Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans/d' or of query

Mr. Appleyard, please see my talk page. A user who performed dozens of copy/paste moves after you undid his undiscussed moves has performed them all again. Without discussion, again. Could this be rectified? Thank you! Seven Letters 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:7 Letters#Famille d'Orléans
Please, which user is this? Special:Contributions/LouisPhilippeCharles shows a mixture of editing actions. Is there a chance of listing both names of all affected articles? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is that user. I will have to go through his move log or something. He moved many "of Orléans" articles to "d'Orléans" without discussion. These were reverted by an administrator and then the user undid them by copy/pasting. I reversed them, since it was an incorrect moving method and was not discussed and the user again reverted them. Seven Letters 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the original titles, now redirects to the undiscussed/copy/paste forms:
I don't know if I missed any but LPC didn't revert ALL of the articles that I fixed. It took me almost an hour last time of my free time. Seven Letters 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a discussion that decided which of "d'Orléans" and "of Orléans" is correct? Is "d'Orléans" correct in some article names and "of Orléans" in others? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely certain at this exact moment (just hopping in over here) but I think the main issue at this time is the non-discussed, unilateral moves from "of Orléans" to "d'Orleans", which were reverted (discussion should have occurred after this to move), followed by copy-paste moves (reversed, as they should have been), which were redone... again. WP:NCNT states: Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title and also Do not use 'surnames' in article names. The form that some of the people who agree with the incorrect moves is being presented as a surname. That's a no-no. I fine having a discussion but as it stands, the pages were moved incorrectly and the edit histories are now fragmented! It makes things very confusing. Seven Letters 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any person chose not to use their royal status at all, perhaps then they would be "d'Orléans" because only then would they need a "surname". Seven Letters 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles need histmerging? Best get the histmerging done and sorted before we decide about d' versus of for each article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not entirely sure of the specific articles. I have looked through the moving user's contribution history and have seen some copy/paste moves that had a few subsequent edits by other users. I know for about three of the articles that I restored I had to redo the subsequent edits of some of the users. Had I know there was another method, I would have asked an administrator for help. There was, I believe, also an article somewhere that was legitimately moved and then copy/paste moved to a third location. Again, I would have to try to track all of these down. It gets very confusing very fast! Seven Letters 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things were much simpler when I was casually editing anonymously! I don't know if I can keep up with LouisPhilippeCharles' copy/paste moves. I would very much like to help make Wikipedia a better, efficient source of information in whatever small way I can but I don't know if actions like those can be stopped! I certainly don't have the power to do so. Seven Letters 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To confuse matters, the French for of is d' or de, which may influence matters if any of the participants in this dispute speaks French as his mother tongue; and Orléans is in France. See Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the issue here. From what I see, Frania is a wonderful editor. However, we all have our biases. Seven Letters 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to put my two cents in here. I think Frania is 100% correct in this matter, and it does not matter whether "d'Orléans" is surname or designation. The English term "of Orléans" does not accurately represent what French court etiquette in vogue at the time meant by the term or how the people involved would have been called by their contemporaries. The term is better left untranslated. In addition, the terms "Prince/Princess of Orléans" or "prince/princesse d'Orléans" are not historically accurate in a legal sense for anyone who lived and died before the July Monarchy when the designation was first formulated in French law. BoBo (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. We aren't writing in 17th century French for a 17th centurey French audience! A slight obfuscation of the matter if I do say. Seven Letters 04:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there is only two way we can go about this; "of Orleans" (no accent) or "d'Orleans" ("d" apostrophe, no accent). I did some searching and "of Orléans" (with accent) and "d'Orléans" receive far fewer hits or do not exist widely in English reliable sources. In fact if you do a search for Anne Marie of Orléans in Google books or scholar you will come up with nothing of value in English. So here is my summarised position on the matter.

Support "of Orleans". I prefer a WP:UE approach to just about anything in Wikipedia. In this case, I acknowledge that it may not be the WP:COMMONNAME (Anne Marie of Orleans receives 148 hits[[1]] in google books vs. the 256 hits[[2]] for Anne Marie d'Orleans (also no accent).

Weak Support "d'Orleans". Although it seems odd and somewhat inappropriate to use a "d" apostrophe and not employ an accent (picking some elements of French and discarding others) that's exactly what a good number of sources do.

Weak Oppose "of Orléans". No perfect hits amongst reliable sources[3]].

Oppose "d'Orléans". on WP:UE basis. Search results produce and overwhelming number of French language hits[4] and is almost never found in English sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "of Orléans", the format laid out in the naming conventions... and...

Oppose "d'Orléans", we are not dealing with surnames. If you say this this a surname, the naming conventions specifically frown upon it anyway. Also, not English. Seven Letters 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support "of Orleans" (no accent)? As I mentioned earlier sources either use the entire French format or none at all, there appears to be no in between. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better than "d'" but I do believe that Latin letters, particularly vowels, can retain diacritical marks. Seven Letters 22:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "of Orleans", but with an accent on the e. Ruby2010 (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support d'Orléans! it is their correct surname, the name they are born with and die/d with therefore is is historically correct! for example, Princess Marie Isabelle d'Orléans, Princess of Orléans, is the correct style and name so therefore they should all be like that! with regards to older Orléans members, (16-18thy cent) the style of of Orléans was not heard of; they were styled as a Grandson/daughter of France or Prince/ss of the Blood, once again that is how they are styled in a majority of articles due to its historical accuracy! weather it is latin or not, that is not the point, it was/is their surname and it should be with the accent at all times. i hope that makes sense and sorry for the essay :) LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support d'Orléans for surname spelling not translatable, which is different from of Orléans after a title given in English, ex:

Philippe d 'Orléans was Duke of Orléans. --Frania W. (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I support the move for the first mentioned of the individuals above to the style "Firstname of Orléans", I do so only in cases where the subject of the article is the consort of a monarch as she happens to be, so that her article will conform to the prevalent WP convention for naming monarchical consorts. But that would be confusing if applied to all women of the family and would defeat the convention's purpose: to facilitate distinction between and recognition of articles about monarchical consorts from others, insofar as reasonably possible. Since the French princesses du sang are unusual in not using the princess prefix prior to the 19th century, the use of de rather than of helps reduce confusion between them and consorts.

Although above I happen to agree with LouisPhilippeCharles on the use of "d'Orléans" in most of these cases, that is a distraction. The fundamental problem is that which was brought to the admin's attention before this vote was initiated: a quick glance at the edit pattern of LouisPhilippeCharles indicates that this issue will come up again and again because 1. he feels free to unilaterally move articles on members of the Capetian dynasty and other dynasties, 2. he later changes his mind and proceeds unilaterallly to cut-and-paste the article to his most recent preference -- without any regard for or inquiry into the preferences of other editors. This is pure ownership and calls for admin warning and enforcement. Since the article names of nearly all Bourbon, Orleans and Braganza branches of the House of Capet can arouse discussion and dissent because of the English vs French, title vs surname and main branch vs branch+suffix (e.g. Bourbon vs Bourbon-Parma) issues, it is clear to all who edit these articles by now that any article move should be proposed on the individual talk page first -- or automatically reverted. We're being held hostage, and fixing the article names of a few princesses ignores all the unilateral moves that have yet to be resolved for members of the branches of Bourbon-Condé, Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Bourbon-Parma, Savoy-Aosta, etc. These unilateral moves must cease, and we must all stop shrugging our shoulders every time it's done and accepting them as faits accomplis. Please, revert all these moves, let discussions commence on the talk pages, and make it clear that further unilateral moves will result in blocks on editing Capetian articles! Admin moves are supposed to be based on the strength of arguments made, not by vote count. We'll see...FactStraight (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The surname d'Orléans was confirmed by Louis-Philippe I, King of the French, in an ordonnance dated 13 August 1830, in which he listed the different titles given the members of his family: children & sister.

Ordonnance du 13 août 1830 (highlighting/underlining mine):

Ordonnance du roi qui détermine les noms et titres des princes et princesses de la famille royale.

LOUIS PHILIPPE ROI DES FRANÇAIS, à tous présens et à venir, salut.

Notre avènement à la couronne ayant rendu nécessaire de déterminer les noms et les titres que devaient porter à l'avenir les princes et princesses nos enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur,

Nous avons ordonné et ordonnons ce qui suit :

Les princes et princesses nos bien-aimés enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur, continueront à porter le nom et les armes d'Orléans.

Notre bien-aimé fils aîné, le duc de Chartres, portera, comme prince royal, le titre de duc d'Orléans.

Nos bien-aimés fils puînés conserveront les titres qu'ils ont portés jusqu'à ce jour.

Nos bien-aimées filles et notre bien-aimée sœur ne porteront d'autre titre que celui de princesses d'Orléans, en se distinguant entre elles par leurs prénoms.

Il sera fait, en conséquence, sur les registres de l'état civil de la Maison royale, dans les archives de la Chambre des Pairs, toutes les rectifications qui résultent des dispositions ci-dessus [...]

In the highlighted part, I also underlined les noms et titres "surnames and titles" and continueront à porter: "will keep on using", which means that the name d'Orléans, surname of the members of the House of Orléans, was being kept as such, as were titles (duc de Chartres, etc.) born in the Ancien Régime. It cannot be any clearer as that part of the sentence does not say that "d'Orléans" is a title, but a nom.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I posted the above as an argument against that of those who are categorically stating that d'Orléans is not a surname. It is the nom de famille (patronyme) of the Orléans family. Many argue that the king's family did not have a surname (which, in fact, was de France for the king's children); even if it was true, that would have concerned only the king when he became king, not before, and, as they were placed further from him, other members of the king's family would have had the surnames: de Bourbon, de Condé, d'Orléans.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the preposition is not part of the name, at least not an essential part, and may be translated. It's like "von Habsburg", "of England" or "de Bragança". The document Frania exposed does not help in anything in this case: the document is in French, so it is expected to be written d'Orléans – how it would be, otherwise???¿¿¿ Let's translate: … will continue to bear the name and the arms of Orleans (or of the Orleans). In portuguese: … continuarão a portar o nome e as armas dos Orleães.

About the supposed surname of the royalty, I think it should be discussed in another forum. --Tonyjeff (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "of Orleans" (no accent) --Tonyjeff (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]