Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Untitled

Read Gates of Gold for a better look at the royal family the year the Duc de Bourgogne died. It's a kid's book but a real eye opener!!!

He is normally known as "Duke of Burgundy" than as Dauphin, which he was for less than a year. john k (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

This should be renamed "Louis, Duke of Burgundy", which is more correct and more coherent with other articles of the same kind.Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Petit Dauphin

This seems unclear. Was he ever called Dauphin/Petit Dauphin during his father's lifetime, or is this just some unofficial title by which he was called while his father lived? Emerson 07 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy → Louis, Duke of Burgundy
• Louis, Duke of Burgundy → Louis, Duke of Burgundy (disambiguation)

– He is better known as the Duke of Burgundy, since he was only Dauphin briefly. This page was moved without discussion twice in the past. It's original title did not include "dauphin". --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. He is the most notable Louis, Duke of Burgundy. The current title is too long to type. Reigen (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Administrator's comment: Louis, Duke of Burgundy is a currently a dab page. Is there evidence that this figure is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:John K and User:Montjoy Pursuivant's comment above; the original name of the page; the fact that the other dukes of Burgundy were never even adults. Srnec (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support I think Srnec's judgment is fair; I'm ok with the primary topic claim. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add this guy to article Duke of Burgundy

By a strange oversight, Louis isn't mentioned in the disambiguation article of Duke of Burgundy, even though he's one of the best-known holders of the title; when people in France or in an Early Modern history context mention the title as a person, this is mostly the guy they are referring to. Could someone include him over there? 83.254.135.89 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Better yet. I can't seem to find any verification that Philip V of Spain used the title Duke of Burgundy. Dimadick (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Louis, Louis, Louis and Louis

Were all his sons named simply Louis, disambiguated only by their duchies? —Tamfang (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Louis, Duke of Burgundy → Louis, Petit Dauphin – Per WP:COMMONNAME as recent ngram results show that "Le Petit Dauphin" is slightly more common than "Louis, Duke of Burgundy", though that difference may be greater considering some of those results could refer to other individuals known by that name as listed on Louis, Duke of Burgundy (disambiguation).[1] This format of title is also not without precedent as his father's article exists at Louis, Grand Dauphin. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given above in previous RM and old discussions. Srnec (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  The previous RM didn't have anything to do with this proposed title. And there are no other discussions here about the article name. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  See #Untitled and #Renaming. John K says He is normally known as "Duke of Burgundy" than as Dauphin; Reigen says He is the most notable Louis, Duke of Burgundy; and Montjoy Pursuivant says This should be renamed "Louis, Duke of Burgundy". Strong support for "Duke of Burgundy" over "Dauphin". I don't see that putting "Petit" on the front changes anything. Put 'Louis' in front of 'Petit Dauphin' in your ngrams and the result is less impressive. No need to do an apples and oranges comparison. Srnec (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Right and Louis is also the only person ever known as Petit Dauphin.

  You're also citing ten year old discussions as evidence of a present situation. We're not going to move Charles III back to Charles, Prince of Wales because editors ten years ago said that should be the article title and not Prince Charles, Prince of Wales as it once was. At that point in time, this article was called Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy, so yes Louis, Duke of Burgundy is far better than that.

  Reigen said He is the most notable Louis, Duke of Burgundy, because there were two others, they did not say that he was most notable for being Duke of Burgundy. What you're demonstrating is strong support for "Duke of Burgundy" than "Duke of Burgundy and Dauphin of France". Louis, Petit Dauphin was never discussed as a title before now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More input needed. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility has been notified of this discussion. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Saint-Simon, and I think most sources, call him the Duke of Burgundy, which was clearly his official title, so I don't think WP:COMMONNAME supports this. The ngram means very little, since most references will be to "the Duke of Burgundy" rather than "Louis, Duke of Burgundy". Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Best to stick with the current title, which easily differentiate's the prince from his father. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Élémens de géométrie de Mgr le duc de Bourgogne

I've removed an image of the title page of a Latin edition of this book. It'd be good to see something about this book in the article, but it needs some context, and the context isn't immediately clear.

The Nicolas de Malézieu article say the book is composed of "lessons in mathematics that he [Malézieu] gave to the duc de Bourgogne over four years in 1705." On the other hand, I think this article states that the book consists of lessons written by Louis. He wrote them as part of his geometry homework, so to speak, over four years under Malézieu, with Malézieu then publishing them with minor edits. This seems to be what Malézieu says in the preface to the text itself

Another source I can't find at the moment states that Malézieu probably wrote the sections that ventured into calculus, but Leibniz in his letters to Sophie of Hanover seems to think that Louis wrote the whole thing (pp. 145-55).

I'm leaving these notes here in case anyone has a good source that could clear things up. Tenthweb (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)