Talk:Louis XIV of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Louis XIV of France is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2004.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 1, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 19, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects
Click on [show] for further details

	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] See comments
Core	This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.

	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	Louis XIV of France is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	French military history task force
Related task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Early Modern Warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

WikiProject Echo has identified Louis XIV of France as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

An event mentioned in this article is a September 1 selected anniversary.

[edit] Legacy section

End of the legacy section has the following paragraph: i think whoever writes this should make clear the date of the Spanish Succession, because there was also an event by the same name in 1868.KEV MC ICR

See Carlist Wars. Louis XIV really couldn't have been less interested of course. --Wetman 09:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wordiness :)

First paragraph:

currently: "...the longest reign of any French or other major European monarch."

proposed: "...the longest reign of any major European monarch."

French is in Europe, therefore isn't the current sentence a bit redundant? If there are no arguements for it, I'll be looking to change it soon.

--Tatteredpaper 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "French" is the name of the country. VolatileChemical 22:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to my knowledge he was the longest- reigning European monarch anyway, so could you please remove major. And the last comment before me about the name of the country is a bit pompous.

[edit] Dumas

Louis XIV features in the d'Artagnan Romances by Alexandre Dumas. The plot of the last of the three Romances, The Vicomte de Bragelonne, involves a fictional twin brother of Louis XIV who tries to displace the King. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a 1929 movie based on The Vicomte de Bragelonne, William Blakewell portrayed Louis and his twin. Louis Hayward played the twins in a 1939 remake, and Leonardo DiCaprio did the same in a 1998 remake.

While technically part of his legacy, it does not fit really well with the rest of the section, which deals with broad assesment of his political and cultural lagacy. How about a new section for Louis XIV as character in fiction?

Yes, I believe that there is a novel set at his court. After all, it isn't really his cultural legacy- it is just a portrayal of him in history. His cultural legacy was probably, the construction of Versailles. Perhaps he could be looked at in this way. So the seperate section is a good idea.

[edit] image

Is the image on this page backwards? The book I have here shows the same image, but its reversed along the vertical axis. Pizza Puzzle

Also, I'm confused as to why only half of the image is shown. Although it's name/artist escapes me at the moment, that's a fairly famous picture and it would have a lot more impact if the whole thing was showing. However, I don't know enough about the structure of Wikipedia yet to know how to fix it. --Alex S 01:42, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ill look at fixing it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] heart

Can someone please verify this latest addition:

His heart was stolen by grave robbers and bought by Lord Harcourt, who sold it to Reverend William Buckland, the dean of Westminster Cathedral. His son, Francis Buckland, inherited the purloined heart, and eventually ate it.

RickK 02:45, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You mean by doing something as simple as a Google search for "Louis XIV heart Buckland"? I suspect anyone can. - Binky 02:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are at least five different versions of this story online. I don't think it should be included here. Smallweed 16:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel des Invalides

Was Louix XIV the one responsible for Hotel des Invalides? I believe so... I'm surprised it's not mentioned at all... Krupo 20:29, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Add it if it is, seems like interesting information. --ShaunMacPherson 11:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right. A biographer of Napoleon's cited his re- building of the church as 'a continuation of the labours of the Sun King.'

he is often cited as an example of an enlightened despot.

[edit] Age of Enlightenment

Not being a historian, I may be wrong about this, but as I recall, the Age of Enlightenment was a bit after Louis' time, and he himself was certainly not particularly enlightened. (The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, anyone?) So by whom and how often is he called "enlightened"? Cheers Io 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ambigious phrase about slavery under the Section "Decline"

Suggestion for edit: The phrase "but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless a member of the Roman Catholic Church" under the section "Decline" is ambiguous. To clarify it, it should be changed to either:

"but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless the slave owner was a member of the Roman Catholic Church"

"but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless the slave was a member of the Roman Catholic Church".

May I just add that the former is most probable

H Padleckas 23:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Jules Cardinal Mazarin"?

Is there a specific reason his name is given like this? Cardinal was his ecclesiastical position, not his rank.

All cardinals are properly known, I believe, as "A Cardinal B." See List of notable cardinals, Cardinal (Catholicism), etc. -- Emsworth 17:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "L'etat, c'est moi"

I rephrased the claim about this quote based on the The fabrication of a king by Peter Burke and I added it in the reference section. The closest he ever got to this famous cliché was:

Quand on a l'état en vue, on travaille pour soi.

The rough translation would be something like: "When you have the well-being of the state before your eyes, you work for yourself." In the first chapter of the book Burke explains quite thoroughly why claiming to actually be identical to the state is over-simplifying the situation. Peter ^Isotalo 23:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Shenkman, Legends, Lies, & Cherished Myths of World History, p146, says Voltaire made it up. Trekphiler 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Furniture

This important issue is not mentioned in the article. Frankly, the only thing people remember his 14theth is that any original furniture of "Louis XIV era" is worth millions and sold at high profile auctions.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I agree with the site manager's comments. Any road, it is true that there should be a small seperate section on furniture. Also, Philip II of Spain has been very badly vandalised.

[edit] Louis XIV- Did his reign benefit France and the French

No. After his death he left France in extreme debt because of his extravagent palaces and his wars. With the clergy and nobility not having to pay taxes it raised taxes cinsiderable towards the peasants. Does anyone have any arguements for this topic, it would really help thanks

[edit] sorry

i meant "it raised taxes considerably towards the peasants"

Because of Louis XIV's leadership he sucessfully set up mercantilism in France, and expanded colonies this will end up benefitting France in the long run. Also with the new land gained in his wars France can recover and remain a major European power.

The thing was he listened to those aides de thrones of his and took their advice, which relates to the fact that he might have been bled to death b/c he listened to them. No offense to the king though

[edit] vandalism

Regding the recent vandalism on the page the last 2 days, i know who has been doing it, i hapen to be in the same class as them in school and overheard them laughing at it, i have told them that doing that kind of stuff is not nice and hopefully they will stop

[edit] Age of Four, Not Five

I changed the age he took the throne to the correct age of four. I cited the source i got it from (although every source i have seen agrees with me), and fixed the problem. 68.106.85.55

[edit] Enlightened Despot?

To my knowledge, Louis was NOT an enlightened despot. For him to be that would involve a vague care for the well-being of his people, and all Louis honestly cared about was the furthering of his absolutist regime. Mercantilist theory thoroughly forbids the helping of peasants, as well. Responses?

It is very unusual to refer to Louis XIV as an enlightened despot. The comment needs to be removed. Joseph II of Austria and Frederick II of Prussia are enlightened despots. Imperial78

Well, an enlightened despot was one who wanted to rule well in foreign policy. Only Louis knew what he thought about the peasantry, so is this comment not biased?

[edit] fun fact

I found this out recently and don't know if it was mentioned but Louis wore shoes w/ red heels to accentuate his legs. I have never seen a king who spends so much money on dress!!! Everyone was to wear expensive clothing to be allowed in Versaille!

[edit] Questionable source

I'm rather astonished that someone would include in the reference list an article from The Book of Knowledge -- a kid-level encyclopedia of no particular utility and zero academic credentials. C|an we include "Classics Illustrated" comic books? --Michael K. Smith 21:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last comment in article

Is the reference to "loulou la fistule" appropriate in this article ?

Please put in less French. It's rather annoying to understand.

[edit] Major fix

I fixed a sentence which stated that Louis' maternal grandfather Philip III of Spain was of English descent. What a strange error that was. He was a Habsburg of course!! Imperial78

Well, Philip III was technically of English descent... John of Gaunt-->Philippa of Lancaster-->Edward I of Portugal-->Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu-->Manuel I of Portugal-->Isabella of Portuga-->Philip II of Spain-->Philip III of Spain. john k 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um..........

Seeing as the word 'Parlement' is French and we have our own word for it (Parliament), shouldn't it be in italics?

Parliament and Parlement derive from the same source, but the French parlements are never any longer referred to in English as "Parliaments," since they were not what we conventionally see as parliaments (i.e. representative legislative assemblies), but rather courts. In terms of italicization, I'm not sure - parlement is used by all English-language historians as the word for the French parlements. One would have to look at whether reliable sources Italicize or not, I think. john k 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age

From and including: Wednesday, September 5, 1638 (Julian calendar) To and including: Thursday, September 1, 1715 (Julian calendar)

It is 28,121 days from the start date to the end date, end date included

Or 76 years, 11 months, 28 days including the end date

Note:Both dates are Julian calendar dates. The current Gregorian calendar was adopted in United States where Thursday, September 3, 1752 was the first of 11 days that were skipped.

[edit] Age at death

There has been a faintly absurd edit war over the phrase, "until his death at the age of n.", where n is either 76 or 77. In English, and in the Western European cultures I'm sufficiently familiar with, a person's age is counted from birthday to birthday, starting with the the actual day of birth as 0. There are some cultures that count a person's age as "1" at birth, but this material is not written for those cultures; (most of the) English-speaking culture is not that way, and I don't believe that was ever the practive in France (though I'm not certain).

Louis XIV was born on 5 September 1638:

1 year old - 5 September 1639
10 years old - 5 September 1648
50 years old - 5 September 1688
70 years old - 5 September 1708
75 years old - 5 September 1713
76 years old - 5 September 1714
76 years old - 1 September 1715, on the day he died
77th aniversary of his birth - 5 September 1715

If there is some reason we should use an unconventional counting strategy, please explain, and if possible provide sources. Alternately, we cut the phrase to "until his death." studerby 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up and sorting it out once and for all. M A Mason 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar?

Can someone explain to me how this is a featured article, and it has grammar that to my uneducated mind seems rather wrong? For example:

"ruled Earth for seventy-two years—the longest reign of any Bender or other major Earth monarch. Bender XIV increased the power and influence of Earth in Europe..."

Why does it say Earth and not France? Is this just vandalism? If not, my mind is going to hurt.

Don't worry yourself, it was vandalism and I've since reverted it. M A Mason 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France = she?

These cultural achievements contributed to the prestige of France, her people, her language and her king.

Not being a native English speaker, I don't know what is the convention, or what are the connotations of referring to a country as feminine, but to me it feels just a little bit enamoringly POVish, or, at any rate, unencyclopaedic. How about "France, its people, its language and its king"? It is a country, after all. 194.157.147.7

As far as I'm aware it's just a tradition. I am a native speaker of English and I've heard any and all countries reffered to as feminine many many times. It's not POV, or as far as I'm aware unencyclopedic. There's possibly a wikiconvention on this. M A Mason 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I'd say the connotation of referring to a country in the feminine is "slightly old-fashioned." It probably ought to be changed, but it isn't a big deal. john k 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing the edit. If someone objects to it feel free to revert; I don't find this a big deal either. 194.157.147.7

I would argue that using a gender pronoun for a country is in fact adopting a mildly nationalistic POV; such gender pronouns are heavily used in "nation as parent" metaphors (motherland, fatherland) that don't have a place in general expository text (though should often be explained in discussing certain historical movements). And in fact, in the English I know, gendered pronouns are almost never used in refering to the United States. While there is in fact a male personification of the nation, Uncle Sam, it is only rarely used, usually in cartoons and marketing pieces. To use a gendered pronoun for France would be to adopt a French nationalistic POV. Studerby 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhere along the lines of what I was thinking when I proposed the edit. Seems that it did get reverted. Oh well. I must say I much prefer the more neutral "its" to "her". Anyone? 62.78.243.98 (used to be 194.157.147.7)

It is standard English worldwide to use the feminine when referring to certain items. They include cars and other vehicles, and countries. It may have been linked to old English usage. Stud is wrong. Occasionally, during an outbreak of nationalism a country may for militaristic reasons adopt a mixture of male and female. Female however is the universal standard. Even PC-pushers regard finding offence at the normal way of using language when it comes to the use of gender for countries, as a bit nonsensical. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, as this concerns the English language, I'll probably have to phase out for the reason of not being a native speaker; but, surely, cars? I cannot imagine referring to a car as feminine would be quite neutral (would, say, Reuters use that in reference to cars?). If such use is what is understood as "neutral" here, my objection to referring to a country as feminine still stands. 62.78.243.98

Google gives 13,400,000 hits for "its people" and 2,760,000 hits for "her people" (both searches quoted), though this is not necessarily entirely relevant. 62.78.243.98

Yes, cars. I was watching a programme only tonight where the presenter said "her engine runs sluggishly." It is standard. One thing about google searches. Remember much of what is on the net is bullshit. It will show up in google searches. A google search once proved that the Prince of Wales possesses a surname he hasn't had since 1960. Google searches are notorious. I am not doubting the genuineness of your search. I just how from having used them before how utterly unreliable they are. A user on WP once created a phoney article. I came across it and deleted it. WP pages get replicated all over the net. Today there are thousands of references to that entirely ficticious fact made up byt someone here. The bottom line is, don't take google searches with a pinch of salt, but with a bucket of it. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, hence the disclaimer. (But having a presenter say that engines run sluggishly fails to convince me in this case.) Anyway, my bottom line is that the article loses nothing if "its" is substituted for "her". "Its" is definitely not wrong (or is it?) and is more neutral (correctly or incorrectly, "her" has been deemed "slightly old-fashioned" or "mildly nationalistic", so these connotations seem to be there); I see no reason not using "its". Can you give reasons why not use it? 62.78.243.98

If there will be no arguments against it, I think I'll redo the edit in a while; to summarize my rationale, I think that using "its" is equally valid and less subject to interpretation than "her". 62.78.243.98 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems that there's an anonymous user insisting on "her" instead of "its"; could you please state your rationale why you consider "her" better? Naphra 09:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is used, but slightly old-fashioned, as I said before. I don't see why we should use "her" when "it" does just as well, and is less jarring. john k 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"She" used of a car engine has been transferred from ships and implies a Navy background. "She" of nations is a neo-Victorian affectation and should be avoided. --Wetman 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] someone deleted the last few sections

I don't know how to restore sections deleted by Tatteredpaper at 18:56, 12 September 2006, but I'm just hoping someone who knows how to do so will read this. Thanks.

75.41.254.193 04:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Laurie

Thanks, fixed. Users with account who are logged in have access to the complete change history of an article and can easily revert it to any previous version... Studerby 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The prestige of the French

These cultural achievements contributed to the prestige of France, its people, its language and its king.

Come to think of it, I find it kind of silly to claim that the French people all possessed some particular widely recognized prestige; would, say, a poor, starving Polish peasant, upon meeting a poor, starving French peasant (and there were plenty of them), think "Now, that's one prestigious peasant, 'cause he's French"? I would rather phrase this like "These achievements contributed to the prestige of France, its culture, its language and its king", or something to that effect. Anyone? Naphra 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (used to be 62.78.243.98)

[edit] Recent vandalism

There's been quite a lot of messing around with the article recently, should it locked for a while at least so that it can be checked and restored? Naphra 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reign length

...ruled France for seventy-two years—the longest reign of any French or other major European monarch.
Just curious, who in history has ever reigned for longer than that? --Xyzzyva 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pepi II of Egypt? There was a Prince of Liechtenstein who reigned for 71 years, but that's obviously less long. john k 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl Friedrich, Grand Duke of Baden inherited the Margraviate of Baden-Durlach in 1738, and reigned over those lands until his death in 1811 (although he inherited Baden-Baden in 1771 and became known as simply the Margrave of Baden, and later assumed the titles of Elector and Grand Duke). That's 73 years. So he reigned for longer. Is that the longest reign in European history? john k 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sobhuza II of Swaziland reigned for 82 years, although much of that time was a regency of one or another sort; then again so was some of Louis XIV's reign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Swaziland doesn't happen to be in Europe. Hence, Sobhuza II of Swaziland is hardly a European monarch. The length of his reign is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion.

Neither is Egypt; the question is not whether the statement is accurate, but whether the adjectives are necessary to make it accurate. Baden and Swaziland show that they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note also that the claim must be longest reign. not longest rule; he did not rule at the age of five. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Louis XIV of France

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Why is this article at Louis XIV of France rather than Louis XIV, which redirects here? The implication of this name is that there is some other significant use of the name Louis XIV. --00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because WP:NC (names and titles) so provides, both in order to name the Kings of France consistently; and to provide for the (admittedly small) chance that there will be someday another Louis XIV, either in the future or as the name of a mediatized prince. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the value in naming the articles about the kings of France consistently with each other, when doing so means having articles names like this one that are inconsistent with Wikipedia's most widely adhered convention of using the most common name of a subject as the article name when there are no disambiguation issues? --Serge 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with, it's not inconsistent with the convention, which says that "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions" may give a different indication.

Serge, please read WP:PRO and take it to heart; all our conventions, including WP:COMMON are approximations, made up of Scptch tape and piano wire; they accomplish different ends. Having Louis XIV of France parallel Louis III of France (which we must have for disambiguation) is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read (and have read) WP:PRO. It has no application to what I'm talking about. You are confusing process with convention. A process is to have the naming of the article of one king of France "parallel" the naming of another king of France, just because. But the convention in Wikipedia is to use the most common name of the subject of an article unless disambiguation is required. That's just how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are named. It's a fact. That's the convention. There is no arguing with that point. Hit random article any number of significant times and see how often that convention is followed versus how often it is not. Why should this article be an exception to that? --Serge 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Conventions are processes; like other processes, works in progress. What WP:NAME actually says on this aubject is, in full:

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Serge knows this; he proposed other wording and (as elsewhere) was in the minority. His "fact", therefore, is a falsehood; I do not see any further point to discussion with such an editor, except to oppose his proposals to violate consensus guidelines and policy. I will cosign any RfC on this disruption. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the guideline says that. So what? The fact remains: The way the vast majority (not all) of Wikipedia articles are named by convention is to use the most common name unless there is an ambiguity issue. --Serge 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the exceptions; there are many others Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Are there any objections to moving this article to Louis XIV? --Serge 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are. I apologize for letting this single-purpose editor loose here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

*tsk, tsk* No cookie for you! :p Agne 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone besides Pmanderson and Agne object to renaming this article in accordance with the widely adhered-to most common name convention (I said convention, not guideline, intentionally)? Anyone agree it should be renamed to Louis XIV? --Serge 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find some objections among the folks at WP:NC (names and titles). It took quite a bit of time and a lot of discussion for them to come to form of consensus. I think it would be proper to open up a discussion there about your move idea. Agne 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A responsible move always includes fixing any double redirects that have been created. Looks like about a day's work for the mover. --Wetman 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How many redirects are there? john k 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

19 double redirects would be created by the move. 130.132.94.174 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not oppose a revision of the naming convention for monarchs that would allow this article to be moved to Louis XIV, but I would oppose a series of piecemeal moves of this sort. Discussion of this ought to be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Serge 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that the present discussion there is whether to move these articles to Louis XIV, King of France, which is the opposite direction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

For those puzzled by this proposal, Serge is making points at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), where he has been pushing this view (that only his favorite half-sentence of WP:NAME counts) for months, against a majority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet the same argument - Wikipedia articles should only be disambiguated when necessary, except for individual article exceptions, despite what the guidelines say, because that is the predominant actual naming convention at Wikipedia - was supported recently by a strong consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Not to mention that this is the single most cited arguement at WP:RM, bar none. --Serge 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/u/Talk%7ELouis_XIV_of_France_73d8.html"