User talk:Astynax/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Imperial Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Astynax for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cheers, – VisionHolder « talk » 14:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Cabral, pt. 2

I moved the footnote from the infobox to the first mention of Cabral's first name. It looked redundant to have written in the footnote all the other spelling types of his name in the infobox where there they were already mentioned. However, if you do not like it, please feel free to revert it. Also, Uxbona requested to add the picture of the letter written by one of Cabral's crewmembers to the King. I was opposed for the reasons I mentioned. Was I rude? Hope not, because that was not my intention. --Lecen (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Caminha letter is a primary source, and so it cannot be used by itself—it has to be a secondary reference that we quote. The pictures are relevant to the article, but do not contain any illustrations that would be interesting, and would be unreadable when scaled down for using as an illustration. There are more articles on the list than last time, so it might take longer for all the FAC reviewers to post their comments on all the criteria. • Astynax ^talk 02:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you would do better than me answering the nre reviewer. Nonetheless, I believe some of the questions you'll need a little extra hand:

• Approximately how much is 30,000 reias in modern currency? The author does not says how much 30,000 reais is worth in modern currency. That's the same currency that existed in Brazil during the Empire (and which would go on until 1942. It was brought back again, much more simpler unlike the confuse old "30.000:000$000", in 1994 and is now very similar to U.S. Dollar with coins from 5 cents to 1 Real and bills that goes from 1 real to 100 reais). You could, at most, use the conversion given in Empire of Brazil#Elections which says that in 1824 100,000 reais was similar to $98.00 U.S. But certainlu 30,000 reais in 1500 was worth much more in 1824. I wouldn't suggest you trying to use that conversion, since it would require a lot of guessing work and to me it would be considered personal research.
• What is "fidalgo"? One fine question. It literaly means in modern Portuguese "Filho de alguém" (Son of someone), with "someone" being a noble. It was a rank below Knight. Moço Fidaldo ("Young Son of someone") was lower than Fidalgo and Knight. Since Portugal was a very small country, the Crown could not give many titles of nobility such as "baron", "marquis", "count" or others since that would mean also the ownership of lands. And there were no remaining lands available. So the crown created this several minor landless titles.
• The first two paragraphs of "Arrival in a new land" seem to belong in the preceding section I would support that. It would make the other section too large and th present one too small. Perhaps you could change its title? "Voyage goals, departure and arrival in a new land"?
• "before the merchantmen were set afire" - the ships were set afire, or the merchants? Both the ships and the unlucky merchantmen.
• Does the book title beginning "Revista" include the word "Trimestral" or not? Yes, it does (Revista Trimestral de História e Geografia -> Trimonthly Magazine of History and Geography). I forgot to add that in its full name in "references". I believe I fixed this one.
• The article is in need of some minor copy-editing for clarity and flow He could help us a little bit more by telling us where exactly is wrong. --Lecen (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to have a look and answer tonight. • Astynax ^talk 22:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is still wrong with how the references and their volumes are descripted. I have a feeling that is talking about "Calmon, Pedro. História de D. Pedro II. 5 v. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1975." If that's the case, you should tell him that it means "5 volumes", not "Volume 5". This Pedro II's biography is composed of 5 books with their pages numbered as it was one book only (volume 2 begins at page 320, not at page 2, for example. Volume 5 begins at page 1632, not at page 2).

I also tried to look after references that are not grouped but I couldn't find any. And it would make a lot easier if he could tell exactly where and what are the issues in the text itself. Lastly, perhaps you could write: "Fidalgo (ranked higher than moço fidalgo and below Knight in Portuguese hierarchy)" --Lecen (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about the grades of 15th century Portuguese nobility. If someone wants to make an article about that, then we can link to it. Until then, the short explanation you gave is fine. • Astynax ^talk 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. I've noticed that the folks who make all those reviews on FA nominations are all to eager to get into smaller things. And is quite usual to see them arguing about issues that they not make clear which are they. Also, I made a couple of changes in the article about Pedro II to comply with the requests made by Wizardman. Could you take a look to see if they are fine? P.S.: On Note "G" in Cabral's article, perhaps you could add to the end something like: "From there Dias and his constantly diminishing crew managed, almost miraculously, to travel from African northeast back to the northwest where they met Cabral after more than a year separated." --Lecen (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just spent an hour looking for the the repeated citations which the reviewer said were there and found NOTHING. I am very angry at the waste of time trying to track down minor punctuation that is almost invisible on my screen and which it takes them more time to complain about than the few seconds it would take to hit the Edit link and fix it themselves. I will try to look at Wizardman's comments and make the addition later. • Astynax ^talk 18:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hassan

Please, reconsider the idea of "trimming" this entry. You must realize that users are continually and repeatedly shifting and changing their arguments, all due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the research to WP:RS secondary sources I have done is removed, subsequent arguments will again be made to delete this entry entirely - again, not because of an actual generalistic purpose, but rather, due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT about this particular scholar. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point. I've added a comment and possible compromise on the article talk, and also replied on your user talk. • Astynax ^talk 09:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I'm just curious why you don't seem to have ever considered adminship. So far as I can tell, anyway, there's more than enough reason to think you could do it well, and we always have more work for admins to do than we have admins to do it. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I look at folks like you who have dedicated a huge amount of work in maintaining things, and know that I'll never be able to participate at that level. It never seemed like something I could handle, especially given the sporadic chunks of time that I get for editing. So, I never looked into what would be involved, beyond just getting a general idea for what administrators, etc. do. BTW, I responded to your noticeboard posting on Ayyavazhi and the thought occured as to whether there might also be some help at Wikiproject:India. I don't know whether they clean up articles that have been duplicated due to varying transliterations from Sanscrit/Hindi into English, but it does seem to be an active project. • Astynax ^talk 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people like me go over the top in this regard, and a lot of people ultimately wind up leaving for one purpose or another. The man I worked most closely with initially, Pastor David, wound up becoming very inactive after his child was born, for instance. (Yes, I still count him as one of my heroes here; he did a great job while he was active.) And there is a lot of work to be done in closing XfDs, moving pages, editing protected pages, and God knows what all else that I think you would probably be very capable of doing. Anyway, if you ever do choose to put yourself up for consideration, I would be honored to nominate you. And I will check with the India Project about whether they can help merge the material. If they can't, I do have one book available to me, and I can try to use that when the various other things I've promised to do get done. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Stoa (Jerusalem)

Another Jerusalem related article. I'd love your input. Poliocretes (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I just returned from a trip, but I look forward to reading it in the morning when my brain is awake. It is good to have an article on this! • Astynax ^talk 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Christian NRMs portal

This actually seems to me to be a fairly good idea. The two problems I see, neither of which is insurmountable, are:

• 1) we would need some form of content to put in the top section, and right now there isn't a Christian new religious movements article or section which would be easily appropriatable for that section
• 2) selection of content for the portal might be problematic. All of Mormonism, the Christadelphians, the Seventh-day Adventists, and other groups, for instance, qualify as NRMs, and already have their own dedicated portals. I am right now tagging articles for the basically dormant Charismatic Christianity project, because a lot of that content might fit there, but even there articles like Crystal Cathedral and others qualify as NRMs in their own right. Any specific ideas as to what kinds of articles to include in such a portal would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the Christian NRM article really needs help! Those are all good points. I'll try to gather my wits and take another look. • Astynax ^talk 17:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I scwewed up. I thought there wasn't an extant article. I can try, maybe over the weekend, to see what Chryssides and some of the other NRM encyclopediae say, though. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II is now a featured article nominee!

Yes, you read it right. We did it again! Check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/archive1. Thank you, my friend! --Lecen (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA. I hope that the GAR is correct that it is ready for FAC, and it will be interesting to me just to see how the FAC reviewers handle an article of this depth. I have never watched an article of this size and importance go through the process. • Astynax ^talk 09:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got a hunch that the reviewers won't like seeing that "C" footnote without a source except for that internal link to another article. I'd suggest you to add "Barman (1999), p. 306." as a source, since the British historian Roderick J. Barman said that the opinion of the American embassador (that Brazil was then an "important Empire") was widespread. It is better than to add all those sources found in "Decline" section of "Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil" article since it would increase too much the article's size. --Lecen (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added that to the endnote. • Astynax ^talk 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't imagine myself giving better answers than you did back there. P.S.: Although it worries me that the reviewers usually do not pay much attention to the text itself and are not clear at all in their comments which make our work much harder. --Lecen (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is OK that people ask us about the article, but I was getting the impression that we were being accused of departing from the sources and inserting personal opinion. It is nice to know that they actually are reading. Even bad questions can sometimes lead to improvement—or at least give an opportunity to leave a record about why the article says something. • Astynax ^talk 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not having questions, but questions and comments that are not clear enough. Saying that the article has an issue with prose without pointing a single example only makes everything harder. A fine example of that is the article about Pedro Álvares Cabral. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was starting to work in the article on Count of Eu (Princess Isabel's husband) but your remarks made me change my mind. I'm goig to improve the article about Teresa Cristina. Since she had no political role, it will be far smaller than all the others, but it will give an interesting insight on Pedro II's private life. After that, I want to improve the ones on Eu and Isabel. I also would like to improve Pedro I's article. He was, in my opinion, the most interesting character in Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Those sound like good projects. You should also start a short new article that contains an interesting fact and a talk page, and then make a DYK nomination—that is the only accomplishment you are lacking for the "Crown Jewels" award. • Astynax ^talk 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think on that... why don't we nominate something like: "Did you know... that Pedro II of Brazil sopoke 14 languages?" --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To be displayed on Wikipedia's front page in the DYK section, the article must be newly created (or increased in size by 500% or more) within a maximum of 5 days before nominated. That is the only part that is difficult. If you decide to try a DYK, it is good to give them 2 or three "hook" descriptions. The award is just a recognition of your participation. You have already moved articles to GA and FA, and it is just the easy DYK first step that is needed. It seems like Pedro II owes you some crown jewels. • Astynax ^talk 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be unfair. Were you not helping me, nothing of this would've been possible. But I'm not interested in rewards. I just like this. Writing. P.S.: Could you take a look in the article about Teresa Cristina? --Lecen (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the pictures you used. Those make it obvious the difference in her idealized portraits and her real appearance. I intend to read through tonight. It is OK for you to get the award because of your own contributions—I already made a DYK and received mine. • Astynax ^talk 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done with sections "Marriage", "Quarrel between Pedro II and the Count of Aquila" and "Domestic life". I am sorry for simply making transcriptions from the books. I thought you would be far better than I to rewrite them better. P.S.: What's the deal with Cabral's nomination? I wonder if that editor who made some complains will answer your remarks or not. --Lecen (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been entangled in family visits the last few days. I hope I can take a more thorough look at Teresa Christina's article tonight or tomorrow. It isn't unusual for FAC reviews to take at least 2 weeks, so I expect that there may be some movement toward a decision regarding Cabral this week. We did answer all of the comments thus far. As the article gets towards the bottom of the list, I have noticed that they often get a few more questions or comments in specific areas before a decision is made. • Astynax ^talk 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no hurry at all. There is too much to be done in the article, anyway. I was thinking on inviting Wizardman (the editor who reviewed Pedro II of Brazil) to review the article about the Viscount of Rio Branco. What do you think of that? --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some reviewers don't like to be asked. The GA reviews slowed down at the end of summer, and then they added a bot which took some time to get working again. So the backlog now seems to be dropping, with 2 new reviews in "World History" started just yesterday. Rio Branco is now second from the top in the list of unreviewed articles from that category, which will help attract a reviewer. • Astynax ^talk 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you following the ongoing discussion in Pedro II's nomination? I wonder myself if every single article which has picture from the 19th Century had to prove that they were indeed released in the 19 th Century. --Lecen (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My Internet connection has been off until this morning due to work being done by the electric company. Most royal portraits (painted, engravings and photographic) were made for, and distributed by, the governments. They were made in quantities for distribution to embassies, government offices, press, official guests, etc. You responded correctly that large quantities such carte de visite and cabinet card photos were also sold publicly by the photographers themselves. Was there any information on the CD claiming copyright (sometimes such CD's say if specific images are copyrighted, and also usually only extend the CD's copyright to cover what the CD author has created)? • Astynax ^talk 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was taking a look in here and I found out there is no mention of any kind of copyright (not even of the product itself, which is odd) neither in the box, nor in the book and nor in the cd-rom case. Weird, there is nothing in the CD itself. What I can not understand is why they are focusing on this sole picture when there other two pictures from 1888 in the article. Why's that? --Lecen (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if they are talking about that image because the link shown for the previous cropped version of the photo had a link to a page – http://www.museuimperial.gov.br/int_antecorredordireito.htm — which is no longer accessible? I do not see anything else which makes that picture different than the others. • Astynax ^talk 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I getting tired of that. The discussion in Pedro II is taking too long and I believe I am speaking Greek there. It is more than obvious that the photographer - in fact, all of them - sold the photos he had for the general public. If he became famous for the last official photograph of Pedro II, it is because he sold it. He did not show it for a few friends and said "Hey, look how awesome is this picture!". I don't know what to say anymore and I am starting to believe that he simply does not like the picture. I can't imagine everyone with the obligation to prove that a photograph taken before 1890 of a worldwide famous person was published before 1920. Would he need to go after a book published before that? Arrgh... Can you say something there? --Lecen (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be other versions of the image, which makes it likely that it was published for sale. The older version of the Wikimedia image is very similar to a version which appeared in 100 anos de República (vol. 1. São Paulo: Nova Cultural. 1989, p. 16). There is also this version (at bottom of page) which seems to be the type of cabinet card popularly sold and distributed during that time. And there is also this document displays a low-res b/w version which it sources to www.passeiweb.com educational site (I cannot tell whether it is a scan of one of the same versions, nor do I know if passeiweb has flicker-type policies). Due to differences in printing quality, I think that there must be multiple copies of the same photo in existence. I don't know what else to say to them. It would be bad if the image must be removed from the article, but if there is nothing that shows that it was published, then it would be better to remove the picture from the article until we can find some indication that it was published which would satisfy them.

Do you know if there are any restrictions for use of the images at http://bndigital.bn.br/projetos/terezacristina/ – the images at U.S. government sites are usually Public Domain (although sometimes they will show an image which has the copyright belonging to someone else)? If those images are Public Domain, then they might be a good source for other articles. • Astynax ^talk 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely do not know. What I do know is that in Brazil any picture who was disclosed at least 70 years prior is in public domain. See here: [1]. The oldest book I have is a biography of the Count of Eu published in 1935 and it is loeaded with pictures. I am quite sure that books on photographers and even Pedro II were publiched prior to that. --Lecen (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: The picture can be seen in bus stops in Petrópolis and I see no sign of copyright in it. See here: [2] [3]

It appears that your library link with the copyright info solved the problem. Good find! • Astynax ^talk 23:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done with "birth" section of Teresa Cristina! P.S.: Could you take a look in Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. I want to nominate it for featured status. --Lecen (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I intend to look tonight at the sections I didn't complete in Teresa Christina and will look at the Birth section then. I will put the Afonso article on my list to go through for any problems. • Astynax ^talk 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominations

Teresa Cristina's article looks very great now after your edits. I hope we'll have a finished article until the end of the weekend. What are your thoughts on Meishern's remarks on Rio Branco's article? --Lecen (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There are also several minor things for cleanup on Teresa Cristina, but they can be done quickly. However, we cannot nominate another article for FAC until Cabral or Pedro II is passed/failed (the limit is 1 article per editor, and if there is a co-nominator they can have 2 articles being reviewed). I will go over the Rio Branco article once more when I have time. I cannot believe there are the amount of problems he says, and if I don't come across something major and he fails it, I will ask for a reassessment.

I am also wondering if we should consider moving the article from "Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies" to "Teresa Cristina of Brazil" or "Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies" before nominating it for anything? I think that, because our sources do not use "Theresa Christina", the different spellings might concern reviewers. Before changing the name of an article, we would need to first ask for comment on the talk page. • Astynax ^talk 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not in a hurry to nominate the articles. I just want to leave them finished so that we can nominate them as others are passed. I wanted to request the move from Theresa Christina to Teresa Cristina after we've finished it but other editors have done that already. In 19th Century, her name was spelled "Thereza Christina" (with a "z" not an "s" as in it is now in the article) but nowadays she is called "Teresa Cristina". I believe she should be called "of the Two Sicilies" since it is where she came from. Also, it seems we are going to be successful with Pedro II and Cabral. Pedro II has four supports and no oppose. Cabral has 4 supports and 1 "neutral leaning oppose" from that editor who never appeared again. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

GA for Royal Stoa (Jerusalem)

Hi Astynax, I've nominated the Royal Stoa article for GA. I think it's rather good. Poliocretes (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Temple Mount Sifting Project has produced a large quantity of Herodian remains, including capitals, paving stones stones and stucco. The project, however, suffers from some fundamental flaws. Although they do mention the Stoa at least once in their reports (see website), there is no way to know where exactly each artifact is from, no specific structure to which you can assign the various finds. I'll see if I can find something. Poliocretes (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 27, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 27, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Empire of Brazil was a 19th-century nation that broadly comprised the territories which form modern Brazil. Its government was a representative parliamentary constitutional monarchy under the rule of Emperors Dom Pedro I and his son Dom Pedro II. On 7 September 1822, Pedro declared the independence of Brazil and, after waging a successful war against his father's kingdom, was acclaimed on 12 October as Pedro I, the first Emperor of Brazil. Despite his role in Brazilian independence, Pedro I became the king of Portugal in 1826. Unable to deal with both Brazilian and Portuguese affairs, Pedro I abdicated on 7 April 1831 and immediately departed for Europe to restore his daughter to her throne. Pedro I's successor was his five-year-old son, Pedro II. Once declared of age, Pedro II managed to bring peace and stability to the country, which eventually became an emerging international power. Pedro II personally had no desire to see the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and made no effort to maintain support for the institution. Despite the lack of enthusiasm among most Brazilians for adopting a republican form of government, on 15 November 1889, after a 58-year reign, the Emperor was overthrown in a sudden coup d'état that had almost no support outside a clique of military leaders whose goal was the formation of a republic headed by a dictator. (more...)

Royal Stoa GA

Hi Astynax, the article has been promoted. Once again, thanks for all you hard work. Poliocretes (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, could you please point me in the direction of the BAR article about the Stoa as a mint? I do access to back issues, a simple date/issue would suffice. Thank you! Poliocretes (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) has tried to do an end-run around the decision not to change the article name. Because you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you would be interested. You'll find the discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Latter Rain (1880s movement)

Hi there. I've left you a message on Talk:Latter Rain (1880s movement) concerning merging this article into the history section of Church of God (Cleveland). Since you created the article I thought to get feedback from you before actually proposing a merge. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to duty

Well, here I am! Ready to give this place a second chance. Are you willing to help me again?! I would be very glad if you would. I've been working for sometime (quite slowly, actually) on Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. What do you think of it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to work with you. The time I have for editing is still very irregular, but that is nothing new. It looks like it will be another interesting article. I will try to go through the finished sections after my guests leave on Sunday. • Astynax ^talk 06:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I made an edition in Empire of Brazil. Could you see if the text may be improved? --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine, but I made 2 small changes to condense. I will go to Caxias this week. • Astynax ^talk 06:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Shame we can't use this, this and this images. --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spectacular! • Astynax ^talk 00:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, I'd like to nominate Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to Featured article. If that's ok to you, could you take a last look in it to see if everything is looking good? --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article seems OK, but I will look at it tonight to see if there is anything that has been criticized in other articles, though it will be surprising if they do not find some minor thing that they do not like. • Astynax ^talk 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind nominating the article yourself? --Lecen (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will plan on doing it late on Tuesday. • Astynax ^talk 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite refusing myself to talk to Dr Kiernan, I believe I own an explanation to you. As you are aware, Prince Afonso (spelled "Affonso" in 19th Century archaic Portuguese) is a figure of small historical relevance in the history of Brazil. He is only briefly mentioned in Pedro II's biographies. Is there, by any chance, a book that gives a translation of his name to English? No, there isn't. In all books (the few in which he is actually mentioned, BTW) the prince is shown with his Portuguese name, that is, "Afonso", just as his father, who is "Pedro II" (not "Peter II"). However, the name "Afonso" in the House of Braganza originated from Afonso Henriques, first King of Portugal. Thus, it's possible to know that the correct translation of the name is Alphonse because Portuguese Kings, when they rarely have their names anglicized, are known as Alphonse I, Alphonse II, etc... Well, if Afonso's given name is not translated, finding his anglicized full name is simply impossible. Unlike what Dr Kiernan said in Maria Amélia's FAC, the Brazilian royals do have their names translated to English, albeit rarely, in fact, very rarely. Here you may find Pedro II's full name as "John Charles Leopold Salvador Vivien Francis..." In this other book his is called "John Charles Leopold Salvador Bibiano Francis..." As can be noticed, there isn't a standard translation of his name among 19th century historians. The name "Bibiano" (literaly, the male version of "Vivian") is translated in one book, but not in the other. Also, in one book "Gonzaga" is translated to "Gonzague", but in the other, it isn't. The name "Salvador" (Savior) is not translated, which results in a weird salad fruit of Portuguese and English words in one name. Even though, they are useful to be used through analogy to find a correct, or at least, an appropriate translation of Afonso's full name. I explained all this so that you don't think that I'm mad and I started to fabricate things. You know quite well that I'm very careful with the sources I use in the articles. Regards --Lecen (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you are not creating the issue out of nothing. Afonso is correct in the references I have found. But there are other spellings in older English references, just as Pedro is sometimes given as "Peter" in old references. • Astynax ^talk 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You say "Unlike what Dr Kiernan said in Maria Amélia's FAC, the Brazilian royals do have their names translated to English". I never said any such thing. In fact, I said the exact opposite at timestamp 13:12, 6 April 2011. I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped spreading untruths about me to your friends. DrKiernan (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Lastly, "Alfonso" is Spanish for the Portuguese Afonso. Not an uncommon mistake. This will be my last Brazilian royal article for a long time. The trouble is not worth it. I'm going to continue working on the Duke of Caxias' biograph. --Lecen (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, I don't what do to do anymore. The guy use sources that have Portuguese names in it and claim that they are Anglicized version of those names simply because archaic Portuguese "Theresa Christina" is spelled identically to the Enlgish name "Theresa Christina". The fact that all other names are in Portuguese (see Longo's biograph of Isabel for example: Afonso VI, Isabel, Pedro II, etc...). It's frustrating and annoying to deal with someone who does nto want to listen and worse of all: is not here to help. --Lecen (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. That is exactly what I have not done. You are not reading my comments. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to him, on pages 31 and 32 of this book, the names Francis I, Charles Ferdinand, prince of Capua, Leopold-Benjamin-Joseph and Louis-Charles are not Anglicized versions of the names of King Francesco I delle Due Sicilie, Prince Carlo Ferdinando di Borbone-Due Sicilie, prince Leopoldo di Borbone-Due Sicilie and prince Luigi di Borbone-Due Sicilie, respectively. Astynax, now he reported me to Administrators' noticeboard to be blocked! Again! --Lecen (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is surely to let readers know of variants from the Portuguese spellings which they may encounter when reading English-language sources on an article's subject (particularly older references). MOS is clear that we go with the current spelling of names as used in high-quality references for the title and in most cases within the article text. I've not found any guideline modifying or reversing the guidance given in MOS:LEAD for including alternative spellings. Variants and alternate spellings are accepted into English for many names, particularly in 19th and early 20th century sources. Longo, Kidder and others do use the "Theresa Christina" spelling, so I'm not sure what is the objection. • Astynax ^talk 02:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

All sections from "Family background" to "Cisplatine War and father's betrayal" are 100% done. It seems Afonso won't pass. I can't understand why there are users who propsoe changes, make comments but don't give their support. I have the feeling that the article is being deliberately ignored. --Lecen (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were doing a lot of work there. I will start on the sections whenever I have some time. I would not worry about Afonso yet. They seldom do much comments or support until after the first week, and we will see what happens later this week. • Astynax ^talk 23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done with "anarchy" section! --Lecen (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving DrKiernan's comments to you if that's not a problem. You may add the content he suggested if you wish so. I won't bother. But I prefer not to talk to him. --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was away most of today, and will be gone until tomorrow evening. I will take a look at his suggestion when I've returned. Thanks for alerting me. • Astynax ^talk 05:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not surprised with the final outcome. I saw many times our articles linger for months even though they had at least seven or eight editors supporting them. Now an article (which was not even at the bottom of the list!) with only 3 weeks was archived? Under the excuse of "no consensus to promote"? Even though it had no opposition? Nonetheless, the nomination started with the wrong foot. Let it be, then. I rather prefer to finish the Duke of Caxias' article. --Lecen (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I will also continue to work on Caxias, though I am busy this week. It is becoming an interesting article. • Astynax ^talk 22:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)