Phillip the Good of Burgundy

Question

[[Of Burgundy-117]] and [[De Bourgogne-19]] have a long open merge need, and relate to a very important historical figure. Is there any specific problem holding this up?

Comments

Needs a TL member to change an LNAB before the merge.

---

I have Burgun, Bourgon, Burgundt, and  understand these relate into Bourgogne family lines.  I have taken a DNA test with FTDNA so if anyone has ties to this line, I would love to run a comparison DNA test with you.  

Laura (Pennie) Bozzay: Family Tree DNA Family Finder, GEDMatch T129400, FTDNA kit #465015 

---

His LNAB should be Valois, if I understand Euro Aristo LNAB rules correctly.

---

Not sure about that. Wikitree seems to allow major branches of big dynasties to have a different name. See the recent discussion on York versus Plantagenet. Capet, Plantagenet, and Valois are big ones.

Answer 1

You can ask to be on the trusted list for both profiles and do the LNAB correction and merge yourself.  I've found sometimes the merge process scares people but they're glad to let me do it.  The bio also needs extensive work;  that actually could be done more easily after the merge is complete and all the material from both profiles awaits you on one.

Comments

Hard to do that for every merge you find though? This is one of many I have found trawling through Edward III descents. On G2G I just noted some ones which break royal lines because I figured this would be seen as important to the wiki-community.

---

Difference of working style, I suppose.  Often when two profiles need to be merged, you are looking at a mess, and cleaning the mess requires working on the bio and making sure the data field is backed up by sourced material in the bio.  I tend to be "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- I won't get involved with a profile at all unless I'm willing to spend a bit of time and clean up the mess.

Philippe's profiles are a mess.

---

Well, it also has to do with what type of sweep you are doing. I did not even look at the quality of the articles. I see the French version has a lot of text, but clearly copy-paste from somewhere. (French Wikipedia?) Did you mean the text though, or his connections etc?

Wikipedia might be a reasonable source for this person because it lists lots of his illegitimate children (also in English Wikipedia I think) but of course that does not mean a big copy-paste is good enough.

---

Precisely.  If the "article" -- the biography -- doesn't cover birth, death, marriage and children with dates and sources, then everything else -- data field, merges, categories, templates -- is putting lipstick on piggy.

---

Also, he would need to have all his mistresses removed as spouses. He was only married twice. Correct?

---

@Jack. So I take it (I have not checked) that his dates are all over the place also? But surely for such a person that is easy to check with google (Wikipedia, MEDLANDS, Genealogics are all going to agree normally, no need to own Richardson's books :) ).

@Isabelle. I am not sure about this either. Is that position really only for legal wives, or for any co-parents? I thought the latter.

---

Re dates:  I haven't checked the dates because I"m not going to re-do his profile.  But the biography needs to say birth and a date and what the source of the date is.  Otherwise what's in the data field is fiction.  

Re wives.  Isabelle is right.  The marriage spot in the data field is for marriages.  If someone's parents are not married, they can still appear as his or her parents on his data field, but they don't show in each other's data field.  The biography can -- and should -- have a discussion about the unmarried parents and it should have under "issue" or "children" a list of children and who the parents are for each.

Even where there IS a legal marriage, it's still important to get the right children associated with the right parents.  You an do this within the data fields, but it's best to have a discussion in the biography so people don't think an entry in the data field is a mistake.