Talk:Order of Saint Michael

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orders, decorations, and medals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals 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.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Isn't there more to say about the way the order was disbanded? Larix 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was given especially to artists towards the end of the Ancien Régime, giving rise to a nice mot of the comte de Forbin when he received it during the Restauration. But who would have recognized the Order of Saint-Michel under the present title? --Wetman 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Order of Saint Michael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120528161318/http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr:80/Ministere/Les-services-rattaches-a-la-Ministre/Section-des-distinctions-honorifiques/L-ordre-ministeriel-des-arts-et-des-lettres to http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Ministere/Les-services-rattaches-a-la-Ministre/Section-des-distinctions-honorifiques/L-ordre-ministeriel-des-arts-et-des-lettres

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last member died in 1850, but new knighthoods have been conferred since?

Under the heading "History", the final sentence of the fourth paragraph makes this rather confusing claim: "The Order's last member died in 1850, although ten nominations of knights were conferred in 1929, 1930, and in the 1970s and 1980s." No source is cited for the second-half of the sentence. How is it possible for nominations to be "conferred" (a strange choice of words, since nominations and conferrals of knighthoods are typically two distinct things) if there were no longer any living members? And did the editor who added this mean that ten new knighthoods were conferred in each of the years mentioned, or in total? Bricology (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the cited book (Gout, 1910) simply doesn't specify that the last recipients died in 1850, and I couldn't find anything to support the second part of the sentence, so I removed the whole sentence. I also can't find anything to support that no new recipients were named after 1816, so I tagged that sentence with citation needed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]