Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contents

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

External Links

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)

Orphaned references in France

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of France's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT 1995-02-28":

  • From Culture of France: Alan Riding (February 28, 1995). "The Birthplace Celebrates Film's Big 1-0-0". The New York Times.
  • From Cinema of France: Alan Riding (28 February 1995). "The Birthplace Celebrates Film's Big 1-0-0". The New York Times.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 10:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done I went through the history and saw that on December 11, content was copied over from Cinema of France. Therefore, I restored the full reference from that article. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

http://m.mynetfair.com/fr/company/bayerwald-weihnachtsbaeume,100065566/?1=1&local=1&simMobile=1 212.77.182.6 (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done - spamlink - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

@Blaue Max: an Seqqis: Please note that it is WP:BRD, NOT WP:B(R∞)D. The pair of you are past 3RR, and any further editing by either of you on this article without consensus is liable to lead to a block. As I understand it, Seqqis, you added the challenged material. It is therefore up to you to demonstrate it is worthy of inclusion, backed up by reliable references. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: even though you said that it was up to me weather if the reference is reliable enough, I would still like your opinion on the sources rather than adding them just to get removed again. Seqqis (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, post the sources here and I'll give my opinion. FWIW, there may be some merit in what you were trying to add. It might be worth giving the WikiProject a shout to get more eyes on this. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well there's this French Wiki article, Article 75-1 de la Constitution de la Cinquième République française, and these two links; [4] and [5] the second one is from the French article. Seqqis (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Seqqis: - both of those sources meet WP:RS. Blaue Max what exactly is your objection? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The text says "Les langues régionales appartiennent au patrimoine de la France" (Regional languages belongs to France's heritage). It is a very short and vague text which does not include any list of recognized regional languages. In my opinion the text was meant to be vague in order to avoid controversies. Therefore using this text to list Alsatian, Occitan, etc. as "recognized languages" in the infobox is WP:NOR. Blaue Max (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, so we're looking for a WP:RS that lists recognized regional languages in France then? Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The French Constitution does not list any regional languages as recognized, it is just a vague statement. You can find lists of French regional languages, but none of them are recognized individually. Do you understand, I'm not sure if I'm clear? Blaue Max (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the country's name in English

This is /frænts/ in American English. It thus includes a /t/. It's impossible to pronounce the final sound as a voiceless sound without the preceding /t/. Otherwise, one says */frænz/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.198.219 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the end of France's colonial empire

Hi, I started an RFC on when should we said the French colonial empire ended. It's at Talk:French_colonial_empire#RfC:_When_did_the_French_colonial_empire_end.3F. Please comment there if you can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

France is 4th most populous in Europe

The current page states that France is the 3rd most populous contry in Europe, but it is the 4th most populous country in Europe: Turkey, Germany and Russia all have larger populations than France. I assume that because Turkey has the majority of it's population in the Asian part of the country, But that does not change the fact that it is inside Europe, and has a larger population than France. Therefore, France is the 4th most populous country in Europe.

Source is CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorganoth (talkcontribs) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. It would be as odd as saying "France is the richest country in South America" because of French Guiana. Turkey is in Asia, with a small region in Europe. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015

I find

>but by the late 18th century, the monarchy was overthrown in the French Revolution

OK, but this is a bit too vague. Please change "by" to "in", because it's ALREADY the late 18th century when the Revolution began (1789).

128.63.16.47 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Bazj (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015

Also in the summary, I find this:

>an absolute monarchy was restored, replaced in 1830 by a constitutional monarchy

This refers to after Napoleon's fall. If you look up the restored Bourbon monarchy here on Wikipedia, you see that it had many changes stemming from the Revolution. Try removing "absolute" from what I quoted.

128.63.16.47 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  Not done for now: removing "absolute" leaves it vague as to what sort of monarchy the Bourbon Restoration was. The alternative, "a constitutional monarchy was restored, replaced in 1830 by a constitutional monarchy" sounds stupid. A better way of describing the difference between the Bourbon Restoration and the July Monarchy needs to be found. Bazj (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest: "a conservative monarchy was restored, replaced in 1830 by a liberal monarchy". Blaue Max (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Regions

I will start this discussion here wishing to gain visibility. There are many articles as Normandy and Brittany duplicated on Normandy (French region) and Brittany (administrative region), this made as much sense as having Massachusetts and Massachusetts (state). Vinukin (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

French regions had different status, by example Brittany was a Kingdom, a Duchy, a Province and a Region. It's similar to Massachusetts (state) having the Province of Massachusetts Bay article, but I think French regions articles could be reorganised. By example, "Brittany" should be transformed into a disambiguation article while its content should be transferred to an article called Province of Brittany; "Kingdom of Brittany", "Duchy of Brittany" and "Region of Brittany" could be kept this way. Blaue Max (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon

Concerning this edit [6] by Vrac, please what are your sources to state that Napoleon "waged war" ? The National Convention did declared war on Austria in 1792, but Napoleon was not leading the French governement at this time, and later coalitions were gathered against France, not the other way around. Or when exactly did Napoleon asked Europe to form coalitions to overthrow his government? I would be glad to have informations about that... In fact, Napoleon probably declared war on Portugal and Russia only, all the other wars were defensive... That can't be termed as "waging war against much Europe". I support the removal of the controversial and historicaly inaccurate sentence added recently and support the reinstatement of the original sentence "[Napoleon] dominated European affairs and had a long-lasting impact on Western culture.", which is historicaly accurate and not controversial. Blaue Max (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Defensively or offensively, Napoleon waged war. A search for the phrase "Napoleon waged war" in Google yields an impressive list of results. Wikipedia is not breaking ground by using the phrase. Not to be outdone, Napoleon himself was fond of the expression in L'Art de la guerre. The proposed phrasing "Napoleon dominated European affairs" glosses over his undeniably bloody history. Vrac (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Google hits. The phrase "Napoleon loved tits" probably gives an impressive list of results also... Have you reliable sources or a pertinent reasoning to support the current NPOV version which surreptitiously asserts that Napoleon was responsible of the wars? I could accept the sentence "who conquered much of Europe," which has the advantage to leave aside the responsibilities of the war, but not your historically inaccurate and controversial point of view. But was there even a single reason to change the long-standing original sentence??? Blaue Max (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"Napoleon loved tits" gets no results at all. Regardless of motivation, Napoleon undeniably waged war. That the phrase assigns responsibility is your interpretation. "dominated European affairs" is not NPOV, it puts a white-washed spin on a sanguinary period of French history. I haven't looked to see who changed the wording but I agree with it. Vrac (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
War is bloody? Wow great news! But was it Napoleon's responsibility? Hmmm... the myth of the "Corsican Ogre" is outdated... Do you have any objection about the sentence "who conquered much of Europe", which is more neutral ? Blaue Max (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes war is bloody and should be described as such. I do object to "conquered much of Europe". "waged war" is already a rather delicate euphemism for conflicts that left millions dead. Vrac (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"Wage war against much Europe" is not a euphemism, it is a historical inaccuracy. Seventh Coalitions were formed against France, not the other way around. You are unable to provide reliable source or pertinent arguments and you are unable to make compromise. Without reliable sources or arguments from you, I'll reinstate the original sentence. Blaue Max (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Another problem is that right now, the phrase implies that the wars began with Napoleon declared the First Empire, not true either. SuffrenXXI (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I did provide sources, sources that attest that this phrase is commonly used in regards to Napoleon. His own propaganda used the phrase. I see this as a linguistic problem, you see this as "responsibility" (read blame) for the wars being assigned to Napoleon. That he waged war against much of Europe is a factual statement that is attested. Whether he did so offensively or defensively is a separate question. Vrac (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You admitted yourself that you used this phrase to emphasize "Napoleon's bloody and sanguinary history"... That's not so factual... Plus it is misleading as SuffrenXXI has pointed out. Blaue Max (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it was bloody, millions died. That is a fact which is independent of motive or blame, as I have been saying all along. Reread what I wrote and pay close attention. SuffrenXXI appears to be talking about when the wars started. Vrac (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you clearly said several times that any other formulations than "Napoleon waged war against much Europe" is an attempt to diminish or white-wash "Napoleon's bloody history". There's no "Napoleon's bloody history", there was a bloody war, but it wasn't started by him nor was it his responsibility as your phrase implies. Why are you so uncooperative? I have suggest several proposals that are not misleading, you rejected them arguing they were "euphemisms". Will you reject this other neutral proposal: "which was at war with much of Europe."? Blaue Max (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Uncooperative to your point of view, yes, because it is not neutral. Napoleon has a bloody history; I can't believe you are denying that. The fact that you are denying it shows that you are pushing POV. Here is a quote from Napoleon himself: "I am not afraid to admit that I have waged war too much. I wanted to assure for France the mastery of the world."[7] If Napoleon himself is not afraid to admit it, why are you? Vrac (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles and especially the one related to history need to be neutral. If Napoleon torn Europe in pieces, it would be showed and detailed in the article. It is not wise, nor in compliance with the Wikipedia rules to insert such affirmations without a development, explanations and examples. Some users have proposed several alternative wording in order to satisfy everyone and comply with the rules of Wikipedia. I don't understand why you keep refusing all the proposals, and keep with the sentence that is definitely not neutral and can lead to a war editing. I don't have any sympathy for Napoleon. But we are not here to express our resentments. Please let's keep to the facts, and the readers would be able to make their own perception of this dictator. I thing that would be the best to turn the page, and focus on the essential, the historical facts.--Gabriel HM (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the essence of the dispute: at issue is whether or not to use the phrase "waged war". Many sources use this phrase for Napoleon's actions, including Napoleon himself, which makes it perfectly acceptable and appropriate for use in Wikipedia. I did not say "Napoleon torn [sic] Europe in [sic] pieces", nor do I have a resentment against Napoleon. I do, however, object to using phrases like "dominated" as euphemisms for making war. Vrac (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not because you find the terms "Napoleon", "waged" and "war" in a random sentence that it proves your point. It need a source which explains in a neutral and comprehensive way that Napoleon attacked defenseless and peaceful coalitions as your phrase suggests. And why do you object the proposed sentence "was at war" instead of "waged war" which is rejected by everyone but you, if it's not to push your point of view that Napoleon was a bloody man ? Blaue Max (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Blaue Max, Vrac, passez par un arbitrage, car on est devant un blocage me semble t'il....--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Blaue Max: perhaps you missed the part where Napoleon said: "I am not afraid to admit that I have waged war too much". That is not a random phrase. I have provided ample evidence that the phrase "waged war" is commonly used in this situation. In linguistics this is referred to as an attested form. So far your evidence consists of "Napoleon loved tits". The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that Napoleon did not wage war. I'm at a loss to guess how you would do that given that Napoleon himself says he waged war. "Everyone" at this point consists of you and one other editor, not much of a consensus yet. Vrac (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The essence of the dispute is your phrase "waged war with much of Europe", which better emphasized, as you admitted, the "sanguinary history of Napoleon"... Three users have already mentioned the misleading nature of your contribution and you're refusing any compromise, the sign of a disruptive editor. WP:DE In fact, the whole sentence is to be rewrited, as your sentence reduce Napoleon's rule to war, while the original version [8] referred also to culture and politics. Another reason to undone your NPOV edit. Blaue Max (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not my phrase. I didn't put it in there, I didn't "rewrited [sic]" it, and I certainly didn't invent it. I count one user other than yourself that agrees with you. If you think I'm being disruptive, ANI is that way. Otherwise open an RFC if you want the text removed. It would be interesting to hear from editors who are not French. Vrac (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's "your" phrase since your the only one defending it. The user who originally changed the text apparently renounced to defend his own sentence... Three people have already pointed out the misleading nature of "your" phrase [9], [10] and me. It's not a problem of being French or not, no reasonable user would defend "your" phrase, as it reduces Napoleon's role in history to warmongering, which is historically inaccurate and blatantly NPOV. I would open a RFC, if only I knew how to do it... Blaue Max (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues Vrac (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

back to the statement that he dominated Europe. After he won a war he took control And typically installed his own family members as kings or rulers (Spain, Netherlands, Italy, large parts of Germany, etc) (he also dominated Switzerland and Poland without putting his brother-in-law in charge). That's political dominance-- but it goes beyond that, as in most places he imposed French-style laws, modernized the legal system, abolished feudalism, abolished the Jewish ghetto, ended the Holy Roman Empire, consolidated or ended most Bishop-run states, changed the role of the Catholic Church, etc. etc. I suggest the domination factor, separately from the military factor, is emphasized in every textbook on European history, and should be included here. Rjensen (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rjensen: To be clear on what you are suggesting, are you recommending including the "domination" or replacing the "wage war" with domination? Vrac (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
we need both. 1) we need to say that he fought a series of wars in a complex changing set of coalitions (major countries--eg Prussia, Russia, Austria, etc-- were his ally at one point & then switched)! 2) We ALSO need to stress his role in spreading revolutionary French civic ideals (re civil law, Church, feudalism, bishoprics, ghettoes). Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. My specific issue here is that I object to glossing over the fact that Napoleon waged war because, as has been suggested above, he shares no responsibility in the matter. That strikes me as revisionist history. Vrac (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The original version ("Napoleon declared the First French Empire and dominated European affairs for over a decade and had a long-lasting impact on Western culture. Following its ultimate defeat at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, France endured a tumultuous succession of governments") emcompassed the cultural, political and military roles of Napoleon. Until Vrac modified this sentence to reduce Napoleon's role to warmongering ("Napoleon declared the First French Empire, which waged war with much of Europe."), see [11]. So now, Vrac, you agree to return to the original version ? Great, that's what I was asking for...Blaue Max (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposition based on Rjensen's suggestions: "Napoleon declared the First French Empire and fought a complex changing set of coalitions during the Napoleonic Wars. He dominated European affairs for over a decade and had a long-lasting impact on Western culture. Following its ultimate defeat at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, France endured a tumultuous succession of governments." Blaue Max (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok never mind. This is getting silly and I don't want to waste any more time on it. I accept your proposition. Vrac (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I want to challenge the the wording of the last sentence: Following its ultimate defeat at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, France endured a tumultuous succession of governments." I think the ultimate defeat was at Waterloo, which was followed by a pretty stable Bourbon government 1815-30. How about this: "following Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo in 1815, the conservative Bourbons were restored to power, but they did not undo all of the changes made by the French Revolution and by Napoleon." Rjensen (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Compared to the subsequent regimes - the July monarchy (18 years) and the Second Empire (18 years)- the Bourbon restoration only lasted 15 years and was pretty unstable, the whole period was marked by political tensions (see Chambre introuvable, Second White Terror and Anti-Sacrilege Act) between the Ultra-royalists and the Orléanists regarding the Charter of 1814, which resulted in the victory of the Orleanists. Keep in mind that this is only the lead of a very general article, please try to keep it concise. The current version correctly describes the "tumultuous succession of governments" with the French governement changing every 15 or 18 years. Blaue Max (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
yes but we're talking about Napoleon--not the next 30 years till his nephew Napoleon III shows up. Perhaps we should say the conservative Bourbons were restored but they did not drastically change the legal-social-economic system of 1814. Rjensen (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
In order to keep it short and to keep the structure of the text unchanged, maybe we could formulate it as follows: "He dominated European affairs for over a decade and had a long-lasting impact on Western culture. Most of his legal and social achievements survived his reign. Following its ultimate defeat at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, France endured a tumultuous succession of governments."? Keep in mind that the French Renaissance (three centuries) is reduced to two sentences in the lead and that the reigns of Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI are reduced to a single sentence. Napoleon has already two/three sentences for hismelf. Blaue Max (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

Slamdude (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC) food

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Flag

I want to overwrite the file for the French flag, but I can't. I've created a version with corrected patone specifications.

 
I want to change this

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChizzleDonkey (talkcontribs) 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The words List of countries by population in 2005 after the number of metropolitan inhabitants in the infobox need to be removed. — 37 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Rob984 (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

Johnydefrance (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC) france gdp nominal is 2.833.607 gdp nominal per capita 42.736

  Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

assimilation and integration of muslim

I quote current article: "Simultaneously France renounced the assimilation of immigrants, where they were expected to adhere to French traditional values and cultural norms. They were encouraged to retain their distinctive cultures and traditions and required merely to integrate" As a French, I strongly believe that is misleading, France still want people to assimilate (we believe skin color does not matter but culture does, and what make france france is our culture and way of living), people from other origin than the Muslim still do assimilate. And if the Muslim does not assimilate, it is not because of a France policy, but because they themselves do not want to assimilate and they want to keep their distinctive culture. (second generation of Chinese still assimilate totally for example) The refusal to assimilate was not a big problem as long as their were a small minority, but become problems once they reach a big part of the population and start to ask France to change our way of life to accommodate their believe (like requesting separation of women and men in swimming pool etc...) Killy-the-frog (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Killy-the-frog : Without a proper reference or source, what you write here cannot be transfered into the article. Cordialement. --Huiva (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

Hi,

Can you please update this dead link as follow?

158 ^ "Aerospace industry of France". Bbfrenchtranslation.com. Retrieved 9 August 2010.[dead link]

Please update this link to https://thetranslationcompany.com/resources/language-country/french/aerospace-industry-france.htm

This is a copy of this content as linked from Wikipedia on our old, retired website: http://screencast.com/t/0KkmVOFDdW

Same content from our old website published and live in our new, live website: http://screencast.com/t/DQxxNkQPhusQ

Thank you,

Luciano Oliveira TTC Webmaster

Luciano.nyc (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  Done The archived source does indeed match the new live URL that you provided. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on France. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on France. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

In the following sentence please change the verb spans to covers France spans 643,801 square kilometres (248,573 sq mi)[1] As per Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/span the verb span refers to a distance and not a surface area. Cheers Kinograph (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done Your source, the Merriam-Webster, clearly indicates that span (transitive verb) also means to cover or include (a wide area, a large number of things, etc.). Cheers. — 37 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary period (1914-present)

France was the main continental power after WWI. No word explains here how did it fail to become a weak victim in 1940.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

They had huge millitary fortifications on to border to Germany and other countries, but it were useless against Germany. Perhaps they made bad investments? 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

In section 3.1 Geography/Location and Borders there is an error " It also borders Germany and Germany in the east" One of these Germanies should be changed into, I don't know, Switzerland perhaps? Look on a map or something :) Cheers FanousF (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)   Done Sir Joseph (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016


change this line:

| Nord-Pas-de-Calais Picardie ||

to this one

| Hauts-de-France ||

159.50.252.38 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on France. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on France. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on France. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

90.34.145.121 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Hauts de France (temporarily Nord Pas de Calais-Picardie)

  Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Electronic music

there is also Laurent wolf that is a very popular electronic music producer

In a way, you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.240 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note

There is a lot of spam in this article, but I won't argue the point or delete the spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.240 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 
Advert for Louis Vuitton luggage, 1898.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.159.143 (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

RENAISSANCE PARC (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

RENAISSANCE PARC (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

RENAISSANCE PARC (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

france latitude
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016

At the end of the Contemporary Period of the History section, in the final paragraph, terrorist attacks in France are mentioned. Please update this paragraph to include the year that the Charlie Hedbo attacks took place (2015), as it is currently lacking this piece of information.

Brockentree (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done Topher385 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No details on LGBT communities

Noted. No details on LGBT community. --Fanbreaker (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @Fanbreaker: Going by your very short post, I assume that you are disappointed by the fact the article contains no information pertaining to LGBT communities. First of all that is not entirely true, there is the sentence Since 1999, civil unions for homosexual couples are permitted, and since May 2013, same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption are legal in France. More importantly, if you think crucial information is missing, you are welcome to add it yourself. Just make sure the article about the country France is the place to add it, and not a more specific article such as LGBT rights in France; and to link to reliable sources. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on France. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on France. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

EEZ is not French territory, it is international waters

The map, both the one recently added and the old one, showing all of France's territory across the globe, shows EEZ highlighted. This is misleading as EEZ is not French territory. French law does not apply here. It is international waters. Full French sovereign territory only extends up 12 nautical miles from French soil (hence this being territorial waters), though the country has limited sovereignty over the contiguous zone, going out a further 12 nautical miles. It has no sovereignty over the EEZ, but rather exclusive resource rights. This map should be removed, as it does not perpetrate to show the location of France, as claimed. Else it should be clearly captioned as to what it shows, though it's still misleading to a reader just glancing at it. Rob984 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the same problem for most island territories (For exemple List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania). We have to set boundaries on the maps to see something. It's not related with the French laws or a claim. It's nevertheless more coherent to use the EZZ than the arbitrary borders that one can see everywhere, even in sources deemed "serious" (For example the famous Encyclopædia Britannica : see Encyclopaedia britannica's map of Pacific islands, the Australian department of the Treasury : see Map of the Pacific, UNESCO : see Pacific Islands (WWDR3, 2009) or the FAO : see Map of the Pacific Island countries)... For don't have any ambiguity, I specify the choice in the caption.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The boundaries have to be set somewhere, sure, but if the international treaties say EZZ does not give territorial jurisdiction and the French government does not claim otherwise, the OP has a reasonable point that they should not be labelled "territory", be it for France or other countries. No big deal. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I modified the caption by separating the two notions and clearly specifying that the territory of France is in dark blue and the EEZ in lighter blue. --Monsieur Fou (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I can see showing EEZ is helpful in highlighting the territory, especially the one at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania where it is showing many bordering island territories. However, I wonder if there is a better way to highlight France's territory on a world map? It's actually quite hard to see France's territory on those EEZ maps, because the difference between the blue shades is so little. There are these maps on commons which are much clearer, especially the left one:
   
The recently added map is misleading because it implies all of the republic is in the EU, which it isn't (this is also a problem with the one above on the right). Alternatively, for the "in Europe" map, I think we should go back to the normal map style used for all European countries, but add inserts for overseas regions, since they are part of the EU. I.e. the first map below with inserts added like on the second map:
   
Thoughts?
Rob984 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is about France, not about France in the EU. Be careful not to over-standardize articles about the European countries. In the French constitution, the entire territory (Metropolitan and Overseas regions, Overseas collectivities and the other three territories) forms France. All the citizens of these territories are French and vote for the national elections. That's different, for example, from the British Overseas Territories, which are not constitutionally part of the United Kingdom and don't vote for the national elections. Choosing a map which doesn't represent the whole territory and present it as the territory of France would be false information. The population of overseas France is 2,718,000 inhabitants, there is no equivalent in Europe. France is mainly a European country but not exclusively an European country. A map with all the regions (overseas and metropolitan) is interesting because it's the most integrated form of collectivity but it excludes the other types of territories and Saint Martin (This is the only exception) is part of the EU without being a region.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with anything you have said, nor is it anything I'm unaware of. But the whole point of showing metropolitan France in Europe is the significance of Europe in the first place (it's not like France is in the middle of Europe and the map just happens to show the rest of the continent). The overseas departments and Saint Martin are part of the EU, and thus are associated with Europe. The other parts of the French Republic (you can call them "France" if you like, but New Caledonians certainly don't), are not part of the EU. Your map is fundamentally wrong, the whole of the blue area is not "in" the European Union. Two maps, with different colours, is actually better at distinguishing the 18 regions of France and Saint Martin that are within the EU, from the whole of the French Republic, parts of which are not in the EU. Rob984 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

"Algeria and nearly all the other colonies became independent in the 1960s with minimal controversy"

Wars were fought in Indochina and Algeria against independence so I suggest to remove this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbonnelb (talkcontribs) 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 47 external links on France. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Still says hollande as president, requires update for macron Johnmcnally252 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  Already done. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote for La France

{{redirect|la France|other uses|Lafrance}}

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done DRAGON BOOSTER 05:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 83 external links on France. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You're joking with this...right?

There is an entire section on French history, including a substantial subsection about the Revolution, and the words "Reign of Terror" and "Robespierre" aren't even mentioned once? These are rather glaring omissions, aren't they? --SchutteGod (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Largest country in Western Europe

In a quiz programme, I once heard that France is the largest country in what used to be known as the E.E.C.. If this is correct, this could go in here - the quiz programme did make it crystal clear that it was talking about the largest country by area. Vorbee (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the largest country by area in the European Union. It's mentioned under France#Geography. Rob984 (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on France. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Intro, pronunciation

Should it say ‘French: [fʁɑ̃s]’, not ‘locally [fʁɑ̃s]’? 31.16.101.20 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on France. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"French Republic" is not "the official" name of France.

The one and only name of France is France. "Officaly the French Republic" is inaccurate. "French Republic" is a formal name rather than "the official name", and is seldom used. A French President will always end a speech by "Vive la France", never ever by "vive la Répubique française". Same thing for national sports teams and athtletes, always competing under the name France, the only one ever written on their equipment or outfits. Please, have the proper correction made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.89.124 (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

hurricane EAMM

is very big its destroyed Florida and texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:919D:5ED0:6DFC:E631:66D6:7C8C (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference areafactbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Return to "France/Archive 5" page.