Talk:Philip the Good

Move request, September 2005

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal is now that the article stays at Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (altered the wording to correspond current reality Arrigo 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

Under the usual interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), we almost always use ordinals in the page name and list by-names like "Philip the Good" in the first line.Choess 16:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Support or Oppose, an optional brief reasoning, and your sig with four tildes

1. Support. Systematic naming is helpful, and also presumably prevents POV. As he was the third of that name in a succession (within a century), systematical name is easy. Arrigo 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. – AxSkov (☏) 05:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose Philip the Good and Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy are both much clearer identification to most readers:
   • "Which one was Philip III, again?"
   • "Philip the Good."
   • "oh, thanks." or even "Ah, right."

     Septentrionalis 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Philip the Good is by far most used to refer to this person, and conforming to general wikipedia Naming Conventions --Francis Schonken 09:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. The current title conforms to naming conventions. I would probably prefer Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, but I am indifferent as between Philip III, Duke of Burgundy and Philip the Good. The latter is more recognizable, but the former conforms to NC. john k 04:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was considered whether this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 05:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

longer reasonings:

Adam Bishop is the original creator of this article, see edit history. Arrigo 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for renaming this article Philip the Good

• The title Philip III is not used in historiography.
• Philip the Good is not only duke of Bourgondia. He is also duke of Brabant, Lothier and Limburg (second of the name Philip) and duke of Luxemburg (first of this name).
• The title Philip III creates confusion with the chronology of the Kings of Spain, which ruled in the Netherlands after the Bourgondians.
• The chronology of the kings/dukes/counts of Bourgondia is subject to criticism.
• On the French and Dutch Wikipedia similar discussion as resulted in assigning a redirect to Philip III towards the main article Philip the Good. Witger 08:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Philip III, Duke of Burgundy → Philip the Good – The current title is rarely, if ever used; the replacement, however, is the most common name used. Michael Sanders 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey (April 2007)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator Michael Sanders 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support per the arguments of several in older comments. Johnbod 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support as consistent with references in most generalist works I have encountered. - PKM 04:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I know who Philip the Good is; Philip III would be his distant descendant, Philip III of Spain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Just a comment, the article was originally at "Philip the Good" until it was moved in September 2005. Adam Bishop 07:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

This article has been renamed from Philip III, Duke of Burgundy to Philip the Good as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Burial place

This article says that the tomb (or burial site) of Philips the good should be found in Dijon. I couldn't find any proof for this statement. The Dukes that have been buried in Champnol are John the fearless and Philips the bold. Mary of Burgundy and Charles the bold have both been buried in Bruges.

• See the lengthy account in the link [1] He was initially buried in St Donatien Bruges, then moved in 1473 to Champmol in accordance with the wishes he had expressed. Various bits (heart & viscera) stayed in St Donatien until desecrated in the Revolution. For once the disinformation box is correct!Johnbod 13:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm images

FWIW, I believe the inclusion of "Bladestorm" images in this and other articles contravenes Wikipedia:Undue weight. It seems unlikely that that game represents the principal cultural impact of these figures; the "Cultural Portrayal" sections seem to have been created to promote the game rather than discuss the cultural impact of the subject. The images may be appropriate for a gallery on Commons, but I see no reason to place them in individual articles at present. Choess (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur: either Commons or a sub-page called 'Trivia' would be preferable to having such inappropriate (have you seen the costume designed for this figure? Talk about anachronism - and bad taste!) images- and associated articles - here. Nick Michael (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that Philip's appearance in video games is one of the few portrayals that he has made within culture, naturally my course of action does not emphasis a level of biasism, nor is it "undue weight" for the article -- such would only be the case if the category had the potential to expand in its cultural references, which it evidently cannot. There is also nothing heavily controversial as to why an image would be portrayed as representing this information, considering that it adds to its presentation and can elaborate criticism -- something that I have shown, which is appropriate to the standards set by Wikipedia. Therefore, the action I have taken is clearly not for the sake of promoting Bladestorm in the sense that I am showing biasism, for obviously I am showing Philip's cultural impact upon video games, and would elaborate his references if it were possible. In resolution, what I am doing is a correct course of action towards the article, and I can't be blamed for promoting a game when it is the only evidential reference that has been elaborated within culture. User:Exiled Ambition 26 January (EST)

In a justifiable resolution to these circumstances, I will start off by bringing back my cultural referencing of Bladestorm, without its respective image, for the image seems to be the only factor that another user can use to state as if it represents some form of biasism, even though that is obviously not the case. User:Exiled Ambition January 27 2008 (EST)

Louisa of Burgundy

A page had recently been created, Louisa of Burgundy. The article states that Louisa was daughter of Philip by his third wife, Isabella. Louisa isn't however mentioned anywhere on Philip or Isabella's articles. Did Louisa exist or was she illegitimate, daughter of Michelle of Valois or daughter of Bonne of Arois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.22.16 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Titles

in the section Titles there is a lot of 15 July mentioned - but he died on 15 June according to this article (also in the french version of the article). Do someone like to change this or got this a special reason? -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 11:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

may I remember to my Question? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Illegitimate Issue

Just wondering how you can have 18 children by 24 women -- that's real teamwork! But at least it is referenced. :-) 134.243.204.95 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)sammay

now " by various of his twenty-four documented mistresses " Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As I type this the article says "He was married three times, and had three sons, only one of whom reached adulthood. He had 24 documented mistresses and fathered at least 18 illegitimate children." However, the info-box at the right lists many more sons than three. If he married and had three sons BY HIS WIVES, i.e. had LEGITIMATE sons numbering only three, say that and say it clearly. An illegitimate son is in most cases in the English language still "a son".2600:1700:6759:B000:3451:CD8:7B65:E58E (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Clarified now in the lead, and explained better in the lower-down "Marriages and legitimate children" section. Thanks for raising. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Main image

Why was the page image changed to this obscure one from the common Renaissance depiction of him? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)