Talk:Henry, King of Portugal

Move to Henry the Cardinal-King

 * 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: No consensus, page not moved  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Henry of Portugal → Henry the Cardinal-King — According to an ongoing discussion here, the current title is a problem that must be resolved. The Britannica says this is byname. It certainly sounds better to me. Srnec (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Henry, Count of Portugal was equally ruler of Portugal, and I have fixed links in the past that pointed here but intended to point to the count's page. Srnec (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Weak Oppose. All that happened in the ongoing discussion is that I said I didn't like the current title.  so it's not an "ongoing discussion," it was me, expressing my individual opinion.  I certainly don't care for the current title, but I don't much like "Henry the Cardinal-King".  Why not just Henry, King of Portugal? john k (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe many share your opinion, and have voiced it before. I would oppose moving to "Henry, King of Portugal" unless we move all the Portuguese kings, and I think we should have a discussion about that first. I don't mind, however, if we set up a unique guideline for Portuguese kings, or similar for other kingdoms. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I proposed at at NCROY that we should, in fact, move all the Portuguese kings (and all the other ones, too). I'm not sure any portuguese kings have unique names, so they'd all basically end up at "X, King of Portugal" under my proposal. john k (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no agreement or decision that the current title is a problem which ought to be resolved. It's far clearer than the proposed title.  This sort of issue should be taken to the talk page at WP:NCROY.  I am aware that there is a discussion going on there already, but nobody has proposed that all monarchs lacking a regnal number should be moved to a cognomen, that's a rather sizeable can of worms. PatGallacher (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's far clearer than the proposed title." Absolutely not. Can you name one other Henry who was simultaneously a cardinal and a king? I can name one other person who is just as much "Henry of Portugal" as this fellow, but we have titled his article Henry, Count of Portugal. "This sort of issue should be taken to the talk page at WP:NCROY." Is that the customary way to request moves you favour? I don't think so. I did not request this move as a "test case" or to prove a point, or to get a general discussion going. I have had a problem with this article for a while now, ever since I had to fix links I made to Henry of Portugal, figuring they would go to the count's page, since he is a more famous Henry of Portugal, if you ask me. "Nobody has proposed that all monarchs lacking a regnal number should be moved to a cognomen." And I'm not proposing that either. Perhaps you'd care to revisit your vote, or at least change your rationale? Srnec (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Henry the Navigator is also rather easily thought of as "Henry of Portugal." These kind of titles are just desperately unclear if you don't already know wikipedia naming conventions.  Even when you do they're often unclear, especially for reigning female monarchs who don't have an ordinal.  The standard naming conventions, for instance, would dictate Anna of Russia as the title both for the Empress of Russia from 1730 to 1740 and the Queen of the Netherlands from 1840 to 1849. john k (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice, with "Henry, King of Portugal" as first choice. Simple searches show that "Henry of Portugal" is predominantly used for the Navigator. I see very few uses of the byname "the Chaste", while "Henry, king of Portugal" is about twice as frequent among sources on google books or google scholar as "Henry the cardinal-king". DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There might be a tenable case for adding "king of" in a few awkward cases, for disambiguation purposes. Dredging up obscure cognomens is another matter, for one thing you lose the name of the country, which is usually helpful. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it would almost always be a good idea to add "king of" for numberless monarchs. john k (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but certainly support Henry, King of Portugal, as in other similar cases.--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (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.

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. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry of Portugal → Henry, King of Portugal — Simple web or library searches show that "Henry of Portugal" is predominantly used for Henry the Navigator, and Henry, Count of Portugal is no more or less "Henry of Portugal" than King Henry. Therefore, the content of this page should move to "Henry, King of Portugal" and "Henry of Portugal" should be a disambiguation page. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - to repair ambiguity in the title as per nom.--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. For reasons I have discussed above. john k (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensible and functional resolution. If the naming conventions don't support it, then they should be changed so they do. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A much clearer article title. The naming conventions should be edited. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They already have been, following recent discussion (at WP:NCROY). "Henry of Portugal" style titles are no longer recommended, except when they would result from general article titling policy.--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2010 (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.

Birth and Career
As the article now stands, Henry died on his birthday. I have found elsewhere that this may simply be lazy editing. The matter should be investigated.

The article mentions his rapid progress in his ecclesiastical career, but does not mention his years as Archbishop of Lisbon, as laid out in the article Patriarchate of Lisbon. J S Ayer (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)