Talk:Portuguese India Armadas

Requested move 6 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to Carreira da Índia and no consensus to move to Portuguese Indian armadas at this time, per the discussion below. There is a possibility that Armadas da Índia could gain consensus backing, but that is not sufficiently clear to me from the current discussion, and it is evident that this would also affect several related articles. If necessary, please propose that title in a new multimove request linking the talk pages of all articles that would require title changes. Dekimasu よ! 21:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese India Armadas → Carreira da Índia – Alternatively, Portuguese Indian armadas. Scarecrow's Historical Dictionary of Portugal has an entry for Carreira da Índia. The terms "Portuguese India(n) Armada(s)" do not appear in any work in English that I can find via Google. The lower case alternative would nonetheless be an acceptable descriptive title in English. The proposed title appears in the title of numerous scholarly articles in English. The proposed might imply a change in scope, since the current articles stops in the 1510s but the Carreira (as normally understood) continued into the 18th century. Srnec (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 21:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. The term "Portuguese India Armadas" is my translation of the Portuguese term "Armadas da Índia", the technical term for the fleets, which is what this article is about.  Of course, merely calling it "India Armadas" is insufficient, as it does not indicate provenance, or clarify the title in Wiki search, so the possessive "Portuguese" was added.
 * The term "Armada das Indias" is the technical term for the annual organized fleet. Much like the Spanish used the technical terms "Flotas das Indias", "Galeones de Perú", "Galeones de Manila", etc. for their specific organized fleets.
 * "Carreira da India" is inadequate as a title for several reasons.
 * (1) "Carreira da India" translates as "India Run", and is usually used to refer to the route. The route is merely one subsection of the article, but the main purpose of the article is the fleets. A single fleet is never referred to as a "Carreira", but an "Armada".  And this article is about describing and cataloging the fleets.
 * (2) "Carreira da India" (or plural "Carreira das Indias" - is found in sources too) is a foreign-language term, that will not be understood by non-Portuguese speakers on English Wikipedia. It is not sufficiently widespread to be recognizable, unless you're already a specialist in Portuguese Early Modern history.   Most English-speakers would simply not know from the title what it was about.  I know there is a fashion among modern professional historians to preserve foreign terms, but Wikipedia addresses the lay public, and clarity, in English, should be the overriding concern.  Nothing is gained in terms of clarity by imposing a non-descriptive foreign-language term. It adds nothing and will only confuse English-speaking users.
 * (3) The term is not uniquely Portuguese - the Spanish also use the "Carrera das Indias" to refer to the annual flotas to New Spain (Mexico), and the terms are sufficiently indistinct and bound to confuse. Moreover, you proposed title does not specifically refer to Portugal.  Many nations (Dutch, British, French, etc.) had "India runs", which would be translated into Portuguese as "carreiras da India" as well.  There is nothing in the foreign-language title that actually indicates provenance specifically from Portugal (is it Spanish? French? Dutch?  Hindi?).  Non-Portuguese speakers would not likely recognize it in a search.  The term "Portuguese India Armadas" is simple, clear and descriptive of the content.
 * (4) Nothing is gained by it. "Portuguese India Armadas" is a parent article to the specific fleet pages, i.e. "First Portuguese India Armada", "Second Portuguese India Armada", "Third Portuguese India Armada", etc.  And the term is used throughout other Wikipedia articles to refer to specific fleets (e.g. "The Sixth Portuguese India Armada arrived in Calicut in 1504").  Forcing "Carreira da India" disconnects the parent article from the child articles.  Not sure how you'd reconcile it.
 * (5) Your alternative "Portuguese Indian Armadas" technically incorrect. The original technical term was "Armadas da India" not "Armadas Indianas". And it is grammatically misleading. "Indian" is a possessive term, which may be taken to insinuate the fleets were organized or run by Indians (or Portuguese-Indians).
 * P.S. on why only to 1510s, I wrote all the Portuguese India Armada pages. I took pause because other parts of life got in the way. Nonetheless, I have composed a list of all the armadas down to 1650, and have composed specific detailed articles on each armada as far as 1551 (only the first few have been finished and uploaded).  It is painstaking and frustrating work.  There is very little secondary work on the topic (and usually rather slipshod, typically relying on one unreliable source).  To determine armada lists, I have had to simultaneously consult, compile and harmonize (and note discrepancies) in armada lists from nearly a dozen conflicting chronicles and innumerable other primary sources (letters, etc.). It is a bit of a herculean task, I hoped someone else would pick up after me, but apparently not. I'll finish the list and upload the remainder someday. Walrasiad (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the move to Carreira da Índia Armadas da Índia - refer to my comment below - the above user fully admits that "Portuguese India Armadas" is their translation (emphasis mine) of the Portuguese term "Armadas da Índia". The term "Portuguese India Armadas" has zero hits on Google Scholar. Meanwhile, I'm on page 15 on GScholar search of "Carreira da Índia" and not only are all the research papers thus far connected to the Portuguese Empire (denying point 3 above), but I also found several English-language papers that refer to the term "Carreira da Índia", for instance . Wikipedia does not coin new terms, it follows the existent literature, even if said term is not in the English language. See mélodie, auto-da-fé, Luftwaffe or Rue de la Harpe. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The many hits you have in Google Scholar that are in Portuguese are irrelevant; This is English Wikipedia. But the few hits you have that are in English are relevant. At the risk of quibbling, the problem is that you're quite wrong in saying even if said term is not in the English language. But if it appears in English sources, as you have demonstrated, it is ipso facto in the English language. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have striked my comment on the potential move target and I'm awaiting more discussion on the issue. There are two terms in discussion here, "Carreira da Índia" and "Armadas da Índia", and they are not used interchangeably in Portuguese. The first one refers to the voyage to India per se (could be a distinct article in my opinion, but that is another discussion) while the second refers to the military well, armadas, that were employed in India. The thing is. All the English literature that I am finding on the 16th century armadas used in India refers to them simply as "Portuguese armadas". That is clear enough when you are discussing a chapter about that period of time in India, but if you name an article as such, there is a risk of confusion with the modern day Portuguese Navy. Or the use of armadas by the Empire, somewhere else. I still think we shouldn't leave this article's title as it is, as it is a term that you won't find anywhere. I'm leaning towards the native "Armadas da Índia" since the English translation used in the literature can refer to the armadas used by the Portuguese Empire anywhere in the world and this is an article about the armadas in India. RetiredDuke (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The English literature you're referencing are articles in professional journals for specialists, not common works read by the general public. There is an expectation that specialist historians know what is being referred to, something you cannot expect of the general public. Unfortunately, this in itself is an obscure topic, so you won't likely find it in general works. So a judgment call is necessary. Obscure and confusing foreign-language terms are not helpful. The objective here is to facilitate searches for English-speaking general readers of Wikipedia, as well as other considerations (notably, consistency as a parent to other articles).   As yourself admit, attempts to use Portuguese technical terms out of context are themselves confusing. If you could point out what is actually gained by imposing a confusing foreign-language title, I could be persuaded.  But so far all I see is added cost, and no benefit. Walrasiad (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Portuguese fleets of the India Run? India Run (Portugal)? Lots of options here. Even the term "India fleet" is much more common than "India armada". The current title is awkward, it seems to me (and others seem to agree), because "India armada" is just not a natural pair of words. The capitalization, too, is not consistent with the three-word phrase being unknown in the literature, either scholarly or popular. Srnec (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fleet is a generic term, which can apply to any arrangement of ships. But these are not merely fleets. They are systematic officially regulated fleets, for which a technical term exists: "Armada da India". In a similar way that Venice had its "Galley of Flanders", its "Galley of Alexandria", etc. or Spain had its "Flotas das Indias", "Galeones de Peru", "Galeones de Manila", "Navios de Registro", etc. to designate distinct official fleets, operating under specific official arrangements and rules.  It is how you'll find them referenced in historical records and histories. In any given year, they can (and frequently were) broken up into multiple fleets, but are still part of the same one "Armada da India".  Preserving their official name (even if in translation) makes them so much easier to organize, understand and track in the specific Armada articles. There may be a half-dozen fleets in operation at sea at any given moment, but some are part of this year's Armada, others part of last year's Armada, some from the Armada of the year before that. Each Armada has its separate timing rules, instructions, captain major, etc., so it is important to track to which Armada a specific fleet or ship is attached to.  Eliminate the Armada arrangement, and you end up with a veritable confusing mess.  I urge you to examine some of the child articles:
 * 2nd Portuguese India Armada (Cabral, 1500)
 * 3rd Portuguese India Armada (Nova, 1501)
 * 4th Portuguese India Armada (Gama, 1502)
 * 5th Portuguese India Armada (Albuquerque, 1503)
 * 6th Portuguese India Armada (Albergaria, 1504)
 * 7th Portuguese India Armada (Almeida, 1505)
 * Now, I wrote all of these. And trust me, if you drop the official "Armada" tracking system, and decide to go with some other generic term (e.g. fleets), it becomes a huge confusing mess, impossible to sort or understand. There is a highly functional clarifying purpose for it here, that is more valuable than you can imagine.  Try writing any article without it, and you'll quickly become confused yourself, and cause confusion to readers.
 * I thought very hard and very long about this. This is the best arrangement I could come up with to maximize clarity and convey the information effectively without overwhelming or confusing readers. It may not be perfect, and I do understand your objections. But hopefully you will see its enormous practical value. If you want to change the title, then please propose an alternative system that can track this as accurately and clearly.  Walrasiad (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The numbering does not seem practical when the armadas continued into the 17th century (and on). Srnec (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not practical? Have you actually read any of these articles? It is extremely practical! Of course, if you imagine you can write these articles in any another format, I invite you to try. But since I'm guessing nobody will be writing these articles but myself (alas nobody else has added a word to them in all these years), I guess nobody here but me has a stake in it. At least as I see it, your hit-and-run proposal promises to kill the prospect of any continuation of the series.  Your proposed name change may be of no cost to you, but it is fatal to writers (& readers). Walrasiad (talk)


 * Support. If we didn't go with the Portguese name and we did stick with this WP:NPOVTITLE, the nom is correct that it should be "armadas"; when pluralized that way, it's a common noun. E.g. "She attended two universities, Harvard and Oxford", not "... Universities ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm surprised by this discussion. Armadas da Índia refers to the fleets of ships that made the annual run to India, which is what the article is about. Carreira da Índia refers to the run itself, not the ships that made it. These facts are reflected in the names of the respective articles on Portuguese WP. If the title were to be changed, at least Armadas da Índia would be correct in this context; Carreira da Indias is not. Carlstak (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I definitely support a move to Armadas da Índia; it's certainly better than Portuguese India Armadas, but moving this article to Carreira da Índia would be egregiously incorrect. Carreira da Índia would be suitable for a separate article treating a separate subject. Carlstak (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The distinction is not entirely clear to me. The armadas in question existed purely for the run. They don't have an independent existence. Why would a page focus on the ships or the organization of the fleet solely, and not also on the events of the trip, the stops, the cargoes, etc.? If you think that a page on the armadas would include all those thing, then what wouldn't it include that a page on the carreira would? But in any case, I'm fine with Armadas da Índia, seeing as I moved the page there myself (but was reverted). Srnec (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My compliments to Walrasiad for all the hard work he's done. In reply to Srnec, I would say thank you for your considered response; it helps to clarify my own thoughts. Perhaps I'm not at my sharpest, having been sick as a dog the last few days. I think a very short article explaining what the Carreira da Índia was, as on Portuguese Wikipedia, would be in order. It would point readers who encounter the term and are curious to know more about the subject to this article, as well as Srnec's articles on the several armadas, of course. If this article were moved to Armadas da Índia, and I hope it is, then for consistency's sake, we would have to move the numbered Portuguese India Armadas articles to "2nd Armada da Índia", "3rd Armada da Índia", and so on. I don't see that these changes should be a problem. Carlstak (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am not looking for compliments, just for the practical ability to continue. That necessitates clarity in communication with English-speaking readers on Wikipedia. As for your specific proposal, I am not sure non-specialists will know what country "Armada da Índia" is supposed to refer to. Or even what language it is in.  Portuguese? Spanish? Dutch? Hindi? Gujarati? If it is easy translated, and translation disambiguates and provides clarity to readers, why not translate it?    Walrasiad (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't think you were looking for compliments; I thought your work should be acknowledged. Casual lay readers are unlikely to discover this article except by wikilinks (no one is going to be Googling "Portuguese India Armadas", but curious persons who encounter the term "Armada da Índia" elsewhere might Google that). By way of analogy, I offer the English WP article titles Casa da Índia in Portuguese, and Casa de Contratación in Spanish. I think very few editors would support changing their titles to "India House" and "House of Trade". Carlstak (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The term "Armada da Índia" is contained in the text, so they will find it via search, if that is what they're looking for. However, if they don't know that specific phrase (i.e. vast majority of people), but are nonetheless looking for Portuguese fleets that went to India, how would they know they had come across it?  Or if they were looking for Spanish fleets that went to Mexico, or Dutch fleets to India, or Gujarati fleets to Malacca, how would they know this was not it?
 * As for "Casa da India", that is a proper name, it is sufficiently specialized and not used with much frequency to become a burden. You don't have to repeat the term hundreds or thousands of times across multiple pages. If it became a burden, then I'd consider it. If you want a counter-point, I give you the Portuguese East India Company (rather than "Companhia do Commercio da Índia") or the Dutch East India Company (rather than "Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie") (although personally, like most historians, I do prefer using "VOC" in text).
 * It is a question of practical functionality. We translate "Seleção Nacional" to "Portugal national football team", despite the fact nobody uses that clumsy exact phrase.  It simply helps. Walrasiad (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By your own logic, it would make more sense to call the article "Portuguese Fleets to India". At least that has the virtue of being clear in meaning, unlike "Portuguese India Armadas", which implies that those fleets were based in India. I will go so far as to propose "Portuguese Fleets to India" as a superior title, if the name of the article were to be changed. With all due respect, I find that this discussion is becoming tedious, and will simply say that I disagree with you, and leave it at that. Carlstak (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, "Armadas", not fleets, is the technical term, and serves the valuable purpose of tracking when there are multiple fleets at sea. You're right.  This discussion is becoming tedious.  I feel I am repeating the same carefully made points again and again, but I don't sense they are being read or considered. I've set out the points that I believe are vital to retain for practical purposes for communication, clarity and sorting, points which as the writer I have had to contend with from experience.  I've have asked that the proposals meet these criteria.  I am not sure what you disagree with. You disagree with the criteria?  Or just don't care about it? Walrasiad (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My friend, you are certainly "repeating the same carefully made points again and again". While I may concede some of them, I disagree with your premise. It's senseless for me to debate the question, because you, in all good faith I am sure, appear to be resolutely committed to the present title. I don't think Portuguese India Armadas is the best title we could use. The arguments you advance on its behalf, correct though they may be on some points, are not persuasive enough to justify it, in my opinion. I remain open to alternative suggestions; it would be nice if other editors joined in and offered theirs. Carlstak (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not resolutely committed to anything. It is simply the best solution I could come up with, after trying a gazillion different combinations. If you can come up with better one, I am all ears. But I am conditioning it on the criteria set out above.  And so far the alternatives proposed are quite worse. I have spent probably thousands of hours researching & composing these articles, moving heaven and earth to ensure this intricate topic is organized, clear and comprehensible to readers. So, at least for me, it is not a matter of taste, but a matter of what actually works.  If something else works better, great. I'd love to hear it. But these proposals aren't it.  This is a deep change, not a superficial one.  So please don't imagine my reasons are superficial.  I don't want the functionality of these articles ruined because someone has some light opinion or a distaste about something.  Trust me, I am considering these proposals quite seriously. I hope you are doing the same. Walrasiad (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
This would complete a circle of moves. From the target history (to be overwritten): 11:10, 6 July 2018‎ EmausBot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m. . (55 bytes) (+7)‎. . (Bot: Fixing double redirect to Portuguese India Armadas) (rollback: 2 edits | undo) (Tag: Redirect target changed) 22:45, 5 July 2018‎ EmausBot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m. . (48 bytes) (-7)‎. . (Bot: Fixing double redirect to ) (undo) (Tag: Redirect target changed) 20:25, 3 June 2017‎ (talk | contribs | block)‎. . (55 bytes) (+55)‎. . (PatGallacher moved page to Portuguese India Armadas over redirect: use English)

Most recently 11:08, 6 July 2018‎ Walrasiad (talk | contribs | block)‎. . (55 bytes) (+55)‎. . (Walrasiad moved page Armadas da Índia to Portuguese India Armadas over redirect: Moved without discussion to ambiguous foreign-language title. Please use RM.)

One of those involved has !voted above, the other is currently active (but not on this page) but has not commented. Relisting and pinging them to seek more participation. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Portuguese India Armada"
I don't care what your requested move said, the title as is is blatantly poor English. Look at the similar construction in British Indian Army. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Try caring. And reading. It's official term is "Armada da India" and not "Armada Indiana". It is perfectly good English.  "Indian" is a possessive term, implying it belongs to Indians, or is organized in India.  Portuguese India Armadas are "to India".  The possessive term is "Portuguese", "India" is the object of the sentence, the destination.   The term "India armada" is meant in the same way as the Venetian "Flanders galley" or "Levant galley", or the Spanish "Terra Firma galleon", "Manila galleon", and "New Spain fleet", or the British "East Indies fleet", etc.  It is the customary way of referring to organized fleets to specific destinations. Or if you want to talk more general English, the noun as whole is an "India armada", much like we say "chicken soup", and not "chicken's soup". See the difference? Walrasiad (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)