Talk:Battle of Aljubarrota

Regarding 13:17, 21 August 2021‎ edit
On 21 August 2021‎ I removed a reference to the Baker of Aljubarrota on the army strength field of the information column. I added my justification on the edit. This is a joke being played by someone who keeps vandalizing the page. The baker, as stated on the Aftermath section, is a folk tale which is commonly associated with the battle, but it is not grounded on real history. I once again removed the reference from the field. If vandalized again, kindly lock the page temporarily to prevent this.


 * I kindly disagree. This story is not a joke, and even if it is myth it is known by all Portuguese. Are you you arguing we should also delete this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brites_de_Almeida ?
 * It is obvious to the reader, if the proper link is in place, why this information is there and yes it can be amusing, but given the proper context I don't see why all the fuss.
 * Let the people have their bread and circus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrolinharesgomes (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not delete all the references to the story. Those remain in the Aftermath section where they belong. What I did delete was a single mention in infocolumn which included the baker woman as part of the army strength, which is neither correct or factual (the legend of the baker woman takes place shortly after the battle). This reference was continuously re-added over time whenever it was removed.

193.172.190.114 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

When a caption isn't appriopriate
On the Battle of Aljubarrota page there is a large battle plan. Would be best way to deal with this be to remove it from this page and leave it in the article only as a link to the image page and to write a full description on the image page? I feel it will be impossible to gain any meaning from a thumbnail sized image, and the current situation of having the large image appended to the end of the article seams to me to be wrong.

Warning
IMHO this needs a picture, more ilinks and some expantion, or this is going to hit Featured article removal candidates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong pronounciation
Batalya is not a valid transcription of the pronounciation of batalha, nor would bataglia be. In this case we'd need the IPA.


 * The palatal consonants lh in Batalha (equivalent of Spanish ll) is IPA ' ; batalha would be '. But this needs verifying, for I'm not sure. The Ogre 06:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * lh is not pronounced the same as the spanish ll. --CSTAR 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll grant that. Still, do you think that the IPA I proposed to batalha is correct? The Ogre 17:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't now anything about IPA, but it is pronounce batalya with all the a's pronounced as in bar.--CSTAR 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry CSTAR, but now I must desagree. My mother language is portuguese, and batalha is not pronounced batalya and the a's are not all pronounced the same way, either in european portuguese or brazilian. The Ogre 22:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well OK I'm a native spanish speaker BUT I lived (and taught at the University) for a decade in Rio. Please don't tell me barulho, mergulho, canalha, (Caralho for that matter) are pronounced without a light l sound (e.g barulyo, canalya with nasal vowels). You are CORRECT the a's aren't all pronounced the same in batalha, but I was trying to find the closest english pronunciation, and in particular to stress that the a's are not pronounced like a in bat.--CSTAR 01:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Melhor do que isso só mesmo o silêncio
 * E Melhor do que o silêncio só João
 * (Caetano).--CSTAR 01:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm Brazilian and I can attest that all the a's are pronounced the same way in Brazilian Portuguese. The same does not happen in European Portuguese, where the first a becomes quite nasalized. 201.6.69.105 10:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well CSTAR, the most I am able to concede is that in some brazilian varieties of the portuguese language the lh may have an extremely brief and light i sound. That sound, however, is non-counspicuous to native speakers. In european portuguese that briefest and lightest of sounds does not exist. The Ogre 18:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. But then that does seem to point to a problem of IPA as a pronunciation guide. To assert that the ll and lh sounds have the same representation in IPA (as is indeed apparently the case) is not very helpful  to a non-native speaker. In other words if I said in my spanish pronunciation you "que carallo voce esta dizendo" ('tou brincando) I wonder if that carallo would make sense and be understood as caralho (and yes I know, you portuguese and most brazilians unlike us morbid spanish speakers hardly use that profanity as I discovered long ago as I muttered carajo under my breath as I realized I forgot my keys).


 * That sound, however, is non-counspicuous to native speakers. Well of course, because that's the definition of a minimal pair.--CSTAR 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

is the correct transcription in IPA (for European Portuguese). This is not, however, the same as "batalya". See lateral palatal approximant. FilipeS 16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 about "Present day territories"
In my very humble opinion, the note 2 should be rewritten something like:

At this time (fourteenth century), Castile is not synonymous with "Spain". That country appeared only in the end of the fifteenth century, with the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon (the rulers, together, of present-day Castile, Leon, Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands and other territories outside the Iberian Peninsula such as Canary Islands, Sicily)—"The Catholic Monarchs."

As this is such an awarded article and there is even an audio version I just make this modest comment so if anyone with more background in history than me (easy) takes my point and edits in a suitable note the small note.Basquetteur 14:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

On the 07:13, 17 August 2009 revision
I expanded the text and removed incorrect information such as the mention to John of Aviz' "Lancastrian queen" before 1387 and the "probable" English suggestion on the defensive tactics, on which Nuno Álvares Pereira had already shown proficiency at the previous battle of Atoleiros. Please check my English, as I'm not a native speaker. It also needs references and footnotes, but I'll leave those to any real historian who might actually have the books... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdr. Maegil (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Aljubarrota. 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/20090425063201/http://www.fundacao-aljubarrota.pt:80/index.htm to http://www.fundacao-aljubarrota.pt/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology?

 * Does anyone know the origin of the name Aljubarrota? It looks like Arabic, but the name of the Battle of Aljubarrota's Arabic Wikipedia page has the form ألجوباروتا ('Aljūbārūtā), but that looks like a direct Arabic transcription of the Portuguese name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)