This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy 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.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
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
Agricolae, I have some problems with your recent edits on this page.
(1) I don't like that you altered the format. It was a logic in "bolding" the reign/rule/tenure years of non-kings on this page, and I don't see why we should ,,bold" the "King of..." line and why to modify the format in the first place? I want the old format back.
On next issues, I didn't make that edits, George6VI made them, and I think that it will be right to have also his opinion.
(2) You removed the Theuderic III-Robert the Strong line for being speculative. I admit that I'm not an expert, but from the articles sound quite certain that Theuderic III was an ancestor of Robert the Strong. We could keep that line
(3) I agree that the parentage of Bertrada of Prüm is speculative. We could keep it with an question mark on the top, or remove it. Again, that's not my edit, and I avoid removing other people's work
(4) About the Bonaparte line/ancestry from Pepin of Italy, if George6VI has a good source I don't see why we would remove that. I think that it is an interesting information --Daduxing (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Bolding all reigns, not just those of kings but of anyone who ever held any title, made it hard at a glance to distinguish who was and who was not a king, and fundamentally that is the most important distinction to make in a chart on a royal family - who is a king of France.
2. & 3. The two theories are intrinsically linked, so to say one is quite certain and the other is speculative shows that the sources you are reading are either selective or are distorting the situation. That the two women were daughters of Theuderic was complete guesswork by Maurice Chaume. Basically, he figured they must have been important and they used Merovingian-type names for some of their children, so maybe they were daughters of king Theuderic - he had no actual evidence this was the case. Current thought is that the two were daughters or maybe granddaughters of a Hugobert, whose parentage is unknown. It would give undue weight to such speculation to present what is now considered an unlikely solution, even as speculative, particularly when it gives the false impression that there is dynastic continuity, that somehow this 'descent' from the Merovingians played some role in the succession of the Carolingians and Robertians.
4. With the Buonaparte line, showing this tenuous distant connection between Napoleon and the Carolingians suggests somehow that Napoleon's claim to the French throne had a genealogical component, which is certainly not the case. It seems unlikely e was even aware such a descent existed. It is giving WP:UNDUE weight to such a descent, which may be interesting genealogical trivia but has no historical significance. That assumes it is not WP:Original Research, which it looks like to me. Fundamentally, though, this is a 'simple' tree of the French monarchs - it says so right in the page name, and including such an obscure and very distant tenuous connection is in no manner simple. This applies to the previous points as well. The last thing that should be done on a 'simple' tree is promote speculative distant connections between dynasties that played no role in their succession. Agricolae (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I splitted the familytree by dynasties. Since the change of dynasty in this case is not based on marriage or right of descendants of a female royal member, and, in my opinion, putting familytree together without connection is pointless, and it was the problem of earlier revisions. - George6VI (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes, that's why I made that bolded borders at king's boxes. But, whatever. (2)&(3) As I said, I'm not an expert in field. (4) I agree here --Daduxing (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says "This is a simplified family tree of all Frankish and French monarchs, from Chlodio to Napoleon III.", but Chlodio isn't actually shown on the page. I wasn't sure whether to add Chlodio to the page, or update to the lead to remove the reference to Chlodio. Any thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update the lead. He was not a French monarch and there are enough issues surrounding whether he is historical or mythical that including him would beg an explanation, making it anything but 'simple'. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
