Talk:Alfonso V of Aragon

Old text
This article still needs a good deal of work (especially in the readability department) -- Did people at the turn of the century really write like that? How pedanic! maveric149

Alfons or Alfonso?
Is he to be called Alfons or Alfonso? He switches from one to another and back during this article. I'd prefer "Alfonso", but that would involve changing the title of the article. qp10qp 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And now I've noticed that the article for Alfons's grandson, a later king of Naples, is titled "Alphonso II", who is nonetheless called "Alfonso" throughout the article. So even if "Alfons", in the case of the present article, is justifiable, it is surely inconsistent for his grandson then to be called "Alphonso" in an article title. qp10qp 14:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support Alfonso throughout both articles and for both titles. It is the most common and recognisable English spelling of the name. Srnec 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Birthday?
Alfonso's birthday is December 15th 1393 according to "Speculum Astrologiae", vol. i, chart number 705, Lugduni 1583, written by the astrologer Junctinus (Giuntini). This is a very credible source, since astrology was in high regard in the renaissance.

Alfonso, Pedro and... John?!
I think there should be at least a minimum of consistency; if the first two brothers' names are written in Spanish - although, being "dynastic" names they really should be "translated", i.e. written in English - then the third brother's name should also be written in Spanish: Juan.

No?

I think so.

Unsourced claims
The 'Art and administration' section is dubious throughout; I've added citation tags and removed this claim:


 * However, the classics had not refined his taste, for he was amused by setting itinerant scholars, who swarmed to his court, to abuse one another in the indescribably filthy Latin scolding matches which were then the fashion

This is in bad style, makes general claims about the subject, and has no attribution. I do not think it belongs in this article in this form. --AgonRex (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Amusing. It may be what you say, but the text is from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, as is "the worst of the uncited claims". Carlstak (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised. Feel free to revert if you'd like to add that citation. --AgonRex (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I shall restore the claims and paraphrase from the lurid style. Thanks for find the source, Carlstak. --AgonRex (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice job on the re-edits. It should be said that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was replete with blatantly biased, even racist, writing. The "lurid" style is at least entertaining, albeit not necessarily expressed from a neutral point of view. Carlstak (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Maria's dates
''Maria d'Aragon [it] (1425–1449) (died 1449, aged around 15 or 16). She had married in 1444 Leonello d'Este, deceased 1450.''

This doesn't math up; 1449 is 24 years after 1425. Which is correct? 2A00:23C7:548F:C01:55E2:9138:BAB5:3BCF (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)