User talk:Lecen/Archive 6

Talk:Brazil

Can you help me here? Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have a question for you about the Brazilian Monarchy. Who do you think should be the current pretender of the Brazlian throne,Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza or Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza? I just wanted to see you opinion on it. Spongie555 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question does John VI of Portugal count as a emperor of Brazil beacuse on the Brazlian Imperial House website they put him as an emperor of Brazil, [1], I might be wrong reading the page? Spongie555 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it to me. I find the Brazilian monarchy very interesting and monarchy in general. Spongie555 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt Alfredo d'Escragnolle Taunay be counted under statesmen in the template? He did hold political postions and was a Viscount. Spongie555 (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead for Rio Branco

Any particular reason why you think it should be shorter? The article is about 42Kb of readable prose, and per the suggestion at WP:LEAD#Length the lead should then be three or four paragraphs, which is what it is. Has someone suggested it needs to be cut? It seems fine to me. Mike Christie (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Very minor issue

Well, sometimes the captions need a source, since these could contain innacuracies or violations of the NPoV rules (See this example in a talk page). What I did in my last edit of War of the Triple Alliance was just to include in the references the book you mention in your summary, nothing more than that. Feel free to revert, for me it is just a minor issue. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to sign up the above comment. My apologies.--Darius (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 2, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II (1825–1891) was the second and last ruler of the Empire of Brazil, reigning for over 58 years. Born in Rio de Janeiro, he was the seventh child of Emperor Dom Pedro I of Brazil and Empress Maria Leopoldina and thus a member of the Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza. His father's abrupt abdication and flight to Europe in 1831 left a five-year-old Pedro as Emperor and led to a grim and lonely childhood and adolescence. Obliged to spend his time studying in preparation for rule, he knew only brief moments of happiness and encountered few friends of his age. His experiences with court intrigues and political disputes during this period greatly affected his later character. Pedro II grew into a man with a strong sense of duty and devotion toward his country and his people. On the other hand, he increasingly resented his role as monarch. Inheriting an empire on the verge of disintegration, Pedro II turned Brazil into an emerging power. The nation grew to be distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors on account of its political stability, zealously-guarded freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and especially for its form of government: a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy. (more...)

I requested the deletion of the TALKPAGE of the image, I cannot edit the image itself. See the reasons at its talkapge. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Luis Osório

Hi, my name is Marcelo, and I'm quite an expert user in spanish wikipedia. As you can see, I'm not an expert in English language. I've recently edited an article about Manuel Luís Osório, Marquis of Erval, a biography you've edited in the english version. I tried to add in this wikipedia te link to it, but I've received a message saying that An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. I really don't understand what I'm doing wrong, so I couldn't solve it.

Anyway, please add the link to es:Manuel Luis Osório to the article. Thank you very much. Marcelo.--201.251.210.40 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is done, good luck! --Lecen (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

Thanks for asking me to review José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. I am sorry, but I simply don't have the time to put in a good review and judging by the comments so far it seems like this article needs the type of FA review and input that I simply don't have the time to get into at this point. I am very busy with real life and will be until after Christmas. Dincher (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also thanking you for asking me to review the article (congratulations for the work on featuring such articles). At a first view, I would suggest that in the first paragraph you present more clearly the reasons why José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is a noticeable person (See Winston Churchill summary 1st paragraph or other subjects). I think this is really important - there's an interview online with Wales on wikipedia's role, stating that giving a good summary and broad view on any subject is one of the main roles of an enciclopaedia - On journalism there is a useful basic rule that states that the most relevant info should always come in the head - Summary/head text should give a broad view on the subject. But sometimes it is too long or vague, and a first time viewer could no "catch" it. Good luck --Uxbona (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, thanks for the message. I don't have a lot of free time this week but I will try to read it by the weekend. Regards Paulista01 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; as you can see I did have some time to review and have made a pass through. It's in excellent shape and I think will pass, though I agree with the previous FAC reviewer that some prose work is needed. I did a copyedit pass and thereby addressed some of the points he made; I will try to get back to it in the next few days and do another pass. I probably won't add any more to the review today, as I'm leaving the house shortly, so I'll revisit tonight or tomorrow. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, I read the article. I liked it, even though I am not a fan of Rio Branco. I believe that he did more harm than good to the Empire. In the future we could add more information regarding the controversies with the Bishops and also the bad reputation that Rio Branco acquired for his handling of the Banking crisis in the 1870’s. Even Dom Pedro II did not agree with his handling of the financial crisis. If you like, I have some excellent papers published by Barman and others regarding the controversies during his government. As always congratulations on the exemplary work. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lecen. Sorry, I had not used Wikipedia in the last few weeks. I was talking about the crisis in the Maua Bank and the controversy that it generated, the help provided by Rio Branco was seen by some as nepotism. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference info for Teresa Cristina

I still have some more work to do on Teresa Cristina. I noticed there are 2 references citing Olivieri, but no info for his book in the References section. Also, I decided to start using the {{sfn}} template, instead of <ref></ref> because it allows for some useful things for articles with many citations. It has the additional advantages automatically grouping citations of the same page, and it eliminates the need for the awkward <ref name="x" /> syntax. If you can start using {{sfn|authorsurname|date|p=}} for new articles, it will make things much easier. The older articles can stay the same, since it takes too much time to convert those. • Astynax ^talk 08:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you object if I change the the citations for Empire of Brazil to use the same {{sfn|authorname|date/year|p=pagenumber}} as Teresa Cristina? I think you will find it useful, because you don't need to worry about the <ref name="">, or &nbsp; before the page number, etc. • Astynax ^talk 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the frame need to be removed from the picture in the Rift with the Count of Áquila section? • Astynax ^talk 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies

Hi! Was there a reason you left a note about this article's FA nom. on my talk page? Sincere apologies if I don't remember correctly, but I don't believe I was a major contributor to this article. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazil template

Hello - you undid my reversion of "Cisplatine War" on the Empire of Brazil template, saying it had nothing to do with the move request at the Argentina-Brazil War page. But unless the article gets changed to "Cisplatine War", having one name in the article and a different name in the template is inconsistent and confusing, wouldn't you agree? Dohn joe (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't agree. English-written books about Brazilian history (and even Latin America) use the name "Cisplatine War" and "Paraguayan War" (such as in this biograph about Pedro II: [1]). What would be considered confuse was to someone who is reading a book about Brazilian history and see names such as "Argentina-Brazil War" and "War of the Triple Alliance" in here, and not the ones used by historians. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that "Cisplatine War" is a better article title than "Argentina-Brazil War". But unless that happens, the template should keep "Argentina-Brazil War" so that references to the war are consistent throughout Wikipedia. I see your point, and I understand. But your edit was premature. Would you consider reverting your edit back to "Argentina-Brazil War" until the main article discussion is closed one way or the other? Thanks. (By the way, you can respond here - I'm watching this page.) Dohn joe (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a rule that says that the name everywhere has to be consistent? --Lecen (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines suggest that templates shouldn't use redirects. For example, when you use the redirect in the template, "the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading." No strict rule, just a guideline. Another guideline suggests not piping a redirect, either.... Dohn joe (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblioteca Nacional

Lecen, this may be helpful to your work regarding Dom Pedro II and the Empire of Brazil. The Biblioteca Nacional is adding a lot of images and docs that are in the public domain. Links: 1 - Brazil pittoresco : album de vistas, panoramas, monumentos... 2 - BNdigital

Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Looks like an interesting project! Will have a proper look at it later on today, now that I'm finally on leave. I'm just trying to finish off some work on a Windsor Castle article improvement in user-space, which turned out to be a bigger challenge than I'd imagined! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

Congrat's! Really good news. As ever, very happy to help where I can - its always nice working with people who care about the topics and put as much effort into the research as you do. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

map requuest

nice of you to ask, but if i could make simple maps too i would not be posting there. (heck, i cant even install the one i asked for ;)) sorry.

They look awfully similar. try pointing out the differences, maybe some people couldnt tell so keep leaving it for the next one.(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

Merci

Un merci français pour la correction de Pierre II du Brésil Berichard (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

je vais beaucoup vous décevoir; je contribue à la wikipedia francophone et je regarde tous les jours l'article du jour de la wikipedia anglophone; si le sujet me semble intéressant j'essaie de le traduire c'est comme cela que j'ai découvert Pierre II du Brésil dont je ne connaissais même pas l'existence. Par contre, j'ai commencé de traduire l'article sur la guerre contre Oribe et Rosas.

Vous avez beaucoup de chance d'habiter ce beau pays pour nous qui sommes sous la neigeBerichard (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Je vais présenter votre article comme BA (bon article). Sur la wikipedia francophone pour avoir l'AdQ, il ne faut plus qu'il y ait de lien rouge. J'ai traduit l'article sur la fr:guerre de la Plata si cela vous intéresse. Je suis un peu gêné car on parle en français et en anglais de platine (platinum) et même de cisplatine Cisplatina qui est un médicament utilisé dans certains cancers alors que pour moi le Rio de la Plata est le fleuve d'argent.

Si vous avez des articles équivalents je peux essayer de vous les traduire Berichard (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Je ne sais pas si vous avez vu les remarques faites par Konstantinos sur la page de discussion de Pierre II du Brésil et si cela vous intéresse. Konstantinos est le spécialiste des personnalités monarchiques de la wikipedia française et il peut échanger avec vous beaucoup de connaissance.

j'ai essayé de traduire l'article sur la révolution de Praiara mais j'avoue que wikipedia est pauvre sur le sujet et les articles en français inaccessibles; si j'ai bien compris à l'époque, les régions avaient un gouverneur nommé par l'empereur ou élu? et qui gouvernait une province selon le système anglais (avec un président élu au suffrage censitaire?) Pourquoi ce monsieur a t'il voulu réduire le nombre d'électeurs?) Il a été destitué par l'empereur (pour quelles raisons?) à quel moment exact?

en attendant que la France foute la patée au Brésil à la coupe du monde de football de 2018 (lol)Berichard (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Pierre_II_du_Br%C3%A9sil/Bon_article Berichard (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil footnote

Hi Lecen,

I've expanded the footnote and corrected the page range. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. Thanks. Arthur Holland (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Map of Brazil

Hi Lecen. The orthographic maps' SVG do not open correctly in Illustrator (something to do with excessive grouping). After fidgeting I could make the corrections but MediawikiSVG no longer recognize the file as valid SVG. I can supply a PNG through a screen capture but a SVG is beyond my tools at the moment. Jon C (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Jkwchui's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jon C (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC notifications

Hey, Lecen, sending FAC requests for review to 62 different user talk pages is not likely to ingratiate reviewers, and not a trend I'd like to see get started; it's a fine line between asking a few FAC regulars to look at an article, and spamming the whole project! I've already seen some complaints. Most of the FAC regulars have the page watchlisted anyway, so these kinds of notifications can be most useful for topic experts who don't participate in FAC, or a general notification can be placed on WikiProject talk pages.

Looking over your other contribs, I see you do this often in other areas ([example); take care not to run afoul of WP:CANVASS, which relates to not only the content of the message, but how many editors it's delivered to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Sorry about the R-word, the image provoked a strong response and perhaps not articulated the best, but it is otherwise a fine article Fasach Nua (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese infante

Happy new year! Please, take a look at my editions here. There is a high distribution of the title of "Portuguese infante(a)". Even D. Isabel was supposed to be an infanta (!!!).

Also, I have created specific categories for each prince title (Imperial, of Brazil and of Grão-Pará), similar to the organization at WP:PT, and finally puting all of them appart of the Portuguese title (Prince of Brazil).

Many cheers! \\ Tonyjeff (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I must be honest: I am a wee bit disappointed with organization of WP:EN... at least when compared with WP:PT in this subject. Not only wrong titles, but a lot of redundancies (Regent of Portugal and Regent categories at the same article, for instance). I am making some organization, but I think somethings should be retought. All the best. Tonyjeff (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: something I really hate is this model followed here, separating Princes from Princesses (and so on). I think it is not necessary, specially with titles with just a few people, and this organization may even cause some confusion. Anyway... Tonyjeff (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Old business

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Odysseus1479's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina

I've answered DrKiernan's comments on the review page. He did, however, suggest using an image of Naples which was closer to the time of Teresa Cristina's birth. I don't think it is important because Naples didn't change much until the 1860's, but if you know of a more recent image from around 1800 you might want to consider replacing the older picture. • Astynax ^talk 19:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies

Hi, I am new to this whole thing but I thought I would be polite and just say that she is not merely a member of the nobility, she was a Princess of the Two Sicilies and then an Empress. I do not see what the problem is, I merely edited the article according to the way other members of royalty are displayed :) I'm From England (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Brazil

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking for a little help, but SandyGeorgia has suggested you're something of an expert in this area. There's a dispute concerning the size of the Arab population of Brazil, which has led to some edit-warring. The details are at Talk:Demographics_of_Brazil#10_million_Arabs? and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Demographics_of_Brazil. Any assistance you could offer would be greatly appreciated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that - it was a great help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1920 or 1922 ?

Hi Lecen ! In your articles about Pedro II of Brazil and his wife Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies you gave two different dates for their burial in Brazil: 1920 and 1922. As I am translating your work about the empress, I would like to know if there is a mistake or if you refered to two different events. Thanks a lot for your help. Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem... Do you know the exact day of the burial ? It is not very important but I checked in Tout m'est bonheur (the memories of the former countess of Paris) but I didn't find it. Thanks a lot if you can help me... fr:user:Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but I already read this interesting article. In fact, I was speaking about the date of the ceremony that occured in Rio de Janeiro in 1921. But it is really not important so if you don't know, don't make any other investigation for me. Have a good day, fr:user:Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

It is common practice in English to refer to the 19th-century King of Portugal as John VI, not Joao VI (see John VI of Portugal as an example. Also, since Brazil only acquired and annexed Cisplatina/Banda Oriental in 1817, it is helpful to clarify that the 'secessionist movement' in Cisplatina/Banda Oriental was in a territory that had only been under Brazilian rule for eight years. Cripipper (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The convention in English is to refer to the Portuguese monarch João VI as John VI. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia naming conventions, it might be useful for you to read this. Happy editing! Cripipper (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, dealing with the links you provided, the first three are citations to books that appear to be written in Portugese, so are irrelevant for our purposes. Secondly, I tend to rely on rather more conventional, and reliable, sources than what is available on Google books, but if that is the metric you want to use, then I refer you to [2] which produces approx. 1380 references in English books to "João VI of Portugal". A search for [3] John VI of Portugal produces a 50% greater prevalence of John to João (in the texts available on google books). A search on JSTOR produces a ratio of 5:1 in favour of John. Furthermore, in line with Wikipedia naming conventions, if the convention in English were to refer to him as João, his wikipedia entry would be João VI of Portugal. It is not. (Note for the sake of comparison that Pedro I of Brazil is by convention called Pedro in English, not Peter. That's just the way it is, I don't know why.

With regard to Cisplatina/Banda Oriental, it is disingenuous, at a minimum to say that "In 1777 Portugal handed over its towns in present-day Uruguay to Spain. In 1811 the Portuguese returned to reclaim it, unsuccessfully. They tried once more in 1816 and this time, they conquered back not only what was once theirs, but also the entire Spanish towns in the area." The area in question had always been a frontier, peripheral area of contested sovreignty and mixed control until the Treaty of 1777, when Portugal ceded sovreignty over the area to Spain. It was only through conquest and annexation that it was brought fully under Portuguese and later Brazilian control. Perhaps the wording I have chosen is not perfect, but it is closer to the realities of the situation than the previous wording which gave no indications of the contested nature of the area, and the fact that it was annexed to Brazil by conquest in 1820. Cripipper (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'm sorry. But... did you read the books? They are written in English, not Portuguese. The first and the third were written by American historians and the third by a British historian.

When I opened the pages you linked to it took me to the references of the books, highlighting cited monographs in Portuguese. Apologies for that.

Cisplatina was a Brazilian province. Simple like that. Part of its population was Portuguese-Brazilian. Simple like that.

And? (BTW, in English we don't say 'simple like that')

I'm going to wait to see you revert your own edit. Since this is not the first time you get into trouble for edit war, I'd warn you to be careful. --Lecen (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I revert the edits? I have provided sufficient evidence that the convention, in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions, is to call him John, not Joao. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you propose making changes to Wikipedia's naming conventions at an appropriate juncture. Furthermore, there is nothing in the edit with reference to Cisplatina that disputes the fact that it was a Brazilian province, albeit one that was formerly sovereign Spanish territory annexed after conquest. I want to bring historical clarity; you appear to have some sort of nationalist agenda.

As for your 'warning me to be careful'... Cripipper (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)