Talk:John VI of Portugal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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: [1], [2]. Jorge alo (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Experience. Let´s put the "thing" right, second attempt: [3] [4] 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 ([5]).

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)

If anyone cares, this is why I believe all monarchs should have their names in their original tongue. Obviously, I'm talking about monarchs that use the Latin Alphabet, not Arabic, Chinese, etc... --Lecen (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So medieval monarchs would be given in Latin? Kauffner (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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 moved. This close matches the other one done this week. If someone wants to try a rename, they need to do all of these articles in one nomination. One by one is not going to work. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

• Even Portuguese does not permit king names in their native language, as noted earlier. See thread below: "#Wait Portuguese rejects English for Kings of England" for how "Henry VIII" is not allowed in Portuguese. -Wikid77 21:50, 15 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. [6] 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. (in response to the remark below that there are lots of inputs from editors who don't normally work on this topic area: Yes, I watch WP:RM, and don't normally comment on name-language issues; but this one blew up and attracted a lot of extra attention, and obviously needed input from the wider community, so I and others took a look and rendered an opinion. Isn't this what was called for?) – 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 odd 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)

• The issue is NOT what name will be commonly-used some day, for John VI of Portugal, in the future (as a wp:CRYSTALball prediction), but instead, we must name the article now as "John VI" and consider renaming in 10 years when the world changes to another name, whether that will be "Joao VI" (2nd common) or "João VI" (rare) or "Joaon VI" (perhaps) or "John 6" (maybe), etc. -Wikid77 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Break for small browsers

(was split to allow edit by telephone browsers)

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

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) 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.[7] - 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)

• Strong support to rename back. Restore article as "John VI of Portugal" as the wp:COMMONNAME form, after the controversial move-over-redirect (on 7 January 2012) to the rare form "João VI of Portugal". Search of Google Books confirms widespread (65%+) English use as "John VI of Portugal" dating back over 150 years, to at least 1823. (check Google Books: search 'John VI of Portugal'). Although other king names commonly use the Portuguese, such as King Pedro II, the common form for over 3-to-150 years has been "John VI" (not "João"). It is not the role of Wikipedia to overrule world usage and force every name into Portuguese when most books have stated "John VI" all these years. -Wikid77 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"King" Pedro II? "Joaon"? "Joao 6" At least try to pretend you know something about Portuguese/Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the term should be Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I was holding this back in order not to clutter the page, but since there were questions raised as to how the kings John were originally spelled in Portuguese, I thought it might be interesting. All these are Portuguese, I've omitted Latin & foreign sources; from documents I already had at hand (I haven't bothered searching for later ones):

• from a book published during the lifetime of John VI, (1792), we have the title: Collecção de livros ineditos de historia portugueza, dos reinados de D. Joaõ I., D. Duarte, D. Affonso V., e D. Joaõ II. [8]. Note that diacritic is on the 'o', not 'a'.

From older documents (since this is relevant to older kings):

• chancellary letters from John I, 1410s, from Monumenta Henricina, spells himself as "Dom Joham", [9]
• chancellary letters from John II, 1490s: spells himself as "Dom Ioham" or "Dom Joham", [10] (note later letter of John III, as "Dom Johã")
• letter from John III in 1529 "Dom Joam" [11]
• letter from John III in 1534: "Dom Johão" [12]
• official chronicler Fernão Lopes (1400s, 1644 ed.) spells the king as "D.Ioam" [13]
• official chronicler Gomes Eanes de Zurara (1453, 1841 ed.) spells "dom Joham" [14]
• chronicler Cristóvão Rodrigues Acenheiro (1535), spells it "Dom Joam" [15]
• letters of Afonso de Albuquerque (early 1500s, 1774 ed.): "dom joham" [16],
• official chronicler Damião de Góis (1567): "Dom Ioam" [17]
• unofficial chronicler Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1550s, 1833 ed.): "dom Ioão" [18]
• anononymous chronicle, Breve Summario dos Reys (1555, 1570 ed.): "dom Joan" [19]
• chronicler Duarte Nunes de Leão (1643) "Dõ Joam" [20]
• chronicler Manuel de Faria e Sousa (1666) "D. Juan" [21]
• historian Carvalho da Costa (1708) "D. Joaõ" [22],
• historian Caetano de Sousa (1748, 1744) "D. Joaõ" [23], [24]

These variant spellings are, of couse, no surprise. This is presented here as a curiosity. Walrasiad (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know, but neither Portuguese, not English, nor German, nor French were written in the 15th and 16th centuries (as your sources) as they were later in the 19th century. Why don't you let João VI speak for himself? See his signature here. "João". Source: Taken from the archives of the House of Braganza. One of the good things of actually knowing the subject which is being debated. --Lecen (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I merely posted that as a curiosity about variant spellings. Since this debate is relevant for six Portuguese kings, they all count. As for your signature, that is pretty indeterminate - the diacratic flies flourishingly above. Some documents place it on "o", others on "a", e.g. a document in a Wellington collection, dated as late as 1813 [25], chose to reproduce the orthography as "Joaõ", as is commonly enough found in the 18th C. Anyway, this is not particularly relevant. Just curiosities. Walrasiad (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Other languages use the translated name, not João VI. The avoidance of "João VI" is not an English "bias". Instead consider how the other languages use translated forms of the name John, as German "Johann" or French "Jean" or Italian "Giovanni" or Spanish "Juan" (etc.). Hence, the other-language Wikipedias use those translated names: German WP has "de:Johann VI. (Portugal)", French "fr:Jean VI de Portugal", Danish "da:Johan 6. af Portugal", Italian: "it:Giovanni VI del Portogallo", Polish "pl:Jan VI (król Portugalii)", Finnish: "fi:Juhana VI (Portugali)", Swedish "sv:Johan VI av Portugal", and even Spain as a neighbor of Portugal uses "es:Juan VI de Portugal". None of them use "João VI" but instead use their version of "John VI" as in historical sources. -Wikid77 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Britannica 1911 & 2011 have John VI. Just in case anyone thinks the major general reference books have changed to "João VI" then compare these editions:

• John VI Of Portugal - 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - Free Online

• John VI (king of Portugal) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

For over 100 years, Britannica has listed John VI not João VI. -Wikid77 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment «Spelling» it's a curious word because it means two different things: the oral system and the writing system, on ortography. About ortography, beyond the timing variation, we have also the space variation. For example, I really don't say «João», but «Juon», and even, if I'm really amused, «Juonhe». The padron, on the writing portuguese, it's the portuguese of the centre, more particularly, from the region of Coimbra, and there are a lot of ways of speaking by all the country. So, «João», on the time and on space, it's the portuguese convention of our days to write this name.

The historiographic convention about write the foreign names (when possible) on the native language wants to easy the life of readers and, particularly, of students. The «Johns» of France, Portugal, etc, are more easy to memorize and more easy to write. What really cares, to a History student is that one day, for example, he can be a good historian, and not a kind of "parrot" that can say, with the write spelling, «John» on all the languages. The trend referred to us by Peterkingiron and Anastinax can, by the moment, have a lot of fans, but in the futur will surely collapse, because is an needless "gongorism". So, Wikid77 can begin a new linear calculation to let us know when this trend will may collaps. and, by the way, Pedro I will be write, on the futur, in english, Peter, Juan Carlos, John Charles, etc, because it's the easiest way to refer them. And, for example, 50 years from now one, "their problem" will to be alive on the memory of people.

Anyway, a trend it's a trend and a rule it's a rule, and, for more "bad names" that we call it, and more adjectives we put on it, the rule still is the rule and the trend, the trend. To confuse, it's to call the trend the rule and to call the rule a trend. And also, speaking of confusion, now on the oral matter, «João» don't gives the oral spelling because an anglophone, in general, don't know how to spell a tilde, «Joao» also don't gives the oral spelling, but something like «Juau», so, how to give to our readers the correct oral spelling? Easy, with a phono tool, like this. But we can do even more, and now on the ortographic matter. On the monarch's boarder on the right, we can put for the parents, etc, their portuguese names on the links to their english articles with english titles. As this, we will have both the portuguese and english name presents on that border, and will be enough, for the reader, to pass the cursor on the link to read the corresponding english name (of the article). Doing this, I think we correctly will pursue something Astynax said and I think it's very important: to give our readers that care for this spelling questions a lot more of correct information. But, doing like this, we also don't put on danger one very old and ruthless law of language: to speak and write by the more easiest way, a kind of Occam's razor on language. Jorge alo (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The general rule is to "translate" the names of kings and popes. So "Jonh VI" is the wright title for this article.Japf (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:SOVEREIGN. His Portuguese name should, I think, be bolded in the article's first sentence. Miniapolis (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support the move back to John. The point of WP:TITLE is to put articles where the readership (who by and large have English as their first or only language) would reasonably expect to find it. The demand for "correctness" is met perfectly adequately (and simply) by the opening sentence "John VI (13 May 1767 – 10 March 1826) (Portuguese João)" (or, rather less simply, by "John VI (full name: João Maria José Francisco Xavier de Paula Luís António Domingos Rafael; (13 May 1767 – 10 March 1826)", which is what the article said up until about 10 days ago). Moonraker12 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 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.

Expect Joao VI to be common as John VI in 18 years

I have calculated when "Joao VI" might become as common as "John VI" of Portugal. Because some editors have emphasized to look at the growing trend among scholars to shift from the common name "John VI" to the Portuguese name "João VI", then I have calculated the algebraic equations to predict how many years before they might have similar usage counts. The historical split has been 65% John VI versus 35% Joao VI, as seen in the Google Books Ngram during 1900-2008: Ngram John/Joao of Portugal.

There are 3 scenarios here: Scenario 1 is a best-case where the whole world switches to writing "Joao VI" tomorrow, and after 6 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage spanning 26 years. Scenario 2 is a less zealous case, where only 66% of sources start writing "Joao VI" tomorrow, and in 18.75 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage (with "John VI" also 50%). I am counting the spelling as "Joao VI" (rather than precise Portuguese "João VI") as the most optimistic hope to move away from "John VI" using qwerty keyboards. In reality, the spelling with tilde "~" is very rare compared to "Joao VI" without the tilde. Scenario 3 maintains a 50-50 standoff, where it would not be obvious that either name was used more often in future years.

The equations are solved below.

Scenario 1

In this case, for x years, the world switches 100% to writing "Joao VI" (no one would use "John VI"), and after 6 years, the historical usage would be even for the past 26 years.

20 years * 35% + x years * 100% = (20+x years) * 50%
20 * 35% + x * 100% = 10 + (x * 50%)
     x * 100% - (x * 50%) = 10 - (20 * 35%)
     x * 0.5  = 10 - 7
           x  = (10 - 7) * 2 = 6 years

Scenario 2

In this case, for x years, the world switches 66% to writing "Joao VI" (1/3 would still use "John VI"), and after 18.75 years, the historical usage would be even for the past ~38 years.

20 years * 35% + x years * 60% = (20+x years) * 50%
20 * 35% + x * 66% = 10 + (x * 50%)
     x * 66% - (x * 50%) = 10 - (20 * 35%)
     x * 0.16  = 10 - 7
           x  = (10 - 7) * 6.25 = 18.75 years

Scenario 3

In this case, for x years, the English sources split 50% to writing "Joao VI" (and half still use "John VI"), and after 280 years, the historical usage would be 49% Joao VI for the past ~300 years.

20 years * 35% + x years * 50% = (20+x years) * 49%
20 * 35% + x * 50% = 9.8 + (x * 49%)
     x * 50% - (x * 49%) = 9.8 - (20 * 35%)
     x * 0.01  = 9.8 - 7
           x  = (9.8 - 7) * 100 = 280 years

As noted, Scenario 1 is a best-case dream where all English sources switch to writing "Joao VI" soon, and after 6 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage spanning 26 years. Scenario 2 is a more-realistic case, where only 66% of most sources start writing "Joao VI" tomorrow, and in 18.75 years, then "Joao VI" would be 50% of usage (with "John VI" also 50%). In Scenario 3, with future usage split 50-50, then "Joao VI" would reach 49% in 280 years, or just consider as 50% usage for only 30 years. Perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica would switch to "Joao VI" mid-way during the time period, such as after 9 years, before year 2021. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012, revised 17:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Showing English and Portuguese names near top of 6 articles

I would like to ask everyone to try to put both of the John/João names near the top of all 6 articles: "John I of Portugal" and "John II of Portugal" ... "John VI of Portugal". Perhaps each article should also have a footnote that explains although spelling "Joao" is much more common, the Portuguese name is "João" with the tilde. Many, many sources omit the tilde and simply show "Joao VI" and such. -Wikid77 00:12, 14 January 2012, revised Wikid77 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this question come up in other articles and it was the opinion of many editors to put both names in the articles. Here are some relevant guidelines from the Wiki naming convention policy WP:Article titles that might be useful. "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural... Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters...In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia"."Coaster92 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Preceding comment added by Coaster92 (talk •05:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone against having both names in the lead of those articles as per normal usage? Or do we mean the article name by "top" here, such as John VI (João) of Portugal? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea! Except with the ordinal after, so like John (João) VI of Portugal. Very good, I would support that if that was a move request. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with it in the lead. But not in the title. That's just awkward and unnecessary. Walrasiad (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of John VI of Portugal (João VI de Portugal). Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Still awkward, still unnecessary. Most people who will be searching for this king here, will probably just enter "John VI" in the search box and hone in on the simpler title immediately. And those few who enter "Joao VI" will probably have no problem realizing it is "John VI of Portugal". Parentheses should be reserved for disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me at all what this section is about.

1. The original language name should be mentioned at top of the lede of the article?
2. The original language name should be included in this article's name?

Could somebody please clarify?

I'm sure everyone agrees with #1.

I would not support #2 (as per my example above or any other format). SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• By "top" I mean "in the first sentence" of each article. -Wikid77 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait Portuguese rejects English for Kings of England

Now wait a minute here. Despite all this "scholarly talk" of how modern international sources embrace the native-language for Portuguese kings, supposedly as "João VI" (no longer "John VI"), look at the facts noted above. Let's remind people, again, that meanwhile, Portuguese has rejected the use of English names even for Kings of England. Note well: "William the Conqueror" is Portuguese "Guilherme I de Inglaterra" and Henry VIII of England is Portuguese "Henrique VIII de Inglaterra". But that's not all. Even the uber-famous French name "Marie Antoinette" (accepted in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, etc.) is Portuguese "Maria Antonieta". The Portuguese style also translates the names of kings of Sweden or Germany. That is what the French call a "double standard" (or "el doble moral"?). It is difficult to accept this talk of renaming John VI when even "Henry VIII" is not allowed in Portuguese. -Wikid77 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to make this point several times above. If we are to see the Wikimedia projects as some kind of a comprehensive, consistent whole, I think the point is a valid one, though indirect. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For years (partially on the basis of how other language Wikipedia's handle english), I've been promoting english usage on English Wikipedia. I have taken alot of 'sh-t' for it. It's partially why I've taken on a gnome editing style. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute please!!! You are offending portuguese wikipedia and its editors. Except for some few exceptions, it is agreed that the names of kings should be in portuguese in the portuguese wikipedia, in english in the english wikipedia and so on. There is not a double standard here. You are just being fooled by handfull of language purists, that don't represent the lusophone comunity. What I really don't understand is why this discussion is being so long. It is usual to translate the names of kings and popes- the only possible title for this article is JOHN VI, leave "João VI" for the portuguese wikipedia.Japf (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work GoodDay, and more power to ya! I will always support that, except for modern people (after 1900) who had/have legal names that cannot be translated, such as Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Margrethe II of Denmark.

Japf, I'm sure no offense is intended, and as far as I can see Portuguese Wikipdeia is wonderful. The three of us are just reacting quite naturally to a double-standard on the part of a few Portuguese and Brazilian editors, who have demanded (not suggested cordially) that their kings be named in their languuage here while not even English kings are named in English on their own (so to speak figuratively, of course) project. One of them even says he never works on ptWP, only wants to do (that kind of) work here on enWP. Please try to understand how flabbergasting all that seems to us! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The great worker of all this, Lumastan/A minha pátria é a língua portuguesa/etc., etc., now as on his page a spanish adress. As Japf said, Wikipedia po don't have nothing to do with this. More, I have put on our Esplanada (general discussion page of Wikipedia po), a notice so all that want to participate here could come. I think Japf came because of that notice. As I have much work to do now, personally, but I also love Wikipedia, before I'm leaving, I want to call Wikid77 attention to this: Long-term cross wiki vandalism against Portuguese history. And as you can read om my report, is not only against Portuguese history. I didn't liked Ed behavior, as sysop, here, and now I'm not liking Teles behavior on Meta and Wikipedia po about my report and me. I ask Wikid77 to investigate all this matter, because it smells very bad. Now, I am Portuguese, on Wikipedia po work Brasilians, Portuguese, guys from Angola, Mozambique and a lot of other (more little) countries. We are trying to do our best. I have tried also to do my best here and on Meta. Walrasiad has already call these guys (Lecen/Alarbus and Cristiano Tomás), or who was before Cristiano Tomás on the same page/talk page where he is now, a gang, of bad style. I hope Wikipedia on general, and Meta on particular, will take measures against this gang, that looks like to be very spread. Now I must go to my proper work, that is a little late because of all this mess. A great salute to all you that make Wikipedia, Jorge alo (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The great work of all of this? You mean having tried to make an article about someone be titled their actual name? You are right, I am a vilan, hang me now. -_- Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe, Christiano; but we must assume good faith, must we not? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Following the example of pt:Isabel II do Reino Unido? (Others: es:Isabel_II_del_Reino_Unido, cs:Alžběta II., it:Elisabetta II del Regno Unito.) Oculi (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, you are not a vilan, you are an hijo dalgo. Jorge alo (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As in Hijo de algo, a hidaldo?? Well no, I would be a fidalgo, I am not Spanish, I am Portuguese, and sadly any title I would inherit or bear would be meaningless, as we are a republic now. If you meant something else, disregard the above. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But sure. On the Portuguese of Fernão Lopes it was writen on the lower case, not with capital letter, for example: «grão casa de donas e de donzelas filhas dalgo e de linhagem (edition of Livraria Civilização, page 154, of the Chronicle of King Ferdinand). On that time the rope to hang was guarded for the vilans, no? Jorge alo (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, I no longer care, Good bye all, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this battling a strawman? There is obviously a massive, massive consensus in favor of anglicizing the names of monarchs whose names are always anglicized in English. Has anyone ever argued for Nikolai II of Russia or Konstantinos I of Greece? The dispute here is based on the fact that there's a decent number of English language sources that use the Portuguese form for this monarch. john k (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)