Talk:Philip the Good

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The proposal is now that the article stays at Philip III, Duke of Burgundy
(altered the wording to correspond current reality Arrigo 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support or Oppose, an optional brief reasoning, and your sig with four tildes
#Support. Systematic naming is helpful, and also presumably prevents POV. As he was the third of that name in a succession (within a century), systematical name is easy. Arrigo 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was considered whether this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.  Dragons flight 05:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request, September 2005

message: longer reasonings:
Adam Bishop is the original creator of this article, see edit history. Arrigo 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * The title Philip III is not used in historiography.
* Philip the Good is not only duke of Bourgondia. He is also duke of Brabant, Lothier and Limburg (second of the name Philip) and duke of Luxemburg (first of this name).
* The title Philip III creates confusion with the chronology of the Kings of Spain, which ruled in the Netherlands after the Bourgondians.
* The chronology of the kings/dukes/counts of Bourgondia is subject to criticism. 
* On the French and Dutch Wikipedia similar discussion as resulted in assigning a redirect to Philip III towards the main article Philip the Good. Witger 08:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for renaming this article Philip the Good

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Philip III, Duke of Burgundy → Philip the Good – The current title is rarely, if ever used; the replacement, however, is the most common name used. Michael  Sanders 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nominator Michael  Sanders 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey (April 2007) 

message: Add any additional comments
*Just a comment, the article was originally at "Philip the Good" until it was moved in September 2005. Adam Bishop 07:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This article says that the tomb (or burial site) of Philips the good should be found in Dijon. I couldn't find any proof for this statement. The Dukes that have been buried in Champnol are John the fearless and Philips the bold. Mary of Burgundy and Charles the bold have both been buried in Bruges.
*See the lengthy account in the link  He was initially buried in St Donatien Bruges, then moved in 1473 to Champmol in accordance with the wishes he had expressed. Various bits (heart & viscera) stayed in St Donatien until desecrated in the Revolution. For once the disinformation box is correct!Johnbod 13:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial place 

message: FWIW, I believe the inclusion of "Bladestorm" images in this and other articles contravenes Wikipedia:Undue weight. It seems unlikely that that game represents the principal cultural impact of these figures; the "Cultural Portrayal" sections seem to have been created to promote the game rather than discuss the cultural impact of the subject. The images may be appropriate for a gallery on Commons, but I see no reason to place them in individual articles at present. Choess (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur: either Commons or a sub-page called 'Trivia' would be preferable to having such inappropriate (have you seen the costume designed for this figure? Talk about anachronism - and bad taste!) images- and associated articles - here. Nick Michael (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bladestorm images 

message: A page had recently been created, Louisa of Burgundy. The article states that Louisa was daughter of Philip by his third wife, Isabella. Louisa isn't however mentioned anywhere on Philip or Isabella's articles. Did Louisa exist or was she illegitimate, daughter of Michelle of Valois or daughter of Bonne of Arois.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.22.16 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisa of Burgundy 

message: in the section Titles there is a lot of 15 July mentioned - but he died on 15 June according to this article (also in the french version of the article). Do someone like to change this or got this a special reason? -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost  11:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: may I remember to my Question? -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Good#Titles Titles] 

message: Just wondering how you can have 18 children by 24 women -- that's real teamwork! But at least it is referenced. :-) 134.243.204.95 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: now " by various of his twenty-four documented mistresses " Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I type this the article says "He was married three times, and had three sons, only one of whom reached adulthood. He had 24 documented mistresses and fathered at least 18 illegitimate children." However, the info-box at the right lists many more sons than three. If he married and had three sons BY HIS WIVES, i.e. had LEGITIMATE sons numbering only three, say that and say it clearly. An illegitimate son is in most cases in the English language still "a son".2600:1700:6759:B000:3451:CD8:7B65:E58E (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified now in the lead, and explained better in the lower-down "Marriages and legitimate children" section. Thanks for raising. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegitimate Issue 

message: Why was the page image changed to this obscure one from the common Renaissance depiction of him? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image