![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This seems an odd redirect from gable? Notinasnaid 18:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
façade is only 1/3 as common as facade using http://www.google.co.uk with an English flag set:
So I think the wording at the begining should be changed to facade (sometimes façade). Any objections to this change and if so why? -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
My Chambers English dictionary simply says façade or facade. It does not put any particular weight on either, so I suggest this article do the same. Notinasnaid 08:35, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
Sure, this is an online encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can be less accurate than anything else. In fact, in light of the controversy leveled at it, i think it probably needs to be more so. Still, i don't necessary disagree with you. I would push to make it written both ways with no emphasis on which is "correct". Archtemplar 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone dispute that the reason for the abundance of "facade" is the difficulty of typing funny letters on Anglo keyboards? If that's the case, the mere abundance is an extremely poor reason for preferring the crippled form. Not many readers are going to see façade and think, "Oh, I was looking for facade but I guess this is something else." Besides, using the cedilla means never having to say "c is hard before back vowels in all English words except facade." — Tamfang 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I just edited the Cedilla article based on my access to the OED. As of now, the online OED has an entry for "façade" and none at "facade." Further, the "façade" entry does not indicate any alternate spellings. The OED seems to be strongly in favor of the cedilla-ful spelling. I agree, and think this article should be moved. LWizard @ 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I can not understand why any person who has learned English would use "Facade" instead of "Façade". Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
stubstubstubstub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.169.244 ( talk) 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, anonymous. Next time, simply add the stub tag by using ((stub)) (but with curled brackets rather than parentheses) Archtemplar 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we add a note about the 2nd menaing of facade? [1]: "An artificial or deceptive front"-- 75.7.135.250 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Of you mean putting a new front on an older building (eg a Georgian frontage on Tudor building [2]) then yes that should be here. -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if the facade reference to movies here is relevant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.220.225 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I just created false front to redirect here. I feel like it is a more common word for describing the big square facades you see in the old west, as in this picture, as opposed to "facade". Thoughts? —Ben FrantzDale 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Move this to Façade for God's sake, just because our keyboards are retarded doesn't mean we have to be. Facade implies a very wrong pronunciation. My Webster's dictionary favo(u)rs façade over facade as well. Cameron Nedland 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you prounce Worcester and Southwark? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It may to you, but not to me any more than Moscow ends in the word cow, or Warwick starts with the word war, or that Wagner starts with a W. It is one of the more interesting features of English that these things are not consistent even within every day usage by different people or even the same person depending on context of the usage. -- Philip Baird Shearer 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen 'facade' in any written material, it is less common using a google search, all of my dictionaries (three of them) favo(u)r façade. Cameron Nedland 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia does not function by counting votes, but by the strength of arguments as applied to Wikipedia's policies and, where the policies cannot guide us, by reaching a consensus. Stating arguments is good; keeping count is contrary to the way things work. See Wikipedia:Voting is evil. I also observe that if you were counting votes, this could be seen as an attempt to wipe the slate on those who, above this section, argued against. Notinasnaid 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Common usage seems to favour facade, so it should remain there. BTW it is not just blog sites were facade is favoured, for example google on [-facade façade site:bbc.co.uk] and [facade -façade site:bbc.co.uk] or on the other side of the pond [-facade façade site:nytimes.com] [facade -façade site:nytimes.com]-- Philip Baird Shearer 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NC (an official policy):
Common usage is the agreed naming policy. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy is common usage, English is not French there is no is no such thing as "true/accurate/correct" as there is in French. As a word gets Anglicized it looses its funny foreign squiggles and facade is a long way down that path. If people did what you suggest we would still be writing hôtel.-- Philip Baird Shearer 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So who is "we"? -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a guideline specifically about the naming of European nobility and monarchs. The example you give does not persuade me. The use of facade by not just "common people" (by which I will assume you mean none reliable sources), but verifiable reliable sources like the BBC and the New York Times does. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Therefore façade is common usage. Cameron Nedland 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Google is (now days) often smart enough to include both when seaching, one has to exclude the other option, exclude Wikipedia (so it is not a self referencing search), and to set the search to English only pages. Both google.com and google.co.uk return:
Which is an increase in façade from when I last did the search (See above April 2005) -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. A move would go against the WP:NC POLICY. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not consensus for a move. In this section only five people have expressed an opinion which is not a very big sample on which to argue that there is consensus for a page move, particularly as two of the five do not think it desirable, and, as the evidence available suggests, such a move would go against Wikipedia policy. -- Philip Baird Shearer 06:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NC (an official policy):
Anglosization: Général, Hôtels. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Naïve is usually spelt without the diaeresis as naive both generally and on en.wikipedia.org. Fuerer is not a borrowed word (There aren't many politicians claiming they are the fuhrer of their party). Café is usually spelt that way. Résumé is a funny Americanism which presumably keeps it foreign squiggles because it looks as if the person writing it can speak French, or is at least aware it comes from French, even if they can not write Latin ( CV) but as the article points out the French résumé is also spelt other ways (presumably by those who do not get the job).
But I put it to you that just because some names are not under their common English spellings and so breach Wikipedia policy, that is not reason to add more breaches to the list. For example do you really think that Lech Wałęsa should be spelt that way even though that is not the common English spelling? Does "ç" tell anyone any more about how to pronounce a word than "ł" does (is every English reader meant to know the effects of every funny foreign squiggle in every language that uses the Latin alphabet)? As to aiding pronunciation how would you for example pronounce Worcestershire? Surly not the way it is spelt? -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Will it be changed to façade, or still be facade? Everybody prefers façade in this talk page.
Somebody says there's no "ç" key in the American/British keyboard, but it doesn't matter. It's a retarded reason because "cliche" and "Mobius strip" are redirect pages to "cliché" and "Möbius strip" respectively. -- 에멜무지로 21:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK then. I will move this page without using "move" tab. I should break edit history. 72.159.71.131, you are absolute right! Nominated! Thank you for telling the truth. -- User:에멜무지로/Sig 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Cut and past moves are a depreciated because it destroys the history of an article which may be needed to prove copyright. see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. If you wish to ask an admin to make this contriversial move the put in a request at WP:RM. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone prefers "façade," but not Philip Baird Shearer. That means "façade" won. We must move this page to "façade." -- User:에멜무지로/Sig 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OK then. Fine. I will move these pages
to here respectively.
-- User:에멜무지로/Sig 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! -- User:에멜무지로/Sig 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I can't see any contribution from you in this discussion. Anyway, there are reasons both against and pro façace, so I think it's time we find a way to choose, don't you? Lupo Azzurro 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything like that. But I've seen a lot of "reasons" so far (none from you, that was my critique), and still there's no agreement. What's the next step? Lupo Azzurro 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole discussion is about the letter ç? Grigrass ( talk) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Facade → Façade — This page was unilaterally moved to "Facade" in 2005. Some discussions have occurred in order to have the previous name ("Façade") restored, but probably due to lack of a proper WP:RM listing, we still have "facade" here. Article should include the diacritic, which is common and accurate English usage for this word. "Facade" is also common English usage, but mainly due to lack of "ç" in most keyboards, unawareness of the diacritic version or a simple disregard for diacritics. "Facade" should thus not be used as the name of an accurate encyclopedic entry. Besides, it's ugly. — Hús ö nd 01:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Does anyone find it strange that an article about façade should turn into an article about high rise fires? I don’t really think fires should be mentioned at all. It really has nothing to do with the subject. If you like fires, you could add this stuff to most articles. The “See also” section defiantly should not have Fire door, Firestop, Fire-resistance rating, Fire sprinkler, Active fire protection, and Passive fire protection. There’s more on fires then there is on false fronts. It looks like some have tried to remove the fire references in the past only to have the page vandalized with fire again. As for the pictures given, I see a lot of fancy facades here, but no typical facades where a store front has it’s road facing gable end squared off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.255.30 ( talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following which seemed only distantly related to the topic:
— Ian Spackman ( talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There is another definition that is not mentioned. It is less common, but still often used. That is, a superficial appearance or illusion of something. As in, They managed somehow to maintain a facade of wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.121.229 ( talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Façade is spelt with a cedilla, there is a noticeable difference between ç (a cedilla) and c. The most obvious difference is that the pronunciation and spelling of such a word is technically incorrect, as this word is a loanword from the French language, as are many English words, and approximately 40% of English words are of French decent, after William the Conqueror's victory of England and subsequent integration of French into the then-early English language. As mentioned before, this is a loanword and thus meaning the cedilla highlights the correct pronunciation, of a softer sounding "c" as spoken in the word "façade". We should therefore respect the heritage of this and at least spell it correctly. The word "facade" does not exist, it has appeared as a result of mere confusion between two similar (but completely different) letters. I do realise that some English keyboards do not incorporate the "ç", but this is the whole reason for Wikipedia's page redirection. The lack of "ç" key on the keyboard is compensated for on programmes such as Microsoft Word, when if the word "facade" is typed it is immediately changed to the correct version of "façade", not left incorrect as it has been on Wikipedia. It is completely ridiculous that there is a Wikipedia page with an actual spelling mistake on its title. -- Patyo1994 ( talk) 17:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This new ASTM publication, combined with ASTM Standard Practice for Periodic Inspection of Building Facades for Unsafe Conditions (E 2270), provide a rational guide for building owners and governing authorities to help ensure the safety of our aging building infrastructure. Written by experts who bring their first hand knowledge and experience to this work, these 24 peer-reviewed papers cover a wide diversity of architecture within North America.
{{
citation}}
: External link in |quote=
(
help)
- Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor. The authors addressed all of the reviewer's comments of both the technical editor(s) and the ASTM International Committee on Publications.
- To make the technical information available as quickly as possible, the peer-reviewed papers in this publication were prepared "camera-ready" as submitted by the authors.
That this article continues to have the title "Facade" and not "Façade" is bizarre. I see the word "facade" an I wince. How can there be any reasonable opposition to such a move? How can this discussion be formally reopened and the decision NOT to move it be reconsidered? ("Facade"... I mean, come on. Really?) KDS4444 Talk 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
What is going on with the sentence around "as well as the 1,100 °C. Melting point of aluminium"? I'd guessed it was an erroneous stop, but the melting point of aluminium is 660.32 °C (1,220.58 °F) so that doesn't seem right. Si Trew ( talk) 11:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Can Someone with sufficient knowledge Please Help Expand the article by adding an Entymology section thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.249.29 ( talk) 14:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're already in 2014, it was about time we started a new topic on this subject. Previous requests to move the title back to façade have been made in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012 and no consensus was achieved; but who knows... I particularly favour façade over facade for the same reason that we write déjà vu, naïve etc. — capmo ( talk) 07:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Also noted that, the original move to Facade from the original (and current) name was done unilaterally and has been heavily contested since. Because there was no consensus to move to begin with, the article title has been restored to its previous version.
Furthermore, the only reasonable argument that has been given by PBS has been WP:COMMONNAME (which many the accuracy thereof, with rational arguments). Per the link above, though, façade has been the more common variant since 2014, and is increasing in use.
cheers, Firejuggler86 ( talk) 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Façade →
Facade – Should the article stay at its current title or should it be moved to
Facade? Please state your reason for choosing "Facade" (support) or "Façade" (oppose) below. It seems that while
PBS thinks that the move from "Facade" to "Façade" is controversial and thus the article's title should be "Facade",
Firejuggler86 thinks that the opposite move from "Façade" to "Facade" is controversial and thus the article's title should be "Façade". Clearly, PBS and Firejuggler86 have different opinions on which move is the "controversial" one, so now dicussion is needed. Had the article been first moved to "Facade" and then an RM from "Facade" to "Façade" started instead, then all the "supports" would become "opposes" and vice versa.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why the very common spelling of "facade" is not included in the article as an alternate spelling, along with the French spelling "façade". It is the primary spelling given (along with the the French variant) in the Collins English dictionary, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and the "Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms". It is a very common word in the English language. Why is the French spelling considered preferable for a common term in English? I respectfully think both the English and French spellings should be given, since both are widely used. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
On a related note, in this edit summary, @ Capmo says that the RM above should entail that "facade" should be spelled "façade" on other articles as well. Should that be the case?
For the record, I disagree with that edit summary, since I don't think the results of this RM should be used to justify spellings in other articles. Per mwod:facade, the variant without the cedilla seems to be preferred in American English (at the very least), compared with "façade". – Epicgenius ( talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This seems an odd redirect from gable? Notinasnaid 18:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
façade is only 1/3 as common as facade using http://www.google.co.uk with an English flag set:
So I think the wording at the begining should be changed to facade (sometimes façade). Any objections to this change and if so why? -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
My Chambers English dictionary simply says façade or facade. It does not put any particular weight on either, so I suggest this article do the same. Notinasnaid 08:35, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
Sure, this is an online encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can be less accurate than anything else. In fact, in light of the controversy leveled at it, i think it probably needs to be more so. Still, i don't necessary disagree with you. I would push to make it written both ways with no emphasis on which is "correct". Archtemplar 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone dispute that the reason for the abundance of "facade" is the difficulty of typing funny letters on Anglo keyboards? If that's the case, the mere abundance is an extremely poor reason for preferring the crippled form. Not many readers are going to see façade and think, "Oh, I was looking for facade but I guess this is something else." Besides, using the cedilla means never having to say "c is hard before back vowels in all English words except facade." — Tamfang 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I just edited the Cedilla article based on my access to the OED. As of now, the online OED has an entry for "façade" and none at "facade." Further, the "façade" entry does not indicate any alternate spellings. The OED seems to be strongly in favor of the cedilla-ful spelling. I agree, and think this article should be moved. LWizard @ 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I can not understand why any person who has learned English would use "Facade" instead of "Façade". Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
stubstubstubstub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.169.244 ( talk) 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, anonymous. Next time, simply add the stub tag by using ((stub)) (but with curled brackets rather than parentheses) Archtemplar 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we add a note about the 2nd menaing of facade? [1]: "An artificial or deceptive front"-- 75.7.135.250 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Of you mean putting a new front on an older building (eg a Georgian frontage on Tudor building [2]) then yes that should be here. -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if the facade reference to movies here is relevant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.220.225 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I just created false front to redirect here. I feel like it is a more common word for describing the big square facades you see in the old west, as in this picture, as opposed to "facade". Thoughts? —Ben FrantzDale 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Move this to Façade for God's sake, just because our keyboards are retarded doesn't mean we have to be. Facade implies a very wrong pronunciation. My Webster's dictionary favo(u)rs façade over facade as well. Cameron Nedland 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you prounce Worcester and Southwark? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It may to you, but not to me any more than Moscow ends in the word cow, or Warwick starts with the word war, or that Wagner starts with a W. It is one of the more interesting features of English that these things are not consistent even within every day usage by different people or even the same person depending on context of the usage. -- Philip Baird Shearer 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen 'facade' in any written material, it is less common using a google search, all of my dictionaries (three of them) favo(u)r façade. Cameron Nedland 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia does not function by counting votes, but by the strength of arguments as applied to Wikipedia's policies and, where the policies cannot guide us, by reaching a consensus. Stating arguments is good; keeping count is contrary to the way things work. See Wikipedia:Voting is evil. I also observe that if you were counting votes, this could be seen as an attempt to wipe the slate on those who, above this section, argued against. Notinasnaid 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Common usage seems to favour facade, so it should remain there. BTW it is not just blog sites were facade is favoured, for example google on [-facade façade site:bbc.co.uk] and [facade -façade site:bbc.co.uk] or on the other side of the pond [-facade façade site:nytimes.com] [facade -façade site:nytimes.com]-- Philip Baird Shearer 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NC (an official policy):
Common usage is the agreed naming policy. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy is common usage, English is not French there is no is no such thing as "true/accurate/correct" as there is in French. As a word gets Anglicized it looses its funny foreign squiggles and facade is a long way down that path. If people did what you suggest we would still be writing hôtel.-- Philip Baird Shearer 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So who is "we"? -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a guideline specifically about the naming of European nobility and monarchs. The example you give does not persuade me. The use of facade by not just "common people" (by which I will assume you mean none reliable sources), but verifiable reliable sources like the BBC and the New York Times does. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Therefore façade is common usage. Cameron Nedland 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Google is (now days) often smart enough to include both when seaching, one has to exclude the other option, exclude Wikipedia (so it is not a self referencing search), and to set the search to English only pages. Both google.com and google.co.uk return:
Which is an increase in façade from when I last did the search (See above April 2005) -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. A move would go against the WP:NC POLICY. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not consensus for a move. In this section only five people have expressed an opinion which is not a very big sample on which to argue that there is consensus for a page move, particularly as two of the five do not think it desirable, and, as the evidence available suggests, such a move would go against Wikipedia policy. -- Philip Baird Shearer 06:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NC (an official policy):
Anglosization: Général, Hôtels. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Naïve is usually spelt without the diaeresis as naive both generally and on en.wikipedia.org. Fuerer is not a borrowed word (There aren't many politicians claiming they are the fuhrer of their party). Café is usually spelt that way. Résumé is a funny Americanism which presumably keeps it foreign squiggles because it looks as if the person writing it can speak French, or is at least aware it comes from French, even if they can not write Latin ( CV) but as the article points out the French résumé is also spelt other ways (presumably by those who do not get the job).
But I put it to you that just because some names are not under their common English spellings and so breach Wikipedia policy, that is not reason to add more breaches to the list. For example do you really think that Lech Wałęsa should be spelt that way even though that is not the common English spelling? Does "ç" tell anyone any more about how to pronounce a word than "ł" does (is every English reader meant to know the effects of every funny foreign squiggle in every language that uses the Latin alphabet)? As to aiding pronunciation how would you for example pronounce Worcestershire? Surly not the way it is spelt? -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Will it be changed to façade, or still be facade? Everybody prefers façade in this talk page.
Somebody says there's no "ç" key in the American/British keyboard, but it doesn't matter. It's a retarded reason because "cliche" and "Mobius strip" are redirect pages to "cliché" and "Möbius strip" respectively. -- 에멜무지로 21:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK then. I will move this page without using "move" tab. I should break edit history. 72.159.71.131, you are absolute right! Nominated! Thank you for telling the truth. -- User:에멜무지로/Sig 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Cut and past moves are a depreciated because it destroys the history of an article which may be needed to prove copyright. see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. If you wish to ask an admin to make this contriversial move the put in a request at WP:RM. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone prefers "façade," but not Philip Baird Shearer. That means "façade" won. We must move this page to "façade." -- User:에멜무지로/Sig 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OK then. Fine. I will move these pages
to here respectively.
-- User:에멜무지로/Sig 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! -- User:에멜무지로/Sig 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I can't see any contribution from you in this discussion. Anyway, there are reasons both against and pro façace, so I think it's time we find a way to choose, don't you? Lupo Azzurro 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything like that. But I've seen a lot of "reasons" so far (none from you, that was my critique), and still there's no agreement. What's the next step? Lupo Azzurro 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole discussion is about the letter ç? Grigrass ( talk) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Facade → Façade — This page was unilaterally moved to "Facade" in 2005. Some discussions have occurred in order to have the previous name ("Façade") restored, but probably due to lack of a proper WP:RM listing, we still have "facade" here. Article should include the diacritic, which is common and accurate English usage for this word. "Facade" is also common English usage, but mainly due to lack of "ç" in most keyboards, unawareness of the diacritic version or a simple disregard for diacritics. "Facade" should thus not be used as the name of an accurate encyclopedic entry. Besides, it's ugly. — Hús ö nd 01:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Does anyone find it strange that an article about façade should turn into an article about high rise fires? I don’t really think fires should be mentioned at all. It really has nothing to do with the subject. If you like fires, you could add this stuff to most articles. The “See also” section defiantly should not have Fire door, Firestop, Fire-resistance rating, Fire sprinkler, Active fire protection, and Passive fire protection. There’s more on fires then there is on false fronts. It looks like some have tried to remove the fire references in the past only to have the page vandalized with fire again. As for the pictures given, I see a lot of fancy facades here, but no typical facades where a store front has it’s road facing gable end squared off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.255.30 ( talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following which seemed only distantly related to the topic:
— Ian Spackman ( talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There is another definition that is not mentioned. It is less common, but still often used. That is, a superficial appearance or illusion of something. As in, They managed somehow to maintain a facade of wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.121.229 ( talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Façade is spelt with a cedilla, there is a noticeable difference between ç (a cedilla) and c. The most obvious difference is that the pronunciation and spelling of such a word is technically incorrect, as this word is a loanword from the French language, as are many English words, and approximately 40% of English words are of French decent, after William the Conqueror's victory of England and subsequent integration of French into the then-early English language. As mentioned before, this is a loanword and thus meaning the cedilla highlights the correct pronunciation, of a softer sounding "c" as spoken in the word "façade". We should therefore respect the heritage of this and at least spell it correctly. The word "facade" does not exist, it has appeared as a result of mere confusion between two similar (but completely different) letters. I do realise that some English keyboards do not incorporate the "ç", but this is the whole reason for Wikipedia's page redirection. The lack of "ç" key on the keyboard is compensated for on programmes such as Microsoft Word, when if the word "facade" is typed it is immediately changed to the correct version of "façade", not left incorrect as it has been on Wikipedia. It is completely ridiculous that there is a Wikipedia page with an actual spelling mistake on its title. -- Patyo1994 ( talk) 17:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This new ASTM publication, combined with ASTM Standard Practice for Periodic Inspection of Building Facades for Unsafe Conditions (E 2270), provide a rational guide for building owners and governing authorities to help ensure the safety of our aging building infrastructure. Written by experts who bring their first hand knowledge and experience to this work, these 24 peer-reviewed papers cover a wide diversity of architecture within North America.
{{
citation}}
: External link in |quote=
(
help)
- Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor. The authors addressed all of the reviewer's comments of both the technical editor(s) and the ASTM International Committee on Publications.
- To make the technical information available as quickly as possible, the peer-reviewed papers in this publication were prepared "camera-ready" as submitted by the authors.
That this article continues to have the title "Facade" and not "Façade" is bizarre. I see the word "facade" an I wince. How can there be any reasonable opposition to such a move? How can this discussion be formally reopened and the decision NOT to move it be reconsidered? ("Facade"... I mean, come on. Really?) KDS4444 Talk 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
What is going on with the sentence around "as well as the 1,100 °C. Melting point of aluminium"? I'd guessed it was an erroneous stop, but the melting point of aluminium is 660.32 °C (1,220.58 °F) so that doesn't seem right. Si Trew ( talk) 11:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Can Someone with sufficient knowledge Please Help Expand the article by adding an Entymology section thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.249.29 ( talk) 14:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're already in 2014, it was about time we started a new topic on this subject. Previous requests to move the title back to façade have been made in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012 and no consensus was achieved; but who knows... I particularly favour façade over facade for the same reason that we write déjà vu, naïve etc. — capmo ( talk) 07:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Also noted that, the original move to Facade from the original (and current) name was done unilaterally and has been heavily contested since. Because there was no consensus to move to begin with, the article title has been restored to its previous version.
Furthermore, the only reasonable argument that has been given by PBS has been WP:COMMONNAME (which many the accuracy thereof, with rational arguments). Per the link above, though, façade has been the more common variant since 2014, and is increasing in use.
cheers, Firejuggler86 ( talk) 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Façade →
Facade – Should the article stay at its current title or should it be moved to
Facade? Please state your reason for choosing "Facade" (support) or "Façade" (oppose) below. It seems that while
PBS thinks that the move from "Facade" to "Façade" is controversial and thus the article's title should be "Facade",
Firejuggler86 thinks that the opposite move from "Façade" to "Facade" is controversial and thus the article's title should be "Façade". Clearly, PBS and Firejuggler86 have different opinions on which move is the "controversial" one, so now dicussion is needed. Had the article been first moved to "Facade" and then an RM from "Facade" to "Façade" started instead, then all the "supports" would become "opposes" and vice versa.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why the very common spelling of "facade" is not included in the article as an alternate spelling, along with the French spelling "façade". It is the primary spelling given (along with the the French variant) in the Collins English dictionary, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and the "Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms". It is a very common word in the English language. Why is the French spelling considered preferable for a common term in English? I respectfully think both the English and French spellings should be given, since both are widely used. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
On a related note, in this edit summary, @ Capmo says that the RM above should entail that "facade" should be spelled "façade" on other articles as well. Should that be the case?
For the record, I disagree with that edit summary, since I don't think the results of this RM should be used to justify spellings in other articles. Per mwod:facade, the variant without the cedilla seems to be preferred in American English (at the very least), compared with "façade". – Epicgenius ( talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)