Talk:Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Translated

--Gimelthedog (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Afonso?

"Pedro II wrote a sonnet in honor of his son, entitled 'On the Death of Prince D. Pedro', soon after Afonso died." Isn't this supposed to be Pedro, the Prince Imperial? Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is saying that Pedro died right after Afonso. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not make any sense; Pedro was born after Afonso's death. It would appear that the Emperor wrote "On the Death of Prince D. Pedro" before Prince Pedro died, or before he was even born. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and correct the article. Besides, the cited lines do not constitute a sonnet. Until someone cites the actual sonnet, we should probably refer to it as a poem. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

See also

Please see WP:See also before reverting my edit and merely calling it "unhelpful". It says that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." The section managed to repeat three links that appear in the first two sentences of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit seems reasonable. I will point out, however, that WP:See also does not provide a hard an fast rule on this issue, to whit: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. ... As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.". Note that it does not say that links must not be repeated, just that they should not. This suggests the issue would be one of WP:CONSENSUS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Br'er Rabbit has no intention of discussing this. He did not revert the edit because he disagreed with it; he reverted it because he wanted to provoke an edit war, as evidenced by his edit summary: "you should be blocked, soon". He did not attempt to provide any reason for reverting my edit. He did not attempt to discuss it. What kind of a consensus can I expect if he refuses to provide a reason? Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear your frustration, and I'm sorry about it. I think the thing to do on this article is to wait and see if other editors respond. If not, then we can open an RFC to get others to weigh in. As I said, I do think your edit was reasonable, in isolation, and might well have been accepted on most any other article. I counsel patience in terms of this edit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe, ordinarily you'd be absolutely right. But there could never be proof that Brer Rabbit wants to start an edit war, and Surtsicna comes here with some disruptive baggage. I do hope that the other side explains, even if briefly, why they want a See also section like this. Yes, I know that we're talking about guidelines, not laws--which is why I'd like to see an explanation, not a brief. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a stupid little skirmish in a larger pattern of pointy disruption. The see also section is not hurting anything, indeed since this is such a short article it helps fill teh void between the end of the prose and the Ancestors box, which always drops below the infobox. Removing the see also only creates a block of whitespace (and a lot of heat and attention). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There you go, Surtsicna; asked and answered. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This does seem like a reasonable explanation. Frankly, it did occur to me that removing the See also from this short article would make it look even shorter. Perhaps the better answer is to expand this article a bit, and only then remove the See also. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cause?

The article makes no mention of the cause of the Prince's death Grunners (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yellow fever ws the cause of his death. --Lecen (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lecen's revert

User:Lecen: I'm happy to talk about my edit, but you literally didn't explain yourself at all, so I really have no idea what your issue is. If you're referring to "Titles," I would not expect consistency, because there's an obvious difference between a 1-year old and someone older. You reverted the rest of my edit though - are you complaining about that? If so, what exactly? SnowFire (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

1) The lead is a summary of the article. What's written there is based on a sourced text. If you believe that the article has issues with neutrality or POV or anything else you should show us so we can fix it. And after that we can go back to the lead to change it accordingly.

2) See Pedro's elder brother Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Died aged 2. Featured article. No need to explain there how the Brazilian nobility worked. I agree that Wikipedia needs a strong article on Brazilian nobility. --Lecen (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For #2, I believe that the Afonoso article should be changed as well. There's no harm in duplicating the information, it's pretty short. It's bizarre to see honors for someone who died at 18 months old with no explanation at all for how they attained them. I'm sure an editor familiar with the Brazilian royalty would realize why, but a casual reader won't.

For #1, my version of the lede is still accurate. If you really want to I'm fine with phrasing it as "needed for the continuation of the rule of the House of Braganza" or the like, but simply saying "needed" with no qualification is wrong. Needed for what / by whom? SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit to the lead was more than a matter of style and deleted some information summarized from the body (i.e., that the monarchy was in jeopardy). I have reworded a bit to preserve the point. The honors list is properly presented as a list, rather than prose. Readers will certainly be familiar that royals frequently do not earn or attain membership in various orders that are granted along with their titles. • Astynax ^talk 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your phrasing to the lede is fine. I planned on that being my last attempt at Honors - I still disagree for the reasons stated above, but I'll let Wikiproject Brazil handle the Honors section how they like. SnowFire (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)