This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I want to move to to the Siege of Fort St. Johns. It is written that way in every single book I have stumbled upon. Also, this is the English wikipedia.-
Kieran4 (
talk)
21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment It is certainly true that American histories covering this event use St. Johns. I don't recall off hand what the (English-language) Canadian histories I've run across say. I'm not sure I've seen any British histories of the revolution that even mention this event (but then I've not looked hard for those). In any event, there should be redirects from whichever name is not the primary. Magic♪piano22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I would think that if modern Canadian works refer to the battle/siege as of St. Jean, the events and the places should follow suit. There should be redirects from similar St. John names (which I believe there are not now), and appropriate lead wordage. (To expose my biases: I am an American.) Magic♪piano20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose in agreement with previous post from 76.66.195.63. And in reply to Kieran4, this is also Canadian English Wikipedia as much as it is American English Wikipedia, and in Canada we don't anglicize French placenames (Otherwise Montreal would be Royal Mountain, and Louisbourg would be "Louie's Castle"). If this were a US placename, the equation might be different, but for example Detroit is still Detroit and not "the Strait".
Skookum1 (
talk)
14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Canadian style generally doesn't anglicize French placenames. If all the sources call it Fort St. Johns, then change it because that is the general English usage. However, if it is mixed, use St. Jean, even if a majority of sources use Johns. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on
Siege of Fort St. Jean. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.