Talk:Martin Codax

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. 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: Move. It appears that a majority of participants accept the argument that the form without the accent is the most common in the best English-language sources for the subject. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Martín Codax → Martin Codax – Martín, with a diacritic, is a recent Spanish innovation. His name appears as Martin or Martim in the best references, such as the Grove Dictionary of Music. I've moved the original content at Martin Codax to Martin Codaz in order to keep its page history. (Martin Codaz is yet another variant of his name.) —capmo (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose we have a consistent MOS for Spanish just as other languages. We don't go through English or German names giving them antiquated fonts, no reason to make this Martín different from every other Spanish Martín on en.wp. With medieval names as the nom notes there are always multiple variants at the time. Hence this being Martim in German wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: could you give a link for that MOS for Spanish, please? I can't find it. --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no written formal MOS, unless you count the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spain & Spanish-related articles, but the MOS consistent with WP:FRMOS is there in the way all Spanish articles are. We don't generally backdate printing limitations to create authentic replicas of the typography of the period. Not for Olde Englyshe names of English bios either. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, Martin Codax has never been a Spanish composer. He was Galician and spoke Galician Portuguese. Even Spanish sites as this one spell his name as Martin. The Grove Dictionary is an authoritative reference in such cases; they usually cite all variant names a composer may have had over time. For Codax, his entry reads "Codax [Codaz], Martin", i.e., they don't even consider [Martín] as an alternative. A related example is Martin of Aragon: in Spanish it would read Martín de Aragón, but not here on enwiki where his name has been anglicized. How is Martin Codax's name pronounced in English? I suppose that is sounds like MART-in CODE-axe (or COD-axe), instead of the Galician pronunciation mar-TEEN co-DASH, that would warrant the use of an accent on Martín (if we are to follow the Spanish orthographic rules). —capmo (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say "In ictu oculi, Martin Codax has never been a Spanish composer. He was Galician and spoke Galician Portuguese." as if that isn't obvious, or why that would be relevant to your nomination mentioning Spanish that "Martín, with a diacritic, is a recent Spanish innovation" when it is also a recent Galician innovation. A consensus MOS does exist in practice for Spain articles and we have a reasonable degree of WP:CONSISTENCY across Spanish (and yes Galician) articles, and across en.wp as a whole that we don't generally try to recreate typographical or in this case pre-typographical limits. Names with "of" are translations, this isn't. usage in Spanish texts is generally to represent the Martín as modern Martín. English sources such as A Comparative History of Literatures in the Iberian Peninsula etc. can use modern Martín. So it's an issue of en.wp editor preference what we use. I prefer to stick with consistency of all other Spanish/Galician articles rather than pull this one out of line. But I've stated the Oppose reasons. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• SupportNeutral comment - Thanks, In ictu oculi. But MOS stands for Manual Of Style, so if there isn't a written one, there isn't one at all. And this isn't a question of typography, but a simple question of the use or omission of a diacritic. WP:DIACRITIC applies, and that calls for us to follow reliable sources. So I think capmo has made his case. @capmo, I suspect very few English speakers will ever pronounce his name at all, but those who would pronounce it would possibly manage co-dash but still accent the wrong syllables --Stfg (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed to neutral since I know nothing of Galician orthography (or Galician "MOS"). --Stfg (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Galician orthography has changed many times in the last century, in a fight among proponents of three different solutions: those pro-Castilian spelling, those pro-Portuguese spelling (see Reintegracionismo) and those in favor of an independent (mostly Castilian) spelling. Because of that, Modern Galician is not a good reference in this respect. It would be more appropriate to stick to the Medieval Galician spelling, that coincidentally is the same adopted by the Grove Dictionary. —capmo (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - holy cow, what do you mean by "recent"? Red Slash 02:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  Considering that Codax lived eight centuries ago, a spelling that only became standard by the beginning of the 20th century may be deemed "recent". :) —capmo (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The "Martin" spelling seems to be more common in authoritative reference works, and "Martín" is a modern Spanish spelling, which should not be applied to a medieval Galician composer. Bobby Martnen (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Bobby Martnen Why? We follow modern spelling for all medieval bios on Wikipedia. Why is this one different? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support the nominator's case is pretty convincing. The only case for using the diacritic as I see it is consistency with other Spanish articles—but there's no specific guideline (MOS) whatsoever, he wasn't simply 'Spanish' in the modern sense, and we follow English usage where applicable. —innotata 05:12, 25 September 2014 (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.

gl

@Jerome Kohl: Thanks for the edit, but are you sure this is a coded language? "gl" is ISO for Galician, whereas this text is explicitly in Galician-Portuguese which appears to be ancestral and distinct, and for which I don't find an ISO code (nor do the editors of said article). Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good point. My mistake. I saw the subject's name coded as simply Galician, but didn't notice it was separately coded as Portuguese.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Codax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193442/http://w3.uniroma1.it/letteratura-europea/codax/codax/LIRICA_HOME.htm to http://w3.uniroma1.it/letteratura-europea/codax/codax/LIRICA_HOME.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)