Talk:Manuel I of Portugal

Choice of phrase
I've changed 'discovers Brazil' to 'locates Brazil', as Brazil was already discovered by its inhabitants. There are no doubt other ways of phrasing this, but I feel that this edit is a good start. Colonel Tom 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I'm no longer convinced that this edit was an improvement. Reverted. Colonel Tom 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "South American subcontinent" to "South America" in the intro. The English-speaking world uses the 7-continent model in which South America is a continent, and I was originally going to edit to reflect that. However, on reflection, "South America" is shorter, loses no necessary information, and doesn't irritate those raised on the six-continent model. Hiernonymous (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

King of Portugal and the Algarves
The article on Afonso V says he was the 12th king of Portugal and the Algarves. The article on John II says he was the 14th king. This article says Manuel also was the 14th king. This appears to be a discrepancy, but maybe there is some simple reason for this sequence.JGC1010 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I checked the articles on the other kings in the line. John II is the only one that is inconsistent so I changed him to 13th. Apparently it is Beatrice, an infant, who created the problem.

--Eldred (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No paintings?
Why use a miniature image from a book to illustrate the article? Are there no contemporary paintings of the king? —capmo (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No contemporary portraits exist firstly within the commons and if they exist in reality, they are not widely publicized, whereas the miniature is the only contemporary depiction painted of the king. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am coming late into this conversation, but there are several paintings of King Manuel I on Wikimedia Commons located at the following link: (commons:Category:Manuel I of Portugal in paintings). All are quite better representations (with some variation) of the former King. I don't think that the depictions on the article really reflect "contemporary depictions". Since all the paintings are subjective, there is no real definitive interpretation of this historical monarch. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only one of those paintings that is contemporary is the family of D. Manuel at the Fons Vitae, and it is not a portrait of the king. All others are part of "royal series" produced centuries later, as large fictitious portrayal collections of paintings of all the kings to that point. The miniature is a contemporary portrayal of the king - simply because it is not a painted portrait doesn't mean its not a valid and good image. It is also a quality image and very well sourced in its pertinence and origin. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine by me. —capmo (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)