Talk:Louise Françoise, Princess of Condé

Redundant & trivial content

A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant & trivial content -- again

Efforts to reduce inappropriate style and content in this article may require request for external intervention. To avoid this, please let's stop adding and re-inserting non-encyclopedic matter. This has been complained of for years (see the "Redundant & trivial content" section of this talk page), but the editor responsible (committing the same errors at numerous biographical articles on the Capetians and their spouses and in-laws, as well as the Lorraines, Savoys, Estes, Gonzagas, Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs and French ducal families) seldom engages in talk page or edit discussions, instead re-inserting deletions and moving the page while dismissing fact tags and edit summary objections. The problem persists in two forms: inappropriate style and inappropriate content. The content violates Wikipedia's exclusionary policy against genealogical minutiae and exposition of insignificant details. It consists of excess in: Speculation (assumptions about the "feelings", "thoughts", "attractiveness" or "relationships" of long-dead persons, presented as if factual or probable yet not cited from the person's diary, correspondence or quoted statements); Trivia (information unimportant to the historical significance of the topic); Redundancies (information that is repeated more than twice in the article or duplicates info that is/should be in a different article), Extranea (superfluous information, only tangentially related to the topic). These edits reduce the professionalism of Wikipedia because they:

1. Include unsourced (and often, unsource-able) assertions that may be inaccurate
2. Use an editorial voice more appropriate to narrative in a novel than to an objective encylopedia
3. Divert the article's focus from facts which make the subject encyclopedically significant
4. Pad the article, making it harder to notice when sourced expansion is needed. FactStraight (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011006154816/http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo?lang=fr to http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo?lang=fr;i=50945

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Louise Françoise, Princess of Condé/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 09:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I will review this article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing on this article is a major concern. A paragraph which doesn't end with a citation is usually not a good sign, and claims like Louise Françoise and Françoise Marie were especially competitive, despising any increase in status or rank that the other, or any of her children, might achieve certainly need citing. Further, many of the sources that the article does use are questionable:

• French Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we cannot cite it
• Why is partylike1660.com a reliable source?
• Why is enviedhistoire.canalblog.com a reliable source?
• Several references are to books without any page number: these really need page numbers for verification
• "Ib Spanheim, Ezechiel" is not sufficient information to find the source - can we have at least a title and date?

There are a few places where the article is pretty confusing: the worst offender is the paragraph beginning In the year after her birth, another sibling joined Louis-Auguste, Louis-César, and Louise Françoise at their residence in Paris, which is in dire need of a rewrite. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I agree with Caeciliusinhorto. I've been gnoming around articles about the French royal family at this time, and Louise Françoise's article is definitely not ready for GA. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, peruse through some textual sources (i.e. books, which may be written in French), and re-nominate the article when it's ready. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you so much for taking your time to review this article. I will continue to work on it. Again, thank you! Dialuanny0 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

May I ask how to withdraw the nomination? Dialuanny0 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dialuanny0 – I have closed this review as unsuccessful. Do let me know if you would like a second set of eyes on this article before you re-nominate it for GA: I'd be happy to help! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)