Talk:Louis V of France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

wn reign he was beleagured by the opposition of most of the French barons and had to call on Normandy and Aquitaine for assistance in upholding his brittle regime

Simon

nice picture waiting for wikicommons tranfert![edit]

found a nice one in the russian article [1]. there is another one used in the french [2] and arabic [3] versions. both are waiting for someone to migrate them in the wikicomons... if you get what i mean Paris By Night 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnentafel[edit]

I object strongly to the inclusion of ugly, obtrusive ancestry charts. Either the information is important, in which case it must be included in the article text, or it is not important, in which case it hardly needs to appear at all. What's the justification for including this? I'm not seeing anything obvious, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory suggests to me that this is not something we ought to include. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can be helpful in demonstrating familial relationships (which is naturally relevant for monarchs). They're to help the reader...which is the point of wikipedia. Michael Sanders 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Britannica include this sort of thing? I never saw an encyclopedia yet that did as a matter of course. And while I don't have a book on Louis V specifically, I do have one of the Carolingians and one on Louis VI in front of me and neither includes any sort of ahnentafel. There may be circumstances in which a family tree would be important, but this isn't one of them.
This is no more than the normal judgement we apply to all things. Why should genealogical information be treated any differently from any other sort of background material? We don't actually mention Henry the Fowler or Hugh of Arles in the content, so how does their appearance on a table help the reader? Everyone has great-grandparents, but the only time it will be worth mentioning them is when they bear on the person we are writing about. Neither Henry, nor Hugh, nor Alda, nor Bertha, make any appearance here. If the article were vastly expanded we would be able to work in Charles the Simple and Eadgifu of England, but that's it. Just names to confuse the reader, not context which informs them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, Brother Angus! Srnec (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Angus and Srnec. -- SECisek (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Angus. Dahn (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I see, for example at Henry II of England, that the ahnentafel is duplicating information contained in a box using Template:S-fam and its friends. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Henry II also contains {{House of Plantagenet}}, while this one has {{Kings of Western Francia}}. Unlike things such as {{Kings of Northumbria}}, which are unobtrusively relegated to the bottom of the page, these are quite visible (and intrusive) templates, although not so much so as the ahnentafeln. All this template cruft is simply unnecessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a small family tree, say to grandparents or great-grandparents, those can be useful for people who visualize things better as charts than as a paragraph. Six generations is a bit much though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-fam at the bottom of the page should be all one needs. -- SECisek (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that works fine, and I like the collapsable idea also. Luckily, bishops don't need even that much family tree! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishops, I dunno. What about nephews? The ahnentafel is upside down for that kind of family tree. Siblings and cousins and nephews and nieces and aunts and uncles are usually more important in a narrative than grandparents. However, creating "standard" family trees is not all that obvious with wiki markup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nephews, brothers, children (yes, they have kids) get mentioned when I can find them. Usually they aren't so extensive that I need to have a chart, since I'm not working with the Renaissance Popes here, thankfully. Is there a descendant template somewhere? If there is, I haven't seen it. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's {{familytree}}. I'm quite the propeller-head - I bodge up perl and shell scripts at work - but it frightens me. Trying to create a typical family tree that might show grand-parents and in-laws and cousins would be a lot of work. Edward the Confessor is a case in point. Showing Edward's complex family relationships in a diagram would help the reader, but the work involved would be challenging to say the least. The important relationships we'd ideally want to show are with his father Æthelred, mother Emma, brother Alfred, half-brother Harthacnut, his step-father Cnut, Cnut's son Harold, his maternal Norman relations, his half-brother Edmund Ironside's descendants, and lastly his sister Godgifu's children. Even on paper that's quite difficult to do, as shown by the almost unreadable family tree at the back of Barlow's Edward the Confessor. When family trees are of interest and value to the reader, that's usually because they are complex and hard to explain in writing, or to draw using wiki-markup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes! -- SECisek (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a firm believer that the ancestry charts are wholly understandable and not just names to "confuse" people, given that their location in a descendant's ancestry makes it obvious who they are. Six generations is a bit too much; I used to implement 4-generation templates (back to the great-great-grandparents) and still do when the ancestry is particularly interested (pedigree collapse), but more often than not, I am implementing 3-generation templates or removing entries 16 - 32 and changing the template to a 3-generation one. I don't think that they are really ugly. Maybe the colours could be worked on a little, but I think the form is fine. WP:NOT to me has always prohibited articles that are merely genealogical entries. To me, these templates are in addition to the article, rather than the whole content of it (which would make the article simply a genealogical entry). My big problem with royal articles are the huge royal house templates which mess up the formatting of the pages. I also think too much is going on in those succession boxes at the bottom, especially when ancestry is added. Charles 16:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree regarding the other ugly templatification, but can you point to an encyclopedia, general or specialist, that includes this kind of genealogical information? My experience is that the typical monograph would include a family tree, but never, ever anything resembling the ahnentafel beloved of genealogical mavens. Why should we include what experts reject? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to an encyclopaedia edited on the job by non-experts? Michael Sanders 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Angus. Genealogists will be the ruin of Wikipedia! This information can be much better understood through prose. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a strange attitude. When did this stop being an encyclopedia for all readers? Michael Sanders 21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ancestry tables are not useful because their information is out of context. If the great-grandparents of the subject of the article are important to understanding the subject, why is that information not found in the body text? And if it is the family of the subject that is important, that can be easily solved by inserting a sentence like "[article subject] is a [family name]." Also, does anybody else have an opinion on templates like Template:Carolingians, East Francia, which are large and primarily genealogical? I believe they are little more than clutter. Srnec (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srnec said what I would have. As far as the dynastic templates go, I would have less problem with those if they were banished to the foot of the article with succession boxes and the like (all of which should be collapsed by default I feel). Wikipedia generally has poor interface design and mediocre presentation, but the articles on European royalty and nobility are egregious. We may be amateurs, but we needn't produce amateurish work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a form of template at Template talk:Carolingians, East Francia which could be buried at the page bottom and set to "hidden". Would this be an improvement? Srnec (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was recently a similar battle (there was no talk page discussion) about the ahnentafel for Helen of Greece and Denmark. When I expanded the article by looking at the major published biography on Helen, I noted that the first page of the biography was an ahnentafel (not a regular family tree) showing her parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents. This is not unusual. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Helen of Greece and Denmark you said that these tables "are very common in books about royalty and nobility," which is precisely what I suspected. The conflict here is between genealogists and people interested in the lives of royalty/nobility one hand and historians and on the other. I don't know how to solve this, but I'm with Adam Bishop: "Genealogists will be the ruin of Wikipedia!" There are many articles on minor (and even major) noblemen that are little more than genealogical depositories and lists of marriages/offspring. Any truly important information can be much better understood through prose and if it can't, that's good evidence it's not useful. As I've said before, Wikipedia isn't here to do genealogy homework for people. The information is accessible here, but not pre-sorted. Srnec (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, Srnec, as I'm sure you well know, a lot of the scholarly work on these royals is about royalty in general with touches on genealogy now and then. Queen Mother Helen was notable in her own right for utilizing her status and clout as a royal and queen mother to help the Jews during the Holocaust. As a royal though, her royal ancestry is of interest but is not the basis of the entire article. That is why including her ancestors is okay, because it is integral to her status as a royal princess. If it was the only content of the article then there'd be a problem. Adding ancestry, in my opinion, does not turn a stub into an article. Speaking for myself, I have argued time and time again against the inclusion of minor royals on Wikipedia. I do not argue against including ancestry on notable royals though. Charles 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As a royal though, her royal ancestry is of interest..." To whom? Her royal status does not need to be demonstrated by a look at her great-grandparents. It should be sufficient that her titles are mentioned in the first paragraph. "[I]t is integral to her status as a royal princess..." Yes, but why stop so quickly? Why not trace it back to time immemorial? State her parents. Then one can easily discover her grandparents by clicking on her parents' links, or looking them up elsewhere. I stand by my assertion that these tables do not add anything to these articles. The tables are arbitrary in length and uninformative in their isolation from context. Srnec (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia isn't here to do genealogy homework for people" - I'm sorry, wikipedia does everyone else's homework for them - that's the whole point, that it includes data and sources not found in other encyclopaedia's - so why not genealogy. Genealogy is frequently relevant, or of interest, in an article about a person whose genealogy is of relevance to their position. Michael Sanders 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant to any of the articles I removed the ahnentafel from, or to the Winter King which was noted earlier. If you wish to include these in articles on contemporary royalty, do go right ahead, but please don't do so in historical articles. You have yet to show that this is at all common outside of (fawning Helloesque?) works on contemporary royalty. As I said before, I had never heard of nor seen an ahnentafel in decades of reading all sorts of history, until first I saw them here on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly unresolved and the consenus seems to be leaning against inclusion. -- SECisek (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead an removed the ahnentafel because of the "leaning of the consensus," but Michael Sanders reverted me in minutes saying "I see nothing wrong with it." I guess that settles it. Michael Sanders has spoken. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! Charles 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus which SECisek claims to exist leaning against the inclusion of ahnentafels clearly does not exist. The matter remains unresolved. Some editors like them; some don't. What is perhaps more important is that they are used in the published scholarly monographic biographies of many royals. An ahnentafel wouldn't be appropriate for a professional wrestler, a Nobel prize chemist, or an opera diva (since in none of those cases is multiple generation ancestry an important fact of their lives noted in the published literature about them). Since the information in an ahnentafel and that particular formatting of information is used in the published scholarly literature about royals, then those who oppose ahnentafels have to show what reason there is for not including ahnentafels in wiki-articles about royals. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to editors who wish to include things to justify them; nobody can prove a negative, so it's up to those who wish to have them to prove that they are used in historical works. That's the wiki-way. So far, all we've got from those who wish them to be included is a vague allusion to a biography of a modern person, but what we should have is a demonstration that these are used in books on historical topics. If Louis V is too obscure, how about Henry I of England, or Edward I of England, or even Elizabeth I of England? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my shelves. I either have at the moment or will be recieving soon most of the recent works on the Anglo-Norman kings of England. I also have a good number of ones on the later Anglo-Saxons and the Angevins, so it's a decent shelf of scholarly royal biographies. This is the results: Paul Hill's The Age of Athelstan has no ahnentafel, but does have a genalogical chart of the kings and a descendants chart; Ann Williams' Æthelred the Unready has no ahnentafel but does have descent charts of the king and two ealdormen; Frank Barlow's has no ahnentafel but does have two very complicated descent charts in the back; Ian Walker's Harold has no ahnentafel but has three line descent charts; David Douglas' William the Conqueror has no ahnentafel, but does have nine line descent charts; Frank Barlow's William Rufus has no ahnentafel, but does have 13 line descent charts; Warren Hollister's Henry I has no ahnentafel, but does have a line descent chart; John Appleby's The Troubled Reign of King Stephen has no ahnentafel, but does have seven line descent charts; Donald Matthew's King Stephen has no genealogical charts of any kind; R. H. C. Davis' King Stephen (3rd ed.) has no ahnentafel, but has one line descent chart; W. L. Warren's Henry II has no ahnentafel; but has eleven line charts; John Gillingham's Richard I has no genealogical charts at all; W. L. Warren's King John has no genealogical charts at all; Michael Prestwich's Edward I has no ahnentafel, but has four line descent charts; Richard Barber's Edward Prince of Wales and Aquitaine has no ahnentafel, but has one line descent chart; Nigel Saul's Richard II has no ahnentafel but has one line descent chart; Christopher Allmand's Henry V has no ahnentafel, but has one line descent chart; Charles Ross' Edward IV has no ahnentafel, but has four line descent charts; Charles Ross' Richard III has no ahnentafel, but has four line descent charts; S. B. Chrimes Henry VII has no ahnentafel, but has four line descent charts; Jennifer Loach's Edward VI has no genealogical charts at all. Almost all of these books are in the English Monarch's series pubished by either the University of California Press or Yale University Press. Of the 22 books listed, not one has an ahnentafel, but 18 have some sort of line descent chart. Only 4 have no genealogical charts at all. For more general scholarly works that survey more than one reign, Barlow's The Feudal Kingdom of England has no ahnentafel, but does have two line descent charts; A. L. Poole's Domesday Book to Magna Carta (2nd ed) has no genealogical charts at all; Ralph Griffiths' The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries has no ahnentafel, but has three line descent charts; Geoffrey Hindley's A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons has no ahnentafel but has a very brief line descent chart; John Gillingham's The Wars of the Roses has no ahnentafel, but has a line descent chart; Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed) has no genealogical charts of any kind; Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings has no ahnentafel, but has four line descent charts; Paul Hill's The Road to Hastings has no ahnentafel, but has a number of line charts; David Crouch's The Normans has no ahnentafel, but has several line descent charts; Richard Huscroft's Ruling England has no ahnentafel, but has a descent chart; Marjorie Chibnall's Anglo-Norman England has a sort of ahnentafel .. it lists all eight great-grandparents of Henry II in a simplified chart that runs vertically plus a line descent chart; Michael Prestwich's Plantagenet England has no ahnentafel, but has several line descent charts. That makes 1 sorta ahnentafel, 9 genealogical charts but no ahnentafel, and 2 no genealogical charts at all from 12 general survey's. Not that most of these are designed as undergraduate and graduate level college textbooks for survey classes or are part of the Oxford University's History of England series. Of other scholarly biographies Emma Mason's The House of Godwine has no genealogical charts at all; Kenneth Fowler's The King's Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont has no genealogical charts; Frank Barlow's Thomas Becket has no ahnentafel, but a line chart; Sally Vaughn's Anselm of Bec and Robert of Meulan has no ahnentafel, but does have two line charts; Michael Brown's The Black Douglases has no ahnentafel, but does have line charts; Eleanor Duckett's Alfred the Great has no genealogical charts at all; Ronald Scott's Robert the Bruce has no ahnentafel, but does have line descent charts; Marion Meade's Eleanor of Aquitaine has no ahnentafel, but does have a line descent chart; Harriet O'Brien's Queen Emma and the Vikings has no ahnentafel but does have two line descent charts. That gives 0 with ahnentafel, 6 with genealogical charts, and 3 with no genealogical charts at all. Lastly, there are the "popular" histories. This is works by good historians, but aimed at not a scholarly audience, but the wider reading public. Alison Weir and Desmond Seward are popular "popular" writers. Weir's Queen Isabella has no ahnentafel, but two VERY complicated line charts; Seward's Eleanor of Aquitaine has no genealogical charts; Seward's The Wars of the Roses has no ahnentafel, but has several genealogical charts; Weir's The Princes in the Tower has no ahnentafel, but does have a genealogical descent chart; Seward's The Hundred Year's War has no ahnentafel, but does have line descent charts; Seward's Richard III has no ahnentafel, but does have two line descent charts; Bertram Fields' Royal Blood has no genealogical charts at all; and Weir's The Wars of the Roses has no ahnentafel, but does have descent charts. Of those 9 books, 0 have ahnentafel, 7 have genealogical charts of some sort, and 2 have no genalogical charts at all. All the publishing information on these books can be found at User:Ealdgyth/History References
To recap this LONG list, of the 22 scholarly royal biographies, 0 have ahnentafels, 18 have other types of genealogical charts, and 4 have no charts at all. Of the 12 survey's, 1 has something close to an ahnentafel, 9 have other types of genealogical charts, and 2 have no charts at all. Of the 9 non-royal scholarly biographies, 0 have ahnentafels, 6 have genealogical charts of some sort, and 3 have no genealogical charts at all. Of the 9 popular histories, 0 have ahnentafels, 7 have some sort of genealogical chart, and 2 have no genealogical charts at all. I'd say that from my survey, line charts are actually common in scholarly works, but true ahnentafels in a chart are very rare. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Ealdgyth for doing the homework! Unless someone plans to a do a more extensive analysis, the question of whether genealogical charts are usual in historical biographies on royalty (and history involving dynasties) is answered in the affirmative. So the question is what kind is appropriate, since the ahnentafel is simply a form of genealogical chart, althouth it has not been the norm in history books heretofore. That could be because the format was little known, graphically difficult, or considered space-consuming -- not grounds for excluding it from Wiki. Yet not only do the overwhelming majority of the cited history books have genealogy charts, but a majority also have more than one. Genealogical charts are usually patrilineal or focus on descent from a common ancestor. Ahnentafels combine lineages from several ancestors to culminate in the subject of the Wiki bio. Arguably, rather than over-consuming article space, they efficiently compress and focus detail.
But an alternative interpretation is that ahnentafels haven't been used because their standard format doesn't include the information most relevant to the historical text. Ahnentafels focus on ascent rather than descent. For instance, the ahnentafel at Juan Carlos I of Spain does help clarify why, when Francisco Franco was choosing who "of royal blood" would fill the vacant throne, Don Juan de Borbón was a strong genealogical contender. But it omits Don Juan's elder brother, Jaime, Duke of Segovia, his nephew Alfonso, Duke of Cádiz (who had wed Franco's granddaughter), and Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, the Carlist pretender. To show all of these princes' kinship to Juan Carlos, to the previous king, Alfonso XIII, and to Franco would be relevant to Spain's history and present politics, would simplify what text alone complicates, yet it would require a different kind of graphic. Royal genealogy charts qualify for inclusion, but ahnentafels? Lethiere (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with genealogical charts (family trees). The major problem is with format. I think that using an image like Image:BrittanyDukes.png as a thumbnail is the best, but that requires editors to create such nice trees. I think ahnentafels, however, are not a great aid to the reader. Srnec (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, these images could be kept in their own articles, like Kings and dukes of Brittany family tree, with a link in a "See also" section at bottom (though I am not a fan of "see also"). Srnec (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "large sample" is the inverse of Ealdgyth's: a lot of tables from a small number of books. I just had a skim through Régine Le Jan, Famille et Pouvoir dans le Monde Franc. That includes 73 (seventy three) family tree-ish tables The small tables most commonly show patrilineal descent, the larger ones the interrelations between families (the table showing the [Faronids]] and their kin is the most convoluted). Riché's Le Carolingiens has 34 tables, all patrilineal descent type, for groups from the Carolingians to the Unruochings. Other books with a significant number of tables include Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings with 21, Thomas Charles-Edwards's Early Christian Ireland with 20, Yorke's Kings and kingship in early Anglo-Saxon England with 16, and Kirby's Earliest English Kings with 10. I think that's 174 tables from six books, a handful showing ascent and none resembling an ahnentafel. This is not to say that we should never show ascent. Juan Carlos is very modern, but Congalach Cnogba would be better with an ahnentafel style chart showing his grandparents than a patrilineal chart, not that this means we need to add either sort. A patrilineal chart for Conrad II would be unhelpful, but someone has done Image:Ottonian Salian dynasty.JPG so that we can see how Conrad is related to previous emperors. An ahnentafel template, partly filled in like User:Angusmclellan/Conrad, would have done as well, but we can be sure that it would not have remained partly filled in and ancestors real and imagined would soon fill it up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the reason our results differed in numbers is I was mainly looking at biographies or histories of short periods of time. If I'd been looking at the Oxford or Cambridge large scale histories, or histories of kingship, I'd probably have found more charts. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only an ahnentafel, really, when considering the numbers. Otherwise it is an ancestral tree. An ahnentafel is just a numbered list. Charles 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather taken aback by the claim made above that ahnentafels are "very rare". Just in the last few days I have used several books which include them:
They are clearly not "very rare". Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the time frame of your examples, Noel, as against mine. The latest biography I listed was on Henry VII of England, who died in 1509. Most of them are from the Conquest until the Wars of the Roses, so they are pretty classically medieval history. Pedigree charts are non-existant in medieval books, at least in their true ahnentafel form. We may have to consider some sort of modern vs medieval/ancient cutoff. Even the classic pedigree chart is rare in medieval biographies, I only found one that showed all the great-grandparents. However, line charts showing lines of descent, or lines of ascent are not rare in medieval scholarship. For that matter, the classic pedigree chart is not even used all the time in genealogical works either. Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry uses them, but BOY is his work huge. Weis uses a register format, which makes things a lot easier. I have to agree with Angus on the fact that "empty" spaces in pedigree charts invite people to fill them in. And they are not very conducive to footnoting either, which makes verifying them difficult. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The research done here on frequency of genealogical charts in historical works should be noted & preserved for future reference -- is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty an appropriate site? Are there others? It sounds as if genealogical info is useful if tailored to the subject of the article, or to the content's text. Three kinds of charts sound useful:
  1. Succession sequence -- included in bios where the order of succession may have been uncontested but kinship to predecessors may not be obvious, e.g. Edward the Confessor, Louis XV, Charles Albert of Sardinia, Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
  2. Succession rivalry -- included to show genealogical sources of claims & kinships among rivals for a throne (e.g. William the Conqueror, Mary, Queen of Scots, Henry IV of France, Maria Theresa of Austria, Louis-Philippe of France, Christian IX of Denmark, King Norodom Sihamoni of Cambodia, and Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (one of three pretenders who campaigned for the monarchy when Brazil held a 1993 referendum on restoration)
  3. Dynastic influence -- used to illustrate how kinships influenced national, international or dynastic politics, culture, or the bio's subject, e.g. Hugh Capet, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Philippe Egalité, Queen Victoria, Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria, Tsarevich Alexei of Russia, Mafalda of Hesse, Crown Prince Dipendra of Nepal.
Why not use these (or other) categories as criteria to determine inclusion and kind of genealogical information to be charted? Lethiere (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So can the table be removed now? Srnec (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. -- SECisek (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Keep it. It demonstrates his ancestry, which is relevant to him as a monarch. Michael Sanders 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning and linking "Carolingian" does that in a simpler, more useful, and more elegant way. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's far simpler and more effective to include table in the article. Michael Sanders 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is a large table simpler than a single word (and a link)? And how is it more effective placing a table at the bottom than a word/link in the opening paragraph? Srnec (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, subtle links are only effective if the reader knows they are there and what they do. Michael Sanders 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia depends on links, so that arguments a non-starter. Besides, blue words are hardly that subtle. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't simpler (if by simpler you meant "minimal"), but it is more relevant & informative. The article on "Carolingian dynasty" doesn't even mention Louis V, nor point to his connection to the dynasty. The table is more effective because it provides more info about the subject of this bio, is more elegant because it is graphic (i.e. it "shows" rather than "tells"), and because the reader need not search through the article to connect him to the dynasty whose reign in France ended with Louis V. OTOH, now that it's established that genealogical tables are standard in historical literature, I can see how substitution of a different type of table might better satisfy criterion #3 above ("Dynastic influence -- used to illustrate how kinships influenced national, international or dynastic politics, culture, or the bio's subject,") for Louis V. Lethiere (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Deindenting) An ahnentafel conceals Louis V's important Carolingian descent among endless irrelevant clutter. It does not show his aunts, uncles, or cousins, not even the heir. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angus. The first paragraph makes it explicit that Louis was the last Carolingian and it names his parents (specifying that Lothiar was King). The reader is perfectly well-informed without the table. And because this talk page discussion seems to lean towards exclusion, I removed the table. It was put back because there is no "consensus". But doesn't he burden of proof lie on inclusion not exclusion? Can I add jibberish and revert anybody who removes it until a consensus has been reached on the talk page? The table should be removed until adequate reasons have been provided for its inclusion (reasons which should sway at least a majority of editors). Srnec (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that something which may be affecting my opinion (and perhaps the opinions of some other editors) is that this is not an isolated discussion of ahnentafel removal. This subject has come up on several talk pages. There are some editors who are adamantly against the inclusion of ahnentafels ever. There are other editors who (seeming to be incapable of adding any other useful information) add them to every royalty article they can find. It seems to me that an ahnentafel is particularly useful with later royals since seize-quartiers (i.e. sixteen noble great-great-grandparents) was a requirement for many orders of chivalry. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, however, that would be an anachronism. I have no objection to the removal of this particular ahnentafel, as long as that is not seen as setting a precedent in other cases. Perhaps we could add a link under "External links" to this page which shows great-grandparents: [4]. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anachronism" — that's exactly what this is. Anyways, I am happy not to see this as establishing universal precedent, but the fact is that for every article where an ahnentafel might be useful and in accord with scholarly literature on the subject, there are probably two or three where it is just a bothersome, "anachronistic", arbitrarily long, and probably incomplete table of irrelevant information. Ideally, we should establish the difference between the two cases so that the tables can be removed where they are no aid and kept where they are. Srnec (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a relevant big picture discussion, please see: Template_talk:Ahnentafel#Ancestry_of_5_generations_"overdetailed"?. PPEMES (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remaried[edit]

According to [5], [6] and [7], he remaried around 985 with Blanche/Blanca (b. around 967), daughter of William II, Duke of Aquitaine and Gerletta, daughter of Rollo. Debresser (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

I found various other, not especially complimentary nicknames of Louis V besides The Do-Nothing - The Feckless, The Lazy, The Sluggard, The Indolent. Should we include these? VenomousConcept (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor translations[edit]

The two excerpts present in the article are poor translations of the original French sources: they not only contain English grammar mistakes, but also sometimes completely distort the meaning of the original. I took the liberty to correct them, which as far as I know does not violate any rule, especially since they are not official translations but appear to have been done by a regular user. If you disagree with me, please provide a valid reason before undoing my edit without any explanation. --88.138.154.15 (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_V_of_France&oldid=1208593723"