Talk:Lists of Légion d'honneur recipients

Created
The article "List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name" was created on 18 February 2007 by long-term User:Carl Logan. The list contained less than 100 names for 2 months. On 18 April 2007, the list was fractionated to become 27 separate articles, with 26 sub-list articles for each letter, for separate updates. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See below: Handling sub-lists.

Re-added combined list
09-Feb-2008: In order to simplify searching of names, I have added the combined list into the top article, and expanded it to include over 720 names (many stating occupation) linked to articles. The prior 26 separate sub-list articles still exist, but have not been individually updated. The combined list has been quite easy to update, not only because of the single edit operation, but also because of moving names within the list, since determining last-name letter varies by culture or hyphenated last names. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Handling sub-lists
Traditionally, alphabetical sub-lists are divided into groups of letters (such as A-L, M-R, S-Z) rather than 26 separate letters. People are typically NEVER queued into 26 separate lines by name. Groups are usually split into roughly equal numbers, often having large numbers of "M" or "S" names, although that depends on cultural naming conventions, where "Smith" or "Perez" might be the most common name. French names would be likely more common. I haven't taken the time to merge or update all names currently in the 26 sub-lists, nor have I even looked at all 26 sub-lists yet. I guess it would have been much easier as just 3 sub-lists. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be a category
This whole list concept seems confused. For starters, there is really no such thing as a "Légion d'honneur recipient" -- there are multiple ranks, and en.wikipedia.org should just follow fr.wikipedia.org in using multiple categories But why even bother trying? Perhaps the right thing is to simply link to the French catégories, which at least have a snowball's chance of being updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.212.109 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur
 * Officier de la Légion d'honneur
 * Commandeur de la Légion d'honneur
 * Grand officier de la Légion d'honneur
 * Grand-croix de la Légion d'honneur
 * Régiment décoré de la Légion d'honneur
 * Ville décorée de la Légion d'honneur

Bette Davis also received this honor in 1987. --Mircea romania (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. According to http://legiondhonneur.fr/shared/en/en_ordresdecorations/en_fordredecoration.html, there are about 93,000 living persons who have been awarded some rank of this honor.  We certainly aren't going to list all of them, not to mention the much greater number of deceased members, and there is no explanation of how this very small subset of persons was selected to be listed.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
At present there is duplication of purpose between this list and the lists for each letter of the alphabet. I propose that the names on this list should be merged into those pages.

After that, there are two things that could be done with this page: Please comment below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Transclude all the A to Z pages into this big list.
 * 2) Rename it to "Lists of…" and make it just an index (list of lists) of the member pages within Category:Lists of Légion d'honneur recipients.


 * Dear Fayenatic london,
 * I fully agree with you and would support this effort if you initiated a formal Proposed merger. I would also wish to participate in doing some of the donkey work, and of ensuring that the resulting list for each letter is complete; at the moment, the two lists for the letter 'A', for example, contain different names.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! As this page has been tagged since 2014, and no objections have been raised, I suggest you just go ahead without further ado. I suggest for maximum openness that for each letter we first add citations where these can easily be found for redlinks; then remove any entries for which notability has not been demonstrated, stating this in the edit summary; and then merge the lists as a separate edit. We should also improve the intro paragraph on the individual letter pages. I have done "A". – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Fayenatic london,
 * Thank you for your prompt reply and also for demonstrating the method by merging the lists for 'A'. I am happy to join you in this effort and will proceed from 'B' onwards, some time in the next few days . I'll start by first merging the duplicated lists for all the letters and will then validate notability in a second wave, in order quickly to eliminate this silly and confusing situation of having two separate lists for each letter.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a quick heads-up to say I have now merged the duplicated 'B' lists today and will carry on to 'Z' during the next few days. With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fayenatic london, I've merged all the duplicated lists, from 'B' to 'Z'. ✅ I will now validate the contents of each list and remove the names for which I can't find any evidence to cite from Google searches. Thank you once again for your leadership and helpful assistance to get me started. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks and well done! I have trimmed the page, but left your "under construction" template for now.
 * This index is no longer strictly necessary as it duplicates the index provided by the navigation template, but it does no harm to keep it. If anyone considers it useless, I suggest redirecting it to the "A" page rather than deletion, as this will keep the edit history, showing who originally added the entries which have now been merged into the individual letter pages. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Fayenatic london,
 * Thank you for your prompt and supportive reply, and for tidying up the article. The duplication had occurred to me too, and I was wondering how we could make the list less obvious while preserving the article (and its history) as it is now. How about simply hiding the 'combined list' in a Navbox? It's just an idea but, if you think it acceptable, then I'll transfer that test code from my sandbox to the article itself. Thank you for your continued help and patient advice.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO the existing template Légion d'honneur recipients by name is sufficient, so I hope drafting that other one didn't take you long! – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt reply. I am certainly happy to leave the article as it is now; I just thought that hiding the duplicated list, in-situ, inside a collapsible container might help to make the duplication less obvious. I wasn't proposing to do any more than that and I apologise if I wasn't clear enough. In any case, I am glad we discussed it and I agree not to add the collapsible navbox. And no, it didn't take long at all to create it. Thanks again for your help and advice. I'll now proceed with validating the redlinked entries in each of the 26 lists.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Should years awarded be listed (at least for new additions?)
Some have year of award, most do not. Should year of the award be added, at least for new listed recipients going forward? Drum book (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @Drum book - I agree that the year of the award should be added. However, I would go further and suggest that all the entries should be put into tables, so that those editors adding data will know what types of values should be included. If it was a sortable table, then the entires could easily be ordered into "Date Awarded" by anyone needing that information. For instance, I just added the entry "Patrick Ricard (1945 – 2012), Entrepreneur - Commander of the Legion of Honour (13 July 2007)", but I am not sure whether this is in the correct format. I would suggest that a table with columns for "Recipient Name", "Dates (born/died)", "Level of Award", "Date Awarded". Having a column for "Date Awarded" would mean that this information would likely be included by editors adding new data, or at least be left blank.


 * What do you think? What does everyone else think? Would this benefit the page at all? Let's discuss it! SMargan (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

New Format for "Legion of Honour" Awards
I am proposing a change from the present unstructured and confusing "text-based list" structure to a new sortable "table" format, with columns for "Recipient Name", "Dates (born/died)", "General Work", "Legion of Honour Category (Year Awarded)", "Reason for the Award" etc.

This "table" format change is designed to resolve a few of the intrinsic problems with the old "text-based list" format:- 

1) STANDARDISING DATA - With a "table" format, editors will know which data is required and how to add that data.  2) SORTABLE - The "text-based lists" at the moment are only sorted in order of surname, however, with a sortable "table" format, entries can be easily be ordered into any category that is required, by any user needing that information.  3) ENTRY DUPLICATION - A sortable "table" format enables easy identification of duplicate entries, thus avoiding this continual problem.  4) FULL DATA - Allowing a column for each data category required means that information is unlikely to be omitted by editors adding new data, as they have to leave such required fields blank. 

In addition to this format change, I am also tightening up the inclusion of inline citations. This avoids the problems associated with vandals adding dubious names that might not be of people that have genuinely won such honours.

I will be trialing a few pages, to test out the popularity of this new "table" format, to see if there is any opposition. If there is no negative feedback, I will convert the rest of the pages of the alphabet. The following is a running tally of this conversion process:-

NEW FORMAT WITH DATA Page "C" Page "D" Page "I" Page "O" Page "P" Page "Q" Page "T" Page "U" Page "V" Page "X" Page "Y" Page "Z"

NEW FORMAT ONLY [not populated with data yet] Page "A" Page "B" Page "E" Page "F" Page "G" Page "H" Page "J" Page "K" Page "L" Page "M" Page "N" Page "R" Page "S" Page "W"

OLD FORMAT</b> NONE REMAINING

I would like to have feedback on the pages converted already, before I make the transition with all the pages of the alphabet. What does everyone think? Does this new format benefit these pages at all? Do not be shy in voicing your views. Let's discuss it! SMargan (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * CONVERSION UPDATE - I have had no feedback for a year since I first started making these changes, either positive or negative, so I am just going to make the transition to all the list pages into the new format over the next month. SMargan (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * CONVERSION FINALISED - The conversion is now complete, and there are no pages in this series that remain in the old non-table list format. The only task left now is to ensure that the data present in each table is fleshed out, so that all the columns are utalised. I will keep updating this running summary as each page's data is populated. SMargan (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)