Jump to content

Talk:France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pahpaha (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 7 September 2010 (→‎Propositions and comments: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:VA

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Guidelines for editing the France article
  • Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted Imperial units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to France as a whole, or official government of France links are solicited on this page. Please add other links, and the languages covered are: English, French, and Dutch.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

...... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
If you go back here [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Celyndel (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

But could you explain me the link between "Franta" (???) and France ? Celyndel (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've asked for input from WP:FRANCE over this. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Damn too many pictures again

Why each time I come here there are loads of not so relevant pictures on this page? Is this some jingoistic behavior to show how cool is France and loosing the main purpose of Wikipedia from sight (information)? It has been discussed many times before, do not add tons of pictures:

in history: too many pictures, St-Bartholemew's massacre (not such an important event compared to the length of French history), coronation of Napoleon (not that useless but there's nonetheless too many pictures here) and Joan of Arc (a symbol of France but not so relevant on history) are useless pictures in a such a small section, the euro picture can be moved elsewhere: the most important event in French history has to be the revolution and the picture of Bastille Day is enough.
In Geography

The pointe du Van, located in western Brittany: most irrelevant picture so far (what's the purpose of that picture? Is there any?).

Defence:

- ERC 90 Sagaie on the Champs Élysées for the 14 juillet celebrations: useless (again what's the point of showing a piece of weaponry that is to be phased out?) - A pair of Rafale fighter aircraft: not so relevant The CdG is the biggest piece of weaponry in the French republic while the picture of soldiers in Afghanistan emphasis on the French presence worldwide.

Agriculture:

Wheat fields near the village of Usson: lovely but does not bring much information on French agriculture.

Tourism:

- Two pictures is too much for this small question, either keep the Mont St Michel or Versailles but not both.

Religion:

- While I'm not sure a picture is needed here, I think Lourdes deserves the place above Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is there is to be a picture here.

Healthcare:

- Louis-Pasteur Hospital in Cherbourg: not representative of current healthcare in France

Culture:

- Christophe Lemaitre is the first Caucasian to break the 10-second barrier.: useless, it's a personnal achievement and does not represent French culture - Overall there are way too many pictures of artists!

Matthieu (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History should be 2 max, actual section is much too long.
The Point De Van picture is in environment, not geography. It's fine there, the geography section isn't. But it is irrelavent, maybe replace it with the satellite picture from geography?
As for Military (which I assume is your defense) as it stands the pictures are fine, but the total section is too long as well. For the moment they could be better arranged.
As for the wheat field picture, it is agriculturally relevant, but too big for the section it is in anyway. If deleted, the nuclear picture above it should be shifted down slightly.
I'd keep Versaille. Or a photo of the Eiffel Tower, just because that's what foreigners think of when they think of French buildings (In my experience)
A picture goes well in the religion section, but should be moved left.
Additionally, in the Demographic section above, I bet the Francophone map could be deleted.
The Louis-Pasteur Hospital adds a nice touch, I don't think it needs to be removed. A better picture could always be added of course.
Culture does have too many pictures. Not sure which should be deleted.
Good job noticing this Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism: keep Mont Saint Michel.
remove Monet from side of Architecture section - he was a painter.
Remove the "foie gras" from top of "La Liberté (alias Marianne) guidant le peuple". I tried moving it to the left, but then it looks like smiling Voltaire is getting ready to enjoy his hors d'œuvre.
In my opinion, the Cuisine section should be renamed Gastronomy, because, as an art, that is what French cuisine is, also because "wines" & "cheeses" are not part of "cuisine".
I would get rid of the Tour Eiffel as it is not bringing anything special to the article.
--Frania W. (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my turn ;) As the main contributor of the recent changes, I have to answer to your remarks :
In the section "Environment" (and not geography), I've taken a picture from the French wikipedia, because I didn't find picture like this one (Germany) linked to France. Of course I think we can have better but I didn't find it. If you have a better one, please change the pic !
Coronation of Napoléon : I thought it was one of the great event of French history ... And Jeanne d'Arc is the female incarnation of France, with Marianne, but maybe mentionning the Hundred Years' War should not be so useless.
Euro picture : why in this section and not in Economy ? It is totally anecdotal in "History" to my opinion ...
Agriculture: I've created this section, and it is not so easy to find a picture to illustrate it. Again, if you have better, feel free to change.
Christophe Lemaitre is in the section "Sport"
Louis Pasteur Hospital : true, it's not a fantastic pic, so again (x2) if you have a more usefull/prettier picture, make the change yourself
I agree with Frania's suggestion : Gastronomy is better, but GorillaWarfare preffered Cuisine
I thought the Foie gras was a good example of the French cuisine, beacause it's a renowned product that I didn't mention in the section itself
Monet has to be deplaced in a section about "Painting" - not yet created
As a conclusion, I could say that the GA article Russia has also a lot of pictures, and I don't think it's too bad if the pictures are usefull. Ter, change if you have better pictures. :D
Celyndel (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did Russia have those pictures when it was accepted as a good article? Because right now it breaks WP:MOSIMAGES. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not on this page give a plan of the work including, in their order, the sections that will be added & what has to be added within them: right now, the sport section does not touch upon some of the sports in which France excels, round-the-world single-handed yacht races, for instance. Also the various sports should be developed within their section in alphabetical order.
The long article on Russia mentioned by Celyndel shows a good repartition of illustrations, pleasing to the eye, and there is no reason not to arrive at a similar result with France. Pictures are not lacking, it is only a matter of choosing the right one for the right place.
Celyndel, I love the "foie gras" photo, but could not resist pointing out the fact that it seemed perched on top of Marianne while being eyed by Voltaire; but once the Gastronomy section is developed, it will be perfect à côté d'un sauternes.
Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already written something about the work that has to be done here :) And I've also modified the do-to list of this article here. Feel free to change it if you want to. Otherwise, I agree with you about the "Gastronomy" section and the sport. :) Celyndel (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:France&oldid=383488068"