Talk:honor

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

laureate[edit]

What does honor mean in the definition of laureate:

  1. (intransitive): To honor with a wreath of laurel, as formerly was done in bestowing a degree at the English universities.

Thanks in advance. Cumeo89 06:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with honour (or vice versa)[edit]

Having separate entries for honour and honor is unnecessary duplication, and just plain daft. The entries are nominally identical but have randomly diverged. Even if they are synced now they will diverge again in the future as UK and US editors separately maintain and enhance the same definitions in slightly different ways. (If any usage differences are identified then they should be marked as "US" or "UK", just as is the case in other articles when there are differences in meaning but not spelling.) —This unsigned comment was added by 81.151.231.85 (talkcontribs).

I'm sorry if you think it is "daft", but it is the way we do it. Examples, quotations, derived and related terms, and often senses are different (e.g a sense used in the UK, but not in the US). Yes, they will, properly, diverge; they aren't the same thing. Robert Ullmann 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
But it's just completely by chance that they happen to have separate spellings. By your argument every word ought to have two separate articles, one for US meanings and one for UK meanings, with all the common meanings, all the translations, and all the other common stuff duplicated. I think you're being unduly influenced by the fact there is a minor spelling difference, which is essentially irrelevant. I think you need to think again. (BTW, please don't undo the changes to honour. They are all valid (unless you have any specific objections) irrespective of this merge. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.151.231.85 (talkcontribs).
It is the way we do it. I'm sorry if you don't like it. That is the way we do it. It would be advisable if you would use a login, and sign talk page messages. Robert Ullmann 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking me while I am dicussing this issue with you is not helpful. I restored my edit to "honor" once because I thought your change was wrong. Then I took it to the talk page for discussion. Regarding the changes to "honour", you did a knee-jerk revert (twice) because you mistakenly thought the changes were something to do with a "merge" that you disagreed with. In response to my comments above you have blindly repeated a "that's the way we do it" dogma without justifying it in any way. I am completely unimpressed by your behaviour. If that's the way I'm to be treated here, then frankly I can't be bothered. Good luck. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.129.130.5 (talkcontribs).
You "restored [your] edit" to honor 14 minutes after being told clearly on your talk page that it was wrong. Pfui. Robert Ullmann 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the articles should be merged. I was putting some translations into honor when i noticed that every definition was marked "chiefly US". I found the honour page so i could include my new translations and ended up tabbing back and forth to each page to make sure that their identical definitions included that same languages (which they didn't) and that the same words and sundries were listed after each language (which they weren't). I found that each article held mutually relevant information that the other lacked, not only in translations, but in definitions, etymology and derived terms. Folks seem likely to neglect one article over another without realizing it, and i don't know who wants to keep an eye on all the differently spelled words that have their own full articles and make sure they are equally up to date. It would seem that nobody does this, at least not often enough or thoroughly. Merging the articles would be an easy, one-time fix. Is there maybe a way to have the article mirror each other, because that might actually be better. --Leif Runenritzer 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)