Talk:John V of Portugal

General

I am not familiar with the Portuguese royals, but this article is awful Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the RM at?

Where is the RM & consensus for moving this page from John V of Portugal? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistency with João VI of Portugal. Alarbus (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not consistant with John I of Portugal, John II of Portugal, John III of Portugal and John IV of Portugal (which I recently changed back). GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 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. No consensus to keep the page here. If you think this form is really the right choice then do a multipart nomination for all of the related articles. This old, and current, names match everything else in the Portuguese monarch category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

João V of Portugal → John V of Portugal – This article was uni-latterally moved to it's current status (Jan 7, 2012), without benefit of an RM or consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Important: If we turn on the "English only" option we'll get 189,000 results for Joao V and 103,000 results for John V. --Lecen (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

* The numbers in Lecen's post above are primarily ghosthits and misleading. For a more careful analysis of Googlebook search numbers, see my comment below. Walrasiad (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Search again as really English-only: A Google Books search needs URL option "&lr=lang_en" to look at English-only books. The real results are: 101,000 for Google Books with: Portugal "John V" but only 43,000 for Google Books with: Portugal "Joao V". No wonder User:Lecen mistook Joao as higher with Portuguese books, when "John V" is 3x higher in English books. Search correctly. -Wikid77 13:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - João VI of Portugal was moved and so should all the João Kings be moved (from John to João). This article is where it should be. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as I'm the nominator. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You should not be voting, as you are nominator. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The nominator is allowed. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Note: Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion." --Lecen (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per precedent of João VI of Portugal. The move was wholly appropriate in accordance with the outcome of that discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, that other page move is being disputed. There was no consensus for that page, either. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  That requested move was closed by an uninvolved admin as having consensus. Alarbus (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  An adminstrator whose neutrality in the closing of that RM, is also currently being questioned. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  I saw that hilarity ;-) Alarbus (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose same as above. --Lecen (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you retired. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether his page says retired or not, he can still put his voice out. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

TBH, though it's not required, he really should remove the RETIRED plate, if he's going to continue participating on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you really believe that this is the place to discuss this? You shouldnt have brought it up here. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Peterkingiron. -DJSasso (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support use English if there is a lot of evidence for it, as seems to be the case here having had a look through Google books. Move without discussion from longstanding (2002) uncontroversial title seems inappropriate as each article should be judged individually not by what went on in other discussions. - dwc lr (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  You're correct DWC. This article shouldn't have been moved from John V of Portugal. I tried reverting the page move 'yesterday', but it wouldn't work. I was successful with John IV of Portugal, though. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  When that happens I think at WP:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves you can request that an admin move it back when there has been no discussion, such as with the move to Joao V. - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  Darn, I had been taking my 'request' to the wrong place (yesterday & today, AST). GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  technical moves are for moves that would not likely be opposed. Alarbus (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  That move is being contested, obviously. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  you contest all names with diacritics. Alãrbus (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've also opposed page moves that didn't involve diacritics. A major example was Elizabeth II, which was moved from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly the most common name, as shown by this ngram. The closing admin should note that, should this end as "no consensus", then the original title, John V of Portugal, should be restored. Jenks24 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move; I would, I already moved it to the correct name, as others are saying above. Alarbus (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  You moved it to the Portuguese name, without benefit of an RM or a consensus at this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  the correct name includes a diacritic, too. Alãrbus (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  "Correct name"? that's is merely your opinon. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  well I certainly don't have your opinion. Alarbus (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support. Precedent of Joao VI should not be considered, as that move was an error and premature, as recognized by neutral admininistrators in the AMI notice on that incident Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal. This page should revert to the long-standing stable name. Walrasiad (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support to rename back. Restore the article name back to the wp:COMMONNAME form as "John V of Portugal" from a recent non-consensus rename/move-over-redirect (on 7 January 2012) to the rare English form "João V of Portugal" (plus "João VI"). Search of Google Books confirms widespread (80%+) English use as "John V of Portugal" dating back over 250 years, to at least 1759. (check Google Books: search 'John V of Portugal'). Typically, most older king or emperor names have common translated English names ("John" not "João"), from decades or centuries of English usage. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Close for now -- When I voted above, I had not realised how cointentious this matter is. I had seen the rename on João VI at an early stage, and take the view that if one is changed all should be changed. I think the best solution will be to invite a review of the Rename on João VI of Portugal, and close this one temporarily as No consensus. Ideally, the Review would be conducted as a multiple-RM for all the João/John kings of Portugal. These issues are liable to become contentious, but I feel that sometiems these matters generate far too much heat. The important thing is that users can find the article. Where there are multiple possible names, we have redirects; that measn that the user rapidly finds the article, even if not under the term he searched for. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to make it clear that I have voted on both RMs on the basis of my own views and not because I have been asked to. I regularly monitor the RM page (also CFD and four classified groups of AFDs) and am familiar with many of the WP conventions. I would point out that older historians tended to anglicise foreign names. I believe this is now much less usual. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why we can't use João if even a videogame like Civilization IV has the Portuguese monarch called "Joao II" and not "John II". On Victoria II, if you play as Brazil, you'll see "Pedro II", not "Peter II". On Civilization IV: Colonization one of the Founding Fathers is Pedro I of Brazil, not "Peter I". Even on popular culture the Portuguese names are kept. Or maybe videogamers are more open minded than Wikipedians. --Lecen (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because this is the English language Wikipedia, where 'not surprisingly' english-usage is preferred. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Go read the article. The language used is English, not Chinese, DUH! And stop canvassing. --Lecen (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support If we don't use the normal English form, who will? Subnumine (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)— Subnumine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WARNING: The user Subnumine above is a sole purpose created account. See it's history log. Only seven edits since August 2011, all related to move discussions. --Lecen (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy against personal attacks? I have created an account to comment on move discussions, because I was told they should be signed, but I am no more a single-purpose account than Lecen, who has spent hundreds of edits discussing these two kings, and nothing else. This is my second edit on Portuguese affairs. Subnumine (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• :: Comment Having already voted in support above, this is just a supplementary comment. I have summarized my general position on Portuguese king Johns in the talk page of Talk:John VI of Portugal#Number, numbers, and applies equally here. Rather than replicate the argument in its entirety here, I'd ask my fellow editors to please read the argument there. I will only replicate here the numerical findings for this case. To avoid accusations of bias, I have restricted the search to only recent works, 1980-2012, and deghosted the numbers:

* John V 401, Joao V 418, John V of Portugal 205, Joao V of Portugal 66, ngram (1900-), ngram (1980-)

where, as is obvious, there is only a narrow margin for Joao V over John V, the slight edge probably given by specialized academic texts focused on Portugal alone, reflecting a recent academic fashion for usage of indigenous names (note my time restriction), whereas there is a much larger, overwhelming margin in favor of the longer phrased "John V of Portugal" over "Joao V of Portugal", which is likelier to be found in generalist texts (also seen in the ngrams). Anglicized John V is used also in Enclyclopedia Britannica [1]. Let me reiterate the Wiki policy in 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."

I think it fair to say that the weight of general reference usage is firmly for John V, or at least indeterminate. Thus by policy, the page should default to "John V of Portugal". Which is the long-standing stable title it had before this unsanctioned move. Walrasiad (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN. The disputed João VI move is hardly an appropriate precedent for further similar moves without discussion, especially when the circumstances (e.g., the preponderance of references in English sources) may differ. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Anglicize as much as possible. If it can be done, move the Afonso's and Sancho's to whatever English version their name has. Only well-known contemporary monarchs should have the original form of their names preserved. Reigen (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the name should be as used in modern and trusted sources. Paulista01 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A parallel and related discussion has opened up at Talk:João VI of Portugal#RfC. Admins and editors on this page may be interested in reading or expressing their comments there as well. Walrasiad (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN. If outcome is against WP:SOVEREIGN, then needs to generate discussion on WP:SOVEREIGN and change Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above.. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Other languages use the translated name, not João V. The avoidance of "João V" 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 V. (Portugal)", French "fr:Jean V de Portugal", Danish "da:Johan 5. af Portugal", Italian: "it:Giovanni V del Portogallo", Polish "pl:Jan V Wielkoduszny", Finnish: "fi:Juhana V (Portugali)", Swedish "sv:Johan V av Portugal", and even Spain as a neighbor of Portugal uses "es:Juan V de Portugal". None of them use "João V" but instead use their version of "John V" as in historical sources. -Wikid77 10:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Britannica 1911 & 2011 have John V. Just in case anyone thinks the major general reference books have changed to "João V" then compare these editions:

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

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

For over 100 years, Britannica has listed John V not João V. -Wikid77 10:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. We can't have John IV succeeded by João V, so their needs to be a consistent nomenclature. Giving a medieval monarch a name in a modern non-English language would 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 V", and why we should too. I get 1,250 English-language post-1990 Google Book hits for Portugal king "John V, 1,220 for Portugal king "Joao V". So "Joao" is not majority use even for this specific monarch. It would be a far smaller portion of the results if you took into account the earlier Portuguese monarchs of this name. Kauffner (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Is an epistemological error to confuse a trend now manifesting (Joao) with the obvious rule (John). Jorge alo (talk) 15:23, 13 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.

Renovation

Hello editors,
I would like to let you all know that I am begining a large renovation for this article. I am expanding and elaborating on this sadly small and unkept article. I am adding sources and hopefully I can help make this a worthy article. I am inviting you all to come to my sanbox and help on my draft there. I ask that everyone truly wish to help the article, because stupid edits and nonsensible addings will not be tolerated.

Link to sandbox: User:Cristiano Tomás/Portuguese Royalty

Thank you all, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

John vs. João

I've changed all references to João to John per the request move discussion above except for the two mentions in the beginning and the full name section. The name should reflect the article title until the time it is changed.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it odd that every single portrait of John V in this article is of him as a teenager?

It seems very odd that all the portraits of John in this article are of him as a teenager, as Cristiano Tomás would have it. He's removed the one portrait of the king as an adult.

Also, Cristiano insists on using the Portuguese proper name, "João", in his edits of an article on English Wikipedia titled "John V of Portugal". Does anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Carlstak (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I havent insisted on anything - i havent reverted any of your changing Joao to John, so i dont know why you're stating that. On the other hand, the portraits of the article match the sections which they are used in. I wrote the majority of the article and planned to complete it, but obviously I have not - but simply because the entire article isnt as complete as the early ages doesnt mean display whatever image anywhere - there is logic behind the matching. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Cristiano, the captions on the portraits you restored or added say "João", not "John".

You haven't addressed the strangeness of having no portrait of John as an adult. I disagree that the primary portrait of the article, the one in the infobox, needs to be of John as a pretty boy, iconic or not, rather than of John as the Portuguese Sun King, which one would expect to be the focus of such an important article. Carlstak (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I do apologize for adding the caption with Joao - i simply re-added the image and caption as it was and didn't even notice the name discrepancy - I have no battle on name language - John it is! On the other hand, concerning the images, I understand your concern but I promise I'm not just stubborn for the sake of it. In regard to the infobox image, the Batoni image is probably one of the most iconic images of John and I believe it does a good job at portraying his ideals and image - being an incredibly sumptuous image itself. Concerning the lack of age variation in images on the article, I understand your point, it is simply that I wish for the article to have a logical and well-put information to image correlation, meaning relevant images in relevant sections. I am going to start to finish this article, which I started quite some time ago, and I will make sure that as the biography progresses, John's age and image will reflect properly to the sections. I don't want to have conflict for the sake of it, I believe both of us simply want a well-made article and I hope we can work together to do so. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply, I feel better about the situation now. I will not challenge your choice of the Batoni image, which I agree is incredibly sumptuous and certainly belongs in the article. Even though I would not place it in the infobox myself, I respect the work you have done on this article (as well as many others). I heartily endorse your plan to expand the article, and will be happy to assist you in any way I can, although I may resort to this page to raise any issues (as I see them) for discussion. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Any sources on the institutions John V attended?

Anyone? Russel Harrison (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John V of Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00001454&tree=LEO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215234515/http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/bdc/revistas/revistaicalp/musicdjoaov.pdf to http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/bdc/revistas/revistaicalp/musicdjoaov.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John V of Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511085547/http://www.ipmuseus.pt/pt-PT/museus_palacios/ContentDetail.aspx?id=1125 to http://www.ipmuseus.pt/pt-PT/museus_palacios/ContentDetail.aspx?id=1125

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)