Talk:Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765)

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support As nominator. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, the dab page was titled Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) with a note at the top of this article notifying of other possible dauphins named Louis. There has probably been a whole slew of undiscussed moves since. Charles 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point remains that 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is an unacceptable title for this person's article. What makes him The Dauphin? There were other Dauphin's named Louis - most notably the son of Louis XVI. I think that, if this person is never referred to as Louis-Ferdinand the Dauphin (since he does seem to be referred to as Louis-Ferdinand), the best title would be Louis, Dauphin of France (1732-1765), as User:Mcferran suggested. Michaelsanders 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the Dauphin though, since there is only ever one at a time. This was at a form of Louis, Dauphin of France until you moved it. All other dauphins named Louis are seemingly referred to by ducal titles meaning that this title is open for this dauphin. It's really not to simple to grasp, or so I pray. Charles 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, he was the Dauphin. So were half a dozen others. And I'd question the titles for several of them. The Duke of Guyenne is as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin, thanks to Shakespeare. The elder son of Louis XVI is always referred to as The Dauphin and never as Duke of Brittany, if indeed, he even held that title. I can find no evidence that he did. And he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as such if he did, because he was always the Dauphin, from birth to death. Calling him 'Duke of Brittany' would be entirely artificial. And then there is the Grand Dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy and his son the Duke of Brittany (the latter two article titles are dubious). There is 'Louis XVII'. There is the 'Duke of Angouleme'. The first lot have as much right to the article title of 'Louis, Dauphin of France' as Louis-Ferdinand. The second lot one might to expect to find if typing in 'Louis, Dauphin of France'. And then there are all the Kings who were known as 'Louis, Dauphin of France' at some point. I don't see why you don't grasp this. Indeed, just because a 'title is open' doesn't make it acceptable if it sows confusion. But since it isn't open (Louis XVI's son definitely has as much right to the article title), you need to stop complaining and insisting that it be returned to the former, inappropriate title, and come up with some constructive suggestions. Michaelsanders 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I did suggest that if there is no evidence of him being called Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France, we could call the article Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Would anyone have any objection to that? It would still allow a certain amount of confusion and problems (Louis-Ferdinand is easier to write and to remember than Louis, 1729-1765), but it couldn't b objected to, and I don't see how anyone could be markedly dissatisfied with it. Michaelsanders 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support As nominator. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose - far too general a title. Michaelsanders 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, the dab page was titled Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) with a note at the top of this article notifying of other possible dauphins named Louis. There has probably been a whole slew of undiscussed moves since. Charles 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point remains that 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is an unacceptable title for this person's article. What makes him The Dauphin? There were other Dauphin's named Louis - most notably the son of Louis XVI. I think that, if this person is never referred to as Louis-Ferdinand the Dauphin (since he does seem to be referred to as Louis-Ferdinand), the best title would be Louis, Dauphin of France (1732-1765), as User:Mcferran suggested. Michaelsanders 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the Dauphin though, since there is only ever one at a time. This was at a form of Louis, Dauphin of France until you moved it. All other dauphins named Louis are seemingly referred to by ducal titles meaning that this title is open for this dauphin. It's really not to simple to grasp, or so I pray. Charles 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, he was the Dauphin. So were half a dozen others. And I'd question the titles for several of them. The Duke of Guyenne is as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin, thanks to Shakespeare. The elder son of Louis XVI is always referred to as The Dauphin and never as Duke of Brittany, if indeed, he even held that title. I can find no evidence that he did. And he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as such if he did, because he was always the Dauphin, from birth to death. Calling him 'Duke of Brittany' would be entirely artificial. And then there is the Grand Dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy and his son the Duke of Brittany (the latter two article titles are dubious). There is 'Louis XVII'. There is the 'Duke of Angouleme'. The first lot have as much right to the article title of 'Louis, Dauphin of France' as Louis-Ferdinand. The second lot one might to expect to find if typing in 'Louis, Dauphin of France'. And then there are all the Kings who were known as 'Louis, Dauphin of France' at some point. I don't see why you don't grasp this. Indeed, just because a 'title is open' doesn't make it acceptable if it sows confusion. But since it isn't open (Louis XVI's son definitely has as much right to the article title), you need to stop complaining and insisting that it be returned to the former, inappropriate title, and come up with some constructive suggestions. Michaelsanders 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I did suggest that if there is no evidence of him being called Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France, we could call the article Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Would anyone have any objection to that? It would still allow a certain amount of confusion and problems (Louis-Ferdinand is easier to write and to remember than Louis, 1729-1765), but it couldn't b objected to, and I don't see how anyone could be markedly dissatisfied with it. Michaelsanders 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: French forms of name, title, etc, are discouraged on English wikipedia. 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is a title that would apply to far too many French princes in history. By contrast, 'Louis of Bourbin, Dauphin of France' is more appropriate, since it distinguishes him from the other royals, and gives him the designation of his house (as is commonly used, for example the multitudinous Plantagenets, or Isabella of Valois). Michaelsanders 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out that, with the exception of Italian wikipedia, all of the Roman alphabet interwikis use clear article titles - Louis Ferdinand de Bourbon, dauphin de Viennois (German), Luis, Delfín de Francia (1729-1765) (Spanish), Louis de France (1729-1765) (French), Lodewijk van Frankrijk (1729-1765) (Dutch), and Ludwik Ferdynand Burbon (Polish). Michaelsanders 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it to Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France. No risk of confusion, and it's his real name. Michaelsanders 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not, under any circumstances, move a page under discussion for a move. I can't believe you cite other Wikis when only one you've shown uses "Ferdinand". We do NOT use house names to disambiguate. Louis was first "of France" before he was ever "of Bourbon". French forms are not discouraged. Obviously, you have many, many things that you need to absorb. Charles 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that none - with the exception of Italy - use the under-specific title of 'Louis, dauphin de France'. They make it clear whom they are referring to. We do use house names to disambiguate, as did royalty themselves (Louis XIV once compared himself to one of his Conde cousins by referring to them both being named Louis de Bourbon). He was as much 'of Bourbon' as he was 'of France'. I believe that foreign language forms are discouraged in English wikipedia, since it makes it harder for readers to find and reference the article. I fail to understand why you think 'Louis, dauphin of France' is an appropriate title for one man, when it as easily applies to numerous others. Are you trying to foster confusion. Moreover, since Louis-Ferdinand is his actual name (and he is referred to as such pretty consistently in his own article), it easily distinguishes him from the others, without the need for the house designation to which you object. Michaelsanders 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not follow the conventions of non-English Wikipedias. There are English conventions. Louis XIV comparing himself once to his Bourbon-Condé cousin does not set a precedent. That is not a disambiguation, by the way, it is an observation. One was THE KING OF FRANCE AND NAVARRE and the other was a Prince of Condé. No confusion there. Bourbon is only ever used in lieu of a territorial designation or if it is primary usage. It is neither for this dauphin. Under-specificity is a non-issue. There is a disambiguation link. Few of those other men named Louis remained dauphins and if they did they had other titles. That is disambiguation enough. The point of the matter is you fail to address your actions (moving a page under discussion) and you fail to make a point with point with consistency (inserting what he may be called as a common name but defending something he is never called (of Bourbon)). Charles 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Louis Ferdinand" is NOT his name. His name was Louis, period. Please do not invent names. This prince, as all the French royal princes, had several Christian names (at least 4), and perhaps Ferdinand was one of his Chritian names, but only Louis was used, so either you quote all his Chrisian names if you can find them, either you leave only Louis which is the way historians do. As for disambiguation, this is a fake argument. Other dauphins that were called Louis are already disambiguated, either in French or in English (Louis the Grand Dauphin, Louis Duke of Burgundy, or with their dates in parenthesis). I've moved the article to Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Godefroy 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Louis the Dauphin

message: A search: 
provides numerous results of 'Louis-Ferdinand' for this person, most at trustworthy sites. It is definite Original Research to conjecture from the absence of the name 'Ferdinand' in either the marriage contract or the Almanach that he never bore the name (since you are deciding that because the name is not mentioned, he didn't have it). Accordingly, either find a refutation of his ever having the name, or stop interfering with it. Michael  Sanders 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Not a single one of those websites could be cited in an essay for a university course; I know since I'm a faculty member at a major research university.  The appropriate sources to check are published biographies of this prince.  A week ago I added several to the page; not one of them calls this prince "Louis Ferdinand". I've now added the online version of Proyart.  It is also possible to do a search on Europeana.  There are dozens of mentions of this particular prince under "Louis dauphin", but not a single one under "Louis Ferdinand". Popular websites are just wrong sometimes. Noel S McFerran 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Today, once again, Michaelsanders changed Louis' name to Louis-Ferdinand saying in his edit summary, "Antonia Fraser refers to him as Louis-Ferdinand. Proof of usage outweighs proof of lack of usage."  The fact that Antonia Fraser uses this name for Louis does not outweigh the fact that Proyart, Rozoir, Achaintre and Dussieux all say that his name is just Louis.  There is NO evidence that this man was EVER called Louis Ferdinand during his lifetime.  The only usage of Louis Ferdinand is by a few modern authors - and almost all of these are writing in English.  The fact that a minority of modern English-language authors have misnamed this man, does not change the fact that he was only ever Louis.  The attempt to foist the name Louis Ferdinand upon him is an attempt to change scholarship.  There is presently in the article a footnote saying "Several modern popular works, including some websites, call him Louis-Ferdinand".  That accurately represents the situation. Noel S McFerran 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We do not normally use the full names of historical people as the title of their articles, nor to refer to them in their text. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the most common name in English. None of the special rules in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for royalty affect this particular case.  I notice the other WPs all just use, Louis, except for the German, which uses L-F in the title, but L in  the text. Most modern royals have a great tail of names which are of course never used.  At the moment you have not demonstrated that LF is the commonest name used by historians in English. Johnbod 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the biographies of Abraham Lincoln say that he did not also have the additional baptismal name "Moonbeam".  But it would be ridiculous for me to contend that Moonbeam was one of his baptismal names merely because some modern works in French said that he was actually named "Abraham Moonbeam Lincoln".  We look at the most reliable sources.  In the case of the Dauphin Louis, ALL the contemporary sources say that his name was "Louis".  Please cite any source published in the eighteenth century which suggests that he had an additional baptismal name.  Of course, even if he did, Johnbod's comment that this would only be mentioned once is applicable. Noel S McFerran 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Proyart, Rozoir, Achaintre and Dussieux all say that his name is Louis. There is NO evidence that this man was EVER called Louis Ferdinand during his lifetime. The only usage of Louis Ferdinand is by a few modern authors - and almost all of these are writing in English. The fact that a minority of modern English-language authors have misnamed this man, does not change the fact that he was only ever Louis. The attempt to foist the name Louis Ferdinand upon him is an attempt to change scholarship. There is presently in the article a footnote saying "Several modern popular works, including some websites, call him Louis-Ferdinand". That accurately represents the situation. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: These however constitute RS in WP terms. Furthermore, I think it highly unlikely that he only had one name. I agree that we should call him Louis throught the article but his second name must be mentioned as well. Str1977 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Louis-Ferdinand

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Louis, Dauphin of France (son of Louis XV). 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/20050211201120/http://www.axonais.com/saintquentin/musee_lecuyer/dauphin.html to http://www.axonais.com/saintquentin/musee_lecuyer/dauphin.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified