This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles
Could somebody check this Napoleon translation?[edit]
C'étoit un grand homme, l'ennemi de la Françe, à qui il a fait bien du mal, mais on lui doit de l'estime.
He was a great man, an enemy of France, to which he did a great deal of harm, but we owe him our esteem. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate thinks it is OK :-) Ereunetes (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ereunetes Bosscha writes it at the end of his chapter on the Nine Years War (page 229). [1]
That is how I found it. He refers to page 306 of Collot d'Escury.[2] But I do not know were Collot d'Escury gets it from DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fear dear Collot d'Escury may possibly have misquoted "Buonaparte". I did find a number of users of the quote after I shortened it to "mais on lui doit de l'estime", but they all are in Dutch books/articles and all seem to use Collot as their authority (or no authority at all). Ereunetes (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it is impossible that Collot d'Escury misquoted Napoleon, but why do you think that it is a likely scenario? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise it would be easy with the power of Google to find at least snippets of the Collot quote in French books pertaining to Napoleon, like I just did with "mais on lui doit de l'estime". But nothing at all. I also tried a combination with "portrait de Guillaume III" (because Collot says that Napoleon produced his quote in the context of his alleged desire to acquire a portrait of the king). But that went awry, because then I got a lot of stuff about Napoleon III and Emperor Wilhelm. So wrong Napoleon and wrong king William :-) Ereunetes (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.– robertsky (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
William III of England → William II and III – He was not only the king of England. He was also the king of Scotland and Ireland. William II and III is both more accurate than the current title and also completely unambiguous, so you can get rid of the territorial designation. There was only one William II and III. The Scottish number should go first for consistency with James VI and I. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically he was William I of Ireland. See my comments at Charles I. PatGallacher (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN: Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Use the common(er) unambiguous name. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The common name is William of Orange, William III of Orange or William III DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that William III of England is not his common name. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. England has more than 10x the population of Scotland, so it follows that he is most commonly associated with England, per WP:SOVEREIGN the name should be the current title. "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal." Do you think Charles I of Austria should be moved to Charles I, III & IV?
Comment - I certainly can understand your nominating this page for a name change. At this moment, all monarch bios are extremely inconsistent with how they're named. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
It’s the most realistic looking. The other portrait just looks odd. Yes it might have more pixels but, aesthetically it looks worse. The portrait I propose looks much better in the infobox. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 20:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it looks aesthetically better and the current version of the painting in the infobox seems less well maintained. Anyway, I am not gonna push the issue. I will just leave the two images here so that other possible readers can decide.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
_by_Kneller.jpg)
.jpg)