Talk:Philip II of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Philip II of France as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Sorbonne

The Sorbonne was founded in 1257, so how could he have given it a charter in 1200? olivier 11:32 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It was not the Sorbonne, but the Université de Paris. The Sorbonne was founded in 1257 as one of the colleges of the Université de Paris. It then became the name of this university (today, of three parisian universities).
  • "Capetitian? --Wetman 21:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Can someone provide a picture of the king?

There is no authentic image of Philip Augustus. The first king of France whose features were accurately carved in stone was Saint-Louis, the grandson of Philip Augustus. There exist no accurate images of any king of France before Saint-Louis. Hardouin 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Wines

I added a reference to the famous Battle of the Wines that Philip commissioned (or rather the poem written about it.) I placed it in the later years since it was right before his death that the tasting happened. However, I don't think it quite flows in the section but I was hestitant to reword the section due to my overall lack of familarity with Philip. If any of the article's editors know of a better way to fit it in, they by all means. Thanks! Agne27 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we going to mention Philip's gay fetishes?

Well are we? -Augustulus

I guess not. But he's the funniest of the bunch! Augustulus 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requested move

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 result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip II of France → Philip Augustus — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. I certainly think this is the case here. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I prefer 'numerals' to 'nicknames'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I'd prefer "Philip II Augustus". john k (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per nomination. Better known as "Philip Augustus." Less impersonal than as a number. But might in future consider "Philip II Augustus." Nihil novi (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support general name. Sometimes you see Philip II Augustus. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency with other French monarchs. The ordinal is hardly obscure enough that the nickname can trump it. Srnec (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Undoubtedly known in French as Philippe II, but in English Philip Augustus seems as common and Philip II Augustus is not uncommon either. Bradbury's bio is called Philip Augustus. I have the vague recollection that this is how he's called in The Lion in Winter and also how he appeared in the Ladybird book on Richard the Lionheart I had when I was a kid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Consistency. Space Cadet (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not just for consistency, but because he is not commonly known as Philip Augustus. Deb (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    Really? Not common? On what possible basis can you make such a claim? john k (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I've read a few history books on this era, and, without exception, they all refer to him as Philip Augustus, not Philip II. Philip II usually refers to this guy. *** Crotalus *** 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — AjaxSmack 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Systematics (= regnal number) is better, as his nickname is however not so overwhelmingly better known that it really shadows his regnal ordinal. Shilkanni (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As with other recent move requests, see Talk:Casimir I of Poland. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsure. Seems a line call to me... Some think Augustus is commonly used, others have never heard of it. And of course others cite grounds such as consistency which aren't the issue at all IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I think the form "Philip II Augustus" would be proper because it is almost as common for him as for Octavian. However it would create inconsistency and do more harm than good. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this one should have the territorial designation. Charles 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just the kind of argument that we will be having constantly, if we allow the guidelines on nicknames to weaken. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As Philip Augustus redirects to Philip II of France, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current name is surely not obscure. The proposed name is just an epithet. He is known by both but the status quo is more encyclopaedic. Parable1991 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) Also a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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.