Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans

Redundant & trivial content
In reply to the message you just left on my talk page: 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]; but just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Name in title
Surname is dOrléans, not of Orléans - *of* is used in a title, such as, Gaston de France, Duke of Orléans' etc... Changing name in title of article, and will do same to others in the Orléans family which seems to be extremely messed up. Frania W. (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 result of the move request was: Move opposed, pages not moved  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Anne Marie d& → Anne Marie of Orléans —  And 12 other articles with similar names. Longterm move dispute needs to be settled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Marguerite Louise d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Élisabeth Marguerite d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Françoise Madeleine d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Philippine Élisabeth d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Louise Diane d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Louise Marie d'Orléans → ([}} move])
 * Bathilde d'Orléans → ([}} move])


 * Oppose {since the format used here for expressing votes and discussion is atypical and I do not discern a recognizable pattern, I am casting my vote here so that it is not accidentally disregarded prior to a decision being rendered on this move}. While I support the move for the first mentioned of the individuals above to the style "Firstname of Orléans", I do so only in cases where the article subject is the consort of a monarch as she happens to be, so that her article will conform to the prevalent WP convention for naming monarchical consorts. But that would be confusing if applied to all women of the family and would defeat the convention's purpose: to facilitate distinction between and recognition of articles about monarchical consorts from others, insofar as reasonably possible. Since the French princesses du sang are unusual in not using the princess prefix prior to the 19th century, the use of de rather than of helps reduce confusion between them and consorts. As for why some titles should be translated and others not, I'd argue it should be to help readers perceive the difference between, for example, Antoine, Duke of Lorraine and his brother Claude, duc de Guise, both dukes but one the sovereign of a realm, the other a nobleman at a sovereign's court. FactStraight (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the naming conventions, they define the form X of Y as acceptable for princes and princesses in cases where the title was not explicitly attributed (having the rank, not the title, mostly 17th c. and earlier). Nowhere do I see that it is explicitly for queens consort nor do I see where is says to disambiguate 17th c. princesses from queens consort. Are we sacrificing English to maintain so many distinctions? Ultimately, what it comes down to is actually reading the article to know where someone sits among royalty. Those who determine it explicitly from the title... Well, you shouldn't cater to those who don't read the articles. On English Wikipedia though we should use English! Just a thought! Disparate languages bother me more than one form for two different groups. Seven Letters 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In referring to "the prevalent WP convention for naming monarchical consorts" I did not intend to suggest it was a rule, but that it has been usual practice for several years ("In general, the convention is to title queens consort and empresses consort as '{Name} of {Place}' and grand duchesses consort, duchesses consort, princesses consort, etc as '{Title} {Name} of {Place}' where the 'Place' and applicable titles (in the cases of those below the rank of queen) are held premaritally or by birth") following much discussion (e.g. here and here and here and here. It should not be changed without proposal and discussion at NCROY, nor abandoned without substantial benefit. Use of non-English particules and titles is much less standardized (my "royalty vs. nobility" distinction was just a suggested criterion), so imposition of any rule will require extensive edits, and therefore should also be discussed in a broader forum than this talk page as was done here and here (I personally would oppose "dumbing down" names and titles into English if that has not been prevalent encyclopedic usage). Historically, such discussions have evoked fierce disagreement without yielding a consensus (e.g. here and here and at the "French nobility again" sub-section here). Of course, YMMV. FactStraight (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As with a block of articles moved yesterday. 142.68.138.25 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Today, there are more than a dozen people with "d'Orléans" as part of the name being listed for moving to "of Orléans". Surely that is incorrect, as English sources almost preserve the French "d'Orléans" (who has ever heard of "Madame of Pompadour", the "Marquis of Sade", "Otto of Bismark", "Ludwig of Beethoven", "Charles of Gaulle" or "Vincent of Gogh"?). I've mentioned this also on the WP:RM talk page. &bull; Astynax talk
 * Since this comment was moved from another page, let me explain more fully: The place/house designation for the names of French nobility are usually not anglicized in English-language references. The English-language convention in regard to French and certain German and Italian titled names is to use them as-is. Similarly for other names: George Washington's ally the "marquis de la Fayette" is never called the "marquis of la Fayette" (or anglicized even further as the "marquess of la Fayette" for that matter), nor is Prince Otto von Bismark referred to as "Prince Otto of Bismark" (born before German surnames were required, btw), or Cosimo de' Medici as "Cosimo of Medici", or Madame/marquise de Pompadour as "Madame of Pompadour", or Madame/marquise du Berry as "marquise [or anglicized as marchioness] of Berry", or Françoise d'Aubigné, marquise de Maintenon as "Madame/marquise of Maintenon", etc. This has been extensively debated before, and still nothing has appeared on the Naming Conventions pages, though the consensus in those debates seems to always have been to go with common English usage. For the House of Orleans (anglicized), the usual is "d'Orléans" or "d'Orleans" and not "of Orléans", and so for the vast majority of post-medieval French nobility. &bull; Astynax talk 08:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, d'Orléans is not translated, and you have redirected over nearly 20 articles for no reason! i will get to work redoing what you have done Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of those previous moves were asked for in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=341634992 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi all; we are not listing royalty by their surnames, rather by their designations. Of course, any designation in French does look like a surname to many eyes. These royals were "of Orléans" just as much as any one was "of France" who may have the "surname" "de France". Also, please note (it might have been noted above), that the user has copied/pasted article content to redirects to overcome not being able to unilaterally move the articles. 142.68.138.25 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the move on a WP:UE basis. Further, I believe the title should be 'of Orleans' not 'of Orléans'. IMO, the accent is unnecessary. A quick search through google books and google scholar resulted in no shortage of hits for a selection people on this list, while using "of Orleans". LouisPhilippeCharles argument isn't entire legitimate given "d'" is the short form of "de", which in this case translates to "of". Seems all rather appropriate to me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To Labattblueboy: If you decide to change "Orléans" to "Orleans", then why not, for the much wiki-proned "consistency sake", remove all accents on all *e* found in en:wiki articles? Don't you know that an accent on a *e* makes that *e* a different letter in French? Here is an example to illustrate my point: a sentence (the second one) where the accent aigu on an *e* is skipped. With no accent, you read both sentences as saying The hunter kills during the hunt; however, if you add an accent aigu on the *e* of "tue" of the second sentence, its meaning is changed from : to:
 * Le chasseur tue à la chasse.
 * Le chasseur tue à la chasse.
 * Le chasseur tue à la chasse: The hunter kills during the hunt.
 * Le chasseur tué à la chasse: The hunter (was) killed during the hunt.

Now, on the matter at hand, that of the "block move". It is absurd because what is being proposed is historically incorrect. The only "princesses d'Orléans" ("princesse" being used as a title) were the daughters of Louis-Philippe (1830-1848) through an ordonnance of his at the beginning of his reign, on 13 August 1830. In order to decide that a move is warranted or not, each case has to be handled separately. That's why I have asked that a request for change be put at the talk page of each article. As the matter is being presented here, I cannot say whether I am in favor or not.

And I would like to ask, "why give these Orléans ladies the title of princesses"? If it is because they were members of the royal family, and thus "princesses du sang", they were then "princesses du sang": period, but not "princesses du sang de France" or "princesses de France (Princesses of France)" as there was no such title, and certainly not "princesses d'Orléans" (Princesses of Orléans), a title invented by en:wiki.

As to the Wikipedia "rules & regulations", as I like to call them, maybe it is time to review a few of them, as their rigidity makes for absurdity at times.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument has nothing to do with whether or not I believe the accent is appropriate. I just found that there are no shortage of English sources that did not apply the accent in the select number of names that I survey. I have an Acute accent in my family name and I speak french so I hold no grudge on that basis, its simply that English sources exist without it. The focus should not be on the accent, I don't believe that is the primary focus. Since the city of Orléans still has the accent I believe it is just as appropriate to leave it as take it away. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Message copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard
Anthony Appleyard,

Why all these sudden moves on the "de France" & "d'Orléans" articles with no prior notice?

We went through long discussions months ago & now all is being changed with no notice.

The surname of members (children of the king) of the senior Bourbon branch of the French royal family was "de France", up to & ending with Charles X, and eventually his children who were born "d'Artois". The next & last king to reign was Louis-Philippe d'Orléans who took the title King of the French. From the generation of the children of Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans, brother of Louis XIV, the Orléans branch took the surname d'Orléans, all the way to today (legally, as it is the only surname they are allowed to use in France, (a surname like that of Charles de Gaulle: are we going to change it to Charles of Gaulle?). In other words, "'Orléans" is a surname, and so is "de France", not only something to put after a title.  As an example:
 * Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, duc d'Orléans, in French, becomes
 * Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans, in English.

The daughters of Louis XV were all surnamed "de France" and were addressed to as Madame + used baptismal name (which may not have been the first). They were not given the title of "princesse" as is given them in en:wiki. Children of the king & members of the king's family were "prince/princesse du sang" but, the only members of the king's family to be princes of anything were the eldest males of the "Condé" & "Conti" families who were "prince de Condé" & "prince de Conti", their respective wives being "princesse de Condé" & "princesse de Conti".

The daughter of Louis XVI was Marie-Thérèse de France, and was addresssed to as Madame Royale. May I point out to you that while you have changed her to Marie-Thérèse of France, you forgot to change "Madame Royale" to "Royal Madam" or "Royal Mistress" or "Royal Mrs." or whatever proper English should be.

Bathilde d'Orléans, the sister of Philippe d'Orléans (Philippe Égalité) was not a "princess d'Orléans". She did become a princess when she married the prince de Condé. Accordingly, she should be Bathilde d'Orléans, princesse de Condé, in English: Bathilde d'Orléans, Princess of Condé.

I simply do not have the time right now to go through all the past discussions on the subject & bring them to your attention, but it is becoming tiresome & depressing to do so much work and then, months later, have someone come & erase it all as if previous editors were ignorami & their work worthless.

When such moves are planned, a notice should be posted at the talk page of each article because all cases may not be the same. Some of the Orléans women of the 17th century are being given the title of "princesses" in en:wiki, which is totally wrong. Only the children of Louis-Philippe I, king of the French, (1830-1848) were princes & princesses d'Orléans (not de France)

Please feel free to bring this to whichever talk page the discussion is taking place.

Best regards, --Frania W. (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

 * The pseudo argument of translating EVERYTHING is illogical and flawed. Madame Royale is a style. You keep on talking about SURNAMES! Maybe in French, some people had both the surname AND designation "de France", but were these family names distinct surnames as they would be today? Should be change Crown Princess Victoria's article to "Victoria Bernadotte" since that they be her surname? No... These royals were "of France" and "of Orléans". It is VERY common in English, and English itself, to use "of" for French royalty. Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, duc d'Orléans is Louis-Philippe, Duke of Orléans!!! 142.68.138.25 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but were these family names distinct surnames as they would be today? . Yes. --Frania W. (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, take a look at these familial names: family designations rather than surnames! 142.68.213.40 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Frania W. (talk) on this topic. The names given these people should as closely as possible reflect the original French when they are translated. To try to put them into some awkward form of English seems unnecessary to me both on historical and linguistic grounds, as already shown by Frania. BoBo (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should see what this editor is doing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Proposal is ill thought out, unnecessary, and maybe even anally retentive. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To IP 142.68.213.40: you say that d'Orléans is not a surname. Someone should have told Louis Philippe d'Orléans who became King of the French in July 1830, and signed the following "ordonnance" a month later (underlining mine):
 * Ordonnance du 13 août 1830 :
 * ''Ordonnance du roi qui détermine les noms et titres des princes et princesses de la famille royale.
 * ''LOUIS PHILIPPE ROI DES FRANÇAIS, à tous présens et à venir, salut.
 * ''Notre avènement à la couronne ayant rendu nécessaire de déterminer les noms et les titres que devaient porter à l'avenir les princes et princesses nos enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur,
 * ''Nous avons ordonné et ordonnons ce qui suit :
 * ''Les princes et princesses nos bien-aimés enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur, continueront à porter le nom et les armes d'Orléans.
 * ''Notre bien-aimé fils aîné, le duc de Chartres, portera, comme prince royal, le titre de duc d'Orléans.
 * ''Nos bien-aimés fils puînés conserveront les titres qu'ils ont portés jusqu'à ce jour.
 * ''Nos bien-aimées filles et notre bien-aimée sœur ne porteront d'autre titre que celui de princesses d'Orléans, en se distinguant entre elles par leurs prénoms.
 * ''Il sera fait, en conséquence, sur les registres de l'état civil de la Maison royale, dans les archives de la Chambre des Pairs, toutes les rectifications qui résultent des dispositions ci-dessus [...]


 * It goes without saying that the surname d'Orléans is that of his descendants who are living today. In fact, this very surname (paptronyme) is the only one the French legal system by an ordonnance of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris of 29 mars 2000 recognised as that of the Orléans family when the Paris tribunal refused Henri d'Orléans, comte de Paris, to change the patronyme "d'Orléans" to that of "de Bourbon". That refusal was confirmed by an arrêt de la 1re Chambre de la Cour d'appel de Parison 1 February 2001 and finalised by the Cour de cassation on 30 September 2003.


 * I do not have all the arguments in front of me, but the fact that the surname d'Orléans was that of the family since it had been given to the children of Philippe de France, brother of Louis XIV - that very argument was one used by the Tribunal for its refusal of change of name.


 * --Frania W. (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we get an English reference or a reference for the French translation of surname? AFAIK, this is still an issue. Refer to things like, "name and family of Windsor". Also, we do not name royalty articles with surnames on Wikipedia. The republican court ruling has no bearing on the royalty issue. Seven Letters 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion here is on the Orléans, not the Windsor family. And the reason I brought up the case of Henri d'Orléans, comte de Paris, vs the Paris tribunal (finalised by the decision of the Cour de cassation) is because the name "d'Orléans" was confirmed as a surname, as it was by Louis-Philippe d'Orléans' in his ordonnance of August 1830, while the argument that constantly comes up in en:wiki is that royals have no surname, which may be so for the English royals, but is not on the other side of the Channel. --Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant with the Windsor reference is that the decree of the use of the Orléans name/arms/etc is as inexact when it comes to a fixed, legal surname as the one for Windsor was. You are confusing surnames with family names, house names and dynasty names. Because it appears at the end of the name does not mean we anachronistically apply it to 17th - 19th century royals as a surname. The court case of Prince Henri of Orléans, Count of Paris does not give anyone before him a surname. Seven Letters 17:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to know why French nobility is being targeted? Why wasn't English/Brit nobility targeted?? ,. Don't even get me started on Spanish nobility....
 * Surely someone isn't targeting French nobility simply to garner more edits, or cause a problem.... --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that veiled accusation is uncalled for. We are discussing French royalty, not the nobility. Plus, those men have English titles (of Leicester...) Seven Letters 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see princesses d'Orléans up there in reference to a sister and daughters. That only has one translation in English. Princesses of Orléans. If it had princesses de France up there I am sure you would not want all of France changed to de France! Seven Letters 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Simon de Montfort, should I go and change that to Simon of Montfort? William de Beauchamp changed to William of Beauchamp? I'm not making any accusations, simply waiting for an answer.... --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. They were not royalty. See the titles of royalty articles which use English prepositions. Seven Letters 18:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To Seven Letters who wrote: The court case of Prince Henri of Orléans, Count of Paris does not give anyone before him a surname. How about Louis-Philippe's August 1830 ordonnance? Is it to be ignored? The French court did nothing but confirm it, and it even confirmed it as far back as the children of Louis XIV's brother. So, before going any further in this discussion, I would like to know if Louis-Philippe's ordonnance of August 1830 has any value or, should I say, légitimité in Seven Letters 's eyes?  Because I am beginning to feel that some at en:wiki are using the rules of Wikipedia to launch a crusade to rewrite French history. France is not England, and vice versa, just as all the French Élisabeth are not English Elizabeth.


 * P.S. to Seven Letters: I have been editing at Wikipedia since 2007, always under the same name. Have you ? You strangely sound like 142.68.138.25 (talk), who started this move campaign, and 142.68.213.40 (talk) who entered the discussion later.
 * If 142.68.138.25 (talk) and 142.68.213.40 (talk) happen to be Seven Letters, simple courtesy would be to inform the participants of this discussion of the change of identification. Not saying anything gives the impression that there are three persons.
 * If you and anonymous IPs 142.68.138.25 (talk) and 142.68.213.40 (talk) are three different persons, please forgive me for the thought that crossed my mind that we may be facing a case of sock puppetry. --Frania W. (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I previously did edit under an IP address and have never represented myself to be two/three different people. As indicated to a user who asked if I have edited on Wikipedia before on my talk page, I assumed a registered user name because someone sharing my IP address (which is not entirely static, not my fault) vandalized Wikipedia some months ago. You would find, if you wished to do so, that I actually requested a ban of "myself" (the IP) to stop the vandalism. I have edited Wikipedia anonymously on and off for over four years. There are edits under both of those IP addresses that I am not responsible for, actually. Hence the need for a user name! Seven Letters 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These possible concerns aside (which should be on my talk page, move there if you wish and link from here), the ordinance of 1830 does not explicitly refer to anything but a dynastic name. It also mentions what would be in English, princesses of Orléans. Seven Letters 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Seven Letters: These possible concerns aside (which should be on my talk page...??? Which talk page, that of the two (known) anonymous IPs 142... or Seven Letters?  This being the talk page where the three appear, it seemed natural to me to post my comment right here.  --Frania W. (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My talk page obviously means on the ones these posts link to! :-) Here. Seven Letters 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass moves undertaken by new (former anonymous IP) contributor
In spite of the discussion taking place here, a former anonymous IP, who just signed up under the name Seven Letters, is doing a mass move of Orléans articles with no prior notice to respective article pages. --Frania W. (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Frania, as mentioned to LPC on my user talk page, every single one of the moves I performed was undoing a copy/paste move that LPC performed. Those copy/paste moves that LPC performed were done right after an administrator undid his undiscussed moves. Therefore all of the articles should be restored to their names, as is standard. This is all very evident and apparent in LPC's contribution history. Just take a look, please, before it is painted to look like I am in the wrong. Thank you! Seven Letters 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Move? continued
Reasons why the mass move proposed by 142.68.138.25 (talk) - and chronologically seconded by 142.68.213.40 (talk), Labattblueboy and  Seven Letters - of articles concerning thirteen 17th & 18th centuries Orléans family members should not be allowed, because adding Princesse to each is historically incorrect: there was no Prince d'Orléans nor Princesse d'Orléans in France in the 17th & 18th centuries. These are wiki-manufactured titles.

Anne Marie d& → Anne Marie of Orléans —

DoB/DoD: 27 August 1669 – 26 August 1728 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Marguerite Louise d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 28 July 1645 – 17 September 1721 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Élisabeth Marguerite d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 26 December 1646 - 17 March 1696 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Françoise Madeleine d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 13 October 1648 – 14 January 1664 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 13 September 1676 – 23 December 1744 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 20 August 1695 – 21 July 1719) - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 13 August 1698 – 10 February 1743) - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 20 October 1700 - 19 January 1761 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 11 December 1709 – 16 June 1742 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Philippine Élisabeth d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 18 December 1714 – 21 May 1734 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Louise Diane d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 27 June 1716 - 26 September 1736 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Louise Marie d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 5 August 1726 – 14 May 1728 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans.


 * Bathilde d'Orléans → ([}} move])

DoB/DoD: 9 July 1750 – 10 January 1822 - as which time in history there were no Princesses d'Orléans, and who, by her marriage, became Princesse de Condé.

Titles of articles should be kept as they are, no Princess added, and also with their name d'Orléans kept, as d'Orléans is the family name to this day.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, no one is advocating "Princesse". Secondly, the title doesn't need to be added then. In the Naming Conventions they can be "of Orléans" without the title. Additionally, 142.68.213.40 didn't "second" anything. It was a continuation of the discussion (actually, one reply and not a vote at that) with an automatic, dynamic IP change that was honestly not noticed. Please do not try to paint a false picture. Seven Letters 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the user Frania Wisniewska moved many of these articles herself, without discussion, from the form "of Orléans" to her preferred form of "d'Orléans". Also worth noting is that many of the other language links use their translation of the preposition "of". Actually, most linked, not all. These are titular, territorial, familial and dynastic designations, not surnames. Frania has not provided a source otherwise and it is unusual that she is trying to assert a French supremacy over English on English Wikipedia. The proper procedures should have been followed from the start. Frania should not have moved the articles without discussion and LouisPhilippeCharles should not have either, nor should he have performed copy/paste and undiscussed moves both before and after an administrator reversed the moves. What a mess! And efforts to help have been cautiously veiled to mention multiple IPs again when it was clearly explained of the honest mistake. Wikipedia is a community and the community already has naming conventions, standards and guidelines. We don't use surnames for royalty! The simplest form any name takes is  of . Seven Letters 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, no one is advocating "Princesse" ???, but, according to the above proposal, someone is advocating Princess, and, as I wrote above, there were no Princesse d'Orléans or Princess of Orléans in 17th- & 18th-century France. So this title artificially stuck to these thirteen Mesdames d'Orléans is a Wikipedia invention.
 * Most or many of the moves made by User Frania Wisniewska are usually with prior notice on articles. When prior notification was made, it was explained that d'Orléans was/is a surname/family name/patronym, which should not be translated.
 * Finally, it would also be extremely courteous on your part to spell out the various anonymous IPs which you have used when editing articles on Wikipedia, as it is impossible in the present discussion to know whether 142.68.138.25, 142.68.213.40 and Seven Letters are three different individuals or three in one, as in the Holy Trinity; the reason being is that this discussion is being monitored by a wiki Administrator who is counting the for and against the proposed move made by 142.68.138.25.
 * --Frania W. 23:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is here. I have a reasonable right to leave it at just that and it is stated. I have made the connection abd do not wish to explain it further because I have a reasonable expectation of privacy since many things can be determined from IP addresses. As it was explained, it was a misunderstanding and you choose to continue to blow it out of proportion. Did you not read that the one contribution to this talk page by the second IP was because the IP dynamically changed? You should have put these controversial name changes up at WP:RM. Now you are expanding the scope of what you personally believe is not translatable. Please note the examples I showed you of the other languages and also of the naming conventions rather than obfuscate the matter at hand. Seven Letters 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am very opposed to the the English use "of Orléans," and totally agree with Frania W.. She is not suggesting something "controversial". The use of the accurate French designation, "d'Orléans" (whether it is a surname or designation in English is really not important) is much more acceptable to me because it is the term that was actually used to describe those people in their own lifetimes. In addition, the use of "Prince/Princess of Orléans" or "prince/princesse d'Orléans" under any condition before the July Monarchy is highly inaccurate in a historically legal sense. BoBo (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidently it is important as it is being discussed. We have English naming conventions for royalty. Would we change all the little landgraves and margraves to names like "von Hessen", "von Sachsen", etc? Seven Letters 04:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move in all cases per FactStraight, Astynax, LouisPhilippeCharles, Frania Wisniewska, BoBo, and Kansas Bear. DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As Frania says, the era that Charlotte Aglaé ad her sisters and aunts lived in, the style of Princess X of Orléans did not exist, they were either styles as a Grand daughter of France or Princess of the Blood i.e. Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans, "Mademoiselle de Valois", princesse du Sang or in Anne Marie's case, Anne Marie d'Orléans, petite-fille de France! it was not till the reign of Louis Philippe of France that there was even a style called Prince of Orléans!!!! as for the princesses of a recent time, such as the Countess of Paris and Duchess of Aosta, they should be left as X d'Orléans! would it be so hard to explain in the titles and styles section the unique style a Prince/ess of the House of Orléans has!? as the amazing Frania has said time and time again, d'Orleáns as a Surname is NOT translated - a mordern example is Prince Jean d'Orléans, Duke of Vendôme, [Prince of Orléans]! i hope that makes sense :) LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Genealogic article
This article has to much genealogi. The article is about her, not her relatives.--85.226.42.172 (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a historical figure, it is natural that members of her family are prominently mentioned. The article actually tells quite a bit about her. But if you have further information you believe should be included, then you are welcome to add it along with supporting references. &bull; Astynax talk 18:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need to mention "her paternal grandfather was...." etc. These things are already provided for in the ancestry template. There are, in truce, one or two things about her, yes. The majority of the article is not about her, however: take away the genealogy, whith information about her relatives wich should be in their articles, not hers, then there are not much left of the article. --85.226.44.210 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the genealogy, if it is necessary, is given its own section. That way, people interested in reading about her rather than her genealogy, can easily find thge relevant information instead of having to go through all this genealogy. This should be alright for everyone, I think. --85.226.41.180 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is fine now. With the introduction of sections, it is easier to read, and those who find genalogy redundant, can easily find the information they find more relevant. --85.226.41.180 (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on 85.226.41.180 ! It is not right to have before the section Childhood and her own baptism a section such as Family genealogy mentioning
 * her elder surviving sister
 * the death of her mother
 * suspicion of poisoning by the Chevalier de Lorraine
 * autopsy
 * remarriage of her father
 * list of children father had with new wife:

--Frania W. (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not mean to make anyone upset, but certain things are not relevant in her article, if you look upon them neutrally :


 * her elder surviving sister (her sister has her own article. Her siblings are linked in her parents articles, as they should be.)
 * the death of her mother (her mother has her own article)
 * suspicion of poisoning by the Chevalier de Lorraine (Is this about her? If not, it should be in the article about whom it may concern, not in hers)
 * autopsy (her own autopsy? If it is about some one elses, it should be in that person's article, not hers)
 * remarriage of her father (that concersn his and his wifes artice)
 * list of children father had with new wife (that should be in her father's article)


 * I hope you can see the sense in this. This is not written in the purpose to make anyone upset. Sure, these things concerns her indirectly. But articles in an encyclopedia is not supose to mention indirect things in an article about an individual. They are ment to present facts about this individual in particular, not those around her. Wikipedia is not a novel, nor is it any kind of pleasure reading, really. It is not ment to be written that way. It's task is simply to provide information and facts, quickly and neutrally, for a reader looking for facts. The titles of the sections can be discussed, of course: I do not mind that. :--85.226.41.180 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear IP eighty-five: A few days ago, you brought up a problem but, at the time, you also created one by changing the section *Biography* to *Family genealogy*. As my above comment stated, events not touching Anne Marie d'Orléans directly were thus put ahead of her own baptism. Yesterday, in order to make more sense out of the article, I spent over two hours rewording/rearranging it. A lot of cleaning up remained to be done, which I intended to do later after reading the article over - a task hopefully made easier after the rearranging done previously, as you proved by removing what you deemed to be unnecessary details.
 * However, I happen not to agree with your removal of some of these details:
 * The mention of the suspicion that surrounded the death of her mother should not be ignored, and would have its place in a footnote.
 * In the lead, there is a list of her descendants, including Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, whose importance is yet to be proven, aside from the scandals surrounding his life. On the other hand, in the *Childhood* section, in direct relation to the remarriage of her father, which does touch her since her stepmother became a second mother to her, you want to remove the mention of her half siblings, one of which gained his own importance by becoming the Regent of France. If you remove him, you cannot click on his name, then how is the reader going to know that she was the half-sister of the future Regent of France? I agree that articles in Wikipedia should not read like novels, but they should have a little bit more meat on their bones than the short details given on an identity card, otherwise, all we need is an infobox for each subject, and a family tree - no text.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundant & trivial content -- again
Efforts to reduce inappropriate style and content in this article may require request for external intervention. To avoid this, please let's stop adding and re-inserting non-encyclopedic matter, especially that which has been challenged. This has been repeatedly complained of for years (see the "Redundant & trivial content" and "Genealogic article" sections of this talk page), but the editor responsible (committing the same errors at numerous biographical articles on the Capetians and their spouses and in-laws, as well as the Lorraines, Savoys, Estes, Gonzagas, Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs and French ducal families) seldom engages in talk page or edit discussions, instead re-inserting deletions while dismissing fact tags and edit summary objections. The problem persists in two forms: inappropriate style and inappropriate content. The content violates Wikipedia's exclusionary policy against genealogical minutiae and exposition of insignificant details. It consists of excess in: Speculation (assumptions about the "feelings", "thoughts", "attractiveness" or "relationships" of long-dead persons, presented as if factual or probable yet not cited from the person's diary, correspondence or quoted statements); Trivia (information unimportant to the historical significance of the topic); Redundancies (information that is repeated more than twice in the article or duplicates info that is/should be in a different article), Extranea (superfluous information, only tangentially related to the topic). These edits reduce the professionalism of Wikipedia because they:
 * 1) Include unsourced (and often, unsource-able) assertions that may be inaccurate
 * 2) Use an editorial voice more appropriate to narrative in a novel than to an objective encylopedia
 * 3) Divert the article's focus from facts which make the subject encyclopedically significant
 * 4) Pad the article, making it harder to notice when a stub needs sourced expansion. For example, see dif. FactStraight (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I took so long to reply, was being a tad dense as I did not even see this section lol =S! Anyway, i fail to see how the edit link you put (above) is padding!? That is just a foolish thing to say in all honesty! Also, I am aware that I am a difficult character but I will not be made to feel like what I have wrote/added/removed etc is not valued! Everyone's contribution (bar vandels obviously) is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia! A biography of someone is a story dead or alive, I fail to see how it becomes a narrative! These people had relationships which link to the lives they led children they had and people they met which had a profound effect on the time they lived in surely you must agree, give me a bit of breathing space please! HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you do not agree that the issues I have raised merit correction, nor will you modify your edits on this and the other types of articles I named to address these concerns. After I deleted or reduced the following inappropriate content from this article about a minor historical personage, you re-inserted them several times. Now that the objections have been repeatedly explained in detail, I consider them (and edits like them in this and other articles) to be vandalism, to be treated as such. Please explain why the following examples of the concerns I am objecting to should remain in this article:
 * Speculation (unsourced): "At first, the arranged marriage was a happy one; the couple were devoted to each other and her husband had conquered her heart as soon as they had met. But things soured when her husband became overly involved in state affairs, forgetting about his devoted wife." and "Nevertheless, despite the care and affection which she lavished upon her daughters, there was little of that intimacy between her and her children. Her eldest daughter, Marie Adélaïde, would always be closer to her paternal grandmother Marie Jeanne of Savoy."
 * Trivia: "Baptised in the private chapel of the Palais Royal on 8 April 1670 by the Duke of Orléans' first chaplain, Louis de la Vergne Montenard de Tressan, Bishop of Vabres, later Bishop of Le Mans. Present were King Louis XIV, Queen Marie-Thérèse, Monseigneur le Dauphin and La Grande Mademoiselle. The latter pair were her godparents. Also present were the Princes and Princesses of the Blood, the Princes of Condé, Conti, the Duke and Duchess of Enghien and the Dowager Princess of Carignan." and "A favourite haunt for the consort was the Vigna di Madama. This had been used by a previous French consort, Anne Marie's great-aunt Princess Christine Marie of France (1606–1663). Later on, her daughter, Maria Adélaïde recreated this little hideaway by having the Ménagerie at Versailles remodelled. Anne Marie later changed the name of ‘’Vigna di Madama’’ to the Villa della Regina, after herself."
 * Redundancies: 8 mentions of the fact that she is Queen of Sardinia (these references are separate from any facts about what she was doing in her capacity as queen.)
 * Extranea: "Anne Marie’s proxy marriage to Víctor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy, future King of Sicily and of Sardinia, took place at Versailles on 10 April 1684,...Unfortunately, at the time, both the courts of France and Savoy were in mourning for the death of the French-Savoyard Queen of Portugal, a granddaughter of Henry IV of France, and the Duke of Savoy's aunt.." and "In 1807, almost eighty years after her death, Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart died. He was the last of the descendants of her uncle, King James II of England. The Jacobites viewed the legitimate succession to the English and Scottish thrones as devolving upon the senior living descendant of King Charles I. In 1807, the Jacobite pretender became Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia, the great-grandson of Anne Marie d'Orléans and Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia. ". FactStraight (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This trivia is none existent; you look at other articles i.e. Elizabeth II, Charles II of England, Henrietta Maria of France as well as many others that they note events such as baptisms, interests, relationships etc. Fair do's the bit about the Princes of the blood may be toooo far but still =\ Also noting she was queen of Sardinia is not a problem, people can easily take the initiative to reword or delete something which is blatantly repeated (whoever write it in the first place)! I am currently rewriting her article (as well as her in laws and immediate family) which will be packed with sources ;) HRH the Prince of Piedmont  (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been very specific about the extent and different kinds of trivia you habitually insert in this and similar articles. Since your response is that "This trivia is none existent", we fundamentally disagree about what constitutes trivia and its inappropriateness in Wikipedia articles. Greater detail in articles about historically important or popular persons, such as the examples you list, is appropriate, whereas such detail in the articles of relatively minor or obscure persons is not notable, unduly lengthens the article, and is therefore inappropriate. Despite the fact that you write "people can easily take the initiative to reword or delete something which is blatantly repeated", your track record is to re-insert most trivia, immediately or gradually, whenever it has been trimmed for conciseness, as shown in diffs here (when you were editing under the IP 86.149.172.104) and here. When appeals have been made on this talk page (here and here) to stop inserting trivia, you ignore or refuse them. Since, moreover, you deny that the material edited out is trivia, you cannot be relied upon to allow edits for conciseness to stand in this and similar articles. Based on this pattern, I do not believe that we can reach a consensus on omitting or editing out trivia to produce concise Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I will request intervention. FactStraight (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will chose to ignore the I.P issue, I have done nothing of the sort thank you! It is none existent, as per usual anything I do comes with a huge umbrella which you have called fault. It is not fair, you clearly watch everything I do HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

FactStraight (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
I find the text added by LouisPhilippeCharles to be trivial, or at the very least not neutral. Text like "Though not as beautiful as Marie Louise, she was still attractive." does not belong on Wikipedia. This page isn't meant to be a memorial or anything like that; it should be neutral and to the point. And stuff like "But things soured when her husband became overly involved in state affairs, forgetting about his devoted wife." makes this article seem like more of a soap opera than an encyclopedic entry. I'd say most of that text needs to go. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone, let's not forget the three revert rule. You're both coming up on it, so now is the time to stop warring and start talking. I find FactStraight's edits to be mostly correct, though I'm wondering why the date and place of burial were removed. I'm also curious why the lead was trimmed down in this edit; per WP:LEDE, the lead is supposed to be a representation of the contents of the article, and I find that the trimmed down version is just too small. Other than that, though, I'm fine with the edits. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem with these articles (especially on female royalty) is that all too many sources are soap-operas. We should try to do better, but it's an effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please tell F.S to stop being such a child! He seems to think that categories and a template are regarded as trivia – it is dull now! It is even more amusing to see that these categories are not even correct (i.e. the dates are wrong) which proves completely he is just trying to be as difficult as possible! He is making himself seem a fool Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another edit war
Alright, look, this edit war can't keep going on. As I see it, there are a few issues here. These are my thoughts: So that's my first step at clearing up some of this mess. Thoughts? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The four infoboxes should be included. This article is listed in each of them, so it's appropriate for them to be there. If this article was tangential to any of them and didn't have a direct link then we could discuss its removal, but as it stands, they are.
 * I'm not understanding the issue with the, er, Issue section. One mentions Maria Anna of Savoy, the other does not - so is this just a question of including stillborn children and such? If they can be sourced, is there a reason why they shouldn't be included?
 * As to the categories: a lot of those seem a bit excessive. Did she actually have smallpox? The article mentions her husband having it, but not her. How can she be in both the Burials at the Cathedral of Saint Giovanni Battista, Turin and Burials at the Basilica of Superga categories? (Is one in the other? If so, pick the one that's more specific and use that.) I think some of these need to be trimmed down.
 * Thanks for weighing in. This "edit war" has been going on here and at other articles on the House of Capet and other dynasties, IMO, because there is a fundamental disagreement about substance vs form, and it continues because editors understandably prefer to resolve matters on the grounds of form, which is technical, rather than on substance, which requires exercise of judgment. For instance, no one has challenged inclusion of info boxes here. What I do object to is redundancy. I deleted the birth & death sites because they were redundant: I had left them in the prose text, so removed them from the boxes. I don't mind if they're mentioned, so long as they're mentioned only once -- any more than that is padding -- unencyclopedic because it 1. constitutes poor writing and unprofessional editing 2. lengthens articles beyond their significant content, and 3. pushes information at readers which, in a brief article, does not merit being promoted as if it were significant. So I deleted Polyxena's first place of burial, leaving only the 2nd and final one, because it's trivial: It was common for royalty to be buried in one site until a new mausoleum is constructed for them. If she were Marie Antoinette or another renowned royal with a substantial Wiki article, I'd leave it in. But in a (deservedly) brief article on an obscure consort, I don't see why we need to know she was 1st buried at X, later re-buried at Y. Ditto for children who died too young to reproduce: I don't object to "Of the ten children she bore, six lived to adulthood, and they were..." But giving all the names, exact titles, precise birth & death dates of children who lived 3 days or 3 years, ending with "died unmarried" is trivial and pads the article -- it's a way of using Wikipedia to record detail (irrelevant to the topic's notability) that is, heretofore, found only in genealogies and books dedicated to the subject in violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. I deleted some of the categories for redundancy, e.g. "Category: Savoyard consorts" and "Princesses of Piedmont" should also be in found in the category "House of Savoy", either individually or by including the sub-category in the larger one. Again, I care little about the specific userboxes and categories (and so have restored some, although "Category:Italians who died of disease" strikes me as absurd), but object to the "padding" effect. It seems to me that standardized "forms" -- the proliferation of rules for ledes, userboxes, categories, templates, genealogical tables, etc. -- are rapidly becoming a way of building in redundancy in articles -- therefore padding them unencyclopedically -- because they automatically repeat info, important and trivial, that is contained elsewhere in the article or is too minor to be there at all. Of course where to draw the line on trivia is debatable and I'm perfectly willing to accept inclusion of factoids I'd personally prefer be left out. But how do we engage in a reasonable conversation about that if an acceptable argument here is that any factoid deserves inclusion, the more so if "attributable" (and if it "humanizes" the subject -- as if we are writing a novel)? Or that every userbox, category, template, ahnenreihe has a Wiki constituency and therefore must be left in without scrutiny? This altogether denies that "significance" is a legitimate criterion for encyclopedic selectivity when editing. So when a "third opinion" weighs in and says no more than, "Compromise! Just split the difference so no one feels their contribution is rejected", I am discouraged: What I hear is "Notability and encyclopedic quality are expendable in favor of appeasing fancrufters -- so that everybody gets along on the talk page". Wikipedia then suffers from failure to uphold standards. This is not fundamentally a dispute over sources of facts, but over their significance. I don't see how it can be resolved except by editors expressing judgment about what makes the article better. Information needs a reason to be included, not a rule allowing it to be excluded if, that is, we're in the business of building a quality encyclopedia. FactStraight (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I want to give my opinion on this matter & not get involved in an edit war, I would do what I see done in many articles on fr:wiki: underline for everyone to see the parts deemed irrelevant, badly written, historically doubtful, unsourceable, etc.
 * As examples, I am going to do it right at a couple of places (and let FactStraight revert test):
 * Second sentence in lead: absolutely ungrammatical
 * First sentence in Youth section: it makes no sense to begin the sentence with the death of her mother ten months after her birth. Mentioning her birth first, at the château de Saint-Cloud, then the death of her mother ten months later would be more logical.
 * I also left a comment at her father's talk page who, by the way, is nowhere to be seen in either the lead of her article, nor at Youth section, while her grandson Louis XV is in lead  and her stepmother & her half-brother are in the Life Youth section, which does not say anything about her youth.
 * Reader has to go to infobox to learn who her parents were.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly I find the underlining rather distracting; to me, at least, it makes it seem like those sentences are being emphasized over the rest of the text. To that end I'm going to be bold and undo that, though I'll emphasize here a link to the edit so people can see what Frania is talking about. But you're right, this text does need a great deal of work.
 * And FactStraight, I'll respond to your reply in a bit. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I was saying, this was only a test, which I would have reverted, had no one else done it.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

While we are discussing future edits to the article...

"These claims were held at the time by James Francis Edward Stuart(son of James II) upon the death of his half sister, Queen Anne." What does this mean? James Francis Edward became claimant upon his father's death, not upon his half-sister's death. According to the Jacobites (whose POV is discussed in the section), Princess George of Denmark and Norway was never a rightful monarch. Am I mssing something or is this just a factual inaccuracy in the article? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Break
I forgot to respond to FactStraight, so I'll do that now. It's not redundant to have the birth/death dates in the prose and the infobox; the box is meant to be a quick summary of the article, but the text actually expands on it. Every single biographical article on Wikipedia has the birth and death dates listed more than once, and it's really not extra padding.

As to the places of burial: if she was buried and then moved, then I think that should be included (as long as it can be referenced). If we're talking about categories, then maybe only use her final resting place. The paring down of children to be less padded is similarly okay; if it had a name then maybe that should be mentioned.

Now the rule with the lede is that it's supposed to more or less summarize the whole article, and its size is proportional to the article's length. An article of this size should probably have more than two sentences, but not a whole lot more.

I'm sorry that you feel discouraged by my opinion, but if you recall, I agreed that a lot of the trivia from before should be trimmed down, and I've been okay with the majority of your edits. I'm not asking you to capitulate here, but rather work towards a consensus - the belief upon which Wikipedia relies. If one editor is trying to engage and work towards compromise and the other is just being tendentious, then it's obvious what's going on. Honestly I think part of it is that you're engaged in a long-term edit war, and that really sucks. But there are much larger issues at stake here, and you may want to consider higher levels of dispute resolution such as MedCab or ArbCom (probably the former). —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful and considerately worded reply. Nonetheless, I must confess that I found your response to the concerns I've elaborated even more disheartening than before. It seems to me that you avoided what I consider to be the main issue: Is it appropriate to edit articles to ensure that information is only included to the extent that it is encyclopedically significant and in relative proportion to the notability of the topic?" Essentially what I heard is, "ledes, userboxes, templates & categories have no limit under Wiki's formatting rules, therefore if there happen to be 5 of them on a page and they happen to repeat substantially the same info also included in the text (pushing it at readers as if it deserved repeated eyeballing) they belong in the article, even if they tend to overwhelm significant matter or to conceal the article's lack of substantial information with padding (redundancies, trivia, extranea, etc)." I began to consider that Wikipedia's hierarchs are willing to trade off quality for inclusiveness of content, and that the project should be left to contributors who thrive on that formula. Then I stumbled upon recent edits to Duke of Galliera and Infante Alfonso, Duke of Galliera made by User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy. I have renewed hope: here are articles replete with userboxes, categories, and almost more photos than text, yet which are (for the most part) accurate, footnoted, balanced, deftly written and contain few redundancies (the trivia is there, but not pushed at us by repetition and over-prominent placement; thus, enjoying trivia as much as any history maven -- I delight in it!). Editing, it seems to me, is scalpel work -- even in Wikipedia, and the right of everyone to contribute is not an excuse for factoid-dumping or bad editing. Nor, by the way, does it transfer to me the responsibility of "fixing" somebody else's persistently sloppy writing. (Surely Wiki editors can admonish the laggards to do better as urgently as they enjoin the rest of us to leave them alone?) Bravo! FactStraight (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is it appropriate to edit articles to ensure that information is only included to the extent that it is encyclopedically significant and in relative proportion to the notability of the topic?" The answer to that is yes. I don't think the "hierarchs" (which is irrelevant, incidentally; the admins have no more say over content than anyone else) are trading quality for inclusiveness.
 * I never said that there's no limit on non-prose things in an article. (Userboxes, by the way, aren't in article space.) Obviously if they overwhelm the article then they should be pared down, but in this particular case I didn't see that happening. Every article is different, so what's true for one article isn't necessarily true on others.
 * I wouldn't say editing is scalpel work per se, but there is a finesse to it. Editors have to be able to take a set of knowledge and turn it into readable prose. And it doesn't mean that you have to fix others' writing, but some editors here do like to do that.
 * Overall, though, I'm sorry that you feel like I've discouraged you. That was honestly not my intention in the least; rather my goal was to get this article moving in a direction where the editors were working together to create a decent article that was well sourced and concise without being overly flowery or detailed. Anyway, I'm not really sure how much more there is to be said about this topic; and it's offtopic with regard to this article anyway. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)