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

"Great rejoicing"
"there was great rejoicing and celebrations complete with fireworks (memorialized in engravings) in all the major cities of France, and indeed in most European courts. " I added the bit about engravings from personal experience, having looked through the folio album. But the idea that there was "great rejoicing and celebrations in most European courts" is claptrap: London? Vienna? Potsdam? The accredited French ambassador would have given a fête of course. I never "delete factual material". But I do know what's what.

The date 1745, often given for this pastel, formerly posted here without the artist's name, is insecure, as amost Maurice Quentin De la Tour's dates are. It was reverted "doubted" without a moment's thought by Hardouin, who is best left to his own gaffes apparently. No matter... --Wetman 12:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The link points out to 1748 for the probable date of the painting, which sounds more credible, as the dauphin would have been 19 at this time.

 * As for the courts of Europe, I know this fact with certainty, having long ago read records of how both the birth of the dauphin in 1729 and his wedding in 1745 gave rise to public fêtes in many courts of Europe. Remember that most German and Italian states were client states of France, and that the Bourbon ruled in Madrid. I don't know if London organized fêtes on those occasions, but Berlin and Vienna almost certainly did, as it was thought courteous to do so to honor the man (Louis XV) that was seen as the most powerful king of Europe. Remember that all these royal families interbred with each other, and it didn't matter that the countries were at war with each other from times to times, because nonetheless all these kings and princes felt like they were all part of the same European social class. Hardouin 14:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "Remember that most German and Italian states were client states of France"
 * What? You are seriously mistaken. However, the celebrations might still be true as not all rulers must be meanies just hoping for the extinction of another dynasty, which would certainly have resulted in a major war. Str1977 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)
Louis of Bourbon, Dauphin of France → Louis, Dauphin of France — He is not known as "of Bourbon"... It was never his surname ("of France" was). This is to move the page to a correct location following the repeated undiscussed moves of another user. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * 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

 * 1) Support As nominator. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose - far too general a title. Michaelsanders 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - the suggested new page name already exists as a disambiguation page. What would be done with the content of that page?  I agree that there is a problem with the current page name (Louis-Ferdinand); this is not how this man was known (even if Ferdinand was one of his baptismal names).  It is totally inappropriate to make up names for people in order to have unique Wikipedia page names.  Other encyclopedias solve this by including birth and death dates in the title. Noel S McFerran 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 1) Oppose per Micheal. I don't think the Bourbon Louis is established enough as the Primary topic to merit the generic title. I'm not a big fan of the Louis-Ferdinand solution either but it's a start. 205.157.110.11 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

Louis the Dauphin
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

I don't know why you are still arguing about the 'of Bourbon' - I removed it, because it was too troublesome and ambiguous. Nonetheless, it is acceptable in English to refer to a member of a royal family by his/her house designation.

Moving on: WP:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Thus, my original suggestion doesn't work, but the current title (Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France) does. Yours does not, since it follows French format, and is too ambiguous.

"Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

"Be precise when necessary Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term."

I made a mistake by using the title of Louis of Bourbon, Dauphin of France. Fine. I corrected it, because I thought that would solve the dispute. But this title (Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France) is the acceptable title, not Louis, Dauphin of France, and certainly not Louis, dauphin de France. It could just as appropriately apply to several others: Louis, Duke of Guyenne (who despite his title is, thanks to Shakespeare, as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin); Louis, Grand Dauphin; Louis, Duke of Burgundy;Louis, Duke of Brittany; Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France; and Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France. What makes Louis-Ferdinand different from these others? Why shouldn't the elder son of Louis XVI be Louis, Dauphin of France? Michaelsanders 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "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)

I think this document should settle it. It is the marriage certificate of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette where the name of Louis XVI's father appears undisputably as "Louis dauphin de France". Godefroy 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis-Ferdinand
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)
 * Please read 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)

Michaelsanders continues to insist that this prince should be referred to throughout the article as "Louis-Ferdinand". In defence of this position he has cited a number of popular websites. I have maintained that he should be referred to throughout the article as "Louis". There are at least six book-length biographies of this prince, all of which call him "Louis". His tombstone calls him "Louis". Engravings of him call him "Louis". In the major French genealogical works he is called "Louis" (although his sons are referred to by their multiple baptismal names). It is possible that he received the name "Ferdinand" as one of his baptismal names (at the age of seven, not actually when he was baptised) - but I have thus far found no evidence whatsover for this. Even if this were the case, it is not our practice in Wikipedia to refer to a person throughout the article by all of their baptismal names (cf. Felipe, Prince of Asturias who is not referred to as "Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso" except in the first line). In the article we should refer to this prince by the name generally used for him. That is "Louis". Six book-length biographies and a bunch of other sources trump a few popular webpages. Noel S McFerran 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

This is an article on a historical personage. However he may be referred to by some historians, his full name is cited as being 'Louis-Ferdinand'. That means that it is represented as such in the heading. Especially since you cannot prove that your own sources are stating 'Louis' as being his full name, rather than simply not using 'Ferdinand'. Michael Sanders 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * 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 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)

 * 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)

I agree with M. Sanders as far that his name is "Louis Ferdinand" (though not "Louis-Ferdinand" as the hyphen is not conclusively used). The sources are sufficent for that. But that doesn't mean that the page should be moved or that we have to use LF throughout the article. Str1977 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)

de France
The parish of Notre-Dame in Versailles has death, marriage, baptism "certificates" of all the members of the royal family from the time Louis XIV established the Court at Versailles until the Revolution.

 * Here is the text RE baptism of Marie-Thérèse de France, Madame Royale, daughter of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette:

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France, fille du Haut et Puissant Seigneur Louis, roi de France et de Navarre, et de Haute et Puissante Princesse Marie-Antoinette-Josèphe de Lorraine, archidusse d'Autriche, reine de France...

 * In addition, here is the transcribed text of document given above of the marriage of Louis Auguste, dauphin de France, to Marie Antoinette, Archiduchesse d'Autriche, highlighting name "de France" whenever used in text as a surname (and throwing in a "d'Orléans' for good measure.)

"L'an mil sept cent soixante-dix, le seize may vû la dispense de parenté accordée par nôtre saint père le pape Clément quatorze en datte du trente aoust mil sept cent soixante -neuf et la dispense accordée par Mgr l'Archevêque de Paris de la publication de trois bans, ensemble la permission d'être fiançés et mariés le même jour dans telle église ou chapelle par tel évêque ou prêtre qu'il plaira à sa majesté, même in pontificalibus en datte du quatre de ce mois , signé Christophe Archevêque de Paris , plusbas de La Touche secrétaire très haut , très puissant et excellent prince Loüis , Auguste , dauphin de France , fils de défunt très haut , très puissant , et excellent prince , Loüis dauphin de France , et de défunte très haute , très puissante et excellente princesse , Marie- Josephe princesse de Saxe ses père et mère d'une part , et très haute très puissante et excellente princesse Marie-Antoinette-Josephe Jeanne , Archiduchesse d'Autriche , fille de défunt très haut , très puissant et très excellent prince François premier du nom , empereur des romains grand duc de Toscane , et de très haute -très puissante et très excellente princesse , Marie , Thérèse, Valpurge-Amélie-Christine , impératrice doüairière des romains , reine de Hongrie et de Bohême ses père et mère , d'autre part , les fiançailles faites - ont été marié denraefenti après avoir pris leur consentement mutuel et ont reçu la bénédiction nuptiale , nous curé de cette paroisse présent, par Mgr Charle-Antoine de La Rochenimon Archevêque duc de Reims , pair et grand-aumonier de France , le susdit mariage fait en la chapelle du roy , en présence de très haut , très puissant et très excellent prince Loüis roy de France et de Navarre , de très haut , et très puissant prince Loüis Stanislas Xavier de France comte de Provence , de très haut , et très puissant prince , Charle-Philippe de France comte d'Artois , de très haute , et très puissante princesse , Marie, Adélaïde, Clotilde , Xavière de France  de très haute , et très puissante princesse , Marie -Adélaïde de France  , de très haute et très puissante princesse , Victoire , Loüise , Marie-Thérèse de France  , de très haute et très puissante princesse Sophie , Philippine Justine de France  , de très haut et puissant prince , Loüis-Philippe duc d'Orléans premier prince du sang , de très haut , et puissant prince , Loüis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans duc de Chartres prince du sang qui ont signés avec les époux "

Source: registres paroissiaux de Versailles

--Frania W. (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "De France" is wrong because it is not a surname as say "De Rothschild" If you really want to use the term then it has to be "of France." Even this is unnecessary on a page dedicated unambiguously to a single royal family. Princes and princesses of the blood are distinguished by the use of a sole Christian name - even when "Children of France." Your French documents obviously will use "de" rather than "of" because they are in French. The reason they use the term "de France" at all, is to distinguish the individual from the thousands of others with similar Christian names also dying in the locality - even de Bourbon would have been ambiguous. You might like also to consider the wretched Jeanne of Valois-Saint-Rémy ( why is that an "of"? it should be "de" ) whose  fraudulent practices were exposed when Marie Antoinette's forged signature included "de France." Elsewhere on Wikipedia people seem confused - for instance her in  Louis, Duke of Burgundy (1751–1761) we have an "of France" and a "de France" in the space of two paragraphs. And for this page here, to include the immortal description "Louis Auguste de France King of France Duke of Berry" and "Louis Stanislas Xavier de France King of France Count of Provence" is more than plain wrong, it displays ignorance. Once a monarch is annointed all other lesser titles are dispensed with.   Giano   22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano, thanks for adding a windmill to my collection.

 * "de France" is a surname as are "de Bourbon" (the surname of Henri IV's father), "d'Orléans", "de Gaulle", "de Rothschild", etc.

 * Jeanne of Valois-Saint-Rémy, should be Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy.

 * Members of the royal family signed only with their baptismal names (or a couple of them), which did not mean that they did not have a surname. It simply was the traditional way of signing.

 * Louis, Duke of Burgundy (1751–1761), not on my watch list, so I never had the opportunity to touch it.

 * And for this page here, to include the immortal description "Louis Auguste de France King of France Duke of Berry" and "Louis Stanislas Xavier de France King of France Count of Provence" is more than plain wrong,... In the article, they are there as the Dauphin's children, so they should be listed with their names & titles at birth and (future "name as king"):
 * Louis Auguste de France, duc de Berry, (future Louis XVI)
 * Louis Stanislas Xavier de France, comte de Provence, (future Louis XVIII)
 * Charles-Philippe de France, comte d'Artois, (future Charles X)

Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am only here trying to find information for two other pages I am, writing tht involves some French history,so I;m not really bothered what you do here, but if you are going to be wrong on these French royal pages, then it is best to be consistently wrong or consistently right; at present they confusingly all over the place. De France is not their surname/dynastic name, never has been and never will be. Ancient documents referring to Royalty of any nationality frequently fall over themselves in their obseqiousness - for instance we would not begin a page today "The most gracious and high and mighty sovereign lord born in 1520" - would we? Well I wouldn't at least. People on Wikipedia seem frequently confused in their use of "de" and "of" and fall over themselves to use titles, ranks and honorifics which are now completely meaningless and irrelevant. It was only a couple of years ago that Wikipedia stoped useing "The most noble" as the first words on pages about living British dukes. Anyway, I shall leave you to your page, but do think about these things - they are quite important to get right, and at the moment they are not.  Giano   08:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Giano, so how are we to interpret the above two documents ? Are you saying that the whole royal family (king, queen, brothers, sisters, plus the Orléans & Condé cousins) was wrong in its display of ignorance, signing documents containing the portions I underlined, and which are to be found in the archives of Notre-Dame church in Versailles ?
 * --Frania W. (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read your own evidence. I am pleased to see "future King of France" has now been added to the page. I will leave you to correct the unfortunate Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy. The French have never had a royal house named "de France." That during their lifetime certain members were poud of being "Children of France" I have no doubt, but to use the appelation centuries after their death as a surname is incorrect. I am begining to wish I had not edited the page at all as this is obviously one of those Wikipedia-areas were its dedicated editors wish to celebrate every aspect of "royalness" and "obseqiousness." Personally, I am not bothered if it is correct or not - it's not my favourite field of editing. I will leave you to it, but I suspect someone else will raise it before long. Bonne chance et au'revoir.  Giano   16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Giano, I agree with you that it is important to get these things right, which is why I invite you to read the following:

 * Page 237, (Google directs to p. 137, but it falls on p. 237), paragraph 7, in Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglemens et ..., Volume 20, (from 1788 to 1824), published in Paris in 1827,  :
 * Here is an excerpt taken from an ordonnance by Louis XVIII signed in Paris on 12 January 1816:

 * Notre bien-aimé frère, Monsieur, colonel général, et notre ministre secrétaire-d'Etat de l'intérieur, sont chargés, chacun en ce qui le concerne, de l'exécution de la présente ordonnance.
 *  Charles-Philippe de France, fils de France, Monsieur, comte d'Artois, colonel général des gardes nationales du royaume,
 * Vu l'ordonnance ci-dessus ....

 * Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Giano, you wrote: "The French have never had a royal house named "de France."

 * Book Histoire de la maison royale de France et des grands officiers de la Covronne, by R.P. Anselme, published in 1674:
 * http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:cKzXVFfpTAYJ:catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2946863+Maison+royale+de+France&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 * Armoiries de la Maison royale de France:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armoiries_Maison_de_France.jpg

 * If you don't mind, I'll stick to archives, official documents & side with the ignorant French.

 * Bonne chance à vous & aurevoir, --Frania W. (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My final word, the people of whom you speak were not members of a House of de France, there never was such a dynasty and probably never will be (unless you create it here on Wikipedia - which is a law unto itself). I'm sorry, I wish for you it was otherwise, but that's a fact - these peope were Bourbon or de Bourbon - it matters not. They are dead. Even Wikipedia cannot change their dynastic names. Adieu  Giano   18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Interesting....
 * "The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned, Donald Eugene Smith, p1101, 'Bourbon, House of: its origin. From King Louis IX of France, 'through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Beatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained(Bourbon), that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Then I look forward to seeing House of Bourbon and Bourbon Restoration updated and referenced accordingly.  Giano   21:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Move? (July 2010)

 * 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: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765) → —
 * Removal of dates from title. Article and redirection pages should be swapped Redgolpe (talk) 09:17, 21 July 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.

Revert (November 2010)

 * 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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France → Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765) — The above move had no support or opposition. It was moved 15 hour after it was requested. I don't know the rules of moving but I don't think that was long enough time. Also the sources referring to him as Louis-Ferdinand is unreliable as state in the sections and. Even if he had the name of Ferdinand, Louis was his most common name and the name he used on documents and how he was refer to in his lifetime, and it's the name used by historians.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I have never heard him referred to as Louis-Ferdinand. Though this was his name, it is not what he is commonly referred to. Would we call Queen Victoria Queen Alexandrina Victoria? A simple search will pull up numerous legitimate books (like ). I recommend reverting the move back to Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765). Ruby2010 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Although QEIILS and Ruby are correct in that few people refer to him as Louis-Ferdinand, I prefer the name to the dates. I think we should avoid article titles containing dates whenever it is possible to do so.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand people don't like dates, but calling him Louis Ferdinand is just incorrect. If you do a google book search you find no books that refers to him as Louis Ferdinand except "Marie-Thérèse, child of terror: the fate of Marie Antoinette's daughter by Susan Nagel", a book written in 2008. Imagine this signario Charles, Prince of Wales dies before becoming King and William has a son who he names Charles in honor of his father; we'll make his baptismal name Charles William Edward Henry.  Both are called Charles. This new Charles dies before becoming king, do we called the old Charles Charles Philip and the other Charles William just so we don't have to use dates.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I think most points have been put across, I believe that he should be moved back to Louis, Dauphin of France as I doubt the people of his era would have refered to him as Louis Ferdinand--David (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been asked to comment here, so I will. This is not a question of what he was or is called, but one of disambiguation.  Just as nobody of his time would have called him "Louis Ferdinand", nobody of his time would have called him "Louis 1729-1765". He was called some variant of Louis, Dauphin of France, but that can't be used as that name applies to too many people.  Thus we are left with injecting something else into his name that wasn't used, just so that his page is named differently than those of the other Dauphins Louis. Should that be a set of dates or a second name, neither of which would have been used at the time? It is not even a case of which someone is more likely to search for in Wikipedia, because they are most likely to find themselves at the disambiguation page anyhow. Personally, I am with Jeanne here - not a fan of dates in page names. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am also not a fan of dates in article titles, but am still against the use of Louis-Ferdinand. Is there any other article name we could use that isn't either of these? Ruby2010 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765). The name "Louis-Ferdinand" does not show up in a SINGLE source from his lifetime or from the century after his death.  It appears first in the 20th century and has been repeated in a minority of books.  I surmise that it was created by a writer merely to distinguish the subject from his father and his sons (also named Louis).  But there is absolutely no historical evidence for the name "Louis-Ferdinand" while there is plenty of historical evidence (outlined above on this talk page) for the use of the plain name "Louis".  Dates may not be the ideal way of disambiguating a name - but it's certainly preferable to using a made-up name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just for the record, the comment that the previous move was done 15 hours after being requested is a mistake. It was 10 days. Station1 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry read it wrong. But I still don't think many people were aware of its move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support The dates are the most useful ambiguator here. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765), as I find dates to be excellent time markers (sorry to disagree with you Jeanne :).
 * --Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support I agree completely with Frania LPC (talk) 15:14, 2 December 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.

External links modified
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)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Abramovitch

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Asher Abramovitch
Vanity. Xezbeth 12:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * So it would seem. Delete. Josh Cherry 15:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. Thryduulf 15:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Carrp | Talk 20:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Wyss 21:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. RJFJR 00:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 32 Google hits mostly his own website, vanity. Megan1967 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity --Ocollard 09:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Albert Hill (athlete)

Untitled
The Albert Hill who won the VC at Delville Wood in 1916 is definately not the same person as Albert George hill who won two Olympic Gold medals in 1920.

The VC winner lived in Denton Lancashire for a time and worked in a hat factory. He emigrated to America and died in 1972 and is buried in Rhode Island. Any correspondence would be welcome at joehorsfield57@hotmail.com
 * The article on the VC winner is now at Albert Hill VC. -- Arwel 14:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Albert Hill (athlete)


text:
Timothy Matlack

Timothy Matlack (March 28, 1736 – April 14, 1829) was an American politician, military officer and businessman who was chosen in 1776 to inscribe the original United States Declaration of Independence on vellum. A brewer and beer bottler who emerged as a popular and powerful leader in the American Revolutionary War, Matlack served as Secretary of Pennsylvania during the conflict and a delegate to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1780. Matlack was known for his excellent penmanship, and his handwritten copy of the Declaration is on public display in the Rotunda of the Charters of Freedom at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Matlack became one of Pennsylvania's most provocative and influential political figures. He was removed from office by his political enemies at the end of the Revolutionary War, but returned to power in the Jeffersonian era.

Early life and education
Matlack was born in Haddonfield, New Jersey, on March 28, 1736, to Elizabeth Martha Burr Haines and Timothy Matlack. His grandparents were William Matlack and Mary Hancock, and Henry Burr and Elizabeth Hudson. His siblings were Sybil, Elizabeth, Titus, Seth, Josiah, and White Matlack; his half-siblings were Reuben Haines and Mary Haines. His first cousin was a Quaker abolitionist John Woolman.

In 1738, the family moved to Philadelphia, and he was apprenticed to the prosperous Quaker merchant John Reynell in 1749. At the end of his term, he married Ellen Yarnall, the daughter of Quaker minister Mordecai Yarnall, and their children were William, Mordecai, Sibyl, Catharine, and Martha.

Career
In 1760, Matlack opened a store called the Case Knife, and he and Owen Biddle purchased a steel furnace in Trenton, New Jersey, in 1762. His shop failed in 1765, and he was disowned by the Quakers who complained that he had been "frequenting company in such a manner as to spend too much of his time from home". He was confined to debtors' prison in 1768 and 1769.

By 1769, Matlack set up a new business selling bottled beer and opened his own brewery near Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

In 1774, Matlack was hired by Charles Thomson, Secretary of the First Continental Congress, to engross (transcribe) an address to the King of England.

In May 1775, he became clerk to the Second Continental Congress and, in June, he composed George Washington's commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army of the United Colonies. Congress elevated him to Storekeeper of Military Supplies. He was also a member of Philadelphia's Committee of Inspection and Secretary of the Committee of Officers of the city's three militia battalions.

In January 1776, Philadelphia added two more battalions to its militia brigade, and Matlack was elected Colonel of the Fifth Battalion of Rifle Rangers. He was a delegate to the Conference of Committees, which met in June to plan a new constitution for Pennsylvania. Later that month, he engrossed the United States Declaration of Independence on parchment, and the 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress began signing it on August 2, 1776; it was unanimously adopted by all 56 delegates on July 4, 1776.

Matlack was instrumental in drafting the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, which he ardently defended against critics, including Benjamin Rush, James Wilson, and John Dickinson. Newspapers were his primary medium and he signed a number of articles with the pseudonym Tiberius Gracchus. As Secretary to the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, Matlack was one of the most powerful men in the new state during the American Revolutionary War. In 1780, his government passed an Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery.

The Philadelphia and Pennsylvania militia crossed the Delaware River with Washington on December 27, 1776, and Colonel Matlack and his 5th Rifle Battalion were part of the expedition. Washington credited the Pennsylvania militia for their timely service in this campaign, and other officers commended the force for its manliness and spirit. Following the British occupation of Philadelphia, Washington assigned Benedict Arnold to the post of Commandant of Philadelphia, and Matlack came to despise Arnold's presence. He led an investigation of Arnold's wrongdoing, which triggered a court martial, and the court sentenced Arnold to be reprimanded by the Commander-in-Chief. Washington said that his officer's behavior had been "reprehensible"; Arnold's treason was discovered five months later.

Matlack was named a trustee of the University of the State of Pennsylvania in 1779. In 1780, he was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society and served as its secretary from 1781 to 1783.

In 1781, Matlack was among the founders of The Religious Society of Free Quakers, Quakers who were "disowned" because of their support of the American war for independence. He was also one of the earliest opponents of slavery in America, and he felt that the Quakers were not moving quickly enough to abolish it.

Along with Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris, Matlack helped raise a substantial sum of money to construct the Free Quaker Meeting House at the corner of Fifth and Arch Streets in Center City Philadelphia.

In 1790, Matlack was commissioned to survey the "headwaters of the Susquehanna River and the streams of the New Purchase," the northwestern portion of the state purchased from the American Indians. They were also charged with exploring a route for a passageway to connect the West Branch with the Allegheny River. He lived in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, from 1799 until 1808 when Lancaster was the capital of Pennsylvania, and he worked as a clerk of the Pennsylvania State Senate.

Matlack was known for his household garden, which included 28 types of peach tree.

Death
Matlack died in Holmesburg, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 1829, and was interred in the Free Quaker Burial Ground on South Fifth Street in Philadelphia. In 1905, his remains were removed and reinterred in Wetherill Cemetery opposite Valley Forge.

In popular culture

 * In the 2004 film National Treasure, Matlack is mentioned in a riddle solved by the protagonist, Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage).
 * The font, American Scribe is inspired by Matlack's penmanship.

title: Timothy Matlack


text:
Asil

Asil may refer to:

 * Asil (name)
 * American Society of International Law (ASIL)
 * Asil, Arabian horses who have pedigrees that can be traced to identifiable desert-bred horses from the Middle East
 * Asil chicken, a breed of chicken
 * Asil Kara, a synonym for the wine grape variety Băbească neagră
 * ASIL Lysi, a Cypriot football club
 * Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL), a risk classification scheme

title: Asil


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Stuart, Duke of Rothesay

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Stuart, Duke of Rothesay
This is sub-stub that was nominated for deletion by user:PatGallacher, but seemingly all they did was place the VfD notice on the page and an incorrectly formated link on the main VfD page. Although I don't think it should be deleted, I'm creating this page and correcting the link format to give it a fair hearing. Thryduulf 12:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) from the talk page:
 * Keep. I've put a bit more in there to give it a hope of life.  The article was linked to from the Duke of Rothesay article (thereby eliminating a red link).  Noisy | Talk 13:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and thank you Noisy. Babies are certainly encyclopedic if they are or were heir apparent to a throne. Samaritan 13:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to James I of Scotland. While this is absolutely encyclopedic, there's no potential for expansion, and it'll work better in context. —Korath (Talk) 15:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep' If it can't be expanded then I agree with Korath, merge it. Jaberwocky6669 16:08, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm tepted to say keep based on the fact that the child was heir apparent to the throne of Scotland. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, historical figure, Wikipedia is not paper. — Ливай | ☺ 17:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I call for deletion of this page on the grounds that it has no potential to expand into something encyclopedic. I suspect there is next to nothing known about this unfortunate kid except that he died in infancy. In those days even a lot of royal children died in infancy, do they all get an entry? It might be argued that this one was a bit exceptional since he was heir to the throne. However James IV had about 4 children who died in infancy, who were all heir during their lives of a few hours to a few months, James V had 2 sons who died in infancy, 1 of who was heir. Also, it misspells his name, it should be Stewart. PatGallacher 11:58, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see why this information should be removed from the Wikipedia. Even if the child himself does not merit an article, any Wikipedian can perform a merge and redirect. Any Wikipedian can also move pages to correct spelling errors in titles. — Ливай | ☺ 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, this may forever remain as a stub, but it's a helpful one. Wyss 21:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The older twin of a 15th Century king of Scotland who died in infancy merits a mention in the article on that king, perhaps, but this article doesn't seem very expandable, and the subject well below the threshold of notability for biographies.   Did this unfortunate infant become celebrated in any way at all?   Seems like no more than a footnote in a (thick) history of Scotland rather than an article in a general encyclopedia. --BM 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; obscure, perhaps, but I'd argue it's encylopedic. Shimgray 22:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this, stub though it may remain. Dbiv 22:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Documented historical figure. --Centauri 23:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Centauri, there are (literally) hundreds of millions of "documented" historical figures. All my great-grandparents were "documented", in that their birth, marriage, and death certificates are in the public records.  That doesn't make them notable in the least.  --BM 00:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please restrain your sarcasm. I strongly doubt your grandfather was the member of a royal family.--Centauri 00:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not being sarcastic. And which is your argument, that he's a "documented". Or that he was a member of royal family?   "Documented" would mean that any person who is known from historical records and/or who receives the slightest mention in any historical book or article should have a Wikipedia article about them, even if all that is known about him or her can be captured in one sentence.   For example, we should have an article on William Shakespeare's wife, since she is a historical figure who is documented and at least gets mentioned in any biography of Shakespeare.   "Member of a royal family" means that there should be an article about every child (grandchild? great-grandchild?) of every monarch in the history of the world, even if he or she did absolutely nothing, and even (as in this case) if he or she died in infancy.  If either those seem too extreme, feel free to come up with more reasons to keep this article.  Maybe eventually you'll find one that makes some kind of sense. --BM 00:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My position has been stated above in a clear and concise manner. If you wish to discuss your opinions concerning the general notability of historical figures please post them to my talk page. Oh, and denying that you are being sarcastic and then ending your post with a sarcastic comment is a bit self-defeating. --Centauri 01:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you accused me of sarcasm when I hadn't been sarcastic, I decided I might as well let her rip, especially since you present such a juicy target. --BM 02:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it might be a better idea to concentrate on making a contribution to Wikipedia that doesn't involve "targeting" other editors - juicy or otherwise. Your comments here are sailing dangerously close to constituting an endorsement of personal attacks.--Centauri 02:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Heirs to thrones of nations are inherently notable even if they die before they become kings or queens. Article is a good stub. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Korath. Uncle G 01:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable individual, article needs expansion. Megan1967 03:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Necrothesp 03:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Twin brother of a King of Scotland? Even if he died in infancy that is notable enough. One quibble, the Stewarts didn't start spelling their name in the French fashion (Stuart) until over a hundred years later. Keep. Fire Star 16:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct, according to House of Stuart. This needs to redirect to the correct spelling, which should be done once the keep decision has been confirmed.  Noisy | Talk 18:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, he was heir apparent to the Scottish trone. Thue | talk 14:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and be careful with those scissors. GRider\talk 17:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. This can be covered in his father's article. Gamaliel 21:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Capitalistroadster. David.rand 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. ComCat 15:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names

 * Note: The page that was formerly Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names has been moved to Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (2nd nomination) on 30 April 2009.

List of unusual personal names
I think it would be quite insulting to the person on this list to be defined as "unusual" 219.77.73.190 12:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't believe this is offensive as a whole. If an individual is listed and does not want to be, they may remove their own name. ~W
 * Keep. I don't think that having an unusual name is insulting per se, and I think most people would agree that, say, a name like "Queeeeeeen" is less common than "Michael". -- pne 11:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The names cited meet any objective definition of the term "unusual".  The only question is whether the risk offence to the people named outweighs the value or usefulness of having such a list.  IMHO, the list is worth keeping.  --47.248.0.43 18:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not deletion policy. --Oldak Quill 23:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting, and people being offended isn't a reason for deletion. – Beginning 03:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For any and all of the above-mentioned reasons. --Palnatoke 15:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I made this page. Definitely keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - User:Beginning, If I made a hate site on Wikipedia about you, would that be OK?
 * un·u·su·al adj. Not usual, common, or ordinary.
 * hate·ful adj. Feeling or showing hatred; malevolent.
 * There's nothing "hateful" about having a list showing names that are unique or very unusual. If the title were "List of stupid personal names" or "List of personal names everyone should mock," I'd agree with you.  – Beginning 17:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is that written by the same person? If so, it appears you are contradicting yourself! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The person who voted Delete didn't even sign it, Beginning was responding. -Brodo
 * Keep. I think calling this a hate site is displaying ignorance on what hate is or in which it can be manifested.  Anyone at the age of 18 in the United States has the opportunity and legal right to change the name their parents gave them.  If they choose not to do so, we can only assume it is because they do not have a problem with their name.  While I understand that Wikipedia is international, and I am not familiar with the laws of other countries, I am sure there are means of changing your name or going by another name if the name your parents gave you is really a problem for you.  Therefore, I see nothing wrong with documenting publicly the history of unusual names that parents have seen fit to name their children. Beech Johnson 18:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. This was one of the first pages that really got me addicted to Wikipedia. It's so educational, too! When someone asks me "is there REALLY a person named Optimus Prime?" I can answer yes, then show them. However, this article was -very- hard to find.. I've been trying to find it again for a while.. it wasn't even in the list of lists.
 * And another keep.  23:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Are we trying to delete an encyclopaedia here? the votes for deletion page is not meant for stuff like these. but oh well. SECProto 02:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Interesting...maybe move to List of uncommon names? --[jon ]   [talk ]    20:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep The word unusual isn't offensive, it's a neutral term. But then (most of) you knew that. Brodo 07:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Get a life, you fascists. Diego 13:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Posted by User:15.235.153.98. Postdlf 16:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep  S γ ω Ω η Σ  tαlk 21:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not hateful by a long stretch.  It's not offensive by a smaller one.  And while I may not have written it, it's lots and lots better than lots of what we have on Wikipedia. Remes 01:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 89.206.21.189 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mberry

Giverny
Splendidly Monet-like photograph of the garden at Giverny. --Wetman 12:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

File:Giverny200.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giverny200.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Giverny200.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Giverny200.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mberry


text:
Aseel

Aseel may refer to: Gender Neutral Arabic Name. Which is Distinguished by two different letters in Arabic to Refer to the person's gender

 * Aseel (name)
 * Aseel (website), an e-commerce platform
 * Aseel, a type of ghee
 * Aseel (chicken)

title: Aseel


text:
Rudraige

Rudraige may refer to:

 * Rudraige mac Dela, son of Dela, legendary High King of Ireland in the 16th or 20th century BC
 * Rudraige mac Sithrigi, son of Sitric, legendary High King of Ireland of the 2nd or 3rd century BC
 * Rudraige, in medieval Irish mythology, son of Partholón

title: Rudraige


text:
User talk:Halibutt/timeline

2 comments. 1) You know I prefer to work on stuff in the public space - why not move it there? It is already useful 2) I think we should have 3 bars: one for wars, two for non-war events, three for kings reigns dates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Halibutt/timeline


text:
Talk:Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine

Untitled
Is this not Charles V, duke of Lorraine rather than Charles IV? --Wetman 13:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Which Chareles V? If you are confused about two Charles III in Duke of Lorraine, they are the same person. muriel@pt 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm terminally confused! Charles V indeed. I did mean CIII vis a vis CIV. --Wetman 13:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that this guy is sometimes called Charles IV and sometimes Charles V, and that the guy we have at Charles III is sometimes called Charles III and sometimes Charles IV. The whole succession of dukes of Lorraine in the 17th century is extraordinarily confusg, what with several abdications and a couple of long French occupations. The current list at Duke of Lorraine is based on the 1911 Britannica, but I'm not completely sure of it, because I'm not really sure that Nicholas II was actually Duke for the whole 1634-1661 period. john k 15:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This Charles was not the father of Leopold Joseph (Charles IV Lepold was), but the link in the latter's bio directs here.

Image question
Can anyone help me identify which of the many Charles of Lorraine the image File:Wenceslas Hollar - Charles of Lorraine.jpg (right) is? Thanks. Dcoetzee 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine


text:
Talk:SAP NetWeaver

}}

Ranting, but no action
Guys, I see a lot of ranting here on the form of this page, but no action to change it -How about come to action and do something about it?

Regards, Benny--155.56.68.220 (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole page looks as an advertisement.
There is no content. You can't actually figure out what SAP NetWeaver is (assuming it is something besides a marketing buzzword) from what is written here. As someone pointed out below, it doesn't even make sense to claim that it can "be extended with, and interoperate with, technologies such as Microsoft .Net, Sun Java EE, and IBM Websphere.".

Nonsense
"From a technical point of view, one can say that NetWeaver achieves its functionality by formatting in XML."

Clearly it is not the case that NetWeaver achieves it's functionality by formatting in XML, yes the ability to converse with XML is important and a key component, but it is not a tool or set of tools to format XML.

This article reads like sales speak, specifically the numbered points in the second paragraph. Thanks.

.NET/Java & WebSphere
"SAP NetWeaver is built using open standards and industry de facto standards and can be extended with, and interoperate with, technologies such as Microsoft .NET, Sun Java EE, and IBM WebSphere."

Above statement suggests that .NET, J2EE and WebSphere at are technologies at same level. IMHO, one can not treat WebSphere at the same level as that of .NET/J2EE. In broad terms, WebSphere, among other things, is one of the vendor offering J2EE based products.

Clarification
This wikipedia article is pretty poor, i think. It is possible it's due to the fact that there is no hype about it in the common public - NW is a large, complex, enterprise-oriented platform and it is unlikely that the common surfer will be able to utilise knowledge about it. Still, I'd like to give a few guidelines: First of all, NW is an integration platform. Its neither java ee/web services/rdbms/r3/portal/source control/central build system/knowledge management/etc, but rather, all of the above. Its purpose is to enable creation and integration of components to serve various enterprise needs and also, support the whole SDLC of those components, all done at a high level, and, say, in a RAD manner. I know it sounds silly that NW is supposed to do almost everything, but theoretically that's its idea, and it is realised to a certain extent, imho. NW interoperates with Oracle, IBM, .NET, etc, and this is not marketing buzzword but fact. This is done through xml, web services, and the SOA paradigm. As long as a system is capable to communicate through WSDL/SOAP/UDDI (the last being not mandatory), netweaver is capable to interoperate with it. Thats the beauty of Web Services, anyways. NW is not BACKWARD compatible with sap R/3. SAP R3 is part of nw stack. Interoperability with sap r3 is achieved through Remote Function Calls. As far as JEE integration of Netweaver is concerned, SAP is the first vendor to have made a Sun certified JEE5 Java AS. I think this speaks of itself.

Good place to start if you are interested in the NW platform is,.

SAP Central Process Scheduling
Any objections to my merging SAP Central Process Scheduling here? It seems pretty non-notable except as a component of NetWeaver itself. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:SAP NetWeaver


text:
John Perry (Irish politician)

John Perry (born 15 August 1956) is an Irish former Fine Gael politician who served as a Minister of State from 2011 to 2014. He served as a Teachta Dála (TD) from 1997 to 2016.

Perry was born in Ballymote, County Sligo. He was educated at Ballymote National School and Corran College, Ballymote. Perry was first elected to Dáil Éireann at the 1997 general election for the constituency and retained his seat until his defeat in 2016. In 1997, he became Fine Gael Spokesperson on Science, Technology, Small Business and Enterprise, and the Border Counties. He was a member of Sligo County Council from 1999 to 2003, representing the Sligo–Strandhill electoral area. In June 2000, he was appointed assistant director of Organisation and Deputy Spokesperson with special responsibility for Border Issues. He held this post until February 2001.

Between September 2002 and October 2004, he was vice-chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications and Natural Resources. He has also served as Chairman of the Dáil Public Accounts Committee. In October 2004, he was appointed to the position as party spokesperson for the Marine, in Enda Kenny's Front Bench. He was demoted from the Front Bench after a reshuffle following the 2007 general election. In July 2010, he was appointed as Spokesman on Small Business.

On 10 March 2011, he was appointed by the Fine Gael–Labour government as Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation with special responsibility for Small Business.

In July 2012, he was the subject of some controversy over his claims for mileage expenses for official duties including a claim for 4,417 km of mileage in a month during which he only had two official appointments and another monthly mileage claim which averaged 344 km per day for every day he was in Ireland. In that latter month he was abroad for 9 days.

On 22 July 2013, Perry and his wife consented to a judgment of €2.47m against them at the Commercial Court over unpaid loans to Danske Bank. In September 2013, Perry confirmed that he had reached an agreement with Danske Bank, in relation to his outstanding loans. In March 2013, it was reported that Perry hired his wife, Marie, as a parliamentary assistant, contrary to government statements on appointments.

He was dropped as a Minister of State in a reshuffle in July 2014. He was reappointed to the Public Accounts Committee in December 2014.

In October 2015, Perry was not selected as Fine Gael candidate for the Sligo–Leitrim constituency at the 2016 general election. In December 2015, he took a High Court action against Fine Gael challenging the results of the selection convention. On 22 December, the Fine Gael National Executive announced it was adding Perry to the Sligo–Leitrim election ticket.

He lost his seat at the 2016 general election. He ran as an independent candidate for Sligo–Leitrim at the 2020 general election. He was eliminated on the seventh count.

title: John Perry (Irish politician)


text:
Tommy Fine

Thomas Morgan Fine (October 10, 1914 – January 10, 2005) was an American pitcher in Major League Baseball who played in 23 games for the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Browns. The native of Cleburne, Texas, stood 6 ft tall and weighed 190 lb. He was a switch-hitter and threw right-handed.

Despite pitching just two seasons in the major leagues, Fine was a professional baseball pitcher for 15 years (1939–1942; 1946–1956). He is most remembered for his career in Cuban baseball during five seasons, and especially for being the first (and until 2024, the only) pitcher to hurl a no-hitter game in Caribbean Series history.

Professional career
Fine played for the Scranton Red Sox of the Eastern League, where in 1946 he broke the leagues record for most consecutive wins with 15.

He made his major league debut in 1947 with the Red Sox and finished with a 1–2 record in seven starts. He appeared in the majors again in 1950 with the Browns and posted 0–1 in 14 games as a reliever.

In his majors career, Fine compiled a 1–3 record and a 6.81 earned run average, walking 44 batters while striking out 16 in 72⅔ innings of work. He was a competent hitting pitcher, batting .333 (6-for-18) with five runs scored and one RBI in 25 games.

In the minors, he went 157–110 with a 3.35 ERA for 12 different teams during 15 seasons spanning 1939–1956.

Career highlight
On February 21, 1952, Fine appeared in the IV Caribbean World Series held in Panama City, Panama, with the Cuban League side Leones del Habana. He was called up by manager Mike González as a late replacement for future Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhelm.

Guided by catcher Andrés Fleitas, Fine posted the first no-hitter pitched in any Caribbean Series game, to give his team a 1–0 win against the Cervecería Caracas of Venezuela. He also helped himself, going 1 for 3 while scoring the eventual winning run on Sandy Amorós' single in the 6th inning. Hard-luck losing pitcher Al Papai allowed just four singles. Fine's game would be the only no-hitter in tournament history until Ángel Padrón of Venezuela's Tiburones de La Guaira in 2024.

Five days later, Fine faced the Carta Vieja Yankees of Panama and was close to glory. He was three outs from consecutive no-hitters in the Series, having allowed a single in the ninth inning to break it up. His 17 hitless innings streak also is the longest in Series history.

Personal life
Fine served in the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. Following his baseball retirement, he became a respected businessman and also served as a deacon in the Baptist church. He died in 2005 in Little Elm, Texas, at the age of 90.

title: Tommy Fine