Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Br'er Rabbit (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 7 September 2012 (→Requested move 2: on bullshite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Portugal Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Misplaced Pages Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

According to this website: http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Brazil/brazil2.htm , Maria I and Pedro III had a stilborn son, Dom João de Bragança, on 20th October 1762. Should he also be listed? dawn22 19:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Peter III of Portugal → Pedro III of Portugal
• Peter II of Portugal → Pedro II of Portugal
• Peter I of Portugal → Pedro I of Portugal

– Results in Google books for "Pedro III" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 647 results; for "Peter III": 478 results

• Results in Google books for "Pedro II" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 7,710 results; for "Peter II": 465 results

• Results in Google books for "Pedro I" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 8,900 results; for "Peter I": 1,340 results

Thank you. Lecen (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per results above. FactStraight (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Having re-considered my !vote based on revised data submitted by Walrasiad, below, I continue to support this move per the arguments, also below, of Necrothesp and P.T. Aufrette. FactStraight (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Above Googlebooks results show "ghosthits" (non-existent hits) and are misleading. The "de-ghosted" results are given below. I've restrited the range 1980-2012, doing both "Peter" and "Pedro" alone, and by the longer phrasing "Peter of Portugal" and "Pedro of Portugal" (The former will likelier hit in specialist works, the latter likelier in generalist works).

• Peter I 290, Pedro I 263, Peter I of Portugal 26, Pedro I of Portugal 23,
• Peter II 504, Pedro II 559, Peter II of Portugal 40, Pedro II of Portugal 24
• Peter III 262, Pedro III 199, Peter III of Portugal 23, Pedro III of Portugal 6

As can be seen it "Pedro" does not dominate "Peter. Moreover, looking at standard generalist works, e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica lists them as Peter I (King of Portugal), Peter II (King of Portugal) and Peter III (King of Portugal). Finally keep in mind the policy here is given at WP:SOVEREIGN, which 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 by Misplaced Pages policy, the name should remain in anglicized form, "Peter".

To add, the current standard in Misplaced Pages for "Peter" sovereigns of other nationalities is to name them "Peter", including all the Spanish "Pedros", (e.g. Peter of Castile, Peter I of Aragon, Peter II of Aragon, etc.), to say nothing of the myriad of other Peters of other nationalities. I see no reason for Portuguese exceptionalism.

Finally, in all other Wikipedias, all the Portuguese "Peters" are translated into their respective language rather than retained as "Pedro", e.g. French: fr: Pierre I de Portugal, German: de:Peter I (Portugal), Italian: it:Pietro I del Portogallo, Dutch: nl:Peter I van Portugal, etc. Again, I see no reason to make an exception here and break with common usage. Walrasiad (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Different languages have different conventions. For instance, French uses the francisized name fr:Léonard de Vinci while English retains the Italian spelling Leonardo da Vinci. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci is not a monarch or royal. The convention for royals before the 19th C. is to translate, unless common usage directs otherwise. So we have "Ivan the Terrible" (exception by common usage) but "Peter the Great" (not Pyotr). And common usage in English generalist works for the Peters I, II & III of Portugal, Castile, Aragon, etc. is "Peter", not Pedro. Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Pedro" is perfectly acceptable in English, and is widely cited. It also has the unique advantage of being their name. Archaic Anglicised forms are merely the Relic of Empires. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Not only is Pedro incredibly common in English, it is the commonly used name for the King. On a similar discussion on John VI, many argued that the move to João VI would be illogical because Anglophones would not be able to pronounce it (though there are hundreds of articles on English wiki that have accentations that are impossible to read), but on this Pedro is used in English all the time. This is a perfectly acceptable move. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Cristiano Tomás and Br'er Rabbit on this issue. Paulista01 (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support As was mentioned before, Pedro is a widely cited name in English, and from either result is nearly as common or more common that "Peter." Misplaced Pages as it stands now is in the strange situation of having Portuguese Pedros named "Peter" and Brazilian Pedros named "Pedro," despite being from the same ruling line. Not to mention the host of other monarchs (Ludwig II of Bavaria, say) whose names are inconsistently rendered in respect to English or their national languages. Absolutely support this move. Chiwara (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is about Portugal, not Brazil. And the proposed changes are being made primarily backwards, into the Medieval era where anglicization is and remains the norm, not forwards into the 19th C., where nationalists managed to foist a hodge-podge of nativist spellings. So the existence of "Ludwig II of Bavaria" in the 19th C. does not implicate that all prior Ludwigs (Bavarian, German and otherwise) are "Louis". The stark incongruity would be with their contemporaries - the myriad of Peters of Castile, Aragon, et al., which are commonly known and named as such in standard generalist works. If you wish WP:SOVEREIGN criteria to be changed, then perhaps a discussion can be opened up there and a new policy determined. Walrasiad (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • But one of the Pedros was emperor/king of both Brazil and Portugal. He is Pedro I of Brazil (never Peter), so you can't very well call him "Peter IV of Portugal". If he's Pedro IV of Portugal, then the first three should be Pedro I, Pedro II, Pedro III. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is not "never Peter". It is frequently Peter, but happens to fall in a period of transition in royal naming conventions in Europe so not that anomalous to find both and cases can be made for either. That said, Brazil is a different country without a Medieval past, so that has minimal disruptive backward implications. But imposing a 19th C. Brazilian nativist preference on earlier Portuguese, Castilian & Aragonese monarchs would be like imposing the commonly untranslated 19th C. Ludwig II of Bavaria on all prior German, Bavarian and Saxon monarchs named "Ludwig" but translated commonly to "Louis". As per WP policy, common usage should dictate and, where unclear, anglicize. If you feel the policy should be changed, then we can take up the discussion there. Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • To clarify: we never say "Emperor Peter I of Brazil", it is always Pedro in this context. —P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You forgot to mention Pedro V of Portugal, the grandson of Pedro IV (or Pedro I of Brazil). --Lecen (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Portuguese and Spanish kings are today usually referred to as "Pedro". They should actually all be moved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • They are? Do you have evidence for that? Because the figures above don't seem to support that contention. Certainly not generalist works (e.g. Britannica). If you are arguing for exceptionalism, I'd like a little more elaboration, particularly since any such changes would be highly disruptive to articles on Portuguese and Spanish history. If you are suggesting (as Chiwara seems to be above) that the criteria of WP:SOVEREIGN should be changed, shouldn't a discussion on that be opened up there rather than here? Walrasiad (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We already have Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, and common usage seems to be similar for Portugal. Indeed, it would be incongruous to say Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person. The first name "Pedro" is by now quite familiar to English speakers in general contexts, which probably drives the modern usage of "Pedro" rather than "Peter" for the sovereigns. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both names are correct. Neither is unusual. In this case, I think we have a right to decide what our editorial convention will be, and I am not convinced it is to just count, with difficulty, Google hits. Why should Portuguese medieval monarchs be treated differently from their French or Castilian counterparts? Srnec (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I should add that Walrasiad has ably put forward the basis in policy for opposing this move. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Cristiano Tomás and P.T. Aufrette. Joao Xavier (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Walrasiad and Srnec. Aerospace1 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Aerospace1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quite curious coming from an account whose sole purpose is to vote on move requests. See Aerospace1's contribution history. --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It's ironic the silence of the opposition compared to the past discussions on John VI of Portugal. At this time, I believe all the articles of the Portuguese monarchs can be moved without much contest.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be fairly solid support for these moves, but this local consensus is plainly against WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Regardless of how this is closed, we need to review the wording at the guideline.--Cúchullain /c 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. "Pedro" is fine and unlikely to be misinterpreted, but as noted the standard for European monarchs up until 1900 or so is to translate to the native language (note that French Misplaced Pages has Pierre III, Catalan Pere III, etc.). It's less of a concern with Portuguese monarchs than, say, Spanish ones (who frequently also ruled domains in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. and thus calling them "Carlos" as if Spain was their only domain is misleading), but there's some value to consistency. SnowFire (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how long it will take until someone closes this move request. It was opened almost a month ago. --Lecen (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In several places, his name appears to be Pedro, and not Peter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Cristiano Tomás and Lecen on this issue.Érico Wouters 03:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with what has been requested and explained above by Lecen. Carlos Luis M C da Cruz (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

CLOSE LINE 04:12, 5 September 2012 / 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)(UTC)

Post close comments

when I made these comments it wasn't clear where the RM close line was, the above was still all white

• Comment I'm not particularly interested in monarch's names, I'm more interested in how we spell BLPs (even sports stubs who I was told once "these people are not BLPs" (!) but since it evidently interests other editors, and since it seems there may be a gap between editors on this RM and editors who edit Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), consider this:

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.

I did my own search -wp -llc since 1990 in the following format and got 24xPedroI/4xPeter1 21xPedro II/7x Peter II, 5xPedroIII/0xPeterIII since 1990 so why isn't this a simple move following WP:SOVEREIGN? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're still counting ghosthits. Restricting it to 1990 (as you did), it not nearly as lopsided. Pedro I/Peter I = 14 : 5, Pedro II/Peter II = 11: 8, P3 = 5:0. I don't consider that overwhelming, particularly when you examine the small selection that comes up in that narrow window, e.g. nativist spellings in specialist works, spelling-focused numismatics, cheaply-translated volumes, and some books that don't have the terms at all! (e.g. this showed up for Pedro II, this, this, this and this showed up as hits for Pedro I. I dare you to find the word "Pedro" or "Portugal" in them.), etc. So take such numbers with caution. Googlebooks searches can occasionally be instructive, but also quite misleading, particularly on narrow edges. One specialist work or a coin auction catalog should hardly be the determining factor when compared to, say, generalist works of reference like Britannica. At best, it is unclear. And lack of clarity defaults to Peter by WP:SOVEREIGN. Walrasiad (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Lecen's search results appear more correct and Walrasiad's include Misplaced Pages material - though Peters of Russia seem to have crept into both. Why isn't this a move per Lecen's figures? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not deghosting. Those are imaginary hits. You really imagine there were 7,700 books which referred to Peter II published since 1980? There probably aren't a fraction of that in the entire history of publishing, in all languages. Walrasiad (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad, don't argue please. In any case the below uses your own figures: In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Peter III of Portugal → Pedro III of Portugal
• Peter II of Portugal → Pedro II of Portugal
• Peter I of Portugal → Pedro I of Portugal

– . Propose per WP SOVEREIGN "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference.". Although not overwhelming the trend in results since 1990 is to "Pedro I, II, III of Portugal" from "Peter, I, II, III of Portugal". See Peter I/Pedro I = 14 : 5, Pedro II/Peter II = 11: 8, P3 = 5:0. As someone not involved in WP:NCROY discussions, I find results for Peter I/Pedro I (1320-1367) are particularly surprising since you'd expect "Peter I", as a standard English exonym for medieval kings (from Latin Petrus) and yet sources like The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1415-c. 1500 - Page 1033 Christopher Allmand, Rosamond McKitterick - 1998 has "Pedro I of Portugal". I was particularly struck by this source as it shows a deliberate editorial change contrary the old J. B. Bury Cambridge Medieval History 1938, 1959 which had "Peter I of Portugal" ...it is this change in a Cambridge standard work from 1938 to 1988 which makes me confident to support this move. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I whole wholeheartedly agree with In ictu oculi but I'd also wish to make a comment about it. We already have Pedro IV of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal. Although there are no biographies in English of Kings Pedro I, Pedro II and Pedro III, it's pretty easy to learn what are the names that historians prefer. The sole biography in English about Pedro IV calls his grandfather (Pedro III) by his name in Portuguese. The biography of Emperor Pedro II (son of Pedro IV and great-grandson of Pedro III) also uses "Pedro II" and "Pedro III". What about the latest biography of Princess Isabel? It's not only a biography of her as well of all monarchs of the House of Braganza (including Pedro II, Pedro III, Pedro IV and Pedro V). It also uses "Pedro II", "Pedro III", "Pedro V"! There are books in English about the history of Portugal. They also use the name in Portuguese. It's important to remember that Pedro  III's wife is never called "Mary I", but always "Maria I". Thus, the names should be moved to "Pedro I", "Pedro II" and "Pedro III" as they are the mostly used by English speaking historians and also to maintain consistency with Pedro IV and Pedro V. --Lecen (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I think that, on balance, the non-Anglicized form is probably slightly more common for these Portuguese monarchs in English sources (although if we move these, we really need to do something about Peter of Castile, which may be one of the worst article titles on Misplaced Pages). That said, I don't think it's really been demonstrated that "Pedro" is more common, or that, if it is, it is very much more common. Instead of looking at raw google results, what we should be doing is looking at what reputable secondary sources use - textbooks, specialized reference works, historical monographs, etc. john k (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • John, see my post just above yours. On all my years working on FAs such as Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil I have never seen a single source call King Pedro III (grandfather of Pedro I and great-grandfather of Pedro II) as "Peter III" nor his wife Maria I as "Mary I". --Lecen (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support. As I said in the earlier move request, the fact of the matter is that Pedro is a completely accepted and common name used in the English language as Peter. The fact that modern day English language historians are using Pedro II instead of Peter II only proves that. There is literally nothing logical that can say that this move is not completely correct! There are no accentations that would "make it hard for English speakers". This is the man's name! Misplaced Pages is to base its information on what others, credible sources, write, not whatever we think is right. The fact is that historians refer to the men (Pedro I, II, and III of Portugal) by their name exactly: Pedro! In all honesty, if we look at all these discussions that have occurred on the Portuguese monarchs, the evidence is all their! Perfectly good and strong proof has been given to show that their real names are the ones that should be used on Misplaced Pages, but the fact of the matter is that anglophile xenophobicism is the main reason why none of article names are corrected. I really do hope that my previous statement is proven wrong and that this page is moved to its correct and rightful name. Many thanks, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be ample support for using the original, rather than an anglicized form of the name. It appears as "Pedro" even in 19th century English language sources. Despite the confusion in Wiki conventions, use of anglicized names in U.S. scholarship has never been universal and has been decreasing in recent decades, though holdouts for medieval and transliterated names still persist. I do understand that anglicization is more widespread in British sources, but this also has been changing (a personal, but I think accurate, observation). • Astynax 07:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and Protest. I'd like to protest on procedural grounds. This RM has been opened and repeatedly relisted for a month, with ample time. Why has a new one been opened immediately? Surely a waiting time is in order?

Moreover, it seems to me the new comments seem to be largely a repetition of those previously, most still unaware that WP:SOVEREIGN, which asks for works of general reference, not specialist works. General references, as recommended by WP, is things like Britannica (Peter I, Peter II and Peter III) and Columbia (Peter I, Peter II, Peter III). Yet the examples being forwarded seem to be from specialized histories. We all know scholarly historians have recently adopted a tendency to nativize spellings. As a professional academic, I do that myself (but I also write for general audiences, and my habits differ there). Even to take the most generous example, ictu oculi's article (written by a non-native speaker incidentally) doesn't nativize Peters I, II & III, he nativizes the spellings for all monarchs. Not only Portuguese kings, but also Pedro of Castile, Pere of Aragon, Pere of Sicily, etc. If this is the new policy, I'd like to know.

Other comments return again to arguing for general policy changes - that is, that Misplaced Pages should overlook general references and move to specialized references in naming conventions, not only here but elsewhere. Others once again ask for a move of Castilian kings. This, again, is a repetition of the arguments made earlier.

In my view, this is the wrong way to resume discussion. Evidently the disatisfaction lies with Misplaced Pages's WP:SOVEREIGN policy. Canvassing a protest on the closing admin's page, immediately rinse & repeat and hope for a better result is not the way to go. If you want the policy changed, please do this seriously. Let's open a discussion on policy. There are good points to be made, and can be made. But that discussion shouldn't be here. If you want the Peters of Castile, Aragon, etc. to be changed, then bring in notices to those pages too and construct a wider move.

To summarize: I believe this RM opening is inappropriate, and that a pause should be made, as is customary in RM closures. It is evident the real problem lies in some people not finding the Wiki policy acceptable. That was already apparent in the first discussion, and the same arguments are being repeated here. This is exhausting and time-consuming. If nothing else, a pause would give people time to construct a more careful case, in the appropriate forum, rather than slicing repeatedly and interminably here. Walrasiad (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy procedural close. A well-participated RM discussion was just closed (as no consensus). A fresh discussion should not be allowed within two months, unless allowed by a properly conducted and closed WP:Move review discussion. Closes need this minimum of respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • See this: "I've given everyone the two options: restart the move discussion all over again using guideline-compliant arguments, or take me to WP:AN." Since my name isn't Walrasiad I won't bring an administrator to the ANI simply because he closed a move request against my wishes (See John VI of Portugal's talk page). I'm not petty. --Lecen (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let me clarify on the procedural note that I explicitly told Lecen that he could open a new RM if new evidence was presented, and I see that that is what In ictu oculi has done. The fatal flaw in the last discussion is that a number of people supporting the move asserted that Pedro is more common in sources, but no one actually proved it with evidence (and the evidence Lecen submited was prima facie not reliable evidence as required by WP:Article titles). While I could have let the previous discussion continue with the intent of getting more evidence, I felt that a fresh start would produce better results. However, everyone should see the note I'll leave in my next edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess what will be tomorrow's TFA? Pedro I of Brazil (or Pedro IV of Portugal), an article Astynax and I wrote. I never saw a single book in English call him, nor his father, nor his grandfather (Pedro III) by Anglicized names. After eeading all those English-written books about 18th and 19th centuries history of Portugal and Brazil I can affirm that there is on usage of "John" or "Pedro". But perhaps a bunch of editors with no true knowledge about the subject under discussion knows better than I dor others who actually work on related articles do. --Lecen (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, could you please clarify what you are saying here? Are you saying that this person (Peter/Pedro III of Portugal) is never, not even once, called Peter III of Portugal in references? That can't be right, because both your and iio's results show some (you're just claiming majority for Pedro). I'm not criticizing here--I'm just trying to say that what you wrote just above isn't clear, and clarity will help the discussion. Also, please don't try to assert expert status--if you are correct, the data will prove you correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I say that I am an expert on what is being discussed? I'm the only person (along with my partner Astynax) who has ,in the last four years, written Featured Articles about Brazilian/Portuguese history: Pedro Álvares Cabral, Pedro I of Brazil (also Pedro IV of Portugal), Pedro II of Brazil, Empire of Brazil, etc... No one else in here can claim a greater knowledge. When I say that I have never seen a book calling King Pedro III as Peter III I mean exactly that: I never read a book that did that. Of course there are Google results, but it seems that they are only worth something when it's useful in certain moments for certain editors. About the use of Pedro III/Peter III: there are two biographies in English of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. The latest one was written by British Roderick J. Barman, who according to historian Jeffrey D. Needell, is the monarch's "best biographer". Barman's work, called "Citizen Emperor" (published in 1999), used "Pedro III" and "Maria I" (not "Mary I") Notice that in the genealogical chart given, all other monarchs (from Spain, France, Austria, etc...) have their names in English. Thus, Barman clearly prefers to keep the Portuguese/Brazilian monarchs with their native names. The other biography of Pedro II, "Dom Pedro the magnanimous, second emperor of Brazil" (published in 1937) does not mention Pedro III, but does mention his wife Maria I (not "Mary I") and son João VI (not as "John VI"), see page 4. There are two biographies in English of Emperor Pedro I (also King Pedro IV of Portugal). The first was published in 1950 by Sérgio Corrêa da Costa. I do not own it nor have ever read it, but it's title tells a lot: "Every Inch a King: A Biography of Dom Pedro I First Emperor of Brazil" (not "Peter I"). The second biography was written by Neill Macaulay and its called "Dom Pedro: the struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834). It says "The first sovereigns to reside regularly in Queluz palace were Queen Maria I and King Pedro III, who was both Maria's uncle and husband and ruled Portugal jointly with her." (Macaulay, p.2) There are no biographies in English of King Pedro III nor of his wife Maria I. Usually, English speaking historians are interest in Portugal's history in the 15th and 16th century during the Age of Discovery or in Portugal's early 19th century history, during King João VI (son of Pedro III and Maria I)'s flight to Brazil in 1808 and the subsequent founding of the Empire of Brazil. C. H. Haring's "Empire in Brazil: a New World Experiment with Monarchy" (1958) said on page 5: "The sovereign at this time was Maria I, but she was insane, and the actual government was in the hands of her son and heir, the Prince Regent Dom João." Not Mary, not John. On "The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republics, 1822-1831" (by Ron Seckinger, 1984) it says on page 6: "To provide a livelihood for those parasites as well as a growing number of Brazilians hungry for sincecures, Prince Regent João, who would take the throne as João VI in 1816, greatly expanded the size of the bureucracy in the capital..." I could go on and on forever. Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, daughter and heiress of Emperor Pedro II, has two biographies in English about her. The first is "Princess Isabel of Brazil: Gender and Power in the Nineteenth Century" (2002) and was also written by Roderick J. Barman. The names are in Portuguese (although other foreign royals have their names in English). The second biography is "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilain Princess who freed the slaves" (2008). It is not only a biography of Isabel but also a biography of the Portuguese;Brazilian Royal House from Dom João IV (father of King Pedro II and great-grandfather of King Pedro III) until Isabel. The names are in Portuguese, but other foreign roayls have their names anglicized. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Lecen, This move is not about Brazil. Nor is it even for Peter III. It is for three Portuguese kings, and changes have implications across many historical articles including (in the extended arguments) implications for the kings of Castile, Aragon and Sicily. You seem a tad too focused on imposing the preferred name for a Brazilian 19th C. monarch backwards on a 14th C. Portuguese king. Yet they will rarely, if ever, come up together in an article here, whereas the earlier Peters coexist and interact with other Peters (and other anglicized monarchs) across Europe in their time period, and need to be referred and linked to in many contemporaneous articles. In writing historical articles, "horizontal" linkages are usually quite more important than "vertical" ones. Like many others I am sure, I appreciate you have taken the time to write biographies of 19th C. Brazilian monarchs and princesses for Misplaced Pages. But don't presume yourself uniquely poised or of special talents to denigrate the knowledge of others on this topic. Not only is it unseemly, it is incorrect and you know it. Walrasiad (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Lecen, #2, one more quick reminder: once again you turn to specialized tomes. Perhaps your narrow limitation to biographies is coloring your perception, but let me remind you that Misplaced Pages is a general reference, a hyperlinked encyclopedia, where references to monarchs are not limited to self-contained biographical articles, but across a multitude of articles. That is why "common name" is important. Walrasiad (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"But don't presume yourself uniquely poised or of special talents to denigrate the knowledge of others on this topic. Not only is it unseemly, it is incorrect and you know it." Please keep the focus on what is being discussed, not on an editor. "You seem a tad too focused on imposing the preferred name for a Brazilian 19th C. monarch backwards on a 14th C. Portuguese king." Again: focus on content, not on editors. Do not make false claims against me. It was not I the one who opened this second move request. It was another editor, someone whom (as far as I can remember) I've never talked to before. It was his idea, not mine, although I support him. Stop attacking me. This means you're running out of ideas. I only ask you not to bring me, other editors and the administrator who closes this discussion (if he moves it) as to the ANI as you did on John VI of Portugal. "Nor is it even for Peter III. It is for three Portuguese kings" We know that. Yo ushould stop ignoring what I and others (including the person who opened this move request) are saying. We gave you numbers, we gave you sources. Stop ignoring what we are saying and stop accusing us. "...where references to monarchs are not limited to self-contained biographical articles" Are you sauing that biographies about George Washington and Robert E. Lee are actually less important than generalist books? A book about the history of the 18th century is far more important as a source than a biography of the first president of the United States? It doesn't make sense. Find a better excuse. --Lecen (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No one else in here can claim a greater knowledge.. You call that focusing on the topic rather than the editor? I am one of the "else in here", and your attempt to pull rank over other editors merits a brief, if polite, correction. I don't intend to proceed further. The remainder of my comments refer to the choice of literature you presented above - primarily specialist biographies on 19th C. Brazilian figures, and in order to judge their relevance, thought it apt to remind the specific topics of the proposed move are and the kind of evidence that is being sought. I am not attacking you. I have not made insinuations about your past behavior, or prior debates, as you are trying to stir up here again. I would think it advisable that you refrain from going down the personal road.

As to your substantive comment: I am afraid you misunderstood my statement. Monarchs are referred to here in Misplaced Pages in articles beyond their biography article. Indeed, they need to be referred to in a myriad of articles, many of which are not even about the history of the country they were kings of, e.g. in articles about other countries, other kings, wars, treaties, commerce, or even more general articles about shipwrecks, insurance companies, writers, theater fires, wigs, horse breeds, wool production, etc. These are "horizontal linkages", a hyperlink away, the core of Misplaced Pages's strength. That is why "common name" is important, that is why "common name" is policy. References to this article will be made everywhere, not merely in the biography article. Specialized works (and self-contained biographies are an even narrower subset of that) have no such generalist obligations. They are free to introduce specialized spellings, terms, language and jargon to their heart's content, precisely because they are specialized and will remain self-contained. But an encyclopedia is a generalist work, communicating to a general public, and particularly Misplaced Pages, a sprawling, growing, hyperlinked body which emphasizes and encourages links across articles, well beyond narrow biography. In this, specialist nomenclature can be detrimental to the overarching purpose of the whole. Articles in Misplaced Pages are meant to inform general casual readers who might curiously click from "wigs" to "Peter II", not to erect self-contained, isolated columns of scholarship. A specialist biography of Christopher Columbus may (as I've seen) use the term "Colon" throughout, or even just "the Admiral". And while such a biography may exceed all other biographies in authority, and be used as the primary source of the content of the article, the author's choice of specialized nomenclature is not and should not be determinative for choice of article name. Common usage in works of general reference is - as WP:SOVEREIGN correctly states. And that is what needs to be determined, and where evidence should be sought. Walrasiad (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Found this essay (Misplaced Pages:Specialist style fallacy) which perhaps expresses better some of what I tried to explain above. Walrasiad (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the guidelines in place as there is not enough evidence that Pedro has truly overtaken the use of Peter as the numbers are close and we have established guidelines in WP:SOVEREIGN to take care of situations such as this one by favouring the anglicised form. There was an attempt to change the guidelines to name all monarchs in their native form from earlier this year that failed, (Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 22#Should royals have their names in their native tongues?) so I don’t see how this move can be truly justified when the community spoke on the matter as recently as earlier this year. - dwc lr (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the last discussion as no consensus--I strongly recommend against turning this into another pure vote. I especially recommend that people don't do the "Support per person X and Y", as such comments are close to useless, and are often ignored or at least given lesser importance by closers. The real question here, per both WP:Article titles and WP:SOVEREIGN is what both In ictu oculi and DRC LR are getting at: you need to decide what the most common names in sources are. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, if such a determination cannot be made because it is too close, then we are supposed to use the anglicized name. Thus, the responsibility of each side is to look at sources and what they say. While it isn't technically applicable, the recommendations in WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name may give you a good starting point for the sorts of data that is typically useful. One key message to take away, for both sides, is that it's not enough to produce search results--you need to actually look at those (look for non-English results, repeated results, look to the end of the search, make sure it's really talking about the same person, see if the reference is actually just a footnote to a different source, etc.). I know that this is an onerous task, but ultimately it's the one most likely to produce a stable result. A lot of the other arguments presented in the above RM simply have no bearing on our policies on Article titles, so be sure to avoid those. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as in previous discussion. The consensus was clearly to move the article, which is why the discussion has been reopened, much to the evident disgust of those who oppose its move. I am British (not Portuguese, Brazilian or any other non-native-English-speaking nationality), and I have never, ever seen any King Pedro of Portugal referred to as King Peter in any serious historical source. If this was the common name in English-language sources then I would support its retention under the normal WP:COMMONNAME policy, but I seriously do not believe it is. No doubt those on both sides of the debate will quote various manipulations of Google to "prove" their point, but at the end of the day we should all be aware by now that online sources are not paramount in article naming discussions. I am rather tired of editors pointing to Google Book searches and shouting "look, look, this proves my point conclusively". No it doesn't. It proves nothing whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note This is exactly what I'm talking about in my note above. Necrothep, you assert no guideline compliant argument. All you state is that you know, based on no evidence whatsoever, that "Pedro" is the more common name. And while you can certainly argue about numbers of sources, it's simply ludicrous to argue that there are none that use "Pedro", when both sides have already found serious, reliable, historical sources that use it. Were I to close the next RM (which I won't, of course), I would discount your !vote entirely. I'm not trying to influence the outcome here; rather, I want to be clear what helps the discussion. I strongly recommend you leave a new comment that complies with the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I have some sympathy with your concerns or I wouldn't have picked them up in resubmitting this, but I think you - and possibly other RM admins, would be wrong to simply discount a statement like this. (Lets assume I didn't recognise Necrothesp's name as a competent editor from having encountered his edits on Spanish cathedrals, and it was Joe Bloggs' comment). This comment has an editor saying he has never seen Pedro referred to as Peter in a "serious historical source", well, it has to be said that apart from "Peter II of Portugal" occuring in Philip Mansel, Torsten Riotte - 2011, Google Books doesn't produce Peter of P, Peter I of P, Peter II of P, Peter III of P in sources since 1980 that look particularly serious even from their covers. If an editor is making a comment based on previous discussion with plentiful Google links, and then says that AGF means the editor has looked at the searches, made an assessment, and this is his/her reading. Also the reservations about GB searches are completely legitimate. If closing admins seriously just discount, then there's IMO a problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt, Qwyrxian closed the prior RM, which had a strong consensus to move, as no consensus, and is now badgering 'supports' they don't like in this one. This is entirely inappropriate behaviour that I'd suggest they rectify by visiting WP:BN and turning in their bit. Such super-voting and badgering by an admin is conduct unbecoming. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, as moving to Pedro, would contradict the Jan/Feb 2012 discussion at the Naming conventions concerning royalty names. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support: IF "Naming conventions concerning royalty names" should or must be used, then not only "Pedro I of Brazil" and "Pedro II of Brazil" would have to be transformed to Peter I and Peter II, respectively, BUT ALSO "Wilhem II, German Emperor, Wilhelm I, German Emperor and many others, ALL OF THEM ought to have their names translated to English no matter to what country they belong(ed) to, withouth any exception. If this change will not be done because of any possible arguments (too many cases to review, too many languages to compare, "its perfectly acceptable to maintain German names"(?), as I said, ANY argument immaginable, then it's perfectly acceptable that an exception must be applied (in this case) to kings named Pedro, no matter in which country they were born. I don't think this change will affect more than, let's say, 50 name of kings, even if we consider other languages (Spanish, Italians...) and you say "oh, let's do it for other languages, too". We all can realize that the number is very much less than that. What is NOT acceptable at all is to say "king Pedro" is a blasphemy, but "king Wilhelm" is very cute (and all the other "exceptions" that I did not have enough time to "chase" here). That's my opinion. Joao Xavier (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Note I have belatedly (I thought Lecen would do it) notified everyone support/oppose from the previous RM who hadn't already found it that their postings will not be counted and must be resubmitted, quoting the key advice from Qwyrxian's box above.

Comment on dwc lr link - I wasn't familiar with that discussion, and I appreciate dwc lr, linking to it. However, the quality of discussion, and breadth of audience on MOSTalk/RfC pages is not necessarily, in fact possibly not often, greater than that found in a good RM. RMs suffer from focus on 1 article, MOSTalk/RFC can suffer from lack of focus and a reality gap with real articles. The discussion linked to there in particular includes one major failure - to address the point of WP:MOS "..Article titles policy. The principal criteria are that a title be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles." In this case a failure to address MOS inconsistency between Peter III of Portugal vs Pedro V of Portugal ("Pedro V of Portugal" 70 results vs 1 result for "Peter V of Portugal"). Also there is a small but noticable sprinkling of comments such as "unless you like forcing English-speakers to try and learn a myriad different and often unintelligible foreign words for no good reason." which, to me at least, illustrates that that the level of that discussion there was less in tune with policies, sources and en.wp article reality here. And the lack of clear reference to WP:MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles" in WP:SOVEREIGN, is a reminder of the heading of all guidelines "best treated with common sense". In this case that common sense should default to sources all the way from New Cambridge preference on Pedro I, to the 70:1 Google Books results for Pedro V. This is really a very simple RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You are taking a very peculiar interpretation to "consistency" which isn't implied there. It is about styling of article titles, not specific name spellings. What you are suggesting is akin to insisting that because of the existence of Ludwig II of Bavaria therefore all prior Bavarians, like Louis IV of Bavaria should be translated into Ludwig IV (or vice-versa). Or because of Louis Philippe of France, then the prior Philips of France should all be translated to Philippe. Or because Juan Carlos I gets a gazillion hits then the prior Johns & Charles's of Spain need to be spelled the same way. We all know that 19th & 20th C. kings tend to have nativist spellings in common usage. We also know that earlier kings tend to have anglicized spellings in common usage. Vertical inconsistency abounds and it is not deadly. (as I expressed earlier, horizontal inconsistency across contemporanous rulers is far more jarring in historical articles) But what is not a matter of opinion is WP's policy of common usage, which is the insistent and overriding naming policy throughout Misplaced Pages (and more specifically, in the case here, WP:SOVEREIGN). There are three kings being proposed to move here - Peter I, Peter II and Peter III. The purpose here is to determine common usage for them. Given these well-known vertical disparities of common usage, it is misleading to try to use 19th & 20th C. kings to backward impose on earlier ones to circumvent existing policies applying to them directly. Walrasiad (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Walrasiad,

Sorry I'm afraid I don't find that convincing. That's an interpretation, the natural meaning would be that "consistent with other article titles" embraces as many aspects of consistency as relevant. In any case it's a secondary argument Pedro I (weak majority) Pedro III (stronger majority) Pedro V (very strong majority, hence already at Pedro V). Like it or not this looks like one of those cases like Leghorn/Livorno where usage of the English exonym has retreated. Possibly due to Pedro IV of Portugal = Pedro I of Brazil, that's an unusual factor. Plus category:Portuguese monarchs already has so many others, Manuel I-II, Afonso I-VI, Miguel I, Maria I-II, Carlos, Luis, Sancho etc where exonyms are not used, against those that are. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of that consistency note is to ensure consistent style in article names, so that we don't have article titles "X, King of Portugal", "Y, Monarch of Portugal" and "Z, Head Honcho of Portugal", but that they all adhere to the same styling, not about spelling personal names. It is not an excuse to impose a different norms of different kings in different periods, kings not under discussion here, to circumvent applying WP policy to them. Yes, common usage is unclear. There is a policy for unclear results.

If my point about vertical vs. horizontal consistency was unclear, let me try again. Vertical inconsistency is only jarring in one article - a list of kings. Otherwise, Peter I & Pedro V will never be in the same article, much like the Williams and Wilhelms, Charles and Karls, Louis and Ludwigs, Philips and Philippes happily co-exist inconsistently (and there's nothing wrong with adjusting a list of monarchs to present both spellings simultaneously - so it's not even that jarring). Different eras have different common usage norms, and the norms of Medieval and Early Modern history is heavily anglicized, whereas those of 19th & 20th C. is heavily nativist. Most historical articles are written according to the common usage norms of that era. So a historical article pertaining to Medieval or Early Modern history (and there are gallions more of those than there are plain lists of kings) will almost always have uniformly anglicized monarchs, Peters and Johns, across European countries dealing with each other, rather than king Pedros, Peres, Pierres, Pyotrs, Juans, Joans, Jeans, etc. (with some notable exceptions, e.g. the Ivans of Russia, by decisive common usage). There is a far, far greater value on ensuring horizontal consistency in the dozens, heck, maybe even hundreds, of articles that refer to Peter using that contemporaneous norm, than it is to ensure that that Peter is spelled the same way as another irrelevant Peter five centuries later, with whom he will never share an article (except that one list). Moreover, it introduces an internal inconsistency in all articles pertaining to that era - where Portuguese exceptionalism suddenly emerges, and everyone else is still stuck with anglicized Peters & Johns (a situation, which I imagine, would not last long before everyone start demanding theirs, and the unraveling of all these articles). Now, which consistency is more important? Which is less disruptive? Which is more conducive to the mission of Misplaced Pages as a resource for general audiences? Walrasiad (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad, yes I understood your view the first time. As for "vertical consistency" List of Portuguese monarchs gives in English exonym and Portguese in the text. As for "horizontal consistency" all the monarchs in the House of Burgundy are "horizontally" at Portuguese titles already except Fernando I. The others are mixed. If you are arguing that all the Manuel I-II, Afonso I-VI, Miguel I, Maria I-II, Carlos, Luis, must use English exonyms, then you need to cite a policy. But such as policy does not exist. The existing WP:SOVEREIGN states sources, and sources are for Pedro. As far as MOS consistency it is a secondary argument, but illustrates the primary argument, that the sources are for Pedro... given that these sources themselves have both vertical and horizontal consistency issues.

As for "Which is more conducive to the mission of Misplaced Pages as a resource for general audiences?" ... this kind of appeal always triggers a read light, but I would say go with serious sources, which are for Pedro I II III as IV(of Brazil) and V. That is enough for now. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an editorial decision. It would be wrong to treat Portugal as an exception in a general reference work like Misplaced Pages. (The cited general reference works, Britannica and Columbia, don't either.) Academic sources, with different authors, from different schools, with different publishers, are inconsistent in a way that a single source, like Misplaced Pages (or any encyclopedia), should not be. If we don't use Henri I of France, or Enrique II of Castile, or Emperor Friedrich II, or Ladislao of Naples, or Jehan of England, or Jaime III of Aragon ... why should we use Pedro __ of Portugal? If the sources for Pedro are not overwhelming (as they would be for Ivan IV as against John IV), we should decide based on internal criteria. I plead for a little consistency. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree Lecen and Joao Xavier.Érico Wouters 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose as before. In ictu oculi presents some good sources, but I feel Walrasiand is correct that opinion is at best split in generalist works. The larger concern is consistency. If the decision is made that *all* Portuguese monarchs should be in their Portuguese spelling, fine. But as is, we basically go by time period. It is quite jarring to see something like Pedro -> Fernando-> "John" -> "Edward" when all 4 of these monarchs would have expected their names to be localized when traveling, far more jarring from a historical perspective than having some Peters and some Pedros separated by centuries (which is basically historical trivia).

Basically, what I'm saying is that I strongly oppose switching just the Peters/Pedros because of the bizarre insistence on using Pedro of Brazil as an example, but would only weakly oppose switching all Portuguese monarchs whose only European domains were in Portugal to use the Portuguese name. (Ones who ruled elsewhere, such as Philip I of Portugal, better known as Philip II of Spain, won't be moving of course, which is part of the reason why such a big move is problematic.) SnowFire (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the prior RM's consensus and the invalid super-vote used to incorrectly close it. Qwyrxian's stance that all opinions must be guideline-compliant is bullshite. Those guidelines are *wrong*, biased, and seek to cement a nineteenth century view of Anglicisation of the world. Guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and the way to change a bad guideline is to build up a series of consensuses that are counter to it and then use them to drive the notion that a new consensus in fact exists that brings the bad guideline down. The man's name was Pedro; he probably rarely even heard the name "Peter" in his life. Plenty of evidence that he's widely referred to as Pedro have already been presented (and I just made a typo and my English-spellchecker noted it and fixed to to "Pedro"). This is all very disruptive and disappointing. The whole pattern throughout all these move (and diacritic (see WP:AN)) discussions has a very serious effect on the participation of non-native English speakers in this project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• Automatically assessed biography (royalty) articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Portugal articles
• Unknown-importance Portugal articles
• WikiProject Portugal articles
• Requested moves