternalistic. Personally, I am of the opinion that all the names should be left as they are originally written, due to their historical context, that is: Miguel, Afonso, Maria, Pedro, Luís, etc. I find that transliterating people's names takes away from the uniqueness of their cultural significance. I mean, would anyone transliterate
Mao Zedong's name, just so that someone will know that his name meant: Bob Smith? BUT, given the
Wikipedia rules, I would prefer to see some consistency: Afonso = Alfonse/Alphonse and Sancho = Santzo/Santso. Ironically, the obscureness of these examples only shows the obvious: the naming logic is totally incorrect. I will, of course, abide by the consensus.
Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (
talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)reply
If there is a move to use the valid name of all these people, I strongly oppose this current proposition to move articles to their English "equivalent", and suggest that all the monarchic names be reverted to their real name. No anglicizing for the sake of anglicizing!
Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (
talk) 09:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose The goal of Wikipedia is not to create consistency in scholarship. Only one single source has been cited in favour of Louis/Charles/Michael (the Encyclopedia Britannica). I will cite two sources in favour of Luis/Carlos/Miguel: the New York Times and the Times (of London); both newspapers consistently use Luis/Carlos/Miguel in the obituaries for these men. Wikipedia should not change the names of people for the sake of consistency. They are more commonly referred to by their Portuguese names.
Noel S McFerran (
talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)reply
You are correct in identifying me as one of the consistency police. But don't worry, we're unarmed.
Srnec (
talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
As strong an oppose as is possible to give. Whatever Britannica may say, most English sources use the Portuguese names. Just looking at book's in my apartment: Norman Rich's Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914 uses Miguel; so do H.A.C. Collingham's The July Monarchy, Dupuy & Dupuy's Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, and Bridge & Bullen's The Great Powers and the European States System 1814-1914, 2nd ed. Langer's Encyclopedia of World History (1948) does use "Louis I" for Luis, but does not anglicize either Miguel or Carlos I. The Columbia Encyclopedia also uses
Miguel. Birmingham's A Concise History of Portugal uses Miguel, Pedro V, Luis I, and Carlos I. If you want to demonstrate common usage, you have to point to more sources than just Britannica. I think "Michael of Portugal" is pretty close to completely unused in English. I'd add that Srnec's example that "we" use "Peter" comes as a result largely of Surtsicna's unilateral move of
Pedro V of Portugal to
Peter V of Portugal last year. Otherwise, all Portuguese monarchs from 1826 are at the Portuguese form of the name.
john k (
talk) 03:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, if neither form is dominant in English usage, then I prefer the original form of the name, as more encyclopedically informative. (Of course, I'd happily dispense with "of Portugal".)--
Kotniski (
talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support, I'm always in favour of anglonizing such names.
GoodDay (
talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Would supportLuís, King of Portugal. Strictly speaking, anglicization is Lewis, whereas Louis is a Frenchization of Germanic Hlodovech/Ludwig/Lodewijk. Support
Miguel, King of Portugal and
Carlos, King of Portugal. Charles is yet another Frenchization of Germanic, Carol/Karl, OE ceorl>churl. Carlos is just as 'English' these days as Charles.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 23:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Why does Luís get a I, but Miguel and Carlos don't?
Srnec (
talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I assumed there was another Luis ... changed accordingly.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
There's no other Juan Carlos, but he still gets a I. I think it has to do with official usage - what was the official usage in this case? (Or waas the "I" added retrospectively by those who acknowledge the kingship of would-be
Luis II?)--
Kotniski (
talk) 11:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
The modern customs of these monarchies are obscure to me ... it is confusing though to give a monarch an ordinal even when he doesn't need one (a practice out of step with intuition and usual practice). :/
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose – In my opinion, the local names should always be used, and in this case it’s even clearer than usual that the local names are preferable. I am not expressing a preference for one suffix over another (“ of Portugal” or “, King of Portugal”).
MTC (
talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly Oppose Louis, Charles or Michael. I think Peter V should be moved back to Pedro V since Pedro IV of Portugal is at Pedro I of Brazil instead of Peter I of Brazil.--
Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (
talk) 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
British Ultimatum
This article mentions the British Ultimatum being made during Luis I's reign, however it was made January 11, 1890, 3 months after he died. Should it even be mentioned in this article?
Paris1127 (
talk) 12:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Although saying King Luís I belonged to the House of Braganza isn’t totally wrong, he actually belonged to the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This branch was created when Queen Maria II (Braganza) married the German prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All Portuguese monarchs descended from them belonged to the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Royal Braganza (
talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
What became of Carlos August, the child born in 1874 in Lisbon ? Any info available regarding his mother ? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Windemere (
talk •
contribs) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 35 days.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Luís I of Portugal →
Louis I of Portugal — Per
WP:UE. The Britannica uses the English form and we use English forms for the Portuguese kings named Peter, John, Sebastian, Henry, Ferdinand, Denis, Edward, Philip, Joseph and Beatrice. The only exceptions are Afonso and Sancho, since there are no real English counterparts, and Luís, Carlos, Miguel, Manuel and Maria. Now Maria and Manuel I can stomach, because Manuel is clearly used in English in preference to Emmanuel, and the same goes, I think, for Maria, though I'm less certain. What I can't figure out is the logic behind Luís, Carlos and Miguel. The English forms of their names are used at Britannica, so I am also proposing that Carlos and Miguel be moved:
John was moved because he doesn't have an ordinal; if we're using the ordinal "I" for Luis, the situation is different, as it's reasonably clear we're talking about a king.--
Kotniski (
talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Consistency. I find the system being used for Portuguese monarchs is archaic. In no other modern situation would people seriously rename or transliterate peoples names just to make it understandable or acceptable to other people (except with non-Roman languages, where pronunciation is difficult): it seems almost paternalistic. Personally, I am of the opinion that all the names should be left as they are originally written, due to their historical context, that is: Miguel, Afonso, Maria, Pedro, Luís, etc. I find that transliterating people's names takes away from the uniqueness of their cultural significance. I mean, would anyone transliterate
Mao Zedong's name, just so that someone will know that his name meant: Bob Smith? BUT, given the
Wikipedia rules, I would prefer to see some consistency: Afonso = Alfonse/Alphonse and Sancho = Santzo/Santso. Ironically, the obscureness of these examples only shows the obvious: the naming logic is totally incorrect. I will, of course, abide by the consensus.
Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (
talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)reply
If there is a move to use the valid name of all these people, I strongly oppose this current proposition to move articles to their English "equivalent", and suggest that all the monarchic names be reverted to their real name. No anglicizing for the sake of anglicizing!
Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (
talk) 09:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose The goal of Wikipedia is not to create consistency in scholarship. Only one single source has been cited in favour of Louis/Charles/Michael (the Encyclopedia Britannica). I will cite two sources in favour of Luis/Carlos/Miguel: the New York Times and the Times (of London); both newspapers consistently use Luis/Carlos/Miguel in the obituaries for these men. Wikipedia should not change the names of people for the sake of consistency. They are more commonly referred to by their Portuguese names.
Noel S McFerran (
talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)reply
You are correct in identifying me as one of the consistency police. But don't worry, we're unarmed.
Srnec (
talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
As strong an oppose as is possible to give. Whatever Britannica may say, most English sources use the Portuguese names. Just looking at book's in my apartment: Norman Rich's Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914 uses Miguel; so do H.A.C. Collingham's The July Monarchy, Dupuy & Dupuy's Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, and Bridge & Bullen's The Great Powers and the European States System 1814-1914, 2nd ed. Langer's Encyclopedia of World History (1948) does use "Louis I" for Luis, but does not anglicize either Miguel or Carlos I. The Columbia Encyclopedia also uses
Miguel. Birmingham's A Concise History of Portugal uses Miguel, Pedro V, Luis I, and Carlos I. If you want to demonstrate common usage, you have to point to more sources than just Britannica. I think "Michael of Portugal" is pretty close to completely unused in English. I'd add that Srnec's example that "we" use "Peter" comes as a result largely of Surtsicna's unilateral move of
Pedro V of Portugal to
Peter V of Portugal last year. Otherwise, all Portuguese monarchs from 1826 are at the Portuguese form of the name.
john k (
talk) 03:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, if neither form is dominant in English usage, then I prefer the original form of the name, as more encyclopedically informative. (Of course, I'd happily dispense with "of Portugal".)--
Kotniski (
talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support, I'm always in favour of anglonizing such names.
GoodDay (
talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Would supportLuís, King of Portugal. Strictly speaking, anglicization is Lewis, whereas Louis is a Frenchization of Germanic Hlodovech/Ludwig/Lodewijk. Support
Miguel, King of Portugal and
Carlos, King of Portugal. Charles is yet another Frenchization of Germanic, Carol/Karl, OE ceorl>churl. Carlos is just as 'English' these days as Charles.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 23:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Why does Luís get a I, but Miguel and Carlos don't?
Srnec (
talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I assumed there was another Luis ... changed accordingly.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
There's no other Juan Carlos, but he still gets a I. I think it has to do with official usage - what was the official usage in this case? (Or waas the "I" added retrospectively by those who acknowledge the kingship of would-be
Luis II?)--
Kotniski (
talk) 11:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
The modern customs of these monarchies are obscure to me ... it is confusing though to give a monarch an ordinal even when he doesn't need one (a practice out of step with intuition and usual practice). :/
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose – In my opinion, the local names should always be used, and in this case it’s even clearer than usual that the local names are preferable. I am not expressing a preference for one suffix over another (“ of Portugal” or “, King of Portugal”).
MTC (
talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly Oppose Louis, Charles or Michael. I think Peter V should be moved back to Pedro V since Pedro IV of Portugal is at Pedro I of Brazil instead of Peter I of Brazil.--
Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (
talk) 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
British Ultimatum
This article mentions the British Ultimatum being made during Luis I's reign, however it was made January 11, 1890, 3 months after he died. Should it even be mentioned in this article?
Paris1127 (
talk) 12:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Although saying King Luís I belonged to the House of Braganza isn’t totally wrong, he actually belonged to the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This branch was created when Queen Maria II (Braganza) married the German prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All Portuguese monarchs descended from them belonged to the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Royal Braganza (
talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply