Myself & @Lecen: are in dispute as to how the names John VI, Peter III, Ferdinand VII & Charles IV should be displayed in this article. IMHO, they should be shown in their english form, per their respective article titles (see WP:COMMONNAME), where's Lecen argues they should be shown (pipe-linked or redirect) in their portuguese form. What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A) Show in english form
B) Show in portuguese form

Survey[edit]

• A - While said-linked articles are in their english language title forms. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B. For consistency at this article. There's nothing wrong with redirects, see WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE. DrKay (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A. WP:LEASTASTONISHMENT and MOS:FOREIGN. A user following a piped link from João to John are going to be at least a little confused, and per FOREIGN we should aim to minimize the number of foreign words used, not maximize it. I also don't see any benefit in using the Portuguese version of the name; if a reader wishes to obtain additional information on the individual, they can follow the link and read the article which includes the Portuguese version of the name in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B. While some (primarily British) English language sources on European Portuguese history still tend toward substituting English names-pronunciations-spellings for native-language names-pronunciations-spellings, this is not the case with recent English language historians of Brazil (and even some 19th century English language sources) who commonly use the Portuguese spellings as reflected in their own source materials. One could argue convincingly that insistence on using anglicized versions of name is much more confusing, and a losing proposition (e.g., we have long abandoned using "Tamerlane", "Peking", "Lewis XIV", etc.). What is indeed confusing is when a reader looks up the citations and finds no mention of "John". In addition, each of the linked articles on the European monarchs contain (or should contain) the native Portuguese spellings on their first lines. • Astynax ^talk 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A. Where the WP:COMMONNAME is the Anglicised form - which appears to be the case here for all 4 examples, then there is NO argument for using any other form than that used by the linked article. This isn't a case of English/Portugese in itself, so much as using the most commonly understood name throughout. Readers are able to follow links if they wish to know the full or original form of the name. Obviously if linked articles are wrongly named, then they should be renamed, but unilaterally adopting a different policy towards historical names makes no sense. But this RfC is asking the question the wrong way round. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B. As pointed out earlier, the name used in all sources in this article is “Joao.” Either we’re are faithful to the sources or we will need to remove the gold star at the top. --Lecen (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• B. It is ridiculous that this is constantly an issue on Portuguese language articles. Firstly, I agree with DrKay's points on WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE, meaning that even if the common name was simply John, having a link to his article from the name João is not confusing at all or disruptive, especially given that the article lead has both names within the first sentence. But secondly, the sources refer to him as such. As Astynax put very well, English language sources nowadays overwhelmingly refer to figures in Brazilian history using their Portuguese names. Unfortunately for figures in Portuguese history, a significant portion of english language historiography of Portugal originates in Britain, where the convention to translate names runs popular. It would be hugely disruptive to this article if every Portuguese and Brazilian figure is referred to by their actual Portuguese name and only the King has to be referred to as John. Also, it is ridiculous to make the argument of MOS:FOREIGN when referring to someone's given name, that standard refers to foreign terms not names! I mean, we're talking about names written with Latin script not Cyrillic or Arabic script, I truly don't understand the issue with using the original name, and as Astynax says, quite rightly in my opinion, the insistence of anglicizing names is a trend falling out of favor more and more. Anglocentric naming conventions are the true disruptive force here. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English language sources nowadays overwhelmingly refer to figures in Brazilian history using their Portuguese names in that case, perhaps it would be worth short-circuiting this entire discussion by making an RM for those pages? If the Portuguese names are now the WP:COMMONNAMEs, then it should be a relatively uncontroversial move. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've called on @Lecen: to open up an RM for all those bio articles, but he chose not to. My guess is, he believes the end results will be the same. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's been a few years, since those RMs were last held. Perhaps the results there will be different this time. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A. Where the WP:COMMONNAME is the Anglicised form; per Pincrete. If the common names have changed, then move the articles. The article text should reflect the title of the linked article. If, here at en.wikipedia.org, that is in English, for WP:COMMONNAME or other reasons, then the article text should also be in English. Similarly, one would expect to find the Portuguese name, João VI de Portugal, at pt.wikipedia.org, and ジョアン6世 (ポルトガル王) at ja.wikipedia.org; and one does indeed find both article titles in the languages of those wikipedias. As Mateus 22:21, would have it: “Então, dêem a César o que é de César e a Deus o que é de Deus”.- Ryk72 ^talk 02:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A. WP:COMMONNAME applies generally to article titles in wikipedia, and I see no great reason which it should be changed for this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A. WP:COMMONNAME, as suggested by pincrete and Deathlibrarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A WP:COMMONNAME. As I stated earlier, links to any article should not be confusing and should be what would be commonly expected in English. Masterhatch (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - either John or João, but NOT Joao, please. Mostly neutral on the issue itself: using the most common designation in English language sources makes sense, using the original name mekes even more sense, but either is good enough, just keep it consistent. And NO Joao!! :-) Nabla (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (which is Portuguese)[reply]
• B. I'm not an expert nor well-versed in the subject, but I'd like to echo the points made by Cristiano Tomás and Astynax. If the sources use João, then João it is. This isn't to say I would support a move of all biographies to the Portuguese names (as GoodDay is asking "B" voters to do) since the main argument here applies to the sources and this page alone. FredModulars (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

To elaborate. I found it confusing seeing those linked articles (pipelinked & redirected) into portuguese language form. Since I was twice reverted for making (IMHO) corrections to this. I've opened up this RFC. I would recommend that the objector, open RMs at said-linked articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Show in Portuguese form, which is how English-speaking historians call Pedro and João (not Peter and John). We need to respect what historiography says about the topic. Simply check the sources used in this article to prove my argument. João is called “John” in his article because a group of contributors refused to allow foreign words, despite being the names actually employed by historians. --Lecen (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  IF I may, will you ping this "group of contributors who refuse to allow foreign words..."? They deserve the chance to defend themselves, just as I've given you the chance (this RFC) to defend your two reverts. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What you wish instead is to force an artificial majority by bringing the people who will support your point of view, even if they are not regular contributors to anything related to this topic. Thus you wish to force your way to "win" this RfC. It shows your character. Remember: canvassing is against Wikipedia rules. If I see you calling people in here to "win" this RfC, I will report you. Also, if I notice that people who were part of that move request start to suddenly appear in here as well, even though they never contributed to his article, I will know that you were sending emails to them and you will be reported. --Lecen (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep you threats to yourself & lower the hostilities. I'm asking you to ping them. Since you've mentioned them & their supposed deeds. BTW - I don't have email. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to point out that user GoodDay has been attempting to force a name change to English in articles about Brazil and Portugal for over ten years now. It's clearly an obsession and I can provide the links. He has a bias against foreign names and I can also point to that. --Lecen (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Quit the exaggeration and possible breach of WP:AGF. PS: I was hoping there'd be no personal attacks in this RFC. Again, will you please ping the aforementioned group, so they can defend themselves? Note: We are not edit-warring, but discussing, which is the best thing to do. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm calling WP:MULTI on this, inclined to pulling the RfC outright, because GoodDay has failed to mention that they started Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Should links respect actual name of articles, they are linking to? only a few minutes before raising this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that was allowable. I've retracted it. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A. WP:LEASTASTONISHMENT and MOS:FOREIGN. A user following a piped link from João to John are going to be at least a little confused, and per FOREIGN we should aim to minimize the number of foreign words used, not maximize it. I also don't see any benefit in using the Portuguese version of the name; if a reader wishes to obtain additional information on the individual, they can follow the link and read the article which includes the Portuguese version of the name in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Best place your choice, in the survey section above :) GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For those opting for the B option. It's been quite a few years now since the last RMs, so please take the liberty of opening up an RM concerning all Portuguese monarchs' names (at least up to John VI). If you're successful at it, it would strengthen & make more acceptable, the linkages of those articles, in Portuguese language version, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• One wonders. Does the Portuguese language Wikipedia show their British monarch articles (for example) linked in the english language form? GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Não, Isabel. Não, Jaime. Não, Guilly. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you’re pushing this change in this articles out of pettiness because the Wikipedia in Portuguese translates names. Your goal here is not to have a meaningful discussion about how historiography has called Joao VI (which I’m certain that none of you ever read a history book about him or Portuguese-Brazilian events). Because if your goal were that, you’d have tried to look at the books published by university presses in the past thirty years, would have seen that he’s indeed called Joao. But this is not what you really want. It’s because of whatever happens at Wikipedia in Portuguese.--Lecen (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a true believer in most common usage in English. If Pedro is the most common way he's referred to in English sources, then that's it. But if it's Peter, then Peter should be used. I don't know why this is so hard. Masterhatch (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about how to show the monarchs names, that are mentioned in this article. Do we show them as their article titles are named? or do we show them in the Portuguese language form. For examples: Do we show John VI or João VI; Ferdinand VII or Fernando VII. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterhatch: Just to be certain. Which do you suggest in the above 'survey'? A or B? GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Most recognisable by speakers of English, aka, most common usage in English. Masterhatch (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright to 'move' that, to the survey section? GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterhatch: Did you bother doing any research or did you reach that conclusion based only on your personal preference? Can you prove that emperor Pedro I of Brazil is actually better known as “Peter I”? --Lecen (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about John VI, Ferdinand VII, Charles IV & Peter III, which are the focus here? Anyways, I'm only asking him to place his position in the 'survey' section. That's not canvassing because, he's already made his position on the topic known & we're within the RFC it self. GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I was tired and short on time last night when I posted that. I didn't put my comment in the survey section because I was going to actually write a comment, not 'vote'. Anyways, I meant to say, the links to and the article itself should be most recognisable to English speakers, whether that's Pedro or Peter. I believe the links and the article should be the same, or at least similar whenever possible and shouldn't confuse the reader. I'm not voting, but between the 2 choices, I think A is best. Just my 2 bits.Masterhatch (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright. It's a Kinda-A position (which you 'can' put in the survey, if you want). BTW, I do wish Lecen would 'lower-the-volume' in his edit-summaries. He snaps at me? fine. But he shouldn't be snapping at both of us. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the RFC template has expired. I've put in a request for closure/decision. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observations[edit]

Interesting discussion. After having now read the discussion and relevant policy Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms in particular, I have a couple observations.

First, COMMONNAME refers to the common usage for that person, not the common english translation of their name. So if the majority of references call someone Pedro XIX, then that's what we should use.

And with that in mind (and per WP:FOREIGN), these probably should be handled on a case-by-case basis per individual, so I dunno if lumping them all together into a group rfc like this was the best course of action.

And it seems to me that several people tried to say something similar, but were pressured by the format of this rfc to instead pick A or B arbitrarily.

So, following current policy, I dunno if this rfc can be closed with a result of consensus for anything.

Anyway, just some observations. YMMV. of course. - jc37 03:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not many english only readers, would be able to pronounce João VI. GoodDay (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might presume the same about Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Antidisestablishmentarianism, or even to correctly intone Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But we do not name articles based on what we guess our readers can pronounce. - jc37 12:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We each see it in our own way. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been insisting on this for over ten years. This is a matter that only you care about it, no one else does.It’s time to move on. --Lecen (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also care about this topic greatly, otherwise you wouldn't have ever reverted my changes or participated in this RFC. I've already put in a request for closure. I'll accept the decision there (whatever it is) & hope you'll do likewise. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]