This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
The evidence that Charles-Edmond Duponchel studied architecture seems pretty solid, but not that he actually became an architect. According to the 26 December 1855 decree awarding him the honor of chevalier of the Legion of Honor, he had served for 32 years. That would suggest that he quit his architecture studies after less than a year, at the latest at the end of 1823 or very early in 1824, in order to take his government position, which seems to have been as an officer in the military, although I am not certain about how to describe his position, since the source does not say what it initially was, plus I'm not very knowledgeable about French practices in this area. In any case, due to the lack of evidence that he was actually ever an architect, I would support removing "architect" from the lead and from the article title, i.e., I think this article should be moved to simply Charles-Edmond Duponchel. The hatnote and the second sentence should be sufficient to take care of the ambiguity problem with Henri Duponchel. In addition, I think the page Charles Duponchel should be a redirect to this page, and the page Charles-Edmond Duponchel (architect) should be deleted since it is very possibly factually misleading. (And, yes, I confess that this was initially my mistake, when I created the redlink using the current article title.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation that names him a Chevalier describes him as an officier comptable, which I translated as "officer accountant". My thinking is that his training as an architect may have better equipped him for evaluating the the potential budgetary consequences of proposed buildings, e.g., the barracks in Algeria, but it does not necessarily mean that he served as the architect. If he had, wouldn't his title have been different? --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with changing to just his name. It's open. We can just ask an administrator to make the change. It's probably the best course, as it will allow more latitude in editing the article. I'll make the request. Pkeets (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We may yet come across evidence supporting activity as an architect, but that won't require changing the name again in any case. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would just suggest leaving Charles Duponchel as a redirect,since the mislabelling of Henri as Charles is so widespread.--Smerus (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate says that when there is one primary topic and only one other use, that a hatnote should be used. It seems to me that the real person has to be the primary topic. In this case, it is not even another use (i.e., not a disambiguation per se) but a misuse. Not using a disambiguation page makes it very clear that to use "Charles-Edmond" for Henri Duponchel is totally incorrect. (Actually to give him the name "Edmond-Henri" may also be totally incorrect, in which case one could consider it as even worse, since the perpetrator knows what his real name was and is just perpetuating the confusion. I suppose, however, that it is possible he did use the name Edmond, and we just haven't seen it in any legal document. Holomon calls Duponchel "devious", so perhaps there was an example of where he impersonated Edmond Duponchel, but somehow I doubt it! :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dion-Tenenbaum says that Charles-Edmond Duponchel "semble avoir été l'auteur de quelques constructions particulières à Paris". Is that enough to justify calling him an architect? (She seems to avoid using that term to describe him.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I am reluctant to put architect in this article is that Gérard Fontaine, like Tamvaco, also says that Henri Duponchel is actually Edmond-Henri Duponchel who studied architecture with Vaudoyer. See his 2003 book at Google Books (I have a copy, so I can read all the details). --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
