Jump to content

Talk:France/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:France

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 29 April 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:France) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Quality of life and reformatting

I agree with those who refuse to put IL's statistics. I know the IL is a 2010 study, but it's likely to be biased/inaccurate for these reasons:

  • We've just entered 2010. How can the IL say what a country's quality of life is when we're just in Feb of the same year?
  • France ranked 25th in the Economist 2005, and it's really surprising that it can reach first place in 2010.
  • France's economic state is even worse now than it was in 2005, so it's odd that it can grow, as it should be the opposite.
  • I find it surprising that well-off countries such as Switzerland would come after France, when France has got serious unemployment and poverty in the banlieue problems. I know that France has got excellent social services (i.e. healthcare, education), but so do countries like Switzerland, and they have far less economic and social problems. That France comes in the top 15 in the rating, that does not suprise me (25th seems a bit too low), but to come first seems very dodgy.
  • The Economist is an accurate, well-sourced professional economic magazine. The IL is closer to being a tourist brochure, so I'd say that the IL's rankings are less accurate and more likely to be biased.

Secondly, the grammar must be improved in the intro. It's quite clunky. Firstly, you shouldn't really use it's or other abbreviations in an article. It is not very encyclopedic and does not give the impression of a serious encyclopedia. Secondly, the grammaticals are awful and very poor. Sentences are choppy, some don't make sense and others have grammar mistakes (such as one of the highest life expectancy, rather than expectancies). For a person coming first seeing this article on wikipedia, they probably might be put off by the poor English used, and for a very seen article such as France, it's not really acceptable.

Please help resolve these problems--Theologiae (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree. Thank you, Theologiae! I agree with all you say.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A discussion not for my Talk page

The following has been added to my Talk page. Since it is about this article, I have brought it here to this article's Talk page:

Be careful when you remove edits with several reliable and official sources, leading to vandalism. For personal opinions and feelings, you have the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thome66 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Thome66, but since you continued to add a SPAM link to the France article over and over, you have lost all credibility with me. All of your edits are presently under scrutiny by WP adminsistration, and you have been reported for edit warring here. I have concluded that you are either a brand new user who does not understand WP policies and guidelines, or you are an old-time user under a different name. Which is it? The fact that you have the ability to upload a SPAM link into article namespace is suspicious, but it could be just a bug. I tried putting the International Living link on the Talk:France page and the SPAM warning went off. It should do the same for you when you try to add the link to the main article. So I have WP admistration looking into that as well. I have reverted your edit again. Please discuss any future edits on the Talk page. Until you are willing to do this, your edits might be reverted on sight. I am adding the following warning to your Talk page:
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest new edits

I have reverted Thome66's latest edits, since that editor's credibility is completely on ice with me. If other editors think I am in the wrong, I shall stop reverting. Please let me know what you think.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Best in the world"

Ref.: [1] – This is a great claim, but it doesn't appear to be well-sourced. I've asked for a page number in the WHO report for 2008, because a search through the report did not yield that France was #1. The spreadsheet showed France with lower rankings in all categories, and then boosted France to number one in the overall category. This is suspect, don't you think?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the Phobius source, however in this official report from 2000, France is ranked first. Laurent (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "best in the world" is not the right wording though - we need to properly attribute this kind of claim. Laurent (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

HIV in France

(..) With an estimated population of 65.4 million people (as of 1 Jan. 2010) (..)

(...)there are approximately 140,000 inhabitants (0.4%) of France who are living with HIV/AIDS.[96](...)

It seems to be mistake - 0,4% out of 65 millions is 260 000.

82.132.248.97 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)werewolf

What's up people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.67.77 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.67.110.56, 5 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

"with several overseas territories and islands located on other continents." 

            Needs to be changed to,

"with several overseas territories and islands located on other continents and in the oceans of the world." 

             or

"with several overseas territories and islands located on other continents and in the Indian, the Pacific, and the Atlantic Oceans."

The need for this change is salient problem, because islands are not located on continents. Even if Reunion, Mauritus, and some others are considered to be part of Africa, then the islands of Tahiti, Bora Bora, New Caledonia, etc., are not part of any continent at all. These are truly oceanic islands. 21:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


98.67.110.56 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are Oceanian islands: Oceania#Territories_and_regions. I think that every piece of land in this planet is categorized a part of a continent. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

Done Welcome and thanks. I changed the wording slightly to minimize the impact on the lede. Celestra (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is France in Europe??

Eugenie Blanchard lives in the country of France, but in the continent of North America, meaning the following is an important fact about France: it is not a fully European country. Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is already explained in the lead: with several of its overseas territories and islands located on other continents and in the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic oceans. –xenotalk 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ghostzerox, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Many uses of the word "penis", someone please remove them.

Ghostzerox (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. -- Mentifisto 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected request

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Please replace...

At {{convert|4807|m|ft|0}} above sea-level, the highest point in Europe, [[Mont Blanc]], is situated in the [[Alps]] on the border between France and Italy.<ref name="elevation">{{cite web |author=[[CIA]] |publisher= |year=2006 |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2020.html |title=The World Factbook: Field Listing – Elevation extremes |accessdate=14 December 2006}}</ref> Metropolitan France also has extensive river systems such as the [[Loire River|Loire]], the [[Garonne]], the [[Seine]] and the [[Rhône River|Rhône]], which divides the Massif Central from the Alps and flows into the Mediterranean Sea at the [[Camargue]], the lowest point in France ({{convert|2|m|ft|2|abbr=on|disp=s}} below sea level).<ref name="elevation"/> Corsica lies off the Mediterranean coast.

...with...

At {{convert|4810.45|m|ft|0}}<ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mont-blanc-shrinks-by-45cm-in-two-years-20091106-i0kk.html Mont Blanc shrinks by 45cm in two years]</ref> above sea-level, the highest point in Europe, [[Mont Blanc]], is situated in the [[Alps]] on the border between France and Italy. Metropolitan France also has extensive river systems such as the [[Loire River|Loire]], the [[Garonne]], the [[Seine]] and the [[Rhône River|Rhône]], which divides the Massif Central from the Alps and flows into the Mediterranean Sea at the [[Camargue]], the lowest point in France ({{convert|2|m|ft|2|abbr=on|disp=s}} below sea level).<ref>{{Cite web |author=[[CIA]] |publisher= |year=2006 |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2020.html |title=The World Factbook: Field Listing – Elevation extremes |accessdate=14 December 2006}}</ref> Corsica lies off the Mediterranean coast.

Thanks. 92.4.10.127 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done - thank you for the carefully researched suggestion! Tim Pierce (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...... Please could someone add an internal link to the word Strasbourg in the list of major place names in France - it is missing and should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg I have no idea how to do this myself and don't want to interfere with the page anyway! Thank you .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.211.232 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference translation

I accepted a revision including a non-English citation to here. I asked the editor, Celyndel to translate it according to Wikipedia:Cite#Non-English sources, which s/he will hopefully do. However, if s/he does not, perhaps someone else could? Thank you! GorillaWarfare talk 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would take the time to translate such a long document. Is there a part in particular you need a translation for? Laurent (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
But I translate it : Here And I also let a message on your talkpage, GorillaWarfare, maybe you didn't see it :) Celyndel (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Celyndel! I think the part you're citing is "24 septembre 2000 - Référendum. Le quinquennat est approuvé par 73,21 % de "oui".", which according to my Internet translator means "September 24, 2000 - Referendum. The five-year plan was approved by 73.21%." Thank you! GorillaWarfare talk 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


"Edit conflict" with preceding comment.

What's going on with translating all the references? When one is sent to a site in French, leave the French language and, if necessary, give an English translation along with it, but leave the title of the site or of the article in French. Taking only one example:

Previous:
Replaced by:

The "quinquennat" is a French particularity of the length of the term of the presidency. Its meaning is given within the article with "elected directly by universal adult suffrage for a 5-year term". What good is added to the article by translating the title of an article published in French on a French site?

By the way, Celyndel, the way I understand the request: Gorilla Warfare wants you to translate the whole of http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/dossiers/quinquennat/chronologie.shtml.

  • Non-English sources
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate.

Bon courage!

--Frania W. (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, it would be hard and long for me to translate all this document ... But the only part that interest us is in the end of this text :

"24 septembre 2000 : Référendum. Le quinquennat est approuvé par 73,21 % de "oui"."

And Gorilla Warfare has already tranlated it above. :) Celyndel (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have worked a little bit on this section, but I have a question : Am I allowed to add external links in French, like the official site of the French Presidency ? I've seen that there are sites written in Italian on the "External links" section of Italy, so it seems okay, but I would like to be sure. Celyndel (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why references originally in French linked to a French site in French have to be translated in English. This is misleading. For instance,
footnote 98: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/dossiers/service-civil/fin-service-militaire-obligatoire.shtml is translated as
  • ^ (French) The end of the circonscription (sic) - La documentation française
footnote 176: why not leave http://www.academie-goncourt.fr/?article=1229174089 Académie Goncourt, instead of
  • ^ (French) The first Goncourt Academy on the Official Site of the Goncourt Academy
footnote 191: http://www.amour-de-france.com/contenu.php?page=article-51, a French article in French on a French site amour de france with title La Gastronomie française is completely translated into
  • ^ (French) The French Gastronomy - Chinese Lovers of France
footnote 193: same with http://www.delices-du-monde.fr/recettes-francaise.html which has become
Délices du monde is a registered site, like a publishing house, and should not be translated, no more than if the newspaper Le Monde was given as reference, would we translate its name into The World.
If external links are in French or any other language, they should remain so in footnoted reference with translation of title of article, if necessary, although I do not see much logic in translating Académie Goncourt to "Goncourt Academy" when en:wiki has an article named Académie Goncourt.
--Frania W. (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You told me to translate the French references in English ... So what exactly do you want me to do ? I must translate in English, but let it in French ? This is okay ? Celyndel (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan and Germany don't translate Japanese or German references in English, although both articles are featured articles. So is it really necessary that I translate all the French references in English ? Celyndel (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If you go back here [2], where do you see that I "told" you to translate the French references (= footnotes) in English? On the contrary, I was questioning the translating you were doing per what seemed to me someone's suggestion. Personally, I find it rather ridicule. You simply do not translate links, only titles/texts if & when necessary, and translation should accompany text, not replace it. I personally see no reason for the translation of footnote references (sites & titles) which brings you to a site in French as you have been doing for the past couple of days. I let it go because I thought GorillaWarfare was watching you, but this has gone on too long not to say anything.
Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that the translation of French references is useless ? It is easier for me not to have to translate in English, and I prefer this. But if it is necessary, I will translate all the French references, conserving French passages that interest us, and translate them in English, like I did here. Thus, translation is a recommendation or an obligation ? Celyndel (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When you give a text in a foreign language, you must provide a translation, which you generally (depending on its length) insert in the text itself or put as a footnote. If the text is very short, as a single sentence or just a few words, you can have it (in italics) in the text of the article with the translation right next to it between parentheses:
  • The motto of the French Republic is Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité ("Liberty, Equality, Fraternity").
When you mention a text or a reference, give the link in footnote as it appears when clicked on so as not to confuse reader, although you can give a hint as to where you are directing the reader.
This is what I would do (others may differ) with the following sentence to which you are directing us with footnotes 106 & 107: France is a major arms seller,[106][107] as most of its arsenal's designs are available for the export market with the notable exception of nuclear-powered devices.
  • "Ranking 3rd in the world for arms exportation behind the USA and Russia, France is a major arms seller,[106][107] as most of its arsenal's designs are available for the export market with the notable exception of nuclear-powered devices. In 2001, it sold for $1,288 billion of military equipments."
Footnotes:
106 ^ ^ "En 2001, la France a vendu pour 1,288 milliard de dollars d'équipements militaires, ce qui la met au troisième rang mondial des exportateurs derrière les Etats-Unis et la Russie." " In 2001, France sold for $1,288 billion of military equipments, ranking 3rd in the world for arms exportations behind the USA and Russia" France stays one of the biggest arms supplier - L'express
107 ^ "La France est au 4ème rang mondial des exportateurs d'armes, derrière les Etats-Unis, le Royaume-Uni et la Russie, et devant Israël, selon un rapport du ministère de la Défense publié l'an dernier." "France is 4th biggest arms exportator, behind the USA, the UK and Russia, and behind Israel, according to a report of the Ministry of Defense published a year ago" Arms sellings explode in 2009 - 20 minutes
In both footnotes, text in French is not necessary because reader is directed to links where text in French is available.
With its mixture of French & English references, en:wiki article on Paris is a good example for references & footnotes.
--Frania W. (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so translating the title of French articles in English is totally useless. I'll put them back in French. Thank you ! :) Celyndel (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Celyndel (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Franta

I've reinstated the hatnote re "Franta". Per WP:SHIPS conventions, redirects should be created for alternative names. As "Franta" had already been created, I used the {{redirect}} template. Unless Franta is turned into a dab page, the hatnote must remain on the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But could you explain me the link between "Franta" (???) and France ? Celyndel (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got no idea, but as the link had already been created, I wasn't sure whether or not it would be a good idea to usurp it or convert to a dab page. I mean, an article on a country is much more important than an article on a cargo ship. If there is consensus that the link to "Franta" can be made into a dab page, then I'm happy with that and the hatnote can go. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for input from WP:FRANCE over this. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Franta (should actually be with a tail under the t (Franţa)) is the Romanian word for France. You could well make Franta redirect to the cargo ship if you want and hatnote it the other way round. I don't know how many people are going to search the Romanian word for France in the English wikipedia, let alone minus a diacritic which would be available on any Romanian keyboard. Munci (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In which case, as this is the English Wikipedia, I'm minded to just retarget the redirect, after which the hatnote may be removed. I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would use "Franta" as a search term when looking for an article on France. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we should remove this hatnote, if we have to do a redirection on each translation of "France" in each language ... It would be long and useless. Futhermore, I think Munci is right, no one is going to search the article about "France" when writting "Franta". And if it never happens (what is not sure), a hatnote on the article "SS Franta" may help the lost Romanian to find "France". Celyndel (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Franţa is already a redirect, therefore I've converted Franta to a dab page and removed the hatnote. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. :) By the way, could you block this IP : all its contributions are vandalism, and s/he has been warned a lot of times, without any change in his/her behaviour. Celyndel (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the IP - clearly a serial vandal, but not much I can do about it atm. Suggest the next time the IP vandalises an article, a uw4/4im is given, followed up with a report at WP:AIV should any further vandalism be forthcoming. The reason I can't act atm is that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. As the "report" is some 19 hours old, it is somewhat stale - this does not mean that I'm unsympathetic to the issue. Mjroots (talk)

GA or Featured article ?

I think this article has been greatly improved recently : more than 190 references have been added, new sections like "Environment", "Development Aid", "Cuisine", "Cinema", "Agriculture and agrobusiness", "Society and reputation" have been created. But I see one or two other improvements which could make this article a GA or a featured article. The creation of sections about "Education" and "Science and Technology" , for example. What do you think ? Celyndel (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you say the tasks in the to do list above are completed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and copyediting too is important. But if you (or someone else) have other suggestions ... Celyndel (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Culture section

I have some suggestions for the section "Culture" :

  • Much importance is granted to literature and architecture (these two sections are very long), while there is no section dedicated to music and painting in France. I may be necessary to add a few words about these topics (I am ready to contribute in the next days).
  • As for the structure, we can create a new paragraph "Arts" (within the section on culture) and include the related paragraphs in it : literature, painting, cinema, architecture, music.
  • It would be wise not to give too much importance to Mariane, and to include this in a broader section on French historical values and ideals (for example named "Ideals and values").
  • Creating a section for "Media and communications" and also add something about the French langage (Francophonie, etc).

Please give your opinion on these topics and if possible give other propositions to improve further. Thanks. Pahpaha (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To Pahpaha's list, I would add a section of France's Prehistory illustrated with the "Grotte de Lascaux", more important in my eyes than another shot of the Eiffel Tower.
On the other hand, some subjects are over-developed, and sometimes in a confused manner, i.e. the three-paragraph section on the etymology of "France" that seems to go in all directions ("Frankenreich", "Frankreich", "Frankrike", "Frankrige"...), with no solid answer in the end.
Finally, one good - the best available - picture per section, at the most two for some, should be enough, because this already long article (164,025 bytes) is going to be much longer.
--Frania W. (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you about "Culture"
Maybe replacing "Marianne" by "Republican symbols of France (or French Symbols), with not only Marianne, but the flag, coat of arms, La Marseillaise ...
There is already something about the Francophonie but this is just a picture in the section Demography, so yes it would be intelligent to create a new section and to add those informations.
Cordialement, Celyndel (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"Symbols of France", may be better than "Republican", because some symbols are older than the Republic, the "Coq gaulois", for instance, and the "fleur de lys", a royal symbol still used in the coat of arms of many cities.
Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course, "Republican Symbols" was just a suggestion. So is "Symbol of France" a title accepted by everybody ? Celyndel (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Propositions and comments

I have some suggestions on possible changes to improve further the article before proposing it as featured :
(1) Symbols : I have just added a few words about the gallic rooster as suggested by Frania and other republican symbols. I realize that there are other traditional symbols (coat of arms, phrygian cap, etc) but I got few information and references on them, so the section may still be incomplete. I named the section "Symbols" and I split it into "official" and "non-official" but I am not sure it is the best structure. I suggest renaming "Government" in "Institutions" and to merge with "Symbols".
(2) Culture : the section is too long. I propose renaming the prior section "Demography" in "Society" and to move there "Sports", "Society and reputation", "Gastronomy" and to create "Values and ideals" or "Human rights". In "Culture and arts" we can include all arts, add something about "Prehistory" and expand a little (role of the government, subsidies, weight in the economy, etc.).
(3) Media and communications : I think it is necessary to create such a section; in "See also" there is a link to Telecommunications in France. So I propose a new main section "Media and communications" with paragraphs about print and broacast media, internet, phone and postal service.
(4) Images : many propositions in the above discussions are interesting and follow common sense. I think we can keep the foie gras illustration, it seems a relevant picture. I agree to move the euro coin in "Economy". But let's focus on the structure of the article and the sections to improve, then it will be easier to add and remove images.
Now I am expecting avec plaisir your opinions and reactions. Bien cordialement. Pahpaha (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to look at other Featured Country articles to get an idea of what is good. All political items (maybe including symbols) should probably be under one header, Politics. I don't think Media and Communications would be a good section, it doesn't strike as something overly important about a country. Also the conventions section could probably be moved under another one, maybe culture.
As for pictures, the important thing is that they follow WP:MOSIMAGES, which mainly means they are relevant and there aren't so many that they squish text and make the article ungainly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have carefully analyzed several featured articles and the least I can say is that there is no rule as for the structure and the length of articles, each article following its own logic. However there are some common schemes :
(1) "Administrative divisions" should be close to or within "Geography". (2) "Cities" is better presented in a table and has to be in "Demographics". (3) no featured articles mention the "National symbols" except India (listed in a small table) and Canada (in a very short paragraph). (4) "Demography" should be renamed "Demographics" like in all other articles, because it is completely different (demography is about population growth, demographics is about society). (5) "Conventions and notations" : no other article have this section nor they mention the topic. (6) "Media" is not necessary, but large countries as Germany, Australia and Canada have a section or a paragraph about.
There must be many other things we can learn from other articles, but at least we can fix these six problems. I propose moving "Symbols" and "Conventions" to another articles. Does every contributor agree with all these changes ? Pahpaha (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that everything should be rearranged into correct categories before any content is removed, because if it is it can just be moved to the main article of the section. Conventions may be notable because France's strong association with the metric system, but I don't think it should be in its own section. Your suggestions as a whole look good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If nobody object to the above propositions by the end of the day, I make the changes (among the most notable, renaming "Culture and arts", moving several sections in "Demographics and society", adding short paragraphs on media and symbols).
To end this discussion, let me make clear that these changes are not in the least definitive, for the article still needs improvement. It only seems to me a better structure, given the length of some sections, but I hope it will be improved in the next week. Best regards. Pahpaha (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
All this suggestions seem very good to me. I won't be able to spend time on Wikipedia this month, but I will maybe come back to see the results.
Bon courage ! Celyndel (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Merci Celyndel pour le gros travail que vous avez accompli. Bonne chance et à bientôt, nous espérons. Comme dit la chanson, "ce n'est qu'un au revoir...". Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the article on Russia already mentioned, I have not found any article that could be used as a model, so I did what comes naturally... I went "home" to the French article[3]. It is long & very detailed, and although we do not have to include everything in detail, every sub section, I think its structure is well done, it covers everything & we could use it in the development of our own

--Frania W. (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC):

Thanks you very much Frania for giving us this model, it may be a good reference for future improvements. Also I add below the Spanish sections (GA labelled), the structure is slightly different. I just have edited the article with the discussed changes. I wrote an intro for "Culture" and added a "Media" paragraph (a bit long, it has to be shortened). I tried to merge well-written "Society and reputation" with "National symbols". The order of the paragraphs can be discussed and modified. I think we can congratulate Celyndel for all he has already done to improve this article in the past few weeks. A bientôt. Pahpaha (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Frants

Previously discussed & totally ignored @ Talk:France/Archive 4#Pronunciation of 'France'. Is this a rare pronunciation? Is it even English? dictionary.reference.com: /fræns, frɑns/ - wordreference.com: /fræns/ ||/frɑ:ns/. I wonder if there were any references citing the frants pronunciation? It is /frɛntʃ/ for French. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation with a "t" is for the German given name "Franz":
  • Franz /frænz, frænts; Ger. frɑnts/ Show Spelled[franz, frants; Ger. frahnts]
here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Franz
--Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Population figures for mainland only?

Are the population figures given for mainland France only or do they include any of the overseas territories? And if so, which? This does make a difference, since Réunion alone has about 800,000 inhabitants, so the total is well above one million. Please, if you know this, note it in the article. -- 77.7.142.53 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Population Ranking

France currently ranks as the 21st largest population. Muskydusky (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from TheCajun80, 4 October 2010

Hi ! I think you should add these informations concerning French Middle-Age. Philippe Augustus and Saint Louis are the two most important kings of this age.

{{edit semi-protected}}

In 1214, king [Philippe Augustus] won the [Battle of Bouvines] against a coalition between the English Crown and the Holy Roman Empire. This victory assures French predominance on Western Europe. During the reign of [Saint Louis] (1226-1270), France is at its height in Europe, both politically and economically.

TheCajun80 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography : Joinville, Jean de, La vie de saint Louis, ed. Noel L. Corbett. (Sherbrooke: Naaman, 1977).

Not done: Hi, welcome. The edit semi-protected template is meant to be used to ask for a specific change, as in 'please change X to Y'. If you have a suggestion of something to add but haven't thought of how to add it to the article, you can just leave a message here and one of the editors interested in this article may take up the suggestion. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from TheCajun80, 5 October 2010

Hi ! You should add it about the French Revolution. It's one the most important event of French History : {{edit semi-protected}}


The [Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]is adopted on 27 August 1789 by the [National Constituent Assembly].

TheCajun80 (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see previous request. Celestra (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened?

NAC:On the one hand, this RFC did not have much participation for a topic as important as a major country. On the other hand, there is rough consensus that the history in the lede portion of the article should be expanded. If there are any further RFCs about expansion of the history in the lede, Wikiprojects such as Wikiproject Europe could be used to publicize them. In the meantime, expand away. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: We'd better leave it blank than having a meaningless ragbag of events.Blaue Max (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Support: I looked at the articles for a few other countries and it seems standard to have this sort of paragraph in the lede. The proposed paragraph looks excellent, except perhaps After WW II, France was defeated in the First Indochina War. I'm not an expert on French History, but that doesn't look core to France itself. Lede histories would be a mess if they incorporated a litany of external-type wars that didn't have a major impact on the nation itself. Perhaps replace the third paragraph in the current lede with the new paragraph, integrating (and rephrasing if needed) the sentence France has been a major power in Europe since the Late Middle Ages, reaching the height of global prominence during the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it possessed the second-largest colonial empire in the world.[6] Alsee (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. I think Germany is a good example of giving more coverage of history in a lead. The reason I argue for the inclusion of the First Indochina War is because it was such a stunning defeat. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that this was "the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle."[1].OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: That seems more relevant to a Vietnam-related article than to a general article about France. Then what about the Haitian Revolution, does it have to be in France's lead as well? Blaue Max (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems to give a pretty decent overview. I don't think that the First Indochina War receives undue emphasis in the lead, as long as it's not expanded beyond a single sentence. It flows fairly well from the history of colonialism, though it was not as significant as World War I or II. So, while there may be a tiny bit of recentism involved (speaking in terms of the history of France), I would still be alright with including a brief mention. More than that would probably belong in either the article body or an article on European colonialism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Quotation from Martin Windrow. Kenney, Michael. "British Historian Takes a Brilliant Look at French Fall in Vietnam". The Boston Globe, 4 January 2005.

Can someone explain the population figure discrepancies?

The population for Paris is given in the introductory sentences as 12,292,900 people. However, the following table gives the Paris population as a mere 2,125,246. Is the first figure an expanded metropolitan area, and the second figure a much smaller area? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

2 millions is for Paris intra-muros (the historic centre, inside the walls) and 12 millions is for the Paris Metropolitan Area. It is similar to the distinction between the City of London and Greater London. Blaue Max (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the figuresOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuisine

First sentence on the article in cuisine section- French cuisine is one of the finest in the world- citations- regional daily newspaper ladepeche and a site called discoverfrance.net. Compare it to the situation where even a section on Indian cuisine (all 29states of India having their own cuisines) is not being allowed on the article India without """""scholary citations"""". So I think this "finest in the world" bold statement shouldn't work either. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What happens on other Wikipedia articles is not relevant. However I replaced the poor sources you mentioned by scholary sources. Blaue Max (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The lengthy lead

I think the lead is too wordy that ought to be more concise and precise, especially the history part (#2 & 3 paragraphs). Like another user said above, the one, with appropriate length, used in the Germany page can be a reference. Leads provide readers a general picture of the whole article. If they're eager to know more about a particular part, the corresponding section has details. Biomedicinal (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)

I agree, I want to start by removing the superlatives listed in the last intro paragraph (nuclear stockpile, economic exclusion, etc.) --Zurkhardo (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zurkhardo: Maybe we've to combine the key points with citations of each historical period to be one section there. I really think the current lead is too wordy without sufficient references. In dialogue with Biomedicinal

History section of infobox

The section currently gives the impression the country went from:

  • Kingdom (843–1792) → Republic (1792 onwards)

When in reality:

  • Kingdom (843–1792) → Republic (1792–1804) → Empire (1804–1815) → Kingdom (1814–1848) → Republic (1848–1852) → Empire (1852–1870) → Republic (1870 onwards)

Alternatively, we could list:

Established from the Carolingian Empire
-Kingdom establishedAugust 843
-First Republic established22 September 1792
-First Empire established18 May 1804
-Kingdom restored6 April 1814
-Second Republic established26 February 1848
-Second Empire established14 January 1852
-Third Republic established4 September 1870
-Fourth Republic established14 October 1946
-Fifth Republic established4 October 1958

Or:

Established from the Carolingian Empire
-Kingdom establishedAugust 843
-Republic established22 September 1792
-Empire established18 May 1804
-Kingdom restored6 April 1814
-Republic re-established26 February 1848
-Empire re-established14 January 1852
-Republic re-established4 September 1870
-Current constitution4 October 1958

Or:

Established from the Carolingian Empire
-Kingdom843–1792; 1814–1848
-Republic1792–1804; 1848–1852
-Empire1804–1814; 1852–1870
-Republic1870–present
-Current constitution4 October 1958

Or:

Established from the Carolingian Empire
-Kingdom establishedAugust 843
-Republic established22 September 1792
-Empire established18 May 1804
-Republic re-established26 February 1848
-Current constitution4 October 1958

Or:

Established from the Carolingian Empire
-EstablishedAugust 843
-Current constitution4 October 1958

Or:

Current constitution since 4 October 1958

Possibly a mix between the first or second, and the second last using a collapsible list?
Thoughts? Maybe I'm alone in seeing the current revision as misleading?
Rob984 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:France/Archive_5&oldid=659773752"