Talk:Peter of Castile

message: Well, why? Srnec 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously you moved it, but it should absolutely be at Pedro, because that is what most sources in English called him.  Examples: B. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror; this recent biography.  On the whole, I think he really ought to be at Peter the Cruel or (better, imo) Pedro the Cruel, and not at this somewhat puzzling title. john k (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Pedro and not Peter?

message: It's English. Srnec 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry is called Henry.  Pedro is called Pedro.  john k (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when they're called Enrique and Peter. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but I think that the balance of English language sources use "Pedro" and "Henry".  Certainly I've never really seen "Peter" outside Wikipedia. john k (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the balance of sources probably does. I think it is terribly inconsistent to go with Pedro, although it appears the literature is just this inconsistent. Most books put Pedro the Cruel beside Peter IV (of Aragon), which makes no sense to me. One book uses Pedro I (of Aragon), then Pere for James the Conqueror's son before his coronation and then Peter III for him after that. Then it uses Pedro the Cruel and Peter IV on the same page. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  It can be horrendously inconsistent and is stupid.  Such is how Wikipedia has decided to title articles, though.  (My personal preference is local name forms for Romance and Germanic languages, Anglicized for Slavic, Hungarian, etc., but that's not the policy). I suppose it doesn't matter.  I tend to think this article should be at Pedro the Cruel, but what can one do? john k (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Henry and not Enrique?

message: what on Earth is going on here? The article seems to be thorough and accurate in the information it gives, but it desperately needs citations to make it verifiable and sections to make it readable, while sticking to undisputed fact, otherwise, all the hard work that has obviously gone into the article would be in vain. HJ Mitchell (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting etc. 

message: I don't understand this part: 
"Peter was to be married to Joan, the daughter of Edward III of England, but on the way to Castile, she travelled through cities infested with plague, ignoring townspeople who had warned her not to enter the town. Joan soon contracted the disease and died.[3]
He was unfaithful to his wife, as his father had been. But Alfonso XI did not imprison his wife, or cause her to be murdered, which Peter did.[4] He had not even the excuse that he was passionately in love with his mistress, María de Padilla; for, at a time when he asserted that he was married to her, and when he was undoubtedly married to Blanche of Bourbon, he went through the form of marriage with a lady of the family of Castro, who bore him a son, and then deserted her. María de Padilla was the only lady of his harem of whom he never became quite tired."
So, Joan died of the plague, and Maria was not his wife. Who is the wife that he imprisoned? Blanche of Bourbon? And why did he imprison her? It would be good if someone could make this part more clear. Thanks! (Userpong (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it was totally confusing. I've tried to clarify it. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity/Clarity

message: Why is the appearance of his descendants all sound the same?  Did seriously all of Peter I of Castile's descendant have "blue eyes, and had a hair color that was between reddish-blonde and auburn"? It's not sourced at all in the articles of his descendants. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance