Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans

message: can anyone make sense of this sentence?
:He was granted a final wish to have a gracious dinner before the execution but, having been stripped of all assets upon his arrest, was ultimately refused this ordeal.
mcoverdale (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: what "ordeal"?

message: Similarly, I'd guess "count of Champcenetz" is Louis René de Champcenetz, but I'm not sure. Presumably related, anyway. If someone knows what individual is referred to, a link would be good. -- Jmabel 22:52, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
:Actually it's his father, of the same name - linked to Marquis de Champcenetz. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "count of Champcenetz"

message: Very British biased... 1911 Encyclopedia ? Ericd 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very British biased 

message: A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant & trivial content

message: "Strange Foot Race.—In 1776, the Duchess of Charteris beat her husband in a foot race of 200 yards, for 200 guineas. The Duchess was allowed to secure her petticoats above the knees".()
Not sure if this curiosity  refers to this married couple as the spelling is slightly different, and I am not going to do anything with it. So I will leave it here for anyone who wants to take it further.  -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Foot Race 

message: ,
1. You reverted last contributor's edit with this edit summary:
"Changed my lead paragraph back to its ORIGINAL STATE)"
:May I bring your attention to the fact that you didn't revert to the section *original state*, but to your own contribution of 7 March. 
Further, from Wikipedia's article Please don't shout, here is some advice on how to communicate so as not to appear aggressive to others: 
Typing in all caps ("TYPING IN ALL CAPS") on Wikipedia, in line with most internet resources, is perceived as "shouting" and can come across as aggressive. Please do not do it, even in edit summaries. More than occasional use of bold, italics and underline is also very 'shouty' behaviour. 
2. Also, would you be kind enough to give references to the titles Duke d'Orléans, Hugh Bourbon Capet, Philippe de la France, and Monsieur Philippe d'Orléans, you are giving Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, while removing his real titles, from the one given at birth to those he inherited later on? 
3. Reference is also needed at "He was Louis XVI's first cousin and the wealthiest man in France after the King". The Duke of Orléans was probably one of the richest men in France, but not the richest after the king, and no richer than the Duke of Penthièvre, his father-in-law, who was born in wealth & who got richer during his life by wisely running his estates, and thanks to several inheritances. And it is in great part thanks to the dowry of his wife, Penthièvre's daughter, that Orléans was very rich. 
:Arrière-petit-fils du Régent, le duc d'Orléans est, à la veille de la Révolution, l'un des princes les plus riches de France et le partisan le plus chaleureux des idées nouvelles. (ORLÉANS LOUIS PHILIPPE JOSEPH duc d' (1747-1793) dit PHILIPPE ÉGALITÉ, by Jean Tulard, in Encyclopédie Universalis).
Being extremely new at Wikipedia, you may not be aware of the fact that by reverting, with no explanation & no references, you could be starting an edit-war and making it impossible for other contributors to edit the article. 
Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Please don't shout 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus not to move the article to the proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans →  – Not only is Louis Philippe II not this man's common name, but it is hardly ever used at all. He is commonly called either duke of Orléans/duc d'Orléans or, much more conveniently, Philippe Égalité. The name Philippe Égalité can be found in the titles of numerous biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately he is not the only person to be known as the duke of Orléans. The question is how calling him Louis Philippe II, the name by which he is never known, in conjunction with an ambiguous title of nobility facilitates identification. Not even people with a decent understanding of the French Revolution will recognize that by "Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans" we actually mean the man everyone knows as Philippe Égalité. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was my point! The 1st Duke of Wellington isn't the only person to be known as the Duke of Wellington either. They're all called the Duke of Wellington. That is their common name. The first names of titled people are very commonly not well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But unlike the 1st Duke of Wellington, this person has a well-established, unambiguous common name. Why should the article about him be at the most unrecognizable possible title? He is virtually never called "Louis Philippe II". Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

text: As pointed out above, this was his last official name, not a nickname at all. And in fact we often use nickname, though usually for earlier periods than this. WP:NCROY firmly supports WP:COMMONNAME, another argument in favour. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us also be reminded that WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and that WP:NCROY is not. If WP:NCROY truly contradicts the policy, it is worth nothing. Also, who even says that "Louis Philippe II" was ever his official name? Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know we've had this discussion before. NCROY may not be a policy, but WP:CONSISTENT is. And CONSISTENT is the reason NCROY exists. COMMONNAME is not the only policy. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. For whom do you think it is practical to use the most obscure name possible instead of the most recognizable common name? Surtsicna (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject France has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 August 2023