People sometimes argue about whether we should use an ancient name for a modern country, or latinize the modern form, but it seems to me that Portugallia is almost never used- Lusitania is used quite a bit, and my impression was that it was even used in modern Portugal.

Also, the name Portucale is sometimes used to refer to the country, not just to the city/region of Porto

Locum?

Quid sibi vult "Locum 109" et "Locum 79" in tabula? Est, qui intelligat?--Utilo (disputatio) 17:47, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intellego, mi Utilo, quia talia in capsis Vicipaediae Anglicae iam vidi. "Locum 79" dicere vult "[Portugallia] omnium orbis terrarum civitatum locum vel gradum 79um habet quo ad numerum incolarum pertinet". Quomodo hoc brevius Latine scribere possumus, haud scio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. - Ad tempus verba "inter civitates locus ... " cum Vicipaedia Anglica conexui.--Utilo (disputatio) 22:17, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

This interesting article (in Portuguese) explains the origins of Portugalia & Lusitania, and suggests that "Portugallia" is the least correct of the three: [1] --Capmo (disputatio) 05:46, 25 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. If anyone who better understands Portuguese wants to play with the wording or add different sources, please do! Lesgles (disputatio) 22:02, 30 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't answer Capmo's point because I didn't see its relevance to our rules for choosing names. A large number of early-modern Latin writers use "Portugallia", "Portugallensis" etc. and another large number use "Portugalia", "Portugalensis" etc. My impression is that academic sources, from the time when Latin was used academaically, prefer "Portugalia" and official and geographical sources, from the time when Latin was used officially and geographically, prefer "Portugallia". This may be a false observation, but, even if it's true, it's not much help to us! It's all of the same period, and the writers concerned are, all of them, the kinds of sources we use.

We had a long discussion before our recent move of "Lusitania" to "Portugallia" and the move of many associated category names. Unfortunately I don't know where that discussion is ... perhaps it was on the Taberna. I think we want to be sure we're doing the best we can before starting all over again, though a second set of moves may indeed be the end result. That's Wikipedia :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 31 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some discussions: Disputatio:Lusitania, Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 18#Lusitania / Portugalia / Portugallia. I might have been too hasty with the perceived authority of Campo's article. Portugallia does seem to be more common than Portugalia in most Latin contexts on Google Books, e.g. Rex Portugalliae 2190, Rex Portugaliae 1490; Portugallia quoniam (to pick a random Latin word) 755, Portugalia quoniam 358. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:04, 31 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are useful tests. My problem with Capmo's comment is just with wondering, "What does correct mean in this context?" As between two possible spellings of an essentially modern Latin word, there may be no correctness other than the usage of serious authorities ... and in this case they don't agree. Let's wait and see what others say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 1 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything. I'm moving back for the present, since "Portugallia" was the result of discussion and a sort of consensus, but if a further discussion reaches a different consensus, so be it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:08, 17 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viseum

Verurium non erat Viseu. Fortasse erat San Vicente de Beira. Ipsa Dioecesis Visensis appellatur. <https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0064%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DU%3Aentry+group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dverurium-geo> [Scripsit 88.9.67.210,utens ignotus.]