Talk:Louis of Lower Lorraine

Original placement, and in accordance with WP:Style. Obstructed as a side-effect of the move vandalism of Duckbilled Platypus, now blocked. Septentrionalis 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the original title. This title seems stupid for the following reasons:

• I have never seen him actually called "Louis of Lorraine" because he was not "of Lorrain" in any real sense.
• "Pretender of France" is not a title, so why should we treat it with something like that sort of dignity? Its not like he even ever titled himself as such. "Son of Charles of Lorraine" is far more descriptive and useful.
• This title has an improper capitalisation.

Srnec 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Which original title do you mean? If Louis of Lorraine is unambiguous, I have no objection to it. Septentrionalis 23:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant Louis, son of Charles of Lorraine. The reason is that, as far as I can tell, he has no byname: his is simply Louis. These people, when there name is common like Louis, are identified by their relations, through which they attained fame. If there is a better title or Louis of Lorraine is attested in some source, please propose it. Srnec 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

None so far, and Louis of Lorraine appears to mean the Cardinal of Guise; or if not, a younger brother of Antoine, Duke of Lorraine. <sigh> Septentrionalis 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

verifiability

As much as I have searched for, it seems that next to none information is available on the career of this guy. On the contrary, those sources easily available indicate that he died or disappeared from pages of history quite young (which seems to argue against "he took upon his father's claims") and there are indications he is thought to have died young. Besides, why a younger son continues to claim the royal crown?, when the elder brother, much better attested, born of better marriage, lives and is duke in a neighboring territory. How much of the contents of the article is wishful thinking, and how much is based on reliable sources?

As to problems of his naming, if he did not gain any distinctive name for himself, that's an indication he actually did not live long enough, or not had a career. Naming conventions here are designed to help with a presumptive article title particularly for cases the actual used name is poorly attested or not known. Nowhere in conventions is there a format "son of somebody". The presumption, if nothing convincing is found, is IMO something based on "Louis of Lorraine" as Lorraine was the territory his attested father held, and it is usual for children to be "of father's territory". Septentrionalis pointed out the obvious existence of some namesakes.

Apparently it is impossible for him have been born (much) earlier than around 980. How can he truly and really participated his father's campaigns as father died in 991?? I mean, a child in baggage train is another thing than an assistant and fellow-warrior.

What grounds are there to explain why he allegedly surpassed his elder brother in French claims?

Does any other encyclopedia have an entry for this guy? Is this guy anywhere in books as a person with a real career, or is he just a name in genealogy? What attestation there is for him having died in 1012? Or is that just a nice guess, his elder brother having presumably died somewhere close to that. Are there any evidence he did not die sometime around 993, as suggested by German Wikipedia?

If the guy actually had no notable career, an independent article may be undeserved, an account in father's article could be just sufficient.

The article should anyway be written with more cautious tone, as most of the "facts" ae not easy to correlate with real events - much of those are actually presumably incorrect. 'preventing undesired data flows' 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)