| Revision as of 01:52, 2 October 2010 editHerostratus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,201 edits →Requested move (2010): support← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:04, 12 November 2024 edit undoSadko (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers81,625 edits OneClickArchived "Number of Legion of Honour awards underestimated?" to Talk:Legion of Honour/Archive 1 |
| (193 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WPODMBanner}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{WikiProject France|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=???|French=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals|importance=High|attention=|auto=|needs-infobox=|small=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |
|
|
|class=C |
|
|
|1=<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1=no |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-2=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|Culture=yes |
|
|
|French-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2005-05-19|oldid1=16335214|date2=2006-05-19|oldid2=54010954|date3=2007-05-19|oldid3=132090392|date4=2008-05-19|oldid4=213409022|date5=2009-05-19|oldid5=290905911|date6=2010-05-19|oldid6=363069408}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2005-05-19|oldid1=16335214|date2=2006-05-19|oldid2=54010954|date3=2007-05-19|oldid3=132090392|date4=2008-05-19|oldid4=213409022|date5=2009-05-19|oldid5=290905911|date6=2010-05-19|oldid6=363069408}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=8 August 2023|destination=Legion of Honor|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1170574245#Requested move 8 August 2023}} |
|
==Article== |
|
|
Ok, according to the article, France awarded Legion membership to all those who fought on French soil during the first World War. Does this include former German soldiers, who were France's enemies?] 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 8 August 2023 == |
|
== It is Legion of Honour, it is a translation of a french word! == |
|
|
The rules are: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
Exceptions. The word glamour comes from Scots, not Latin or French, and is usually spelled glamour (rarely glamor) in the U.S. and glamour always elsewhere else; saviour is a common variant of savior in the U.S.; the name of the herb savory is thus spelled everywhere (although the probably related adjective savo(u)ry does have a u in Britain.) |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] 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.''' <small>(])</small> – ]] 22:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
] 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Are you arguing against Legion of Honor? If so, how often does the article use the English translation???] (]) 07:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Moved from ] now redirected here== |
|
|
The Legion of Honour is the most interesting of the European Orders because of frequent changes of its appearance due to different regimes which conferred it. Where is that part of the article? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
*****I tried to work this out, copyright problems are a barrier... |
|
|
] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Order Quota== |
|
|
The article cites a maximum quota of members. Does anyone know what happens when all of the positions have been awarded? Does yet another Order succeed it? I don't know how frequently these are handed out, but it doesn't look like it will be too long before those numbers are reached. --] 19:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:People tend to be fairly old before being granted senior honours, so it's possible that the numbers will remain fairly constant. |
|
|
|
|
|
=="de jure"== |
|
|
When it says "dismissed 'de jure'" does this mean by action of law? Or must there be some sort of action or proceeding separate from the conviction? --] 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've changed this to "]", which appears to be the intended meaning. I've also added a {{tlx|cn}} tag. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nomination and Eligability ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article doesn't say anything about the nature of nominations ? Is this simply the gift of the President of France (like the ]) or is there some sort of advisory council like in the ] ? ] 15:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Foreign recipients == |
|
|
|
|
|
I though that foreigners could only became Chevalier's in the Legion of Honor. This must be incorrect since ] was made a Commander (my personal feelings for Bouchard aside) I wonder why this was allowed. ] 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
****Foreigners can be awarded the insignia of all 5 classes! |
|
|
] 01:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting that you say that, my father was made a Chevalier, and was later told that it could not be upgraded as he had won it for military service. Not sure where that leads, but...<br /> |
|
|
--] 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't find any reference to Simon Serfaty getting the Legion. If he got it on the same day as Betancout it isn't mentioned in the same article. ] (]) 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Boulogne== |
|
|
|
|
|
The handling in Boulogne (picture) was the second and not the first one. The first one took place on July 15, 1804 in the chapel of ]. See |
|
|
|
|
|
****Then i will correct it! |
|
|
|
|
|
] 01:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Legion of Honor}} – Was the original name of the page before the move to Légion d'honneur. When it was changed back, a u was added to honor with the rational that that is the spelling the legion uses in English. However, the legion website exclusively uses the honor spelling https://www.legiondhonneur.fr/en/search/node/honor . In keeping with this and Misplaced Pages policy, the article should be moved back to its originial location. ] (]) 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
==Requested move (2006)== |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' the page history shows that the page started at 'Légion d'honneur', moved to 'Legion of Honor' in April 2006, back to 'Légion d'honneur' in June 2006, and moved to the present 'Legion of Honour' in October 2010, so ] as this has been the stable title for 13-ish years, and the article itself . Looking at the discussion at ] their website did use 'Honour' until around 2013/14/15 , after that -- ''']<span style="color:#4169E1;">/</span>'''] 21:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{discussion-top}} |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ]. The page was originally created as "The French Légion d’honneur (Legion of honour)" so this is the original spelling that was used in this article. ] (]) 02:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
*]; ] → ] - In English the word can be spelled Honor and Honour. The page was happily living at ] which is the proper French name and avoids the BE/AmE problems until someone in April decided that Google prefers "Legion of Honor". Since then there has been a mess of redirects and cut'n'paste moves and the article was actually living at ] until I reset everything back to ]. ] is a valid disambiguation page. ] 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Support''' rename to ], not least as "Legion of Honor" might suggest all who've received the ] or similarly-named decorations. Regards, ] 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* I '''support''' Légion d'honneur! Maybe the best solution is to send all those who try and find Legion of Honour and legion of Honor to a page where they can decide between the Legion of Honor ( Order of the republic of the Phillipenes); Legion of honor ( Legion of Honour or Légion d'honneur in France) and end up on the propper sites. ] 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''comment''' - BTW There are an awful lot of redirects to fix here see ] 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' with redirects from '''Legion of Honor''' and '''Legion of Honour'''. The Philippine one can be on the disamb page that is already linked to on the top. -- <span style="text-decoration: none;">] <sup>] ] ]</sup></span> 10:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - This article also needs a little TLC. --] 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
{{discussion-bottom}} |
|
|
== Neutral Spelling == |
|
|
Since this seems to be the subject of many edits and reverts, in the interest of neutrality, I've replaced all instances of "Legion of Hono(u)r" with the French "Légion d'honneur," and all other instances of hono(u)r with an appropriate synonym such as decoration or distinction, except in the translation of the Legion's motto. Since the shortened form ("Legion") is dialect-neutral, I've left it the way it is. I've also made various grammatical edits. {{unsigned|72.195.134.10}} |
|
|
: Thanks, 72.195.134.10; I'd been meaning to suggest what you've done. I've gone one step further and renamed all instances of "Legion" to "Légion" where the former is used as shorthand for "''Légion'' d'honneur". Best wishes, ] 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Thanks, David. I just realized that I forgot to sign that last comment, and was going to fix it! Oh well. |
|
|
--] 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Joe (aka 72.195.134.10 ;-) ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Based on ] that says "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," this should be changed to Legion of Honor. Such changes have and are being made to other foreign-language articles such as this one from ''Académie des Sciences'' to ]. ] 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:But there is also an article "Legion of Honor", referring to something of the Philippines. Extremely sexy 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit No. 66466235 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I was a bit ambiguous with the edit summary ''The Legion does act like a "Order of Chivalry". But that needs a cite, since French official literature call it plainly an "Order" or "the national order of merit"''. Please disregard "French official literature" and read "what I've seen on the Order". In particular the Legion of Honour's official history page (in French), in the paragraph about the 1960s. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Civil order ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ''Légion'' is not a civil decoration, nor a military one ; it encompass both. The ''ordre du Mérite'' works the same way. IMHO, both shouldn't be classified in <nowiki>].</nowiki> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Medal Ribbons == |
|
|
|
|
|
There does not appear to be any mention of the ribbons that can be worn when in civilain dress for members of the Order. I know that a Chevalier can wear a red ribbon in his/her lapel button hole, but am not sure about the other ranks.<br />--] 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Other French Orders == |
|
|
|
|
|
When the National Order of Merit replaced the ministerial orders, did appointments to the order stop? There is this Canadian link listing someone being made a Chevalier of the Order of Agricultural Merit in 2000: ] 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The National Order of Merit does not replace ''all'' other awards, it just replaces very particular medals. As of today, according to , the orders are: |
|
|
:*Ordre national de la Légion d'Honneur |
|
|
:*Ordre du Mérite Agricole |
|
|
:*Ordre du Mérite Maritime |
|
|
:*Ordre de la Libération |
|
|
:*Ordre des Palmes Académiques |
|
|
:*Ordre des Arts et des Lettres |
|
|
:*Ordre national du Mérite |
|
|
:The ''Journal officiel'' has a section, ''Bulletin officiel des décorations, médailles et récompenses'', which lists promotions for the ''Ordre du Mérite agricole'' (Order of Agricultural Merit), ''Ordre des Arts et Lettres'' (Order of Arts and litterature) and ''Ordre des Palmes Académiques'' (Order of Academic Achievements) . ] 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That explains that then. Thanks ] 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Romeo LeBlanc == |
|
|
|
|
|
I found an issue of the ] that lists the Canadian Government allowing the French Government to invest former Governor General ] as a "Grand Cross of the Order of the Legion of Merit"...does anyone know if this means the Legion of Honour or the National Order of Merit" ? I have tried searching for the French edition of the publication but can't find it. ] 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It actually lists him as "Grand Officer of the Order of the Legion of Merit", it is from Sept 28th 2002 ] 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, both the english and french versions list the appointment like this...although other appointments call it the order of legion of honour or national order of merit...so it is strange this one would be different ] 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think that it refers to the ''Ordre du mérite'', but I havent found Mr. LeBlanc in the ''Journal officiel'' which informs of these matters. My guess is that Mr LeBlanc was also promoted to Knight of the Order of the Legion of the Bad Copy-Paste :) ] 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I must say you are a funny man. ] 22:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "equivalent of the British Victoria Cross and George Cross combined" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed "It is the French equivalent of the British Victoria Cross and George Cross combined" which is rubbish. Knights and officers are more equivalent to the UK's MC, possibly the CGM, while the higher ranks are more honorific (awarded to generals etc.). The Legion of Hounour is better compared to the Order of the British Empire. |
|
|
] 12:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can't agree with you. When awarded for "Actions of War", like for soldiers fallen in Afghanistan in 09/08, LdH is a VC equivalent, a supreme decoration for valour. As for the OBE comparison, there is more or less the same number of Commander of LdH awards in France as there are Knighthoods in the UK. I think The National Order of Merit is the real equivalent of the British Empire. ] (]) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Royal or national? == |
|
|
|
|
|
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the name of the order is . I also found this name on the website of Legion of Honor. Is this name valid, obsolete or not valid at all?--] (]) 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The order was "Royal" during the various monarchical periods (] and ], '']'' 1814-1848). It was even Imperial during the ] (1804-1814) and ] (1852-1870) French Empires. During the Republican periods, the order is known as ''Ordre National de la Légion d'honneur''.<!-- |
|
|
--><br>By the way, the correct translation of "Royal Order of the Legion of Honour" is ''Ordre Royal de la Légion d'honneur'', as ''Ordre'' is masculine and thus the adjective ''royal(e)'' should be use at the masculine gender.<!-- |
|
|
--><br>] (]) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Award in fiction== |
|
|
*] is awarded the Legion of Honor for capturing a french assasian {The Granada TV version Holmes is awarded the Honor recoering the ] painting. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit == |
|
|
|
|
|
Changed "patrie" from "fatherland" to "motherland," the word "patrie" being feminine. Cheers! ] (]) 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Odd, and completely contrary to the logic of the French language, but what the hell. I'm sure it will make ] happy. ] (]) 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Searching year and motivation == |
|
|
According to sources stated on Swedish Misplaced Pages, ] received the officer grade of the Légion d'honneur, however unclear when and for what reason. Anyone here with further information or suggestions on sources (preferably web)? Best wishes from Stockholm, /] (]) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Declining The Award == |
|
|
|
|
|
People who decline the award do not get much credit. One example of this is during World War Two, a man called Jopseph Thuillez was offered the honour but declined it. He stated that too many people had died and he should not get an award for killing people. His family only found out at his funeral when his old friends turned up to offer their condolences. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The English variant of the name of this order is by far the most common in English language sources, with "Legion of Honor" being the most common spelling in use therein. The two different spelling variants of the English term render 609,000 hits in an English language search on Google Books (236,000 for + 373,000 hits for ). renders some 165,000 hits in an "English language" search, and much of those are still in French regardless of the English filter. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much the same thing happens on Google proper once we filter French language hits and Misplaced Pages itself: 206,000 ''vs'' 334,000 hits for "Legion of Honor" and an (additional!) 1,470,000 results for "Legion of Honour" . |
|
|
|
|
|
There is really no question that the most common term for this order is "Legion of Honor". The article should be moved forthwith per ''']''' to "Legion of Honor" (the most common name used in published English language sources). In addition, the French language terms used in this article should be translated. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 10:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This debate has already been had (see above) and the consensus was to leave with the French spelling. WP:CommonName also talks about usage in reliable English language sources and the sources used for the article, not just how many hits are achieved on Google. The majority of references for the article use the French spelling, including the BBC. US sources mostly use Legion of Honour or Legion of Honor. On the English Misplaced Pages there are currently 2386 pages that link 'Légion d'honneur' whilst 435 pages are redirected through 'Legion of Honor' and 353 pages are redirected through 'Legion of Honour'. All things considered, I don't think that there are sufficient new reasons to change the result of the earlier decision. The references were mixed when it came to using the French or English spellings for the grades of the order. Consistency of approach, one way or the other, needs to be maintained with these. Certainly, other than common foreign language expressions, an English translation should be provided the first time a term in another language is used - this appears to have been done in the article, but if something has slipped through the cracks, by all means fix it. ] (]) 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The previous consensus was, quite obviously, contrary to ''policy'' ("''Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources.''") |
|
|
::*I would like to see the quote from ] that states anything to the effect that '''''only''''' sources used ''in the article'' determine its title. That would be quite something indeed, it would then be very easy to modify article titles based on personal preference. (For example, the only thing I would have to do is list some twenty or thirty sources from the ''609,000'' to sink the whole argument.)<br/>"''This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.''" does '''''by no means''''' imply that those sources used in the article somehow "count" for more than those that happen not to be. |
|
|
::*I certainly hope you did not just now mean to imply that among the ''609,000'' publications found (just) on Google Books there are less English reliable sources than among the 165,000 (of which a very high proportion are irrelevant as they are not in English at all). Reliability is not the issue, and I cannot fathom why you brought it up. |
|
|
::I cant imagine what there is to discuss. The common name in English is very obviously not "''Légion d'honneur''". Almost ''four times'' as many reliable English language sources use "Legion of Honor". Regards --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There are four times as many hits, sure. But there's a lot of fuzz in that number - about half of the first page of hits Google Books shows me for "legion of honor" are about the California museum, or something else entirely, rather than an alternative name for the French decoration - we can't really say with any confidence that they're all using LoH as a direct counterpart to Ld'H without closer examination. It's not simply a matter of falling back on search results, easy as that would make our task! I've noted some tests in standard reference works below. ] | ] | 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The '']'' article should also be a subject of a very thorough investigation as to whether that is in reality a name used predominantly in reliable English publications. Most likely a move to "]" is warranted per policy. This is enWiki. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 15:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move (2010)== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{movereq|Legion of Honor}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|1=Legion of Honor}} — Warranted by policy, ] no-brainer. "Legion of Honor" is ''significantly'' more represented in reliable English language publications. It renders some 609,000 hits in an English language search on Google Books (236,000 for + 373,000 hits for ). renders some 165,000 hits in an "English language" search, and much of those are still in French regardless of the English filter. (Of the two English spelling variants, "Honor" is slightly more common.) |
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to the few objections raised above, I'll add a note. Please be advised that publications used in the article in no way count for more with regard to ] than those which happen not to be used. Regards, --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' France is in Europe, you're using American spelling. The discussion in 2006 was specifically designed to avoid this problem of Americanism. Further, there is more than one "Legion of Honor" (without the u) see the dab page ]. ] (]) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**My dear fellow, I have absolutely nothing against the British spelling and am completely indifferent as to whether we use it over the US one. I suppose that could be easily settled after the move. As for other Legions, there is really no contest here, this is by far and predominantly the primary meaning of "Legion of Honour". --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' this change has previously been proposed and variations of English spelling led to a move war. Use of the French spelling has provided stability for the last four years. Whilst the French spelling may not be the most frequent usage in on-line English language sources, it is widespread enough to regard it as being commonly known, consequently my view is that it is better to be faithful to the original. ] also has a policy on this ]. I would argue that there is clear evidence (outside the US at least) of a track record at least as strong as that for the ] which has specifically been singled out as an example where the original language spelling is used. ] (]) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**Mayhap we should use Turkish in the title then? That would certainly stop any edit wars... :P The point is that the article should have the most common English name, not be "faithful to the original". This is ''policy'' we are talking about, not guidelines or user consensus. The issue should be settled, not avoided by using the ''least'' common name. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - ''Légion d'honneur'' is a well-known proper name: common transliterations, English or otherwise, should be considered as secondary as nicknames. I would very much hate to see ] redirect to ], ], ] ] (]) 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**I'm really not getting the point of these posts, gents. ], please address the reason for the move (Wiki policy ]). User consensus is secondary to policy. We all agree the current name is neither obscure (as opposed to "known") nor improper or inaccurate. Its just not the most common name used in English language publications.<br />You are also quite right in pointing out that this is but the tip of the iceberg with regard to the over-anxious use of French for naming the various orders of France. Nationalist POV is likely to blame. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***I really doubt French nationalism - Anglosphere cultural cringe would be more likely! But either way, it's something of an established practice, regardless of how it got there. |
|
|
***With regards to "not the most common name", this is a bit of a problem. I'm not entirely convinced that using an English name ''is'' more common. We can see that the LoH form predominates in Google hits, but there are ''other things'' called "Legion of Honor" in English; a museum, various different awards, some kind of society, etc etc etc. It's not clear what proportion of the LoH hits are actually referring to these topics, rather than the one at hand. (As to "in publications", note that below I've checked two standard reference sources, which seem to favour LdH. I'll try to dig up more tomorrow.) ] | ] | 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - In addition to what has been previously said, "Legion of Honor" will lead to endless move proposals between the english spelling "Honour" and the American one "Honor".] (]) 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per ]. It appears to be the clear ] at the disambig as well. I've always heard it referred to as the '''Legion of Honor'''. Personally I'm fine with the British spelling but don't see why it should be preferred. --]] 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. I'm a french from ], my english is very bad, I don't know how the ] is known in english speaking countries… a lot of reasons not no say ''oppose''; but I find this move bizarre, idem with moving ], ]… into english. ] 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**Again: ''that is not the point.'' People, the only thing we should be talking about is <u>usage in English</u> (or some other relevant policy). Apparently most published authors do not find "Legion of Honor" a "bizarre" term. (If those articles are named after the most common term in the English-speaking world, then the titles are (probably) fine, if not, they're not - what can I tell you?) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 16:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***From ], I searched in google for "legion of honor" and most of the results are about the ] & others unrelated to the fr. ]… but, once more… I will stay mute ;D Ciao a tutti and good luke <small>(and ] is english, no ?)</small>] 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per ] and ] but to the British spelling of honour. In the French wiki many British and American medals have been translated. However, will the rest of the category be translated as well? There does seem to be resistance and cultural snobbery when talking about French terms being translated in this wiki. --] (]) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please show what you describe as "cultural snobbery". ] (]) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::@Grcampbell: ] looks like ]. Perhaps sometimes it's better not to try to translate, no? ] 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm sorry, but it does seem like a lot of French people want to see French on enWiki - just because its French. Its not anyone's imagination. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm sorry too; I don't understand; 1) I was talking to Grcampbell 2) ]… it does seem like a lot of English speaking people want to see English on frWiki - just because its English… This kind of statements does not sound serious to me. Sorry, once again. ] 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - The ''Légion d'honneur'' of the article is a French-created decoration, given only by France. The French do not translate ] in "Cœur violet", or the German in „Purpurherz“, no more than they translate ], ], ], ], ] and others. Like ], I hate to see the day when Misplaced Pages will be anglicising ], ], ]. If the Queen of England can live with the motto ], I believe English wiki can live with the French "Légion d'honneur". |
|
|
:--] (]) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::We do translate ''some'' awards - ] not ''Eisernes Kreuz'', for example, and I think we're entirely consistent with the general English-language literature in that case. Why English usage seems more comfortable with direct use of French terms than German or, say, Dutch is a whole messy tangle of reasons, and there's probably a historio-linguistic PhD thesis in there somewhere! ] | ] | 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::English usage is generally more comfortable with French than, say, German, or Mongolian - but not in this case. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Eisernes Kreuz'' or ''Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern'' are a bit hard to pronounce for non-Germanic speakers, could that be the reason they are translated? ] is easy to pronounce & is kept in German. |
|
|
::::--] (]) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Google is obviously not a good way to determine which term is best suited and my argument is not based on that. The previous consensus to keep the French name Légion d'honneur was reached because contributors fought between Legion of honor and Legion of hono'''u'''r. I think that we should not reopen this Pandora's box and that Légion d'honneur is good enough because it also distinguishes the decoration to the other several Legions of honor. ] (]) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' (for clarity). Per my comments below, it seems far from proven that "Legion of Honor" or "Legion of Honour" ''is'' in any way the common name for it in general English usage, as opposed to the common name in ''a particular variant of English''. ] | ] | 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' If there were no problem with honor/honour, then I ''might'' be supportive. As it is, the present title is common in English-language scholarship and avoids the "U-problem". ] (]) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' move. I don't even understand why this should be contentious. Here in America, everyone understands the "Legion of Honor" is; "Légion d'honneur" is a basically unknown term. This is the English Misplaced Pages; it seems quite silly, when given the choice between an article name that everyone understands and one that no one understands, to choose the latter. Absent a very good reason, we go with English. I don't know about the French Misplaced Pages or the German Misplaced Pages or whatever, but if they don't want to translate the names of foreign decorations, that's their business. I do note (looking at one example) that the Russian Misplaced Pages on the Silver Star is named "Серебряная звезда" rather than "Silver Star", for whatever that is worth. As for the Honor/Honour thingy, give me a break; not being able to resolve that is not a good reason for keeping an article title in French. Like most Wikipedians (I would think) I really don't care whether its Honor or Honour, just flip a coin or whatever. Agree to go with the last digit of the NYSTE trading volume of IBM on October 17, 2010; if its odd we go with Honor, if even Honour. Or whatever. But render the title of this article into English, please. ] (]) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not keen on the move. My understanding is that using the Anglicised form is common in the US but not standard elsewhere; I've almost always seen it in the French form, and it's the one I'd naturally ''say'' in the rare event I actually had to do so. For what it's worth, I checked a standard UK reference source - the ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography''. Results are a little imprecise (it has hiccups on the é) but it gives just under six hundred entries using "Légion d'honneur", and three using "legion of honour", of which only one refers to the French decoration. (Another refers to the American one with a "u", which may or may not say something!). ''Who Was Who'' gives 34 Legion of Honour, 1 Legion of Honor, and 64 Legion d'honneur (they also have trouble with the accent). Bear in mind, of course, that some of the English-language forms may well refer to other things than this award, whilst the French-language form is very unlikely to refer to anything else. ] | ] | 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::A bit more research confirms there's a US:UK difference here. Testing a sample of UK newspapers for "legion of honor", "legion of honour", and "legion d'honneur", the latter gets 75%. In the US, 6%. (Before we consider this overwhelmingly indicative of the Anglicised form, I've opened a few at random - a very high proportion of them seem to be about other things, obituaries of people who were in fraternal organisations called the Legion of Honor Color Guard, or equally odd things) |
|
|
::So if we grant that use of the Anglicised form predominates in the US - which I wouldn't use these results to absolutely swear on without further research, but which certainly seems plausible - then it comes down to something of a ] issue and not a common name one ''per se''. ] | ] | 20:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The proposer should be careful about using terms such as "no brainer" this implies that if anyone objects that they have no idea what they are talking about which would contravene ] and has the potential to put people off from participating in the discussion. Whilst this was presumably unintended by the proposer, it is still the implication. If the page is to be moved, based on the proposer's own argument, the proposed name change should be to "Legion of Honour" not to "Legion of Honor" (3:1 ratio in favour of the British spelling): |
|
|
:::{| |
|
|
| '''Google''' || '''French spelling''' || '''US spelling''' || '''British spelling''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| www.google.co.uk || 206,000 || 337,000 ||1,460,000 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| www.googlebooks.com || 165,000 || 373,000 || 236,000 |
|
|
|} |
|
|
:::] (]) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::(Just to be clear in case someone has not noticed, "The Proposer" would be little ole me. :) I shall not apologize for describing the move as a "no brainer". I disagree with your rather "liberal" interpretation of the phrase and continue to hold that an article which has ''the least common'' name for a title should very obviously be renamed without the necessity for a prolonged debate/argument/discussion (which is what I meant). --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The only plausible other name, in my view, would be ]. However, I'd prefer the French name without parentheses. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 23:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I do not think there is any need to disambiguate. ] already links directly here. This is "''the''" Legion of Honor after all. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning the UK/US spelling difference, I want to be clear that I myself am utterly indifferent as to whether the title should include the letter "u" or not. I just wrote the variant that was slightly more used in publications.<br /> |
|
|
To dispel any concerns regarding bias: I am neither British/Commonwealth nor American. I first learned the language in the US, but studied English as the British variant back home for years (I'm told I sound something like Hannibal Lecter in the movie :). I am not "anti-French" in any way and can't understand how someone could be (in fact, Napoleon is probably my favorite historical personality). |
|
|
|
|
|
I was just surprised to see the title of this article in French and did a quick check. My only points are: 1) "''Légion d'honneur''" is just not the most common name in English language publications. 2) We need to find that which is. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@Shimgray. There may be a lot of fuzz there as you say, but there's a whole lot more "fuzz" in the French figure of 165,000. As I said, a great many French language publications were not filtered out, and more still use the name in the context of quoted text in French . There is also the ''Palais de la Légion d'Honneur'', and the fact is that many of the alternative uses you mention as the "fuzz" in the English figure - are also present in the French figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In short, the fuzz is always there, it is present in both figures, but the difference here is ''four times'' (4x) so I doubt that is significant. Nevertheless, how would you suggest we refine the search? --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My Google results are as follows: |
|
|
* "Legion d'honneur" France OR francais OR francaise: About 1,420,000 results |
|
|
* "Legion of Honor" France OR French: About 202,000 results |
|
|
* "Legion of Honour" France OR French: About 1,330,000 results |
|
|
<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 16:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My Google results are as follows: |
|
|
* "Legion d'honneur" France OR francais OR francaise: About 2,120,000 results |
|
|
* "Legion of Honor" France OR French: About 602,000 results |
|
|
* "Legion of Honour" France OR French: About 2,430,000 results |
|
|
--] (]) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Tuning the search to limit only to pages in English language, here are the results: |
|
|
* "Legion d'honneur" France OR francais OR francaise: About 155,000 results |
|
|
* "Legion of Honor" France OR French: About 194,000 results |
|
|
* "Legion of Honour" France OR French: About 1,250,000 results |
|
|
] (]) 19:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"''Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in '''English-language ].'''''" |
|
|
::Again, missing the point fellas: the issue is researching use in '''1)''' <u>English language</u> '''2)''' <u>sources</u>. Those searches neither explore usage in sources, nor do they screen for French language hits, nor do they filter-out Misplaced Pages itself. |
|
|
::In short, Google Books/Scholar with an English filter is probably the best type of test we can do, and it certainly tops Google proper. |
|
|
::That said, these are the Google test results with the English filter on: |
|
|
::* "Legion d'honneur" -wikipedia: 208,000 results |
|
|
::* "Legion of Honor" -wikipedia: 334,000 results |
|
|
::* "Legion of Honour" -wikipedia: 1,470,000 results |
|
|
::Like I said, I did all the tests before proposing this. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Using Google as a reference is a non-sense. Most searches with "Legion of honor" are leading to completely unrelated subjects such the "Legion of Honor of San Francisco", the "New Jersey Legion of Honor", etc. You got to deal with the fact that "Légion d'Honneur" is like a brand that can't be translated. Should VolksWagen's article be renamed "People Cars" because there is much more results on Google with "People" and "Car" than with Volkswagen ? ] (]) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, any hit received for ''Légion d'Honneur'' will undoubtedly add a hit for the English translation if you are searching English-only pages. ] (]) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@User:UltimaRatio, I get the feeling you do not get the usage of Google tests on Wiki. See ]. |
|
|
:::::Steve, if you object to the accuracy of the test, please suggest ways to refine it and exclude false hits. Or better yet, perform an improved test yourself. I'm not seeing any justification to keep the least-used name variant. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's not incumbent upon me to do so: you are the nominator, so it's up to you to lay out a valid proposal. But this is no different from the proposal that was made several years ago when '''this change was discussed at length and a solid consensus was found to keep the name in French'''. ] (]) 23:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
There is one thing I do not understand in some discussions on Misplaced Pages. Often, when there is a disagreement, the same contributors who use the argument that ] also use the "Google hits" research tool. In my eyes, these are two opposite arguments being used by the same side. |
|
|
#If Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, then why bother bringing the move up for discussion? Why not let a ''Diktator'' do the move arbitrarily? |
|
|
#When Google hits are proposed to prove one's point, is not that using the tools of Democracy since, right or wrong, the results found by a majority of Google hits are going to be the most important argument used to win the debate? |
|
|
--] (]) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The idea behind the ''survey'' (not vote!) and discussion is to see whether someone can show that this is not, in fact, the most common name in English publications. So far, all I've seen is vague opposition essentially summed up to "it ''feeeels'' right this way". The survey and discussion are not a call for you to "express yourself and your thoughts" on the subject, but an opportunity to bring-up concrete, relevant arguments for or against the move - <u>by addressing the reason for the move</u>. |
|
|
:As for democracy - good point, but somewhat flawed: the Google Corp. search engine is not exactly an internet variant of "democracy" and is not intended to be used as such. "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy" essentially means that our ''personal opinions'', those of a few random internet fellas, do not count. This is as opposed to those of people who got published, in particular scientists and experts. I could not agree more, personally. I can't imagine a more ridiculous way to solve factual disputes than "lets all vote". Democracy is no way to solve scientific debates. |
|
|
:I'll let that "diktator" bit slide, but I suggest you do not go there again. I also do not see the point of discussing policy here. E-mail Jim or something. In addition to not being a democracy, ]. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::If I understand, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy & it is not a forum either, and the only way to solve the problem of either or not translating ''Légion d'honneur'' into English is by using the one & only scientific tool at our disposal, i.e. Google? |
|
|
::By the way, what did you mean by "Nationalist POV is likely to blame"? Who are the nationalists? |
|
|
::--] (]) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages is not a democracy or a forum. Google is not a scientific, or democratic, "tool". Google is just one means of checking representation of certain phrases within published works. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
We are starting to see a lot of French people who are opposing this on an emotional basis. I hope we won't let this degenerate into a squabble. People, please remember to <u>address the reason for the move</u> (in a meaningful way). |
|
|
I would like to invite everyone to present ways with which to improve the Google test. I'm sure everyone knows that false hits can easily be excluded, e.g we can just add "-San Francisco" or "-Palais" or whatever. What do you folks think is interfering with the accuracy of the testing? --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would suggest ditching the Google test entirely - since interpreting any plausible result from it is ''hard'' - and trying to work on reference works, etc. I've noted two biographical reference works above, which are firmly on the side of LdH, and a rather equivocal result from searching newspaper databases, which indicates that LdH predominates in the UK and LoH in the US. I don't have easy access to any other standard biographical references, so I've checked style guides - the ''Guardian'' and Hart's Rules (the OUP handbook) don't mention it, whilst the ''Times'' simply says "either form is acceptable, according to context". Not much of a result there! Are any of the standard US style guides available online? ] | ] | 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Director, could you please stop to act both as the proponent of the move and as the moderator of the discussion? If you say "we", how many have started to see French people here? <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is exactly what I mean. For some reason users are making this personal. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@User:Shimgray. I do not think the Google test should or will be "dropped". It is the recommended and most widely used way to research notability on Misplaced Pages (Google Books is particularly recommended). The results are also very clear and unambiguous, and I can't see any amount of vague objections devalue their significance. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Google is a useful tool, but it is simply not the be-all and end-all; if the issue is what terminology reliable sources use, we should actually go and look ''at those sources''. Again, please see comments above; this is a bit more complex than "one is much more common than the other". ] | ] | 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with Direktor: to my knowledge, there are very few things called "Légion d'honneur" whereas the results from Google for "Legion of Honor" show that there is a whole lot of garbage in there (mainly related to companies' legions of honor or MMORPG teams called Legion of Honor). So saying that Legion of Honor is more used because it has 40 % more hits in Google is not true. Better filtering proposition was proposed by me below but Google refuses queries with more than 32 words. ] (]) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Look, User:Badzil, Shimgray, everyone, it does not matter how you refine the search: the difference is HUGE and it always turns out virtually in the same ratio. I suggest you stop trying to desperately "challenge" these results since this is getting silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It also looks like people are inviting their buddies from frWiki to oppose this. This move will be listed on a WikiProject noticeboard. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Google tests === |
|
|
{{quote|"The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources."|<small>]</small>}} |
|
|
{{quote|"Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. In determining which of several alternative names is more common (...) a search engine may help to collect this data."|<small>]</small>}} |
|
|
{{quote|" are helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things - the so-called Google Test.<br />Google Book Search has a pattern of coverage that is in closer accord with traditional encyclopedia content than the Web, taken as a whole, is; if it has systemic bias, it is a very different systemic bias from Google Web searches. Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide '''convincing evidence''' for the real use of the phrase or concept."|<small>]</small>}} |
|
|
Tests were performed with the greatest care to avoid any possible false hits. User objections to the refinement of previous searches were taken into consideration. Google Books results are of much greater significance than those of Google proper. All tests are performed with the English language filter (per guideline). |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Google Books''' |
|
|
* French <small>(note: French language hits not entirely filtered-out)</small> |
|
|
**"''Légion d'honneur''" -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: '''76,600''' results |
|
|
* English |
|
|
** "Legion of Honor" -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: '''265,000''' results |
|
|
** "Legion of Honour" -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: '''201,000''' results |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Google''' |
|
|
* French <small>(note: French language hits not entirely filtered-out)</small> |
|
|
**"''Légion d'honneur''" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: '''454,000''' results |
|
|
* English |
|
|
** "Legion of Honor" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: '''728,000''' results |
|
|
** "Legion of Honour" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: '''1,030,000''' results |
|
|
|
|
|
The current title of the article is between <u>''three and four times'' less common</u> in English language publications than ''either one'' of the English spelling variants, which together blow the current title completely out of the water. Please bring forward any reasons, if any, why this should be ignored. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support''' per ]. All the arguments above have looked at the history of the page or the official website, but none have opted to look at independent sources. Ngrams demonstrate that "Legion of Honor" has been more common since around 1886, only just recently narrowing. ] (]) ] 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment''' - I've put a couple more formats into ngrams and returned these results: |
|
|
::- "Legion of Honour of France" is ''slightly'' more common than "Legion of Honor of France" |
|
|
::- "Legion of Honor" is more common than "Legion of Honour" |
|
|
::- "Legion of Honor + France" and "Legion of Honour + France" are statistically even . |
|
|
::So 2 formats support "Legion of Honor", 1 supports "Legion of Honour" and 1 is tied between the two. ] is easy here. ] (]) ] 16:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - "Brexit means ... ]?". "And the variety that underpins the Commission]]'s English style guide is clear. It's not Euro-English, it's not American English, it's 'standard usage of Britain and Ireland' — referred to as 'British usage' or 'British English' in the guide 'for the sake of convenience.{{' "}} . "Honour" is predominantly used in British English. In the source France's Europe Minister ] spoke about a "broken English", that's probably why there are constant changes between "honor" and "honour". ] (]) 11:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' I'm an American and solely use ] in my daily life. However, it's been the article's name for over a decade and because of ] it should stay;"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." The legion *does* have strong national ties... to France, where they don't care if we're using the honour or honor variation; there's no pressing reason why it should change given the high burden of ]. ] (]) 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' I do not see a valid reason for change. ] (]) 09:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. I agree this is a matter for ], not ]. Honour/honor is just being used here as the word. A couple reasons for "Legion of Honor" being more common without specifying France may include that there is an art museum in San Francisco called the ] and a former ]. ] ] 21:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Inconsistency == |
|
:You could try that (and I only removed the garbage from the first 2 pages of results): ''"Legion of Honor" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Philippine -demolay -TMS -MMORPG -Nordrassil -"clash of arms" -"de young" -"Tangier Shrine" -halo -kiwanis -SPE -gamers -"Cartier @ Legion of Honor" -"El Zaribah" -"star trek"'' . ] (]) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Great, more frWiki folks "defending the honor of the fatherland" or whatnot... User:Badzil, the above post makes no sense. The faults in the previous search were pointed out by other users, not me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 3 "List of" pages in the See also sectionhave the spelling Légion d'honneur. Either they should be changed or this article's title should be changed. ] (]) 02:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
::It also does not matter how many words we exclude or add to the search, it always turns out virtually the same. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
The 3 "List of" pages in the See also sectionhave the spelling Légion d'honneur. Either they should be changed or this article's title should be changed. Mcljlm (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
