This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Instead of "John I" and "John I", would "Juan I" and "João I" be clearer, if used consistently? -- Wetman 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the use of the English names clutters it up. This article used to use the native names, why change back? 140.159.2.31 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC) James Perkins, Australia
The present title was doubtless moved from a History of Portugal subsection at some point. It needs a sufficient stand-alone title: Portuguese succession crisis, 1383-1385. Or something. --Wetman 04:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Noting the remark about original names, which is perfectly valid I am sure, and seeing that they had NOT been restored in spite of the above note "done", I proceeded to do it. But I am affraid I may have deleted a link that said João, inadvertently. Can anyone help put it back? Thamus ( talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
1. respect for the person who wears the name. 2. Juan, John, João, Joahnn, Jean, are names that share the same root, but they are not the same name. 3. loss of reference. let's say Mary Stuart. Spaniards, notorious for translating names even when it is not possible to (I commend the editors of this article for refraining to translate Nuno Alvares Pereira) would render it Maria Estuardo. How are spanish speaking students to guess that Estuardo is Stuart? Saludos, Thamus ( talk) 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a much better article in Wikipedia, Battle of Aljubarrota (even if they insist on translating every name they can) and the information is essntially duplicate. Why not just transfer from this article whatever isn't there (if anything) and change the link? Saludos, Thamus ( talk) 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Thamus, Wetman and James Perkins rather than Surtsicna about the names. As a native English speaker (American) who has traveled in Portugal and Spain (and who hasn't taken the time to master typing accent marks, etc. in those languages unlike modern newspaper typesetters, etc.), I understand that names have a political aspect that probably can't be avoided, especially here. Switching them to modern English only seems to avoid the problem of Joao vs. Juan, which perhaps not strangely might actually clarify matters in this instance (using the Portuguese form for Portuguese and Castillian for Spanish). IMHO, translating both to John seems extremely disrespectful, particularly because that was a language these probably multi-lingual people never spoke. Personally (and I daresay like most educated people of this day and age unlike circa 1700 or 1800 when the English translation practice began), I can handle Fernando and Isabel--and I prefer it to Ferdinand and Elizabeth. To me, the Mary Stuart example only proved the point of the imperial-era arrogance of switching the names into English. Of course this particular article reads like a native Portuguese speaker wrote in English, with the polite passive voice and lengthy constructions. I don't have the time for the heavy editing this article requires, and agree that a name/title change might also be in order. Also, I do think that the political/dynastic situation needs a separate article from the battle. Jweaver28 ( talk) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I unilaterally changed the name. Why Did i do that?
The original event is an important part of Portuguese history. Thus, the event will be written by Portuguese historians in a Portuguese perspective. Also, to note, the event will be known as the “1383-85” crises in the Portuguese language, and thuse will know the event as it is. In addition, to anyone who is not familiar with Portuguese history will be extremely confused in regards to its reference. To any English person, a bare reference is a bit confusing. Also, it is more of a “minor” thing, so it is not well known. Thus, I thought it was apprproriate to move the page to 1383-85 Portuguese Interregnum crises. That is why I changed the name.
Winterysteppe ( talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Instead of "John I" and "John I", would "Juan I" and "João I" be clearer, if used consistently? -- Wetman 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the use of the English names clutters it up. This article used to use the native names, why change back? 140.159.2.31 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC) James Perkins, Australia
The present title was doubtless moved from a History of Portugal subsection at some point. It needs a sufficient stand-alone title: Portuguese succession crisis, 1383-1385. Or something. --Wetman 04:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Noting the remark about original names, which is perfectly valid I am sure, and seeing that they had NOT been restored in spite of the above note "done", I proceeded to do it. But I am affraid I may have deleted a link that said João, inadvertently. Can anyone help put it back? Thamus ( talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
1. respect for the person who wears the name. 2. Juan, John, João, Joahnn, Jean, are names that share the same root, but they are not the same name. 3. loss of reference. let's say Mary Stuart. Spaniards, notorious for translating names even when it is not possible to (I commend the editors of this article for refraining to translate Nuno Alvares Pereira) would render it Maria Estuardo. How are spanish speaking students to guess that Estuardo is Stuart? Saludos, Thamus ( talk) 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a much better article in Wikipedia, Battle of Aljubarrota (even if they insist on translating every name they can) and the information is essntially duplicate. Why not just transfer from this article whatever isn't there (if anything) and change the link? Saludos, Thamus ( talk) 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Thamus, Wetman and James Perkins rather than Surtsicna about the names. As a native English speaker (American) who has traveled in Portugal and Spain (and who hasn't taken the time to master typing accent marks, etc. in those languages unlike modern newspaper typesetters, etc.), I understand that names have a political aspect that probably can't be avoided, especially here. Switching them to modern English only seems to avoid the problem of Joao vs. Juan, which perhaps not strangely might actually clarify matters in this instance (using the Portuguese form for Portuguese and Castillian for Spanish). IMHO, translating both to John seems extremely disrespectful, particularly because that was a language these probably multi-lingual people never spoke. Personally (and I daresay like most educated people of this day and age unlike circa 1700 or 1800 when the English translation practice began), I can handle Fernando and Isabel--and I prefer it to Ferdinand and Elizabeth. To me, the Mary Stuart example only proved the point of the imperial-era arrogance of switching the names into English. Of course this particular article reads like a native Portuguese speaker wrote in English, with the polite passive voice and lengthy constructions. I don't have the time for the heavy editing this article requires, and agree that a name/title change might also be in order. Also, I do think that the political/dynastic situation needs a separate article from the battle. Jweaver28 ( talk) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I unilaterally changed the name. Why Did i do that?
The original event is an important part of Portuguese history. Thus, the event will be written by Portuguese historians in a Portuguese perspective. Also, to note, the event will be known as the “1383-85” crises in the Portuguese language, and thuse will know the event as it is. In addition, to anyone who is not familiar with Portuguese history will be extremely confused in regards to its reference. To any English person, a bare reference is a bit confusing. Also, it is more of a “minor” thing, so it is not well known. Thus, I thought it was apprproriate to move the page to 1383-85 Portuguese Interregnum crises. That is why I changed the name.
Winterysteppe ( talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)