Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
 |
Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
Contents |
[edit] "comtesse de Buffon"
I suspect that the "comtesse de Buffon" referred to here would be the widow of Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, but am not sure. If someone knows, worth a link in the article. -- Jmabel 22:41, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "count of Champcenetz"
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)
[edit] Very British biased
Very British biased... 1911 Encyclopedia ? Ericd 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant & trivial content
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)
