Talk:Portuguese heraldry

"Since the very early" WHAT?

§ "General features", ¶ 5, begins

Since the very early, the round bottom shield has been the preferred shape to display the coat of arms in Portugal,...

Something's missing... Thnidu (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted "the", leaving the grammatical "since very early" (i.e., in the history of Portuguese heraldry). Thnidu (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

awkward translation

The whole article was evidently translated, presumably from Portuguese, by someone who was not a fluent speaker of English, and it is riddled with minor errors of construction (wrong preposition, definite article missing or inserted, etc.). I'm working on it. Thnidu (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Still working on it. Next section:  Unified bodies' heraldry.--Thnidu (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I just finished copyediting this article, correcting mostly what appeared to be errors in translation (presumably from Portuguese) due to literal translation and/or unfamiliarity with English idiom. Then I went to look at the other language pages – only Spanish and Portuguese exist – in the hope of checking up some unclear expressions. Although I can't really speak Spanish or even approximately Portuguese, I can make enough sense out of both of them for some basics. I was shocked to find that the Portuguese article is only about 210 words long, and the entire text of the Spanish article is "La heráldica portuguesa se ha usado desde el siglo XII", i.e., "Portuguese heraldry has been used since the 12th century," while this article, in English, amounts to

Prose size (text only): 80 kB (13963 words) "readable prose size"

So where did the rest come from? Especially since it was evidently not written in English by a fluent speaker of English, but translated from a Portuguese or other Romance language original.

I'm posting this question to the Teahouse as well.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Blazon

«Unlike the highly stylized and macaronic language used in the heraldry of many other countries, the Portuguese blazon is described in plain language, using usually only Portuguese terminology.»

This is, to be charitable, not entirely incorrect. Tuvalkin (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Cristiano Tomás recently deleted this sentence. Will one or both of you please explain the deletion more fully than Tuvalkin's criticism above? Insofar as it's accurate, this is a significant difference between the practice of heraldry in Portugal and in other countries.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, the main thing is likely that, usually, Portuguese-language blazon is not as macarronic and opaque as it could be, namely when i comes to tincture names: While there is, as in English, a set of color names that are Heraldry-specific and are understandable by nobody outside the field (jalde, arjante, goles, blau, sinopla, sable), most blazons use instead regular color name words (ouro, prata, vermelho, azul, verde, negro) — only "púrpura" is in both groups. All other terminology and syntax is as macarronic and opaque as it is in other languages, though, mostly, however, for justifiable reasons. Tuvalkin (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: Thanks. This is much more informative than your earlier comment. Why not edit that bit of the article appropriately? (BTW, it's "macaronic", with one R.) Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Thnidu: Thanks for the heads-up on spelling. Adding this explanation about color names is easy, but I am lacking a handy source to back it up. (All my Heraldry books are still packed in a cardboard box.) Tuvalkin (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: BTDT (Bin there, dun that) about stuff in storage. I don't have books on heraldry, but I can bring in some WP:RS. I'll ping you when I've got them up here, or put them in myself. --Thnidu (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Confusion of dexter/sinister

My edit to this paragraph was (automatically?) reverted: "The male children of the Monarch use the arms of Portugal differentiated by a label. The eldest son, as the Prince heir of Portugal, uses the label with all its points empty. The cadets (infantes) have the points of the label charged with arms of their ancestors (usually the arms of the lineage of their mother), other than the arms of Portugal. The first infante has only the sinister point of the label charged, the second one has the sinister and dexter points charged and the third and following infantes have all the three points charged." I corrected that to the "first infante has only the dexter point of the label charged", which is what the illustration shows for the arms of the "First Infante of Portugal". Either alter the illustration or alter the description of the illustration, since they are contradictory. (Nor do I understand the rapid reversion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:720B:D00:51F1:8393:68E:8546 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)